Coordination of a Green Industry 4.0 Supply Chain with a Two-Part Tariff Contract

Öz

Due to the worsening environmental conditions, producing eco-friendly products is gaining more importance. This awareness has also affected the consumers so that green products are demanded more. Industry 4.0 technologies are also expected to have positive effects on the environment. This paper analyzes the coordination of a two-stage green supply chain that applies Industry 4.0 technologies and supplies products to a green-conscious market. The Industry 4.0 investment level of the manufacturer affects her cost and greening level. The retailer also invests in green processes. In the decentralized system, both members determine lower greening levels than the optimal solution. Also, the Industry 4.0 investment level of the manufacturer, demand, and overall supply chain profit are lower in the decentralized solution. These results indicate that the supply chain should be coordinated. Thus, a two-part tariff (TPT) contract is developed. In the TPT contract, the manufacturer sets the unit wholesale price equal to her unit cost, and then the retailer makes a lump-sum payment to the manufacturer. Both members act rationally according to the centralized solution after the contract. Thus, the TPT contract has coordination ability. Also, the contract is Pareto improving and fair so that both members can utilize fair profit increases. The analysis denotes that coordination increases the economic and environmental sustainability of the supply chain. Besides, the supply chain members interact with each other, and an increase in the greening level of the manufacturer also leads to an increase in the greening investment of the retailer.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Green supply chain
• Industry 4.0
• Coordination
• Contract
• Game theory

İki Kısımlı Tarife Kontratı ile Yeşil Endüstri 4.0 Tedarik Zincirinin Koordinasyonu

Öz

Günümüzde çevresel koşulların bozulması nedeniyle, firmaların çevreye duyarlı üretim yapması gittikçe daha fazla önem kazanmaktadır. Bu bilinç tüketicileri de etkilemiş olup, yeşil ürünlere olan talep gün geçtikçe artmaktadır. Endüstri 4.0 teknolojilerinin de çevreye olumlu etkilerinin olduğu öngörülmektedir. Bu çalışma, Endüstri 4.0 teknolojileri uygulayan ve çevreye duyarlı bir pazara hizmet eden, iki aşamalı yeşil bir tedarik zincirinin koordinasyonunu ele almaktadır. Üreticinin Endüstri 4.0 yatırım miktarı, maliyetini ve yeşillik seviyesini etkilemektedir. Perakendeci de yeşillik seviyesini arttırmak için yatırım yapmaktadır. Tedarik zincirindeki her bir üyenin sadece kendi sistemini optimize etmeyi amaçladığı merkezkaç sistemde, üreticinin ve perakendecinin yeşillik seviyeleri optimal çözüme oranla daha düşük çıkmaktadır. Ayrıca, üreticinin Endüstri 4.0 yatırım seviyesi, talep ve tedarik zincirinin toplam karı da merkezkaç çözümde daha düşüktür. Bu sonuçlar, tedarik zincirinin koordine edilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir. Bu amaçla, iki kısımlı tarife (İKT) kontratı geliştirilmiştir. İKT kontratında, üretici ürünleri maliyetine satmakta, perakendeci ise daha sonra üreticiye toplu bir ödeme yapmaktadır. Kontrat sonrasında hem üretici hem de perakendeci rasyonel olarak merkezi çözüm doğrultusunda karar vermektedir. Dolayısıyla, İKT kontratı tedarik zincirinin koordinasyonunu sağlamaktadır. Buna ek olarak, Pareto iyileştiren olmasının yanı sıra, bu kontrat sayesinde üyeler adil bir kar artışından da faydalanabilmektedir. Kontrat öncesi ve sonrası tedarik zincirleri analiz edildiğinde, koordinasyonun tedarik zincirinin ekonomik ve çevresel sürdürülebilirliğini arttırdığı ortaya çıkmaktadır. Ayrıca, tedarik zinciri üyelerinin etkileşim içinde olduğu; üreticinin yeşillik seviyesindeki artışın, perakendecinin de daha fazla yeşillik yatırımı yapmasını sağladığı görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yeşil tedarik zinciri
• Endüstri 4.0
• Koordinasyon
• Kontrat
• Oyun teorisi

