Next Article in Journal
Designing Resilience of the Built Environment to Extreme Weather Events
Next Article in Special Issue
Does Partner Volatility Have Firm Value Relevance? An Empirical Analysis of Part Suppliers
Previous Article in Journal
Lake Area Analysis Using Exponential Smoothing Model and Long Time-Series Landsat Images in Wuhan, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
New City Logistics Paradigm: From the “Last Mile” to the “Last 50 Miles” Sustainable Distribution
Article Menu
Issue 1 (January) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sustainability 2018, 10(1), 151; doi:10.3390/su10010151

Owning or Outsourcing? Strategic Choice on Take-Back Operations for Third-Party Remanufacturing

1,†,* , 1,2,†
School of Management and Economics, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China
Center for West African Studies, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 1 December 2017 / Revised: 25 December 2017 / Accepted: 8 January 2018 / Published: 9 January 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue How does Outsourcing Affect the Economy and its Sustainability?)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1365 KB, uploaded 10 January 2018]   |  


Despite the remanufacturing process having demonstrated economic, social, and environmental benefits, many original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have not engaged in the remanufacturing process themselves, as they often outsource it to a third party. In practice, such outsourcing usually involves two different options/modes for OEMs with consideration of take-back operations: (1) owning the reverse channel and collecting cores directly (Model D) or (2) outsourcing these operations to a third-party remanufacturer (TPR) and collecting cores indirectly (Model I). However, this raises the important question of whether OEMs should also outsource their reverse channels to third-party remanufacturers when outsourcing remanufacturing. Furthermore, there needs to be an investigation of which method is more beneficial in terms of economic, social, and environmental outcomes. This paper uses modelling to investigate the costs and benefits of these options in terms of sustainability. We found that, compared to Model I, the OEM conducting take-back operations itself can achieve the overall better outcomes for all economic, social, and environmental situations. View Full-Text
Keywords: sustainability; remanufacturing; reverse channels; outsourcing; game theory sustainability; remanufacturing; reverse channels; outsourcing; game theory

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Yan, W.; Li, H.; Chai, J.; Qian, Z.; Chen, H. Owning or Outsourcing? Strategic Choice on Take-Back Operations for Third-Party Remanufacturing. Sustainability 2018, 10, 151.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top