Optimal environmental regulation and firms' location choice under yield uncertainty

被引:0
|
作者
Wei, Bin [1 ,2 ]
Wang, Nengmin [1 ,2 ]
Jiang, Bin [3 ]
He, Zhengwen [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Xi An Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Management, Xian 710049, Shaanxi, Peoples R China
[2] ERC Proc Min Mfg Serv Shaanxi Prov, Xian 710049, Shaanxi, Peoples R China
[3] DePaul Univ, Dept Management, Driehaus Coll Business, Chicago, IL 60604 USA
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Environmental regulation; Location choice; Random yield; Cournot competition; Offshoring; SOURCING STRATEGIES; FACILITY LOCATION; DECISIONS; DESIGN; PRICE; TAX; COMPETITION; OFFSHORE; IMPACT; COST;
D O I
10.1007/s10479-024-06225-9
中图分类号
C93 [管理学]; O22 [运筹学];
学科分类号
070105 ; 12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Environmental regulations have led to firms considering offshoring their production to avoid compliance costs. However, overseas production comes with yield uncertainty. This study examines optimal environmental regulations and firms' responses under three production scenarios. The government's objective is to maximize social welfare by selecting the type and intensity of regulatory instruments, while firms seek to optimize profits by adjusting their optimal production quantities. Our analysis finds that price and quantity regulation instruments have similar impacts on social welfare, but firms prefer quantity instruments despite price instruments being more beneficial for consumers. Furthermore, both pollution damage coefficient and yield uncertainty are important factors affecting social welfare and firms' location choice and there exist win-win situations that benefit the government, firms, and consumers. Additionally, offshoring tends to be more environmentally friendly to the local environment. To further validate the main model, we examine various extensions. Results show that the hybrid instrument does not significantly enhance social welfare, but it does offer flexibility in adjusting firms' production transfer motivations. Additionally, factors such as positive production and fixed costs, as well as multi-market issues, do not alter the government's preference for regulatory instruments.
引用
收藏
页码:413 / 456
页数:44
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] An environmental supply chain network under uncertainty
    Shen, Jiayu
    PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, 2020, 542 (542)
  • [42] Environmental regulation and OFDI: Evidence from Chinese listed firms
    Liu, Wei
    Zhao, Zhihui
    Wen, Zhao
    Cheng, Shixiong
    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND POLICY, 2022, 75 : 191 - 208
  • [43] LOCATION CHOICE OF SPANISH MULTINATIONAL FIRMS IN DEVELOPING AND TRANSITION ECONOMIES
    Marti, Josep
    Alguacil, Maite
    Orts, Vicente
    JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2017, 18 (02) : 319 - 339
  • [44] Entry, location, and optimal environmental policies
    Estay, Manuel
    Stranlund, John K.
    RESOURCE AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2022, 70
  • [45] On the UOWC Performance Under Location Uncertainty
    Vaiopoulos, Nicholas
    Vavoulas, Alexander
    Nistazakis, Hector E.
    Sandalidis, Harilaos G.
    Kakarountas, Athanasios
    IEEE ACCESS, 2023, 11 : 38783 - 38794
  • [46] An e-commerce facility location problem under uncertainty
    Shen, J.
    SCIENTIA IRANICA, 2021, 28 (01) : 412 - 423
  • [47] Environmental credit regulation and environmental investment in heavily polluting firms
    Tan, Wenhao
    Fan, Yusheng
    Ding, Xin
    Kang, Yixuan
    PACIFIC-BASIN FINANCE JOURNAL, 2025, 90
  • [48] Optimal warehouse location and size under risk of failure
    Oshan, Tareq
    Caron, Richard J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE-OPERATIONS & LOGISTICS, 2023, 10 (01)
  • [49] Multinationals and environmental regulation: are foreign firms harmful?
    Dardati, Evangelina
    Saygili, Meryem
    ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS, 2012, 17 : 163 - 186
  • [50] Optimal soft-order revisions under demand and supply uncertainty and upstream information
    Baruah, Pundarikaksha
    Chinnam, Ratna Babu
    Korostelev, Alexander
    Dalkiran, Evrim
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, 2016, 182 : 14 - 25