Optimization and Coordination of Carbon Emission Reduction Investment Under Various Emission Regulations
各種排出規制下における炭素排出削減投資の最適化と調整 (AI 翻訳)
Huixiao Yang, Yifan Yang, Jian Cao, Chenqi Jiang
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
この研究は、炭素排出規制(炭素上限、炭素税、排出量取引)がメーカーの排出削減投資とサプライチェーン調整に与える影響を分析。市場の摩擦(ビッド・アスクスプレッド)と交渉力を考慮し、各規制下での最適な投資水準と調整メカニズムを明らかにした。特に、環境意識の高い消費者がいる市場では、規制強化が削減努力を抑制する逆説的な結果を示した。
English
This paper analyzes how different emission regulations (carbon cap, carbon tax, cap-and-trade) affect a manufacturer's abatement investment and supply chain coordination. Modeling market frictions like bid-ask spreads and endogenous contract negotiation, it finds counterintuitive results: stricter regulation can suppress abatement in markets with green consumers, and cap-and-trade induces higher abatement than carbon tax under extreme quotas or tax rates. Perfect coordination is achievable under specific conditions.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本のGX政策においても、排出量取引制度や炭素税の設計は重要な課題。本研究は市場の摩擦や交渉力といった現実的な要素を考慮することで、理論と実務の乖離を埋める示唆を提供。特に、規制の厳格化が逆効果になる条件を示した点は、日本企業のGX戦略立案に参考になる。
In the global GX context
In the global GX context, this paper offers novel insights for carbon pricing design, especially for cap-and-trade systems like the EU ETS or China's national ETS. The finding that increasing regulatory stringency can backfire in markets with green consumers challenges standard policy wisdom. The coordination results are valuable for supply chain decarbonization strategies under different regulatory regimes.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Contributes to operations management and carbon policy literature by incorporating market frictions and bargaining power.
🏢実務担当者:Helps supply chain managers determine optimal abatement investment under different carbon regulations, considering market frictions.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the risk of counterproductive effects from overly stringent carbon policies in markets with environmentally conscious consumers.
📄 Abstract(原文)
Motivated by the imperative of industrial decarbonization, this study investigates how different regulatory frameworks—Carbon Cap, Carbon Tax, and Cap‐and‐Trade—impact a manufacturer's carbon abatement investment and supply chain coordination. Distinct from prior literature assuming frictionless markets, we explicitly model the “bid‐ask spread” in permit trading and introduce endogenous contract negotiation to resolve vertical investment inefficiencies. Our analysis yields five critical findings. First, under cap‐and‐trade policies with asymmetric trading prices and moderate quotas, the manufacturer optimally exhausts its allocated permits without engaging in trading, effectively treating the policy as a rigid cap. Second, we identify a unique optimal abatement level that maximizes manufacturer profit; notably, the retailer derives no incremental benefit from increases in the manufacturer's permit allocation. Third, contrary to standard intuition, we demonstrate that in markets with environmentally conscious consumers, increasing regulatory stringency can inadvertently suppress the manufacturer's emission reduction efforts. Fourth, comparing instruments reveals that cap‐and‐trade policies induce higher abatement levels than carbon taxes when both tax rates and assigned quotas are at their respective extremes (either very low or very high). Finally, regarding coordination, we show that perfect supply chain coordination is achievable under specific regulatory conditions if the manufacturer commits to an emission reduction level prior to negotiating order quantities and wholesale prices. These findings highlight the critical role of market frictions and bargaining power in designing effective carbon policies and operational strategies.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.70104first seen 2026-05-15 17:17:27
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.70104first seen 2026-05-15 17:24:24
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録(無料・3キーワードまで)。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。