联系我们

论文查询结果	返回搜索

论文编号：	11841
作者编号：	2120182913
上传时间：	2020/6/22 17:30:24
中文题目：	资金约束的低碳供应链政策比较研究
英文题目：	Comparative Research of Government Policy on Low-Carbon Supply Chain Considering Financing
指导老师：	方磊
中文关键字：	补贴；碳总量管制与排放交易；银行融资；消费者低碳偏好；社会总福利
英文关键字：	subsidy；cap-and-trade；bank financing；customers low-carbon preference；social welfare
中文摘要：	随着环境问题的日益突出和人们环保意识的增强，低碳供应链的发展受到了人们的关注。政府也出台了诸如低碳补贴和碳排放总量管制与交易制度（cap-and-trade）（以下简称“碳交易政策”）的减排政策，激励制造商投资碳减排技术。但是低碳供应链在运营过程中存在一定问题，最为突出的是供应链内部的中小制造商经常面临着资金不足的困境，需要借助银行贷款投资碳减排和采购原材料。因此，当考虑资金约束和低碳政策时，供应链企业如何决策成为一个值得研究的问题。 本文分别在低碳补贴和碳交易政策下，构建了由一个供应商和一个资金约束的低碳制造商组成的二级供应链，在单周期内供应商供给原材料，制造商缺乏资金，向银行贷款投资碳减排，并采购原材料，加工成低碳产品后销售给消费者。研究了供应商为领导者时的批发价决策，制造商的最优订货量决策和最优碳减排量决策。在此基础上，从社会总福利的角度对比两种政策的优劣。研究发现，（1）资金约束会阻碍低碳供应链的发展，且借贷的资金成本越高，供应链的利润越低；（2）制造商是否减排主要取决于碳减排成本系数和碳减排带来的边际收益的相对大小，当碳减排成本系数较小时，制造商会选择最大的碳减排量，当减排系数较大时，制造商不会选择减排；（3）从社会总福利角度来看，在合理的碳交易价格或补贴价格区间内，碳交易政策略优于补贴政策。但是当碳交易价格过高时，碳交易政策就失去作用，社会总福利大幅下降。 本文主要有两个创新点：（1）本文在低碳补贴和碳交易两种政策下，同时考虑了消费者低碳偏好对市场需求的影响和制造商存在的资金约束问题，并假设制造商可以通过银行融资投资碳减排技术和采购原材料。（2）本文在资金约束的低碳供应链的基础上，从社会总福利的角度比较了两种政策的优劣，并研究了相关参数对社会总福利的影响，为政府制定政策提供了相关建议。
英文摘要：	With the increasingly prominent environmental problems and the enhancement of people's environmental awareness, the development of low-carbon supply chain has attracted people's attention. The government has also introduced emissions-reduction policies, such as emissions-reduction subsidies and cap-and-trade system, to encourage manufacturers to invest in carbon-reduction technology. However, there are some problems in the operation of low-carbon supply chain, the most prominent of which is within the supply chain, small and medium-sized manufacturers are often faced with insufficient funds, and need to invest in carbon emission reduction and maintain operation with the help of bank loans. Therefore, it is meaningful to study how the members of low-carbon supply chain make decisions with insufficient capital under the carbon-reduction policies. Under the subsidies and cap-and-trade policies, this paper constructed a two-level supply chain consisting of a supplier and a low-carbon manufacturer with capital constraints. The supplier wholesales raw materials in a single cycle. The manufacturer has to use the bank loan to investment carbon reduction technology and procure raw materials, which are processed into low-carbon products and sold to consumers. We investigated the supplier’s optimal wholesale price and manufacturer's optimal order quantity and the optimal carbon emissions reduction abatement with the supplier being the leader. On this basis, the advantages and disadvantages of the two policies are compared from the perspective of total social welfare. The research founds that (1) financial constraints will hinder the development of low-carbon supply chain, and the higher is the capital cost of borrowing, the lower is the profit of the supply chain; (2) whether the manufacturer reduces emissions mainly depends on the relative size of the carbon emission reduction cost coefficient and the marginal benefit brought by carbon emission reduction. When the carbon emission reduction cost coefficient is small, the manufacturer will choose the largest carbon emission reduction, or the manufacturer will not choose to reduce emissions; (3) When the price of carbon trade or subsidy is within a relative reasonable range, cap-and-trade is better than carbon subsidy from the perspective of social welfare, or the cap-and-trade system will be useless. This paper mainly has two innovative points: (1) Under the low-carbon subsidy and cap-and-trade policies, this paper study the customers’ increasing preference for low-carbon products and financial constraint of manufacturers who can borrow money from banks to invest in carbon emission reduction technologies and purchase raw materials; (2) This paper compares the two policies from the perspective of total social welfare, and studies the impact of relevant parameters, which provides relevant suggestions for the government to make policies.
查看全文：	预览  下载(下载需要进行登录)