Allocating Emissions Among Co-Products: Implications for Procurement and Climate Policy

Manufacturing and Service Operations Management - Tập 18 Số 3 - Trang 414-428 - 2016
Nur Sunar1, Erica L. Plambeck2
1Kenan-Flagler Business School, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599
2Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 94305

Tóm tắt

Co-production (simultaneous production of multiple outputs) occurs in some emission-intensive basic material and agricultural industries. This paper is motivated by ones in which a supplier sells its primary product to a buyer that incurs an emissions cost (voluntarily, or due to government-imposed climate policy) and sells co-products into markets without emissions costs. Emission-accounting standards provide three candidate rules for allocating the supplier’s emissions among its products. This paper shows that under the value-based allocation, imposing an emissions tax on the primary product can increase emissions, by motivating the supplier to lower the price and sell a larger quantity. In contrast, with the socially optimal choice of allocation rule characterized in this paper, imposing the emissions tax on the primary product can greatly reduce emissions and increase welfare. In the absence of climate policy, under value-based allocation, a buyer might achieve greater profit by paying to offset its supply chain emissions. That can motivate supplier innovation to reduce its production cost. In numerical examples, considering the rare earth cerium oxide (co-produced with iron) and palm oil (co-produced with palm meal), the choice of allocation rule has a large impact on emissions, a buyer’s profit, and social welfare.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol26-No4-6

10.1111/poms.12173

Benjaafar S, Chen X (2014) On the effectiveness of emission penalties in decentralized supply chains. Working paper, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

10.1524/9783486710304

10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.05.001

10.1287/mnsc.2014.2055

Boyabatli O, Nguyen JQ, Wang T (2015) Capacity management in agricultural commodity processing and application in the palm industry. Working paper, Singapore Management University, Singapore.

Buchanan R, 2011, Financial Times

10.1287/mnsc.2013.1819

10.1287/msom.2013.0443

10.1287/mnsc.2013.1738

Condon M, Ignaciuk A (2013) Border carbon adjustment and international trade: A literature review. Trade and Environment Working paper, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Columbia University, New York.

10.1065/lca2007.06.342

10.1073/pnas.0906974107

10.1287/opre.1110.0959

10.1287/mnsc.2014.1996

Drake DF (2015) Carbon tariffs: Effects in settings with technology choice and foreign production cost advantage. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston.

10.1111/jiec.12106

10.1016/j.jeem.2012.01.005

10.1086/684484

Granot D, Granot F, Sosic G (2014) Allocation of greenhouse gas emissions in supply chains. Working paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

10.1093/reep/res015

Herzog T (2009) World greenhouse gas emissions in 2005. Working paper, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

10.1007/s10696-012-9151-6

10.2307/41166305

10.1287/msom.1120.0420

10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041370

10.1111/j.1475-5890.1998.tb00274.x

Krass D, 2013, Production Oper. Management, 22, 1035, 10.1111/poms.12023

10.1287/msom.1110.0352

Lubetsky J, 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00221-3

Martens J, 2011, Bloomberg Business

Morales A, 2013, Bloomberg Business

10.1016/j.agsy.2015.02.007

10.1007/s11367-010-0220-3

10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.031

10.1287/msom.2013.0444

Plumer B, 2013, The Washington Post

10.1007/s11367-009-0142-0

Stanway D, 2011, Reuters

10.1287/mnsc.1070.0807

10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608

Weisbach DA, 2013, Theoret. Inquiries Law, 14, 207

Yong HY, 2011, China Daily