协调还是合作?减少易腐产品供应链中的食物浪费

IF 6 2区 管理学 Q1 OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Navid Mohamadi , Sandra Transchel , Jan C. Fransoo
{"title":"协调还是合作?减少易腐产品供应链中的食物浪费","authors":"Navid Mohamadi ,&nbsp;Sandra Transchel ,&nbsp;Jan C. Fransoo","doi":"10.1016/j.ejor.2024.12.039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Reducing food waste in supply chains (SCs) with multiple decision-makers is challenging. A common approach grocery retailers use to reduce waste is requiring manufacturers to only send products with a long remaining shelf life (“minimum life on receipt”-MLOR). However, its impact on manufacturers remains unclear.</div><div>To evaluate the effectiveness of MLOR agreements on food waste, we investigate two strategies: (1) collaborating on setting the MLOR level and (2) coordinating the SC via contract. Through collaboration, we analytically show that if the MLOR agreement does not demand solely fresh products, it raises manufacturer profits, enabling potential wholesale price reduction. This might incentivize retailers to collaborate to reduce the MLOR level. We demonstrate that the coordinating strategy can reduce waste in the SC and is most beneficial when the wholesale price is high, and the issuing policy is FIFO. We introduce possible coordination contracts and show that in coordinated SCs, manufacturers always provide the highest MLOR level without requiring any restrictive MLOR agreements.</div><div>Governments mainly focus on reducing retail waste and promoting retailers to request higher MLOR. However, these efforts can backfire by creating more waste for manufacturers. Reducing the MLOR allows retailers to negotiate lower wholesale prices, increasing profitability while reducing waste. Although SC coordination is known for reducing inefficiency, it may not be the best strategy for reducing waste, especially when the issuing policy is more LIFO than FIFO. Specifically, while coordination might be a better strategy for online retailers, collaboration can be a better strategy for brick-and-mortar retailers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55161,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Operational Research","volume":"323 3","pages":"Pages 795-809"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coordinate or collaborate? Reducing food waste in perishable-product supply chains\",\"authors\":\"Navid Mohamadi ,&nbsp;Sandra Transchel ,&nbsp;Jan C. Fransoo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejor.2024.12.039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Reducing food waste in supply chains (SCs) with multiple decision-makers is challenging. A common approach grocery retailers use to reduce waste is requiring manufacturers to only send products with a long remaining shelf life (“minimum life on receipt”-MLOR). However, its impact on manufacturers remains unclear.</div><div>To evaluate the effectiveness of MLOR agreements on food waste, we investigate two strategies: (1) collaborating on setting the MLOR level and (2) coordinating the SC via contract. Through collaboration, we analytically show that if the MLOR agreement does not demand solely fresh products, it raises manufacturer profits, enabling potential wholesale price reduction. This might incentivize retailers to collaborate to reduce the MLOR level. We demonstrate that the coordinating strategy can reduce waste in the SC and is most beneficial when the wholesale price is high, and the issuing policy is FIFO. We introduce possible coordination contracts and show that in coordinated SCs, manufacturers always provide the highest MLOR level without requiring any restrictive MLOR agreements.</div><div>Governments mainly focus on reducing retail waste and promoting retailers to request higher MLOR. However, these efforts can backfire by creating more waste for manufacturers. Reducing the MLOR allows retailers to negotiate lower wholesale prices, increasing profitability while reducing waste. Although SC coordination is known for reducing inefficiency, it may not be the best strategy for reducing waste, especially when the issuing policy is more LIFO than FIFO. Specifically, while coordination might be a better strategy for online retailers, collaboration can be a better strategy for brick-and-mortar retailers.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Operational Research\",\"volume\":\"323 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 795-809\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Operational Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221724009810\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Operational Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221724009810","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在有多个决策者的供应链中减少食物浪费是一项挑战。杂货零售商用来减少浪费的一种常见方法是要求制造商只发送具有较长剩余保质期的产品(“最低收货期限”-MLOR)。然而,它对制造商的影响尚不清楚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coordinate or collaborate? Reducing food waste in perishable-product supply chains
Reducing food waste in supply chains (SCs) with multiple decision-makers is challenging. A common approach grocery retailers use to reduce waste is requiring manufacturers to only send products with a long remaining shelf life (“minimum life on receipt”-MLOR). However, its impact on manufacturers remains unclear.
To evaluate the effectiveness of MLOR agreements on food waste, we investigate two strategies: (1) collaborating on setting the MLOR level and (2) coordinating the SC via contract. Through collaboration, we analytically show that if the MLOR agreement does not demand solely fresh products, it raises manufacturer profits, enabling potential wholesale price reduction. This might incentivize retailers to collaborate to reduce the MLOR level. We demonstrate that the coordinating strategy can reduce waste in the SC and is most beneficial when the wholesale price is high, and the issuing policy is FIFO. We introduce possible coordination contracts and show that in coordinated SCs, manufacturers always provide the highest MLOR level without requiring any restrictive MLOR agreements.
Governments mainly focus on reducing retail waste and promoting retailers to request higher MLOR. However, these efforts can backfire by creating more waste for manufacturers. Reducing the MLOR allows retailers to negotiate lower wholesale prices, increasing profitability while reducing waste. Although SC coordination is known for reducing inefficiency, it may not be the best strategy for reducing waste, especially when the issuing policy is more LIFO than FIFO. Specifically, while coordination might be a better strategy for online retailers, collaboration can be a better strategy for brick-and-mortar retailers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Operational Research
European Journal of Operational Research 管理科学-运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
9.40%
发文量
786
审稿时长
8.2 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Operational Research (EJOR) publishes high quality, original papers that contribute to the methodology of operational research (OR) and to the practice of decision making.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信