碳泄漏合谋监管博弈模型:前景理论与验证代理动力学

IF 14.2 2区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Qingsong Xing , Yanlin Yan , Fumin Deng , Peng Wang
{"title":"碳泄漏合谋监管博弈模型:前景理论与验证代理动力学","authors":"Qingsong Xing ,&nbsp;Yanlin Yan ,&nbsp;Fumin Deng ,&nbsp;Peng Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The compliance of carbon data quality is a key factor that concerns national image, market stability, and policy-making, and has always been one of the hot issues widely concerned by all sectors of society. As an important tool for promoting corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) behaviors, the Emission Trading System (ETS) plays a significant role in achieving carbon emission reduction targets. This study introduces prospect theory to construct a regulatory game model of carbon leakage collusion behavior involving both passive and active participation of verification institutions, and discusses the collusion conditions of various participants under different model parameters. Through numerical simulation, the study explores the impact of key factors such as collusion benefits on the shift in the collusion behavior of verification institutions and on the collusion situation of multiple behavior subjects under different model parameters. The main conclusions are as follows: 1) The choice of collusion method by the actors of carbon verification institutions is influenced by their subjective perception of the probability of successful government supervision and the benefits of collusion; 2) The behavior subjects are more sensitive to changes in the degree of loss aversion coefficient than to changes in the degree of marginal sensitivity coefficient.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11665,"journal":{"name":"Energy Economics","volume":"150 ","pages":"Article 108874"},"PeriodicalIF":14.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulatory game model of carbon leakage collusion: Prospect theory and verification agency dynamics\",\"authors\":\"Qingsong Xing ,&nbsp;Yanlin Yan ,&nbsp;Fumin Deng ,&nbsp;Peng Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108874\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The compliance of carbon data quality is a key factor that concerns national image, market stability, and policy-making, and has always been one of the hot issues widely concerned by all sectors of society. As an important tool for promoting corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) behaviors, the Emission Trading System (ETS) plays a significant role in achieving carbon emission reduction targets. This study introduces prospect theory to construct a regulatory game model of carbon leakage collusion behavior involving both passive and active participation of verification institutions, and discusses the collusion conditions of various participants under different model parameters. Through numerical simulation, the study explores the impact of key factors such as collusion benefits on the shift in the collusion behavior of verification institutions and on the collusion situation of multiple behavior subjects under different model parameters. The main conclusions are as follows: 1) The choice of collusion method by the actors of carbon verification institutions is influenced by their subjective perception of the probability of successful government supervision and the benefits of collusion; 2) The behavior subjects are more sensitive to changes in the degree of loss aversion coefficient than to changes in the degree of marginal sensitivity coefficient.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11665,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Economics\",\"volume\":\"150 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108874\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988325007017\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988325007017","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

碳数据质量合规性是关系国家形象、市场稳定和政策制定的关键因素,一直是社会各界广泛关注的热点问题之一。碳排放交易体系(ETS)作为促进企业环境、社会和治理(ESG)行为的重要工具,在实现碳减排目标方面发挥着重要作用。本研究引入前景理论,构建了验证机构被动与主动参与的碳泄漏串通行为监管博弈模型,并讨论了不同模型参数下各参与者的串通条件。通过数值模拟,探讨不同模型参数下,串通利益等关键因素对验证机构串通行为转变及多行为主体串通情况的影响。主要结论如下:1)碳核查机构行为主体对政府监管成功概率和合谋收益的主观感知影响了其合谋方式的选择;2)行为主体对损失厌恶程度系数的变化比边际敏感程度系数的变化更敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Regulatory game model of carbon leakage collusion: Prospect theory and verification agency dynamics
The compliance of carbon data quality is a key factor that concerns national image, market stability, and policy-making, and has always been one of the hot issues widely concerned by all sectors of society. As an important tool for promoting corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) behaviors, the Emission Trading System (ETS) plays a significant role in achieving carbon emission reduction targets. This study introduces prospect theory to construct a regulatory game model of carbon leakage collusion behavior involving both passive and active participation of verification institutions, and discusses the collusion conditions of various participants under different model parameters. Through numerical simulation, the study explores the impact of key factors such as collusion benefits on the shift in the collusion behavior of verification institutions and on the collusion situation of multiple behavior subjects under different model parameters. The main conclusions are as follows: 1) The choice of collusion method by the actors of carbon verification institutions is influenced by their subjective perception of the probability of successful government supervision and the benefits of collusion; 2) The behavior subjects are more sensitive to changes in the degree of loss aversion coefficient than to changes in the degree of marginal sensitivity coefficient.
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
Energy Economics
Energy Economics ECONOMICS-
CiteScore
18.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
524
期刊介绍: Energy Economics is a field journal that focuses on energy economics and energy finance. It covers various themes including the exploitation, conversion, and use of energy, markets for energy commodities and derivatives, regulation and taxation, forecasting, environment and climate, international trade, development, and monetary policy. The journal welcomes contributions that utilize diverse methods such as experiments, surveys, econometrics, decomposition, simulation models, equilibrium models, optimization models, and analytical models. It publishes a combination of papers employing different methods to explore a wide range of topics. The journal's replication policy encourages the submission of replication studies, wherein researchers reproduce and extend the key results of original studies while explaining any differences. Energy Economics is indexed and abstracted in several databases including Environmental Abstracts, Fuel and Energy Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index, GEOBASE, Social & Behavioral Sciences, Journal of Economic Literature, INSPEC, and more.
×
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