{"title":"Navigating the subsidy path to decarbonization under uncertainties","authors":"Jing Xia , Yuxin Li , Wenju Niu , Weili Xue , Lianmin Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.tre.2025.104101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The ongoing debate about the carbon subsidy regime focuses primarily on identifying the appropriate intended recipients and clarifying its role in sustainable operations. This paper assesses the effectiveness of the carbon subsidy regime by examining its impact on decarbonization incentives, profitability, sustainability, and welfare amidst uncertainties in innovation and demand. For that purpose, we develop models for cases where the government implements either the supply-side or the demand-side subsidy regime, as well as the benchmark model without any subsidy. Analysis of the equilibrium outcomes shows that subsidizing the firm (consumers) can effectively incentivize decarbonization innovation when the environmental coefficient is high (low). A key finding is that the supply-side subsidy regime could yield a win–win–win–win outcome for the government, the firm, consumers, and the environment; however, the demand-side subsidy regime may undermine sustainability despite enhancing profitability and welfare. Moreover, the government tends to subsidize consumers as the probability of successful decarbonization increases, whereas heightened demand uncertainty or consumers’ low-carbon preferences will prompt the government to subsidize the firm instead. We extend the model to the bilateral subsidy scenario, demonstrating that this regime may not guarantee a Pareto improvement because, in some cases, it reduces both profitability and sustainability. Notably, our main findings remain robust when: (i) The government has a finite subsidy budget, (ii) the government subsidizes the firm’s production cost instead of the investment cost, (iii) the probability of successful decarbonization is dependent on the firm’s investment efforts, or (iv) green and traditional products coexist in the market cannibalizing each other’s sales.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49418,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review","volume":"198 ","pages":"Article 104101"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554525001425","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The ongoing debate about the carbon subsidy regime focuses primarily on identifying the appropriate intended recipients and clarifying its role in sustainable operations. This paper assesses the effectiveness of the carbon subsidy regime by examining its impact on decarbonization incentives, profitability, sustainability, and welfare amidst uncertainties in innovation and demand. For that purpose, we develop models for cases where the government implements either the supply-side or the demand-side subsidy regime, as well as the benchmark model without any subsidy. Analysis of the equilibrium outcomes shows that subsidizing the firm (consumers) can effectively incentivize decarbonization innovation when the environmental coefficient is high (low). A key finding is that the supply-side subsidy regime could yield a win–win–win–win outcome for the government, the firm, consumers, and the environment; however, the demand-side subsidy regime may undermine sustainability despite enhancing profitability and welfare. Moreover, the government tends to subsidize consumers as the probability of successful decarbonization increases, whereas heightened demand uncertainty or consumers’ low-carbon preferences will prompt the government to subsidize the firm instead. We extend the model to the bilateral subsidy scenario, demonstrating that this regime may not guarantee a Pareto improvement because, in some cases, it reduces both profitability and sustainability. Notably, our main findings remain robust when: (i) The government has a finite subsidy budget, (ii) the government subsidizes the firm’s production cost instead of the investment cost, (iii) the probability of successful decarbonization is dependent on the firm’s investment efforts, or (iv) green and traditional products coexist in the market cannibalizing each other’s sales.
期刊介绍:
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review is a reputable journal that publishes high-quality articles covering a wide range of topics in the field of logistics and transportation research. The journal welcomes submissions on various subjects, including transport economics, transport infrastructure and investment appraisal, evaluation of public policies related to transportation, empirical and analytical studies of logistics management practices and performance, logistics and operations models, and logistics and supply chain management.
Part E aims to provide informative and well-researched articles that contribute to the understanding and advancement of the field. The content of the journal is complementary to other prestigious journals in transportation research, such as Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Part B: Methodological, Part C: Emerging Technologies, Part D: Transport and Environment, and Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Together, these journals form a comprehensive and cohesive reference for current research in transportation science.