Scholarlink

<p>The automotive industry is confronted with significant challenges in the adoption of green technologies research and development (R&amp;D) strategies, particularly in the context of climate change and asymmetric consumer markets. This situation necessitates strategic insights to reconcile environmental objectives with competitive dynamics. This study utilizes game theory to examine three prevalent R&amp;D models for green technology: single-manufacturer R&amp;D, independent R&amp;D, and investment-sharing R&amp;D, all within duopoly market structures. The findings indicate that market leaders do not automatically dominate green innovation. In scenarios characterized by low product substitutability, both advantaged and disadvantaged manufacturers demonstrate strong incentives for R&amp;D. Conversely, moderate substitutability tends to confer dominance to the market leader. Interestingly, smaller market advantages may paradoxically favor disadvantaged manufacturers. Independent R&amp;D model is identified as optimal in contexts of low substitutability and pronounced market asymmetry; however, single-manufacturer R&amp;D model frequently outperform in other circumstances. Investment-sharing R&amp;D model typically mitigate profit erosion but may prove suboptimal under certain conditions, such as low substitutability coupled with high cost-sharing rates or extreme market asymmetry. A notable counterintuitive finding is that R&amp;D leadership by one firm does not necessarily detract from the profitability of its competitors. Manufacturers are advised to prioritize dynamic adaptation strategies: independent R&amp;D model should be pursued for low-substitutability technologies with significant market advantages (e.g., fuel cells), investment-sharing R&amp;D model should be considered for high-substitutability markets (e.g., Volvo-Geely electric platforms), and single-manufacturer R&amp;D model is recommended for moderately substitutable technologies in concentrated markets (e.g., Toyota’s hybrid ecosystem). These insights offer actionable pathways for aligning green innovation strategies with the realities of the market.</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

Green technology research and development strategy choices of manufacturers under asymmetric consumer market

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月27日

查看全文
  • Kun Wang,
  • Yufei Zhao

摘要

The automotive industry is confronted with significant challenges in the adoption of green technologies research and development (R&D) strategies, particularly in the context of climate change and asymmetric consumer markets. This situation necessitates strategic insights to reconcile environmental objectives with competitive dynamics. This study utilizes game theory to examine three prevalent R&D models for green technology: single-manufacturer R&D, independent R&D, and investment-sharing R&D, all within duopoly market structures. The findings indicate that market leaders do not automatically dominate green innovation. In scenarios characterized by low product substitutability, both advantaged and disadvantaged manufacturers demonstrate strong incentives for R&D. Conversely, moderate substitutability tends to confer dominance to the market leader. Interestingly, smaller market advantages may paradoxically favor disadvantaged manufacturers. Independent R&D model is identified as optimal in contexts of low substitutability and pronounced market asymmetry; however, single-manufacturer R&D model frequently outperform in other circumstances. Investment-sharing R&D model typically mitigate profit erosion but may prove suboptimal under certain conditions, such as low substitutability coupled with high cost-sharing rates or extreme market asymmetry. A notable counterintuitive finding is that R&D leadership by one firm does not necessarily detract from the profitability of its competitors. Manufacturers are advised to prioritize dynamic adaptation strategies: independent R&D model should be pursued for low-substitutability technologies with significant market advantages (e.g., fuel cells), investment-sharing R&D model should be considered for high-substitutability markets (e.g., Volvo-Geely electric platforms), and single-manufacturer R&D model is recommended for moderately substitutable technologies in concentrated markets (e.g., Toyota’s hybrid ecosystem). These insights offer actionable pathways for aligning green innovation strategies with the realities of the market.