IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i12p1496-d121234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentive Policy Options for Product Remanufacturing: Subsidizing Donations or Resales?

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaodong Zhu

    (School of Management Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science Technology, Nanjing 210044, China
    College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China)

  • Zhe Wang

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China
    Odette School of Business, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada)

  • Yue Wang

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China)

  • Bangyi Li

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China)

Abstract

Remanufactured products offer better environmental benefits, and governments encourage manufacturers to remanufacture through various subsidy policies. This practice has shown that, in addition to product sales, remanufactured product can also achieve its value through social donation. Based on the remanufactured product value realization approaches, governments provide two kinds of incentive policies, which are remanufactured product sales subsidies and remanufactured product donation subsidies. This paper constructs a two-stage Stackelberg game model including a government and a manufacturer under two different policies, which can be solved by backward induction. By comparing the optimal decision of the two policies, our results show that, compared with the remanufacturing sales subsidy, donation subsidy weakens the cannibalization of remanufactured products for new products and increases the quantity of new products. It reduces the sales quantity of remanufactured products, but increases their total quantity. Under certain conditions of low subsidy, the manufacturer adopting sales subsidy provides better economic and environmental benefits. Under certain conditions of high subsidy, the manufacturer adopting donation subsidy offers better economic and environmental benefits. When untreated product environmental impact is large enough, donation subsidy policy has a better social welfare. Otherwise, the choice of social welfare of these two different policies depends on the social impact of remanufactured product donated.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaodong Zhu & Zhe Wang & Yue Wang & Bangyi Li, 2017. "Incentive Policy Options for Product Remanufacturing: Subsidizing Donations or Resales?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1496-:d:121234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1496/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1496/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benrong Zheng & Chao Yang & Jun Yang & Min Zhang, 2017. "Dual-channel closed loop supply chains: forward channel competition, power structures and coordination," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(12), pages 3510-3527, June.
    2. Yenipazarli, Arda, 2016. "Managing new and remanufactured products to mitigate environmental damage under emissions regulation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(1), pages 117-130.
    3. Tong Shu & Zhizhen Peng & Shou Chen & Shouyang Wang & Kin Keung Lai & Honglin Yang, 2017. "Government Subsidy for Remanufacturing or Carbon Tax Rebate: Which Is Better for Firms and a Low-Carbon Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Cong Wang & De-li Yang & Zhao Wang, 2016. "Comparison of Dual-Channel Supply Chain Structures: E-Commerce Platform as Different Roles," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2016, pages 1-10, September.
    5. Frota Neto, João Quariguasi & Bloemhof, Jacqueline & Corbett, Charles, 2016. "Market prices of remanufactured, used and new items: Evidence from eBay," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(P3), pages 371-380.
    6. Anil Arya & Brian Mittendorf, 2015. "Supply Chain Consequences of Subsidies for Corporate Social Responsibility," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1346-1357, August.
    7. Gu, Wenjun & Chhajed, Dilip & Petruzzi, Nicholas C. & Yalabik, Baris, 2015. "Quality design and environmental implications of green consumerism in remanufacturing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 55-69.
    8. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2003. "Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 681-701, March.
    9. Catherine Eckel & Philip Grossman, 2008. "Subsidizing charitable contributions: a natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 234-252, September.
    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. Niu, Baozhuang & Ruan, Yiyuan & Zeng, Fanzhuo, 2022. "Promoting remanufacturing through subsidy and environment tax: Channel co-opetition, incentive alignment and regulation optimization," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    2. Lili Ding & Zhimeng Guo & Yuemei Xue, 2023. "Dump or recycle? Consumer's environmental awareness and express package disposal based on an evolutionary game model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 6963-6986, July.
    3. Shuiying Zhao & Yi Xu & Conghu Liu & Fangfang Wei, 2022. "Impact of Carbon Tax and Subsidy Policies on Original Equipment Manufacturers and Remanufacturing Companies from the Perspective of Carbon Emissions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Yue Wang & Baoying Xin & Zhe Wang & Bangyi Li, 2019. "Managing Supplier-Manufacturer Closed-Loop Supply Chain Considering Product Design and Take-Back Legislation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-26, February.
    5. Yuyu Chen & Bangyi Li & Qingguo Bai & Zhi Liu, 2018. "Decision-Making and Environmental Implications under Cap-and-Trade and Take-Back Regulations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Xiaodong Zhu & Jing Wang & Juan Tang, 2017. "Recycling Pricing and Coordination of WEEE Dual-Channel Closed-Loop Supply Chain Considering Consumers’ Bargaining," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Jian Cao & Xihui Chen & Xueping Zhang & Yanchen Gao & Xuemei Zhang & Yunwen Zhao & Xiaoli Yang & Jiayang Xu & Gengui Zhou & Jerald L. Schnoor, 2018. "Public Awareness of Remanufactured Products in Yangtze River Delta of China: Present Status, Problems and Recommendations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, June.

