IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i12p6711-d574336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Improved Revenue Distribution Model for Logistics Service Supply Chain Considering Fairness Preference

Author

Listed:
  • Fuqiang Lu

    (School of Economics and Management, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao 066004, China)

  • Liying Wang

    (College of Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang 810819, China)

  • Hualing Bi

    (School of Economics and Management, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao 066004, China)

  • Zichao Du

    (College of Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang 810819, China)

  • Suxin Wang

    (College of Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang 810819, China)

Abstract

Revenue distribution is an important issue in the operations of a logistics service supply chain (LSSC). The existing works on revenue distribution are mostly based on the assumption of rational economic people that are purely self-interested. However, people also have a fairness preference, which impacts people’s decision-making behavior or even the success operations of the LSSC. For a two-level supply chain consisting of logistics service integrator (LSI) and several functional logistics service providers (FLSP), this paper establishes an improved revenue distribution model considering FLSPs’ inequity aversion. Specifically, the BO model (abbreviation of a model proposed by Bolton and Ockenfels in 2000) is improved to describe the FLSPs’ inequity aversion, which is combined into the conventional revenue distribution model. The proposed model aims to maximize the revenue of logistics service supply chain and obtains the best revenue distribution ratio of each member under equilibrium. In the numerical cases, the impacts of inequity aversion and the number of members with inequity aversion on the revenue distribution are discussed, respectively. The results show that a higher degree of FLSP’s advantageous inequity aversion corresponds to a lower revenue distribution ratio; a higher degree of FLSP’s disadvantageous inequity aversion corresponds to a higher revenue distribution ratio. Increasing the number of FLSP members with inequity aversion results in a higher profit of LSI and lower total utility of FLSPs and the utility of the supply chain. The more FLSP members with inequity aversion there are, the higher the LSI’s profit is, and the lower the total utility of FLSPs and the utility of supply chain are. In addition, the revenue distribution ratio of the FLSP increases with its relative fairness revenue coefficient among FLSPs.

