Search

We study supply chains where multiple suppliers sell to multiple retailers through a wholesale market. In practice, we often observe that both suppliers and retailers tend to influence the wholesale market price that retailers pay to suppliers. However, existing models of supply chain competition do not capture retailers' influence on the wholesale price (i.e., buyer power) and show that the wholesale price and the order quantity per retailer do not change with the number of retailers. To overcome this limitation, we develop a competition model based on the market game mechanism in which the wholesale price is determined based on both suppliers' and retailers' decisions. When taking into account retailers' buyer power, we obtain the result that is consistent with the observed practice: As the number of retailers increases, each retailer's buyer power decreases, and each retailer is willing to pay more for her order, so the wholesale price increases. In this case, supply chain expansion to include more retailers (or suppliers) turns out to be more beneficial in terms of supply chain efficiency than what the prior literature shows without considering buyer power. Finally, we analyze the integration of two local supply chains and show that although the profit of the integrated supply chain is greater than the sum of total profits of local supply chains, integration may reduce the total profit of firms in a retailer-oriented supply chain that has more retailers than suppliers. This paper was accepted by Charles Corbett, operations management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problem definition: This paper studies two cooperative approaches of firms in managing social responsibility violations of their supplier: auditing a common supplier jointly (joint auditing) and sharing independent audit results with other firms (audit sharing). We study this problem in a market with externalities and a large number of firms. Academic/practical relevance: With numerous firms procuring their materials and parts worldwide, there are many cases in which overseas suppliers violate safety, labor, or environmental standards. Those violations have externalities in the sense that one firm's violation affects other firms in the same market. It is not clear how such externalities affect competing firms' incentives to cooperate and the effectiveness of such cooperation. Methodology: We develop a model based on a cooperative game in partition function form, which enables us to analyze the competitive and cooperative interactions of a large number of firms in a market. Results: Although there has been concern about cooperation for fear of compromising a competitive advantage, firms have incentives to cooperate in managing their suppliers when one firm can be hurt by others' violations, that is, the negative externality is high. However, neither cooperative approach necessarily improves social responsibility, especially when one firm can benefit from others' violations, that is, the positive externality is high. Finally, even if agreement is not reached for cooperation before conducting individual audits, social responsibility can still be improved by incentivizing firms to share their private audit results with others under a properly designed mechanism. Managerial implications: The careful assessment of the externalities associated with social responsibility violations is a key to the success of joint auditing and audit sharing. Although firms cooperate voluntarily in some cases, a government agency or an industry association should intervene in other cases to motivate cooperation if it is beneficial. In addition, caution must be taken to monitor manufacturers' audit efforts, especially when cooperative approaches are implemented in the market where competition is fierce and consumers switch brands easily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problem definition: We investigate multinational firms' inspection and pricing strategies to address the challenges of combating child labor in global supply chains. We also examine how several factors (such as information disclosure, goodwill loss, inspection cost, external monitoring by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and penalty scheme) affect firms' incentives to use different strategies to combat child labor. Academic/practical relevance: Nearly 200 million children are engaged in child labor, many in developing countries that are part of the supply base of global manufacturing networks. However, there has been little research on evaluating the impact of firms' strategies and NGOs' initiatives on child labor. Methodology: We develop a game-theoretic model based on a two-tier supply chain, in which a multinational firm in a developed country sells the product made by a supplier in a developing country. Results: If internal inspections are economical, a global firm can reduce the incidence of child labor by inspecting the supplier's use of child labor. Otherwise, the firm can deter the supplier's child labor employment by offering a sufficiently high wholesale price or simultaneously using internal inspections and a medium wholesale price. The latter strategy should be adopted only when information about the firm's inspection policy can be informed credibly. This strategy combats child labor more effectively when a higher penalty is levied onto the supplier's use of child labor. Managerial implications: A multinational firm that adopts a zero-tolerance policy should consider disclosing its effort to combat child labor (e.g., through a social responsibility report), whereas it should take extra caution when using other penalty schemes. NGOs should help raise the firm's goodwill cost (e.g., through campaigns and consumer education), but they should be careful about helping to reduce the firm's inspection cost (e.g., by improving a monitoring system). To prevent children from going back to work after initial removal, a sufficient amount of compensation should be provided to those children, especially when firms rely on inspections without paying a high wholesale price to suppliers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many product categories, manufacturers and retailers often offer rebates to stimulate sales. Due to certain adverse effects, however, some manufacturers and retailers are contemplating the elimination of their rebate programs. This paper sheds light on the debate about the value of rebate programs by presenting a model for evaluating the conditions under which a firm should offer rebates in a competitive environment. Specifically, we consider a two-level supply chain comprising one manufacturer and one retailer. Each firm makes three decisions: the regular (wholesale or retail) price, whether or not to offer rebates, and the rebate value should the firm decide to launch a rebate program. We determine the equilibrium of a vertical competition game between the manufacturer (leader) and the retailer (follower), and we provide insights about how competition affects the conditions under which a firm should offer rebates in equilibrium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]