Scholarlink

<p>This study investigates the effects of four carbon allocation strategies on pricing decisions of a capital-constrained, digitized-low-carbon manufacturer within a two-period hybrid product framework. Using a two-cycle decision model—conventional production in the first cycle and digitized low-carbon production in the second—four strategies are analyzed: Grandfathering + Grandfathering (GGM), Benchmarking + Benchmarking (BBM), Historical Emissions Decline + Benchmarking (HBM), and Benchmarking + Historical Emissions Decline (BHM). Key parameters include the historical emission reduction coefficient, emissions benchmark coefficient, and historical intensity reduction coefficient. Through comparative analysis of decision variables across different carbon allocation strategies, the most suitable approach is identified, with conclusions validated through numerical analysis. Results indicate: (1) Carbon allocation strategies (2) Manufacturers prefer GGM and BHM when conventional product emissions are high, and BBM and HBM when emissions are lower. (3) GGM imposes the least financial constraints in digitized-low-carbon production. (4) Increasing substitution between conventional and digitized-low-carbon products increases profits only under GGM with limited low-carbon output in cycle two, while all other scenarios see profitability declines, especially under HBM.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The implications of divergent carbon allocation strategies on pricing determinations among capital-constrained digitized-low-carbon enterprises

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月18日

查看全文
  • Liang Shen,
  • Fei Lin,
  • Yuyan Wang,
  • T. C. E. Cheng,
  • Xiaohang Yue

摘要

This study investigates the effects of four carbon allocation strategies on pricing decisions of a capital-constrained, digitized-low-carbon manufacturer within a two-period hybrid product framework. Using a two-cycle decision model—conventional production in the first cycle and digitized low-carbon production in the second—four strategies are analyzed: Grandfathering + Grandfathering (GGM), Benchmarking + Benchmarking (BBM), Historical Emissions Decline + Benchmarking (HBM), and Benchmarking + Historical Emissions Decline (BHM). Key parameters include the historical emission reduction coefficient, emissions benchmark coefficient, and historical intensity reduction coefficient. Through comparative analysis of decision variables across different carbon allocation strategies, the most suitable approach is identified, with conclusions validated through numerical analysis. Results indicate: (1) Carbon allocation strategies (2) Manufacturers prefer GGM and BHM when conventional product emissions are high, and BBM and HBM when emissions are lower. (3) GGM imposes the least financial constraints in digitized-low-carbon production. (4) Increasing substitution between conventional and digitized-low-carbon products increases profits only under GGM with limited low-carbon output in cycle two, while all other scenarios see profitability declines, especially under HBM.