    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. Dingzhong Feng & Lei Ma & Yangke Ding & Guanghua Wu & Ye Zhang, 2019. "Decisions of the Dual-Channel Supply Chain under Double Policy Considering Remanufacturing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Bangyi Li & Zhe Wang & Yue Wang & Juan Tang & Xiaodong Zhu & Zhi Liu, 2018. "The Effect of Introducing Upgraded Remanufacturing Strategy on OEM’s Decision," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Chavanne, David & McCabe, Kevin & Paganelli, Maria Pia, 2011. "Whose money is it anyway? Ingroups and distributive behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 31-39, January.
    4. Deck, Cary & Murphy, James J., 2019. "Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 91-106.
    5. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela, 2018. "The price elasticity of charitable giving: New experimental evidence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 88-91.
    6. Liu, Chang-Yi & Wang, Hui & Tang, Juan & Chang, Ching-Ter & Liu, Zhi, 2021. "Optimal recovery model in a used batteries closed-loop supply chain considering uncertain residual capacity," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    7. Diederich, Johannes & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo, 2021. "How to Design the Ask? Funding Units vs. Giving Money," Working Papers 0698, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    8. Boschini, Anne & Muren, Astri & Persson, Mats, 2012. "Constructing gender differences in the economics lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 741-752.
    9. Adena, Maja & Huck, Steffen, 2017. "Matching Donations Without Crowding Out?," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 16, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    10. Scharf, Kim; Smith, Sarah, 2010. "Rational Inattention to Subsidies for Charitable Contributions," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 02, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    11. Michael Krapp & Johannes B. Kraus, 2019. "Coordination contracts for reverse supply chains: a state-of-the-art review," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(7), pages 747-792, September.
    12. Roman M. Sheremeta & Neslihan Uler, 2021. "The impact of taxes and wasteful government spending on giving," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 355-386, June.
    13. Alpízar, Francisco & Nordén, Anna & Pfaff, Alexander & Robalino, Juan, 2017. "Spillovers from targeting of incentives: Exploring responses to being excluded," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 87-98.
    14. Diederich, Johannes & Eckel, Catherine C. & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo & Grossman, Philip J., 2019. "Subsidizing Quantity Donations: Matches, Rebates, and Discounts Compared," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203650, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. Tong Shu & Qian Liu & Shou Chen & Shouyang Wang & Kin Keung Lai, 2018. "Pricing Decisions of CSR Closed-Loop Supply Chains with Carbon Emission Constraints," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-25, November.
    16. Johannes Diederich & Timo Goeschl, 2013. "To Give or Not to Give: The Price of Contributing and the Provision of Public Goods," NBER Working Papers 19332, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Kimberley Scharf & Sarah Smith, 2015. "The price elasticity of charitable giving: does the form of tax relief matter?," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(2), pages 330-352, April.
    18. Meer, Jonathan, 2014. "Effects of the price of charitable giving: Evidence from an online crowdfunding platform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 113-124.
    19. Qiao, Haike & Su, Qin, 2021. "Distribution channel and licensing strategy choice considering consumer online reviews in a closed-loop supply chain," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    20. Yuyan Wang & Tingting Yu & Rui Zhou, 2022. "The Impact of Legal Recycling Constraints and Carbon Trading Mechanisms on Decision Making in Closed-Loop Supply Chain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-26, June.

    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:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1496-:d:121234. 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.