Keywords
Upstream competition
Consumer environmental awareness
Social welfare
Submitted : 2026-03-17
Accepted : 2026-04-01
Published : 2026-04-16
Abstract
With consideration of consumer environmental awareness (CEA) and upstream competition, this paper discusses the joint pricing strategy of enterprises based on low-carbon subsidy and the impact of low-carbon subsidy on social welfare. Results indicate that the market demand for ordinary products is always lower than that for low-carbon products under low-carbon subsidy policy; thus policy-planners can use low-carbon subsidy to expand the market share of low-carbon products, and effectively improve the market competitiveness of low-carbon products. Low-carbon subsidy policy is beneficial to improving social welfare, especially when the competition between manufacturers is less intensive or consumers are more environmentally aware, in which case a suitable low-carbon subsidy policy can significantly improve social welfare.
References
Hirsch J, Thevenot B, 2013, Electric Vehicles in Short Supply, LA Times (June 5), http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/05/autos/la-fi-hy-autos-electric-cars-sold-out-20130605
Atkearney, 2011, Carbon Disclosure Project Supply Chain Report. Carbon Disclosure Project (January 26, 2026), http://www.chinadmd. com/file/ aaxeacaiie3ozxaopu3xieta_1.html
Caro F, Corbett C, Tan T, et al., 2013, Double Counting in Supply Chain Carbon Footprinting. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 15(4): 545–558.
Poterba J, 1991, Tax Policy to Combat Global Warming: On Designing a Carbon Tax. Global Warming: Economic Policy Responses, 71–98.
Fahimnia B, Sarkis J, Choudhary A, et al., 2015, Tactical Supply Chain Planning under a Carbon Tax Policy Scheme: A Case Study. International Journal of Production Economics, 2015(164): 206–215.
Murray B, Pizer W, Reichert C, 2017, Increasing Emissions Certainty under a Carbon Tax. Harvard Environmental Law Review Forum, 2017(41): 14–27.
Rocchi P, Serrano M, Roca J, et al., 2018, Border Carbon Adjustments based on Avoided Emissions: Addressing the Challenge of its Design. Ecological Economics, 2018(145): 126–136.
Park S, Cachon G, Lai G, et al., 2015, Supply Chain Design and Carbon Penalty: Monopoly vs. Monopolistic Competition. Production and Operations Management, 24(9): 1494–1508.
Yang H, Chen W, 2018, Retailer-Driven Carbon Emission Abatement with Consumer Environmental Awareness and Carbon Tax: Revenue-Sharing versus Cost-Sharing. Omega, 2018(78): 179–191.
Zhou W, Huang W, 2016, Contract Designs for Energy-Saving Product Development in a Monopoly. European Journal of Operational Research, 250(3): 902–913.
Zhang L, Zhang J, 2017, Optimal Subsidy and Tax Policies for Green Product with Consumer Environmental Awareness, Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10.