双渠道退役动力电池回收闭环供应链模式选择

Mode selection for dual-channel retired power battery recycling closed-loop supply chain

欧盟《新电池法》的执行加剧了市场对回收电池的需求,单一渠道回收退役动力电池已无法完全满足生产需要,双渠道回收模式正在成为一种趋势.本文首先提出了单渠道回收退役动力电池模型,并在所提模型的基础之上拓展出两种双渠道回收模型,分析了不同模式下关键参数变化对均衡结果的影响,探讨了双渠道回收模式下政府补贴对供应链成员策略偏好和回收激励的影响.研究表明:1)市场规模、市场折扣系数、翻新成本、价格敏感系数的变动会引起供应链成员策略的调整,增加营销投入提高市场对翻新电池新能源汽车的需求对供应链成员总是有益的.2)更加严格的环境政策下,电池制造商(BM)、第三方电池回收商(RM)选择RE模式更有利,而RB模式可以帮助新能源汽车制造商(EV)削弱环境政策带来的负面影响.3)政府补贴对EV和RM的激励更加显著,对BM的激励则非常有限.4)严格的环境政策总是会降低供应链整体利润,而政府补贴有利于提高供应链整体绩效.无政府补贴时,宽松的环境政策下应选择RB模式来提高供应链整体收益,否则单渠道模式有利于提高供应链整体收益.有政府补贴时,RB模式始终对供应链更有益.综合上述分析可以得到以下管理见解:供应链成员应当增加营销投入提高市场对翻新电池新能源汽车的接受度.政府补贴可以有效激励EV和RM参与回收退役动力电池,而针对BM的激励政策则应当更加多元化.本研究仅考虑了政府补贴对供应链成员绩效水平的影响,未来将会进一步探讨生产者责任延伸制度对供应链成员策略选择和电池循环利用的影响.

The implementation of the EU Battery Act has intensified the demand for recycled batteries in the market,single-channel recycling of retired power batteries can no longer fully meet the need of production,dual-channel recycling model is becoming a trend.In this paper,a single-channel retired power battery recycling model is proposed,and two dual-channel retired power battery recycling models are extended on the basis of the proposed model.The effects of changes in key parameters on the equilibrium results are analyzed under the three models.The impacts of government subsidy on supply chain members’strategic preferences and incentives to recycle under the dual-channel recycling model are explored in the extended analysis.The study shows that:1)Changes in market size,market discount factor,refurbishment cost and price sensitivity factor will lead to adjustments in the strategies of supply chain members.Supply chain members can always benefit from increased marketing investment to increase the demand for new energy vehicles with refurbished batteries(uv).2)Battery manufacturers(BM)and Third party battery recycling remanufacturer(RM)will benefit from the RE model under more stringent environmental policy.Although strict environmental policies will always have a negative impact on electric vehicle manufacturer(EV),choosing the RB model can help to minimize this negative impact.3)Government subsidy provides more significant incentives for EV and RM,while the incentives for BM are very limited.4)Strict environmental policy always reduce the profit of the supply chain,while government subsidy is beneficial to the performance of the supply chain.Without government subsidy,RB model should be chosen to improve the profit of the supply chain under lenient environmental policy,otherwise,single-channel mode is beneficial to improve the profit of the supply chain;with government subsidy,RB model is always more beneficial to the supply chain.The above analysis leads to the following management insights:Supply chain members should increase marketing investment to increase demand for uv.Strict environmental policy always discourages BM and EV from participating in battery recycling,and there is a need to develop specific incentives for EV and BM.Government subsidy can effectively incentivize EV and RM to participate in battery recycling,incentives for BM should be more diversified.This study only considered the effect of government subsidy on the performance level of supply chain members,the impact of EPR on the strategic choices of supply chain members and battery recycling will be further explored in the future.