Suggested Citation

  • Fuqiang Lu & Liying Wang & Hualing Bi & Zichao Du & Suxin Wang, 2021. "An Improved Revenue Distribution Model for Logistics Service Supply Chain Considering Fairness Preference," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-30, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6711-:d:574336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6711/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6711/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weihua Liu & Xuan Zhao & Runze Wu, 2015. "Revenue-Sharing Contract Models for Logistics Service Supply Chains with Mass Customization Service," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2015, pages 1-21, September.
    2. Yang, Jing & Xie, Jinxing & Deng, Xiaoxue & Xiong, Huachun, 2013. "Cooperative advertising in a distribution channel with fairness concerns," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(2), pages 401-407.
    3. Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg, 2004. "A theory of sequential reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 268-298, May.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    5. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    6. Falk, Armin & Fehr, Ernst & Fischbacher, Urs, 2008. "Testing theories of fairness--Intentions matter," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 287-303, January.
    7. Pan, Kewen & Lai, K.K. & Leung, Stephen C.H. & Xiao, Di, 2010. "Revenue-sharing versus wholesale price mechanisms under different channel power structures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(2), pages 532-538, June.
    8. Bäker, Agnes & Güth, Werner & Pull, Kerstin & Stadler, Manfred, 2015. "The willingness to pay for partial vs. universal equality," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 55-61.
    9. Marco Celentani & Rosa Loveira, 2006. "A Simple Explanation of the Relative Performance Evaluation Puzzle," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 9(3), pages 525-540, July.
    10. Mai, Feng & Fry, Michael J. & Raturi, Amitabh S., 2016. "Supply-chain performance anomalies: Fairness concerns under private cost informationAuthor-Name: Qin, Fei," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(1), pages 170-182.
    11. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil, 2010. "Responsibility for what? Fairness and individual responsibility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 429-441, April.
    12. Casal, Sandro & Güth, Werner & Jia, Mofei & Ploner, Matteo, 2012. "Would you mind if I get more? An experimental study of the envy game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 857-865.
    13. Liu, Weihua & Wang, Di & Shen, Xinran & Yan, Xiaoyu & Wei, Wanying, 2018. "The impacts of distributional and peer-induced fairness concerns on the decision-making of order allocation in logistics service supply chain," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 102-122.
    14. Christoph H. Loch & Yaozhong Wu, 2008. "Social Preferences and Supply Chain Performance: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1835-1849, November.
    15. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    16. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2002. "Why Social Preferences Matter -- The Impact of Non-Selfish Motives on Competition, Cooperation and Incentives," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(478), pages 1-33, March.
    17. Lim, Wei Shi, 2000. "A lemons market? An incentive scheme to induce truth-telling in third party logistics providers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(3), pages 519-525, September.
    18. Ningning Wang & Zhi-Ping Fan & Xiaohuan Wang, 2016. "Channel Coordination in Logistics Service Supply Chain considering Fairness," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2016, pages 1-15, April.
    19. Caliskan-Demirag, Ozgun & Chen, Youhua (Frank) & Li, Jianbin, 2010. "Channel coordination under fairness concerns and nonlinear demand," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1321-1326, December.
    20. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Why Social Preferences Matter - The Impact of Non-Selfish Motives on Competition," IEW - Working Papers 084, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    21. Mi Gan & Shuai Yang & Dandan Li & Mingfei Wang & Si Chen & Ronghui Xie & Jiyang Liu, 2018. "A Novel Intensive Distribution Logistics Network Design and Profit Allocation Problem considering Sharing Economy," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-15, April.
    22. Alexandros Karakostas & Axel Sonntag & Daniel John Zizzo, 2017. "Contract Choice: Efficiency and Fairness in Revenue‐Sharing Contracts," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 119(4), pages 962-986, October.
    23. Weihua Liu & Shuqing Wang & DongLei Zhu & Di Wang & Xinran Shen, 2018. "Order allocation of logistics service supply chain with fairness concern and demand updating: model analysis and empirical examination," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 268(1), pages 177-213, September.
    24. Zhang Nian & Li Bin & Wei Kun & Wang Mengxue, 2020. "Game Models for Closed-Supply Chain with Different Competition-Cooperation Relationships under Fairness Preference," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2020, pages 1-11, July.
    25. Zhang, Wei-Guo & Fu, Junhui & Li, Hongyi & Xu, Weijun, 2012. "Coordination of supply chain with a revenue-sharing contract under demand disruptions when retailers compete," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 68-75.
    26. Chauhan, Satyaveer S. & Proth, Jean-Marie, 2005. "Analysis of a supply chain partnership with revenue sharing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 44-51, July.
    27. Samuelson, Paul A, 1993. "Altruism as a Problem Involving Group versus Individual Selection in Economics and Biology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 143-148, May.
    28. Gérard P. Cachon & Martin A. Lariviere, 2005. "Supply Chain Coordination with Revenue-Sharing Contracts: Strengths and Limitations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(1), pages 30-44, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peng Xing & Xiangru Zhao & Mingxing Wang, 2022. "The Optimal Combination between Recycling Channel and Logistics Service Outsourcing in a Closed-Loop Supply Chain Considering Consumers’ Environmental Awareness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-25, December.
    2. Antonella Samoggia & Zeynep Beyhan, 2022. "Fairness-Enabling Practices in Agro-Food Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-24, May.
    3. Ziyu Chen & Jili Kong, 2023. "Research on Shared Logistics Decision Based on Evolutionary Game and Income Distribution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-24, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Du, Shaofu & Nie, Tengfei & Chu, Chengbin & Yu, Yugang, 2014. "Reciprocal supply chain with intention," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 389-402.
    2. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    3. Nyborg, Karine, 2018. "Reciprocal climate negotiators," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 707-725.
    4. Christian Thoeni & Simon Gaechter, 2011. "Peer Effects and Social Preferences in Voluntary Cooperation," Discussion Papers 2011-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. Hahn, Volker & Mühe, Felix, 2009. "Committees and reciprocity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 26-47, January.
    6. Lin, Chung-Cheng & Yang, C.C., 2010. "Reciprocity and downward wage rigidity," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 1155-1168, December.
    7. Sarkar, Sumit, 2019. "Gratitude, conscience, and reciprocity: Models of supplier motivation when quality is non-contractible," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 633-642.
    8. Zachary Grossman, 2014. "Strategic Ignorance and the Robustness of Social Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(11), pages 2659-2665, November.
    9. Fahn, Matthias, 2019. "Reciprocity in Dynamic Employment Relationships," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 198, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    10. Yu, Niu & Wang, Shumei & Liu, Zhixin, 2022. "Managing brand competition with consumer fairness concern via manufacturer incentive," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(2), pages 661-675.
    11. Đula, Ivan & Größler, Andreas, 2021. "Inequity aversion in dynamically complex supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(1), pages 309-322.
    12. Li, Zhong-Ping & Wang, Jian-Jun & Perera, Sandun & Shi, Jim (Junmin), 2022. "Coordination of a supply chain with Nash bargaining fairness concerns," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    13. Rodriguez-lara, Ismael, 2015. "Equal distribution or equal payoffs? Reciprocity and inequality aversion in the investment game," MPRA Paper 63313, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Johnsen, Åshild Auglænd, 2017. "Conspiracy against the public - an experiment on collusion," Working Paper Series 03-2017, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, School of Economics and Business.
    15. Sabrina Teyssier, 2007. "Optimal Group Incentives with Social Preferences and Self-Selection," Working Papers 0710, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    16. Jiaojie Han & Amnon Rapoport & Rui Zhao, 2017. "Inequity-aversion and relative kindness intention jointly determine the expenditure of effort in project teams," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-23, May.
    17. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2005. "The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism – Experimental Evidence and New Theories," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 66, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    18. Dhami, Sanjit & al-Nowaihi, Ali, 2010. "Redistributive policies with heterogeneous social preferences of voters," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 743-759, August.
    19. Wilson, Bart J., 2008. "Language games of reciprocity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 365-377, November.
    20. Hahn, Volker, 2009. "Reciprocity and voting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 467-480, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6711-:d:574336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.