When suppliers (i.e., contract manufacturers) fail to comply with health and safety regulations, buyers (retailers) are compelled to improve supplier compliance by conducting audits and imposing penalties. As a benchmark, we first consider the independent audit-penalty mechanism in which the buyers conduct their respective audits and impose penalties independently. We then examine the implications of two new audit-penalty mechanisms that entail a collective penalty. The first is the joint mechanism under which buyers conduct audits jointly, share the total audit cost incurred, and impose a collective penalty if the supplier fails their joint audit. The second is the shared mechanism in which each buyer conducts audits independently, shares its audit reports with the other buyers, and imposes a collective penalty if the supplier fails any one of the audits. Using a simultaneous move game-theoretic model with 2 buyers and 1 supplier, our analysis reveals that both the joint and the shared mechanisms are beneficial in several ways. First, when the wholesale price is exogenously given, we establish the following analytical results for the joint mechanism in comparison to the independent mechanism: (a) the supplier's compliance level is higher; (b) the supplier's profit is lower while the buyers' profits are higher; and (c) when the buyers' damage cost is high, the joint audit mechanism creates supply chain value so the buyers can offer an appropriate transfer-payment to make the supplier better off. Second, for the shared audit mechanism we establish similar results but under more restrictive conditions. Finally, when the wholesale price is endogenously determined by the buyers, our numerical analysis shows that the above key results continue to hold.

To avoid inventory risks, manufacturers often place rush orders with suppliers only after they receive firm orders from their customers (retailers). Rush orders are costly to both parties because the supplier incurs higher production costs. We consider a situation where the supplier's production cost is reduced if the manufacturer can place some of its order in advance. In addition to the rush order contract with a pre‐established price, we examine whether the supplier should offer advance‐order discounts to encourage the manufacturer to place a portion of its order in advance, even though the manufacturer incurs some inventory risk. While the advance‐order discount contract is Pareto‐improving, our analysis shows that the discount contract cannot coordinate the supply chain. However, if the supplier imposes a pre‐specified minimum order quantity requirement as a qualifier for the manufacturer to receive the advance‐order discount, then such a combined contract can coordinate the supply chain. Furthermore, the combined contract enables the supplier to attain the first‐best solution. We also explore a delegation contract that either party could propose. Under this contract, the manufacturer delegates the ordering and salvaging activities to the supplier in return for a discounted price on all units procured. We find the delegation contract coordinates the supply chain and is Pareto‐improving. We extend our analysis to a setting where the suppliers capacity is limited for advance production but unlimited for rush orders. Our structural results obtained for the one‐supplier‐one‐manufacturer case continue to hold when we have two manufacturers.

In many developing countries, crop minimum support price (MSP) is a subsidy scheme to (i) improve farmer welfare by safeguarding farmers’ incomes against vagaries in crop price and (ii) improve consumer surplus by ensuring sufficient crop production. Among different mechanisms to operationalize an MSP scheme, we focus on credit-based MSPs under which the government credits farmers should the prevailing market price be below the prespecified MSP. By accounting for the implementation cost of the MSP, we examine the effectiveness of the MSP in terms of net benefit (i.e., farmer’s surplus minus the implementation cost) and net social value (i.e., sum of farmer’s and consumer’s surpluses minus the implementation cost) in a market that consists of risk-averse farmers with heterogeneous production costs. Also, farmers face two types of uncertainties: (1) market and (2) production yield uncertainty. We find that a credit-based MSP can induce crop production, which is intuitive. However, we find some more interesting results: (i) offering a higher MSP may not improve farmer’s surplus, (ii) the net benefit of an MSP can be negative—the cost of offering an MSP can exceed the farmer’s surplus, and (iii) there exists an MSP that maximizes the net social value. We extend our single-crop model to the case of two crops to capture the intercrop MSP interaction. We show that when one crop is more rewarding but riskier than the other crop, then it is sufficient to offer an appropriate MSP for one of the two crops while offering no MSP to the other crop. This paper was accepted by Vishal Gaur, operations management.

No abstract

No abstract