IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/operea/v25y2025i2d10.1007_s12351-025-00938-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Logistics mode selection of agricultural products based on fairness concerns

Author

Listed:
  • Weifan Jiang

    (Nanchang Institute of Technology)

  • Chengxiang Wu

    (Nanchang Institute of Technology)

  • Yijie Tian

    (Nanchang Institute of Technology)

  • Jun Xie

    (Nanchang Institute of Technology
    Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics)

Abstract

Fairness concerns of enterprises will have a significant impact on the decision-making and profits of all parties in the supply chain. This paper introduces the fairness concerns psychological behavior of supermarkets, and establishes game models with 3PL mode and self-operated logistics mode respectively. Through Stackelberg game analysis, this paper analyzes the impact of fairness concerns on decision-making variables and utility of all parties. The findings of this study are as follows: Firstly, fairness concerns have changed the decision-making of all parties. Secondly, the wholesale price of cooperatives and the greenness of agricultural products both decline with the increase of fairness concerns under the two logistics modes. The sales price and logistics service level of supermarkets have different trends under the two logistics modes. Thirdly, with the increase of supermarket fairness concerns, the utility of supermarkets will increase first and then decrease with the 3PL mode; and the utility of supermarkets will increase with the increase of fairness concerns under the self-operated logistics mode. The utility of cooperatives has declined significantly under both logistics modes. Fourthly, without considering the fairness concerns of the supermarket, when the unit cost of self-operated logistics is low, if the unit cost of self-operated logistics exceeds that of 3PL, supermarkets will choose the 3PL mode. When the unit cost of self-operated logistics is very high, even if the unit cost of self-operated logistics is lower than that of the 3PL, the supermarket will still choose the 3PL mode. Fifthly, the fairness concerns of supermarkets have changed the choice of logistics modes. Supermarkets will choose 3PL mode only when the unit cost of the self-operated logistics is much higher than logistics cost of 3PL. And with the deepening of supermarket fairness concerns, the probability of cooperatives and supermarkets choosing self-operated logistics mode increases.

Suggested Citation

  • Weifan Jiang & Chengxiang Wu & Yijie Tian & Jun Xie, 2025. "Logistics mode selection of agricultural products based on fairness concerns," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1-30, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:operea:v:25:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s12351-025-00938-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s12351-025-00938-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12351-025-00938-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12351-025-00938-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoshihara, Rikuo & Matsubayashi, Nobuo, 2021. "Channel coordination between manufacturers and competing retailers with fairness concerns," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(2), pages 546-555.
    2. Lianguang Cui & Shong‐Iee Ivan Su & Susanne Hertz, 2012. "Logistics Innovation in China," Transportation Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 98-117, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Yue Wen & Yongbo Wang & MingJun Shi, 2020. "Competition in the Multi-Channel Supply Chain with a Self-Logistics-type E-Platform," International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management (IJISSCM), IGI Global, vol. 13(1), pages 32-72, January.
    5. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    6. Sara D. Elder, 2019. "The impact of supermarket supply chain governance on smallholder farmer cooperatives: the case of Walmart in Nicaragua," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(2), pages 213-224, June.
    7. Ochieng, Dennis O. & Veettil, Prakashan C. & Qaim, Matin, 2017. "Farmers’ preferences for supermarket contracts in Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 100-111.
    8. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    9. Tony Haitao Cui & Jagmohan S. Raju & Z. John Zhang, 2007. "Fairness and Channel Coordination," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(8), pages 1303-1314, August.
    10. Nuthalapati, Chandra S.R. & Sutradhar, Rajib & Reardon, Thomas & Qaim, Matin, 2020. "Supermarket procurement and farmgate prices in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    11. Xu, Yuqiu & Wang, Jia & Cao, Kaiying, 2023. "Logistics mode strategy of firms selling fresh products on e-commerce platforms with private brand introduction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    12. Wen Diao & Mushegh Harutyunyan & Baojun Jiang, 2023. "Consumer Fairness Concerns and Dynamic Pricing in a Channel," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(3), pages 569-588, May.
    13. Xiaohong Yu & Sujuan Wang & Xindong Zhang, 2019. "The Impact of Fairness Concerns on the Formation of Retailers Alliance with Consideration of Transshipment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Ogutu, Sylvester Ochieng & Ochieng, Dennis O. & Qaim, Matin, 2020. "Supermarket contracts and smallholder farmers: Implications for income and multidimensional poverty," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ruth Beer & Ignacio Rios & Daniela Saban, 2021. "Increased Transparency in Procurement: The Role of Peer Effects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7511-7534, December.
    2. Byung Cho Kim & So Eun Park & Detmar W. Straub, 2022. "Pay-What-You-Want Pricing in the Digital Product Marketplace: A Feasible Alternative to Piracy Prevention?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 784-793, September.
    3. Jiang, Yanmin & Wu, Xiaole & Chen, Bo & Hu, Qiying, 2021. "Rawlsian fairness in push and pull supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(1), pages 194-205.
    4. Đula, Ivan & Größler, Andreas, 2021. "Inequity aversion in dynamically complex supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(1), pages 309-322.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Liu Shuren & Chen Huina & Chen Lili, 2016. "Inventory and Pricing Decisions Under Wholesale Price Contract with Social Preferences," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 68-86, February.
    8. Yuxin Chen & Tony Haitao Cui, 2013. "The Benefit of Uniform Price for Branded Variants," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 36-50, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus, 2009. "Time is not money," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 96-102, October.
    11. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    12. Fanghella, Valeria & Ibanez, Lisette & Thøgersen, John, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Zhang, Mengdi & Yang, Wanting & Zhao, Zhiheng & Wang, Shuaian & Huang, George Q., 2024. "Do fairness concerns matter for ESG decision-making? Strategic interactions in digital twin-enabled sustainable semiconductor supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    15. Hoffmann, Magnus & Kolmar, Martin, 2017. "Distributional preferences in probabilistic and share contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-139.
    16. Antonides, Gerrit & Kroft, Maaike, 2005. "Fairness judgments in household decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 902-913, December.
    17. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    18. Quement, Mark T. Le & Marcin, Isabel, 2020. "Communication and voting in heterogeneous committees: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 449-468.
    19. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    20. Kenju Kamei & Louis Putterman, 2018. "Reputation Transmission Without Benefit To The Reporter: A Behavioral Underpinning Of Markets In Experimental Focus," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 158-172, January.

    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:spr:operea:v:25:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s12351-025-00938-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.