Kaynakça

1. [1] Rüßmann, M., Lorenz, M., Gerbert, P., Waldner, M., Justus, J., Engel, P. ve Harnisch, M. (2015). Industry 4.0: The future of productivity and growth in manufacturing industries. BCG Perspective.
2. [2] World Economic Forum. (2019). Supply Chain 4.0 Global Practices and Lessons Learned for Latin America and the Caribbean, The Economic Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the UK Economy - PWC.
3. [3] Kersten, W., Seiter, M., von See, B., Hackius, N. ve Maurer, T. (2017). Trends and strategies in logistics and supply chain management: Digital transformation opportunities, DVV Media Group GmbH.
4. [4] Strandhagen, J.O., Vallandingham, L.R., Fragapane, G., Strandhagen, J.W., Stangeland, A.B.H. ve Sharma, N. (2017). Logistics 4.0 and emerging sustainable business models. Adv. Manuf. 5, 359–369.
5. [5] Bai, C., Dallasega, P., Orzes, G. ve Sarkis, J. (2020). Industry 4.0 technologies assessment: A sustainability perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 229.
6. [6] Mastos, T.D., Nizamis, A., Vafeiadis, T., Alexopoulos, N., Ntinas, C., Gkortzis, D., Papadopoulos, A., Ioannidis, D. ve Tzovaras, D. (2020). Industry 4.0 sustainable supply chains: An application of an IoT enabled scrap metal management solution. J. Clean. Prod. 269.
7. [7] Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. ve Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 19, 289–300.
8. [8] Stock, T., Obenaus, M., Kunz, S. ve Kohl, H. (2018). Industry 4.0 as enabler for a sustainable development: A qualitative assessment of its ecological and social potential. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 118, 254–267.

