Search

This paper considers decisions of bidders with bounded rationality in different thinking levels for a first-price sealed-bid reverse auction. To characterize the nonequilibrium strategic thinking, we construct a mathematical model that incorporates the "level-k decision rule" to iteratively derive closed-form solutions. Then the effects of bidders' heterogeneous beliefs of thinking levels on their bid prices and expected payoffs are investigated. We find that under some assumptions, bidders will exhibit oscillating behavior in their bid prices and expected profits in terms of thinking levels. When the thinking level tends to infinity, the bid prices and expected profits converge to those in the conventional analysis with perfectly rational bidders. An interesting finding from theoretical analysis verified by numerical experiments is that any bidder with a thinking level above two should bid according to level-2 bidder's strategy to achieve the highest expected profit, and in this case the buyer will pay no more than level-2 bidder's bid price. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a supply chain solution integrator, fourth party logistics (4PL) has become an important focus for improving the operational efficiency of the logistics industry in recent days. This paper addresses the mechanism design problem of the 4PL for selecting a third party logistics (3PL) provider who involves loss-averse behavior to form a longer-term strategic partnership in multi-attribute reverse auctions. Due to fluctuating costs of energy or labor and unintentional delivery failures like traffic jam or technology malfunctions, we consider two incomplete attributes, namely cost uncertainty and delivery risk. Integrating the loss-averse behavior of 3PLs, based on the prospect theory, the bid decision model is constructed to obtain 3PLs’ bidding strategies. The corresponding efficient and optimal scoring auctions that consist of cost-sharing contract and contingent penalty are developed to maximize the ex ante expected profit of the system or the 4PL depending on whether the 4PL is willing to cooperate or not. Theoretical analysis verified by numerical examples illustrates the advantage of the proposed mechanisms. Impacts of model parameters on the 4PL’s decision are also investigated and managerial insights are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the growing level of public environmental consciousness, sustainability has become an important issue in the area of supply chain management. This paper focuses on a channel coordination problem in a two-echelon sustainable supply chain involving one socially responsible manufacturer and one fair-minded retailer. Constructing mathematical models to characterize the problem, four particular contracts are developed to investigate the environmental performance and channel profit under the framework of two non-cooperative contracts: wholesale price and two-part tariff, and two cooperative contracts: Nash bargaining and Rubinstein bargaining. Theoretical analysis verified by numerical experiments shows that the wholesale price contract performs worse than the other three in terms of the carbon emission per unit product and channel profit. In addition, the two-part tariff contract can partially coordinate the supply chain, whereas both bargaining contracts can achieve perfect coordination to provide outcomes of the centralized decision. Comparing with the fair-neutral scenarios, we find that the fairness behavior promotes the retailer's profit, but reduces the manufacturer's profit under different contracts. Sensitivity analysis reveals that with intensified fairness concerns, the sustainability level and channel profit diminish under non-cooperative contracts, but remain the same under cooperative contracts. The Nash bargaining and Rubinstein bargaining contracts are robust to the degree of the retailer's fairness behavior and could be the best choice for the socially responsible manufacturer. • A channel coordination issue in a two-echelon sustainable supply chain is studied. • Four contracts are developed to examine the impact of retailer's fairness behavior. • Fairness behavior worsens wholesale price contract compared to two-part tariff one. • Nash and Rubinstein bargaining contracts are robust to levels of fairness concerns. • Both bargaining contracts achieve perfect coordination in reducing carbon emission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]