Author(s)

Gao Feng¹, Kaidi Chen^2,*, Wayne Scott³

Affiliation(s)

¹ State Grid Shanghai Municipal Electric Power Company, Shanghai, China;

² Information Technology Center, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China;

³ Southern University, USA.

Corresponding Author

Kaidi Chen

ABSTRACT

This paper studies the in?uence of retailers' multiple rationality on the optimal pricing strategy of agricultural product supply chain and corporate social responsibility investment and sharing decision. For the agricultural product supply chain composed of agricultural product suppliers and retailers, under the circumstances of multiple rationality of retailers, the optimal decision-making problems of agricultural product supply chain under the leadership of suppliers and retailers are discussed respectively. The research shows that: 1) In the context of retailers' economic rationality, agricultural product suppliers bear more social responsibility, which is conducive to improving the pro?ts of the whole agricultural product supply chain and all members. When retailers are dominant, retailers share more costs but are ?xed, and suppliers invest more in social responsibility. When suppliers play a leading role, retailers will increase the proportion of cost sharing, and the bene?ts of more suppliers bearing social responsibility will be more obvious. 2) In the context of the existence of retailers, the increase of agricultural product retailers' attention to consumer surplus will lead to an increase in the optimal cost sharing ratio of agricultural product retailers and encourage suppliers to take more social responsibility. It is always bene?cial to suppliers. Retailers will improve consumer satisfaction by giving way to pro?ts. 3) In the context of retailers' social rationality, although retailers have increased the proportion of cost sharing, they cannot encourage suppliers to take more social responsibility. The fairness concerns of agricultural product retailers are always unfavorable to suppliers, which is beneficial to agricultural product retailers when they are dominated by suppliers, bene?cial to their own utility when they are dominated by retailers, and unfavorable to economic interests.

KEYWORDS

Multiple rationality; Corporate social responsibility; Agricultural product supply chain; Cost sharing.

CITE THIS PAPER

Gao Feng, Kaidi Chen, Wayne Scott. Social responsibility decision-making of agricultural product supply chain under retailers multiple rationality. Trends in Social Sciences and Humanities Research. 2023, 1(1): 14-24.

REFERENCES

[1] Liu Lingxi, Liu Shan, Zhang Kun. Analysis of research hotspots and evolution of China's rural e-commerce analysis — Based on 2011-2020 CNKI Research on Data Visualization. Journal of Central South University of Forestry and Technology (Social Science Edition), 2021,15(3):67-73.

[2] Han Zhen, Kuang Haibo, Wu Chengyuan. Product Moral Attributes Based on Consumer Perception Research on Sexual Expression—Taking Agricultural Products Online Shopping as an Example. Management Review,2 018,30(4): 8 3-93.

[3] Wang Houting. Key areas and realization paths for the coordinated revitalization of mountainous rural industries and ecology. Journal of Central South University of Forestry and Technology (Social Science Edition), 2021, 15(6): 83-91.

[4] Hsueh CF, Chang MS. Equilibrium analysis and corporate social responsibility for supply the chain integration. Research, 2007,190(1):116-129.

[5] Li Xinran, Li Gang. Two-stage closed-loop supply chain considering corporate social responsibility research on Coordination Mechanism. Chinese Management Science, 2020, 28(12): 77-86.

[6] Yao Fengmin, Wang Yue, Liu Shan. Different CS R Closed-loop supply chain under sharing mode Sales Effort and Pricing Decision. Journal of Management Engineering, 2021, 35(1): 210-219.

[7] Duan Huawei, Yan Yusong, Zhang Yadong. Logistics Service Supply Considering Corporate Social Responsibility Chain Pricing and Coordination. Control and Decision, 2016, 31(12): 2287-2292.

[8] Xiao TJ, Xu TT. Coordinating price and service level decisions for a supply the chain with deteriorating item under vendor managed inventory. International Journal of Production Economics, 2013, 145 (2): 743-752.

[9] Ye Jun, Gu Bojun, Fu Yufang. Supply of Fresh Agricultural Products under Different Trade Modes Chain cold chain logistics service and pricing decision. Chinese Management Science, 2021, 10. https://doi.org/10.16381/j.cnki.issn 1003- 207 x .2020 .0751.

[10] Liu Libo, Zhang Lianchun, Liu Yang. Under the hypothesis of multiple rationality, closed supply of agricultural products, Analysis of Quality and Safety Control Willingness of Core Enterprises in Supply Chain. Commercial Economics Research, 2021(2):103-107.

[11] Zhou Yanju, Hu Fengying, Zhou Zhenglong. Retailers leading low-carbon supply based on fairness concerns research on optimal decision-making of supply chain. Science and Technology Management Research, 2018, 38(13): 207-214.

[12] Liu Z L, Anderson T D, Cruz J M. Consumer Environment awareness and competition in two-stage supply chains. European Journal of Operational Research, 2012, 218(3):602-613.

[13]Wang YY, Li J. Research on pricing, service and logistics decision-making of E-supply the chain with ' Free  Shipping ' strategy. Journal of Control and Decision, 2018, 5(4): 319-337.

[14]Sang Shengju, Zhang Qiang. Green supply chain optimization decision considering corporate social responsibility.Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Science Edition), 2020, 22(2): 107-116.

[15] Panda S. Coordination of a socially responsible supply the chain using revenue sharing contract. E : Logistics and Transportation Review, 2014,67:92-104.

[16] Du Shaofu, Du Chan, Liang Liang. Supply chain contracts and agreements considering fairness concerns tune. Journal of Management Science, 2010,13(11):41-48.

[17] Luo Fen, Cheng Li. Research on the Influence of "Agricultural Products and Live Streaming" on Farmers' Production Enthusiasm Research — Taking Mayang Bingtang Orange Industry as an Example. Journal of Central South University of Forestry and Technology (Social Science Edition), 2022, 16(3): 63.