DSpace Repository

Integrating government subsidies and payment mechanisms for green investment in retail supply chains

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Parvez, Mahbub
dc.contributor.author Khan, Md. Al-Amin
dc.contributor.author Paul, Anindita
dc.contributor.author Khan, Aminur Rahman
dc.contributor.author Konstantaras, Ioannis
dc.date.accessioned 2026-11-03T03:43:51Z
dc.date.available 2026-11-03T03:43:51Z
dc.date.issued 2026-07
dc.identifier.uri http://192.168.40.123:8080/handle/123456789/18342
dc.description Articles en_US
dc.description.abstract Government subsidies are critical for promoting green technology adoption in supply chains. Simultaneously, retail operations are influenced by complex financing structures such as prepayment discounts and delayed payments. This study develops an integrated framework that combines environmental policy measures-Investment-Based Subsidies (IBS), Performance-Based Subsidies (PBS), and an emission tax (ET)-with financial structuring mechanisms in retail supply chains. The model examines retailers’ optimal strategies for emission-control investment and inventory replenishment across three scenarios: (i) no green investment, (ii) green investment without subsidies, and (iii) green investment under IBS and PBS. Closed-form analytical solutions are derived for both full and partial prepayment settings, with convexity analysis confirming global optimality. To evaluate the financial efficiency of emission reduction, a new performance metric, Cost Saving per Unit Reduced Emission (CSURE), is introduced. Numerical experiments and sensitivity analyses demonstrate that with a fixed subsidy budget, PBS delivers greater cost savings, while IBS encourages larger emission reductions. Specifically, adopting green technology under IBS and PBS reduces total annual costs by up to 5.8% and 7.2%, respectively, and lowers emissions by approximately 18–20% in both prepayment contexts. These findings highlight the importance of aligning subsidy design with financing structures: IBS is more suitable for enforcing stricter emission controls in high-emission, developed industries, whereas PBS provides stronger incentives for cost-effective sustainability in emerging markets. This study advances the literature by integrating policy-driven subsidies with realistic payment mechanisms, offering both theoretical contributions and actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Scopus en_US
dc.subject Inventory en_US
dc.subject Prepayment en_US
dc.subject Delay payment en_US
dc.subject Emission taxation en_US
dc.title Integrating government subsidies and payment mechanisms for green investment in retail supply chains en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account

Statistics