Strategic alliance selection for retired power batteries recycling under carbon cap-and-trade and government subsidies

IF 12.1 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS
Energy Strategy Reviews Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-27 DOI:10.1016/j.esr.2026.102285
Xiaomin Xu, Qianru Ma, Wensheng Wang
{"title":"Strategic alliance selection for retired power batteries recycling under carbon cap-and-trade and government subsidies","authors":"Xiaomin Xu,&nbsp;Qianru Ma,&nbsp;Wensheng Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.esr.2026.102285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The rapid growth of electric vehicles makes recycling retired power batteries critical for sustainable energy systems, resource security, and the low-carbon transition. This study establishes a game theory framework to analyze four strategic alliance modes from no alliance to three-party alliance in a closed-loop supply chain system comprising battery manufacturers, electric vehicle manufacturers, and third-party recyclers under carbon cap-and-trade and government subsidies. Using a manufacturer-led Stackelberg game model and numerical simulation, the analysis evaluates how key parameters influence system outcomes. Results indicate: (1) A 0.1 unit increase in consumer recycling price sensitivity coefficient and recycler competition coefficient, the recycling volume changes by up to 1060.9 (10%) and −1204.4 (−8.20%) units, and supply chain profits change by up to 1.769 × 10<sup>7</sup> (0.392%) and −1.595 × 10<sup>7</sup> (−0.353%), respectively. (2) A 1 unit increase in government subsidies can increase supply chain profits by up to 2.728 × 10<sup>5</sup> (0.006%). A 1 unit increase in the carbon price results in a decrease of up to 7.872 × 10<sup>5</sup> (0.018%) in profits. As subsidies decline, the non-alliance model exits faster due to thin profits and carbon pricing pressure. (3) Increasing carbon emission reduction levels (per unit) and echelon utilization rate (per 0.1 unit) increase supply chain profits by up to 5.88 × 10<sup>5</sup> (0.132%) and 4.80 × 10<sup>7</sup> (0.727%), respectively, with the MT + V model benefiting most from high SOH testing costs via technology sharing. (4) The optimal alliance model depends on market conditions: under high consumer price sensitivity and low recycler competition, a manufacturer-retailer alliance proves superior; otherwise, a three-party alliance becomes preferable. These findings offer actionable guidance on selecting an industry collaboration model and calibrating the policy mix to support resilient, efficient battery recycling systems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11546,"journal":{"name":"Energy Strategy Reviews","volume":"65 ","pages":"Article 102285"},"PeriodicalIF":12.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Strategy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X2600252X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rapid growth of electric vehicles makes recycling retired power batteries critical for sustainable energy systems, resource security, and the low-carbon transition. This study establishes a game theory framework to analyze four strategic alliance modes from no alliance to three-party alliance in a closed-loop supply chain system comprising battery manufacturers, electric vehicle manufacturers, and third-party recyclers under carbon cap-and-trade and government subsidies. Using a manufacturer-led Stackelberg game model and numerical simulation, the analysis evaluates how key parameters influence system outcomes. Results indicate: (1) A 0.1 unit increase in consumer recycling price sensitivity coefficient and recycler competition coefficient, the recycling volume changes by up to 1060.9 (10%) and −1204.4 (−8.20%) units, and supply chain profits change by up to 1.769 × 107 (0.392%) and −1.595 × 107 (−0.353%), respectively. (2) A 1 unit increase in government subsidies can increase supply chain profits by up to 2.728 × 105 (0.006%). A 1 unit increase in the carbon price results in a decrease of up to 7.872 × 105 (0.018%) in profits. As subsidies decline, the non-alliance model exits faster due to thin profits and carbon pricing pressure. (3) Increasing carbon emission reduction levels (per unit) and echelon utilization rate (per 0.1 unit) increase supply chain profits by up to 5.88 × 105 (0.132%) and 4.80 × 107 (0.727%), respectively, with the MT + V model benefiting most from high SOH testing costs via technology sharing. (4) The optimal alliance model depends on market conditions: under high consumer price sensitivity and low recycler competition, a manufacturer-retailer alliance proves superior; otherwise, a three-party alliance becomes preferable. These findings offer actionable guidance on selecting an industry collaboration model and calibrating the policy mix to support resilient, efficient battery recycling systems.
碳限额交易与政府补贴下的退役动力电池回收战略联盟选择
电动汽车的快速发展使得回收退役动力电池对于可持续能源系统、资源安全和低碳转型至关重要。本文建立博弈论框架,分析了碳排放限额与交易和政府补贴下电池制造商、电动汽车制造商和第三方回收商组成的闭环供应链系统中从无联盟到三方联盟的四种战略联盟模式。使用制造商主导的Stackelberg博弈模型和数值模拟,分析评估了关键参数如何影响系统结果。结果表明:(1)消费者回收价格敏感系数和回收商竞争系数每增加0.1个单位,可导致回收量变化高达1060.9(10%)和- 1204.4(- 8.20%)个单位,供应链利润变化高达1.769 × 107(0.392%)和- 1.595 × 107(- 0.353%)。(2)政府补贴每增加1个单位,供应链利润最多可增加2.728 × 105(0.006%)。碳价每增加1个单位,利润就会减少7.872 × 105(0.018%)。随着补贴的减少,由于利润微薄和碳定价压力,非联盟模式退出得更快。(3)提高碳减排水平(每单位)和梯队利用率(每0.1单位)分别可使供应链利润增加5.88 × 105(0.132%)和4.80 × 107(0.727%),其中MT + V模式通过技术共享从SOH检测的高成本中获益最多。(4)最优联盟模型取决于市场条件:在消费者价格敏感性高、回收商竞争低的情况下,制造商-零售商联盟更优;否则,三党联盟将更可取。这些发现为选择行业合作模式和校准政策组合提供了可操作的指导,以支持有弹性、高效的电池回收系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Energy Strategy Reviews
Energy Strategy Reviews Energy-Energy (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
4.90%
发文量
167
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: Energy Strategy Reviews is a gold open access journal that provides authoritative content on strategic decision-making and vision-sharing related to society''s energy needs. Energy Strategy Reviews publishes: • Analyses • Methodologies • Case Studies • Reviews And by invitation: • Report Reviews • Viewpoints
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书