Author
Listed:
- Qi, Xinna
- Liu, Zilong
- Li, Tingting
Abstract
To regulate the development of the electric vehicle battery recycling industry, many governments, including China, have proposed the extended producer responsibility (EPR) system, which emphasizes that producers are responsible for the entire life cycle of their own products, especially the recycling of discarded products. As compliance schemes of the EPR system, collective producer responsibility and individual producer responsibility (CPR and IPR, respectively) systems received varying degrees of preference. In this paper, we consider two vehicle producers with a competition-cooperation relationship and investigate the implications of scheme adoption on recycling technology investment. The two vehicle producers compete in the forward supply chain and cooperate in the reverse supply chain under the CPR system. Specifically, the two competing vehicle producers invest in recycling technology separately under the IPR system but negotiate it under the CPR system, and we use the Nash bargaining game model to characterize the negotiation between them. The key findings are as follows: When the recycling-technology-investment effectiveness is relatively low, or the investment effectiveness is high and the brand differentiation between vehicle producers is significant, they reap higher economic benefits under the collective recycling system. In addition, only when the investment effectiveness is relatively high and the brand differentiation is insignificant will environmental benefits (reflected by the recycling technology level) be higher under the collective recycling system. Furthermore, consumers’ preferences for recycling systems are always consistent with those of vehicle producers. Interestingly, when the investment effectiveness is relatively high, under moderate brand differentiation conditions, Pareto improvements in economic benefits, environmental benefits, and consumer surplus can be achieved simultaneously under the collective recycling system, i.e., the two competing vehicle producers can maximize overall social welfare through win-win cooperation.
Suggested Citation
Qi, Xinna & Liu, Zilong & Li, Tingting, 2025.
"Design incentives of extended producer responsibility for electric vehicle producers with competition and cooperation,"
Omega, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
Handle:
RePEc:eee:jomega:v:133:y:2025:i:c:s0305048324002305
DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2024.103266
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:eee:jomega:v:133:y:2025:i:c:s0305048324002305. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.