Non-cooperative Game Based Carbon Emission Reduction for Supply Chain Enterprises with a Cap and Trade Mechanism

  • Min Wang
  • Shuhua Hou
  • Rui QiuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1002)


With the increasing attention of society to the environmental issues, carbon emission rights have become a new type of resource with certain commercial value, which has changed the production function and cost structure of the original enterprises. In the course of operation, enterprises have increased the consideration of carbon emission rights from the original focus on “raw materials and products (services)”. Therefore, based on the carbon and trade mechanism, this paper deeply explores the decision-making of carbon emission reduction of the upstream and downstream enterprises in the supply chain and the choice of government carbon quota allocation scheme under the constraint of government carbon emissions, and uses game theory knowledge to analyze the effect of carbon emission reduction of upstream and downstream enterprises under the non-cooperative game. The results show that the emission reduction effect of the government’s carbon quota per unit of product allocation is more obvious than that of the direct total amount restriction, and it is beneficial for sustainability of supply chain systems.


Cap and trade mechanism Supply chain enterprises Supply chain Non-cooperative Sustainability 



This research has been supported by the project of Research Center for System Sciences and Enterprise Development (Grant No. Xq18B02), Sichuan University (Grant No. 2018hhf-45), and China Scholarship Council (Grant No. 201806240126).


  1. 1.
    Kaarstad, O.: Norwegian Carbon Taxes and Their Implication for Fossil Fuels (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bryant, G.: Creating a level playing field? the concentration and centralisation of emissions in the european union emissions trading system. Energy Policy 99, 308–318 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brink, C., Vollebergh, H.R.J., Werf, E.V.D.: Carbon pricing in the eu: Evaluation of different eu ets reform options. Energy Policy 97, 603–617 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, X., Chen, J.: Supply chain carbon footprinting and responsibility allocation under emission regulations. J. Environ. Manag. 188, 255–267 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chevallier, R.: Climate change progress, the us withdrawal and what we can expect from cop23. J. Environ. Manag. (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chinn, L.N.: Can the market be fair and efficient? An environmental justice critique of emissions trading. Ecol. Law Q. 26(1), 80–125 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clò, S., Battles, S., Zoppoli, P.: Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the eu emissions trading system: A multi-criteria analysis. Energy Policy 57(6), 477–490 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coase, R.H.: The Problem of Social Cost (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Convery, F.J., Redmond, L.: Market and price developments in the European union emissions trading scheme. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 1(1), 88–111 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Criqui, P., Mima, S., Viguier, L.: Marginal abatement costs of \(co_2\) emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: An assessment using the poles model. Energy Policy 27(10), 585–601 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crossland, J., Li, B., Roca, E.: Is the European union emissions trading scheme (eu ets) informationally efficient? Evidence from momentum-based trading strategies. Appl. Energy 109(2), 10–23 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cruz, I.S., Katz-Gerro, T.: Urban public transport companies and strategies to promote sustainable consumption practices. J. Clean. Prod. 123, 28–33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fang, G., Tian, L., et al.: How to optimize the development of carbon trading in china-enlightenment from evolution rules of the eu carbon price. Appl. Energy 211, 1039–1049 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hepburn, C.: Climate change economics: Make carbon pricing a priority. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7(6), 389–390 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herold, D.M., Lee, K.H.: Carbon disclosure strategies in the global logistics industry: similarities and differences in carbon measurement and reporting (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jiang, Z., Shao, S.: Distributional effects of a carbon tax on chinese households: A case of shanghai. Energy Policy 73(10), 269–277 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolSichuan Agricultural UniversityDujiangyanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Business SchoolSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.School for Environment and SustainabilityUniversity of MichiganMichiganUSA

Personalised recommendations