9. [9] Ghobakhloo, M. (2020). Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 252.
10. [10] Chen, L., Zhao, X., Tang, O., Price, L., Zhang, S. ve Zhu, W. (2017). Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: A literature review and future research agenda. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 194, 73–87.
11. [11] World Economic Forum. (2019). Business Models Inspired by Nature are the Future. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/business-models-inspired-by-nature-are-the-future.
12. [12] Singh, R.K., Kumar, P. ve Chand, M. (2019). Evaluation of supply chain coordination index in context to Industry 4.0 environment. Benchmarking: An International Journal.
13. [13] Toktaş-Palut, P. ve Ülengin, F. (2011). Coordination in a two-stage capacitated supply chain with multiple suppliers. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 212, 43–53.
14. [14] Cachon, G.P. (2003). Supply Chain Coordination with Contracts. Handbooks Oper. Res. Manag. Sci.
15. [15] Govindan, K., Popiuc, M.N. ve Diabat, A. (2013). Overview of coordination contracts within forward and reverse supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 319–334.
16. [16] Chauhan, C. ve Singh, A. (2018). Modeling green supply chain coordination: current research and future prospects. Benchmarking: An International Journal.
17. [17] Bart, N., Chernonog, T. ve Avinadav, T. (2019). Revenue sharing contracts in a supply chain: A literature review. IFAC-PapersOnLine 52, 1578–1583.
18. [18] Zhu, W. ve He, Y. (2017). Green product design in supply chains under competition. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 258, 165–180.
19. [19] Ghosh, D. ve Shah, J. (2015). Supply chain analysis under green sensitive customer demand and cost sharing contract. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 164, 319–329.
20. [20] Yenipazarli, A. (2017). To collaborate or not to collaborate: Prompting upstream eco-efficient innovation in a supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 260, 571–587.
21. [21] Peng, H., Pang, T. ve Cong, J. (2018). Coordination contracts for a supply chain with yield uncertainty and low-carbon preference. J. Clean. Prod. 205, 291–302.
22. [22] Song, H. ve Gao, X. (2018). Green supply chain game model and analysis under revenue-sharing contract. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 183–192.
23. [23] Panja, S. ve Mondal, S.K. (2020). Exploring a two-layer green supply chain game theoretic model with credit linked demand and mark-up under revenue sharing contract. J. Clean. Prod. 250.
24. [24] Ghosh, D. ve Shah, J. (2012). A comparative analysis of greening policies across supply chain structures. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135, 568–583.
25. [25] Li, B., Zhu, M., Jiang, Y. ve Li, Z. (2016). Pricing policies of a competitive dual-channel green supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2029–2042.
26. [26] Ni, D., Li, K.W. ve Tang, X. (2010). Social responsibility allocation in two-echelon supply chains: Insights from wholesale price contracts. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207, 1269–1279.
27. [27] Panda, S. (2014). Coordination of a socially responsible supply chain using revenue sharing contract. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 67, 92–104.
28. [28] Raj, A., Biswas, I. ve Srivastava, S.K. (2018). Designing supply contracts for the sustainable supply chain using game theory. J. Clean. Prod. 185, 275–284.
29. [29] Heydari, J. ve Rafiei, P. (2020). Integration of environmental and social responsibilities in managing supply chains: A mathematical modeling approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 145.
30. [30] Raj, A., Modak, N.M., Kelle, P. ve Singh, B. (2021). Analysis of a dyadic sustainable supply chain under asymmetric information. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 289, 582–594.
31. [31] Xu, J., Chen, Y. ve Bai, Q. (2016). A two-echelon sustainable supply chain coordination under cap-and-trade regulation. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 42–56.
32. [32] Liu, Z., Zheng, X.X., Gong, B.G. ve Gui, Y.M. (2017). Joint decision-making and the coordination of a sustainable supply chain in the context of carbon tax regulation and fairness concerns. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14.
33. [33] Qian, X., Chan, F.T.S., Zhang, J., Yin, M. ve Zhang, Q. (2020). Channel coordination of a two-echelon sustainable supply chain with a fair-minded retailer under cap-and-trade regulation. J. Clean. Prod. 244.
34. [34] Bai, Q., Xu, J. ve Chauhan, S.S. (2020). Effects of sustainability investment and risk aversion on a two-stage supply chain coordination under a carbon tax policy. Comput. Ind. Eng. 142.
35. [35] Panda, S., Modak, N.M., Basu, M. ve Goyal, S.K. (2015). Channel coordination and profit distribution in a social responsible three-layer supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 168, 224–233.
36. [36] Modak, N.M., Panda, S., Mishra, R. ve Sana, S.S. (2016). A three-layer supply chain coordination in socially responsible distribution system. Tékhne 14, 75–87.
37. [37] Huang, R. ve Yao, X. (2021). An analysis of sustainability and channel coordination in a three-echelon supply chain. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 34, 1, 490–505.
38. [38] Toktaş-Palut, P. (2021). An integrated contract for coordinating a three-stage green forward and reverse supply chain under fairness concerns. J. Clean. Prod. 279.
39. [39] Ghosh, D., Sant, T.G., Kuiti, M.R., Swami, S. ve Shankar, R. (2020). Strategic decisions, competition and cost-sharing contract under industry 4.0 and environmental considerations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 162.
40. [40] Ma, X., Wang, J., Bai, Q. ve Wang, S. (2020). Optimization of a three-echelon cold chain considering freshness-keeping efforts under cap-and-trade regulation in Industry 4.0. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 220.
41. [41] Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A. ve Gawankar, S.A. (2018). Sustainable Industry 4.0 framework: A systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 117, 408–425.
42. [42] Ramadan, M., Al-Maimani, H. ve Noche, B. (2017). RFID-enabled smart real-time manufacturing cost tracking system. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 89, 969–985.
43. [43] Sanders, A., Elangeswaran, C. ve Wulfsberg, J. (2016). Industry 4.0 implies lean manufacturing: Research activities in industry 4.0 function as enablers for lean manufacturing. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 9, 811–833.
44. [44] Banker, R.D., Khosla, I. ve Sinha, K.K. (1998). Quality and competition. Manage. Sci. 44, 1179–1192.
45. [45] Ford, S. ve Despeisse, M. (2016). Additive manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory study of the advantages and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1573–1587.
46. [46] Beier, G., Niehoff, S., Ziems, T. ve Xue, B. (2017). Sustainability aspects of a digitalized industry – A comparative study from China and Germany. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. - Green Technol. 4, 227–234.
47. [47] Müller, J.M., Kiel, D. ve Voigt, K.I. (2018). What drives the implementation of Industry 4.0? The role of opportunities and challenges in the context of sustainability. Sustainability 10, 247.
48. [48] Sarkis, J. ve Zhu, Q. (2018). Environmental sustainability and production: taking the road less travelled. Int. J. Prod. Res.
49. [49] Stock, T., Obenaus, M., Kunz, S. ve Kohl, H. (2018). Industry 4.0 as enabler for a sustainable development: A qualitative assessment of its ecological and social potential. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 118, 254–267.