A Multi-Objective Optimization Model for Green Supply Chain Considering Environmental Benefits
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The proposal of the paper is interesting from the perspective of sustainability and sustainable development; therefore, it fits the scope of the Journal. Nonetheless, the manuscript requires extra efforts to improve its quality and presentation for the prestigious journal Sustainability. After a careful revision, a set of comments are expounded hereafter.
- The manuscript is, in general, well written and organized. However, there are some mistakes regarding the format of the document, as commented below.
“And” must be inserted between the last two authors.
In line 42, the number 2 of “CO2” should be subscript, whereas in line 46, the zero of “C02” should be replaced by “O”.
In line 118, “we also analyze…” should begin capitalized.
In figure captions, the word Figure must be completely written. A similar comment is done for tables and the associated titles.
This reviewer suggests not using the personal form “we”, which is profusely found in the manuscript. This form is correct but not appropriate for a scientific paper.
The references must be properly formatted according to the template.
- About the content of the manuscript, as aforementioned, it covers an interesting topic. The comments after a careful revision are the following:
A good practice in scientific papers consists on describing in a brief manner, at the end of the Introduction, the structure of the rest of the paper. This information contributes to the readability of the paper.
The background of the research is well presented with a number of previous papers in the field. Nonetheless, there is some recent research that could be interesting to consider, namely, the following one which also uses the vertical integration game model:
Closed-Loop Supply Chain Models with Product Recovery and Donation. Yue Wang, Zhe Wang, Bangyi Li, Zhi Liu, Xiaodong Zhu, Qixiang Wang. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 227, 2019, 861-876. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.236.In the sixth section, in line 328, the number of table should be 2 instead of 1.
In section 7, there is no mention to the software environment used to perform the numerical analysis. this information is useful for the interested reader.
As a conclusion of the revision, if all the described suggestions are addressed, the manuscript will reach a better presentation and scientific level, according to the prestigious journal Sustainability.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: “And” must be inserted between the last two authors.
Response 1: We are very sorry for our negligence of this problem, we have added “and” to the article author.
Point 2: In line 42, the number 2 of “CO2” should be subscript, whereas in line 46, the zero of “C02” should be replaced by “O”.
Response 2: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing, we have corrected it in line 56.
Point 3: In line 118, “we also analyze…” should begin capitalized.
Response 3: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing, we have corrected it in line 180.
Point 4: In figure captions, the word Figure must be completely written. A similar comment is done for tables and the associated titles.
Response 4: We are very sorry for our negligence of the associated titles, we have revived “Figure 2-8” and “Table1-2”.
Point 5: This reviewer suggests not using the personal form “we”, which is profusely found in the manuscript. This form is correct but not appropriate for a scientific paper.
Response 5: It is really true as Reviewer suggested that not using the personal form “we” is more appropriate for a scientific paper, and we change relevant terms to “the research”, “the paper” and “the article”, such as line 182, 194, 223 and so on.
Point 6: The references must be properly formatted according to the template.
Response 6: The references have formatted according to the template.
Point 7: A good practice in scientific papers consists on describing in a brief manner, at the end of the Introduction, the structure of the rest of the paper. This information contributes to the readability of the paper.
Response 7: Thanks to you for your good comments, we have added a brief manner illustrating the structure of the rest of the paper at the end of the introduction. Please read the line 90-99 in track changes for details.
“The remainder of the article is organized as follows. The following section introduces the literature and emphasizes the contributions of the study. The third section describes the hypotheses and prerequisites of the multi-objective optimization model for the green supply chain, considering environmental benefits. Subsequently, Sections 4–6 illustrate the optimal decision under the model of centralized decisions, decentralized decisions, and revenue-sharing contracts. Then, the paper compares and analyzes the above three models in Section 7 and offers simulations using numerical examples via the Maple2019 software in Section 8. Finally, the paper provides a discussion of the results and concludes with an outlook on the implications for future research in this field (Section 9).”
Point 8: The background of the research is well presented with a number of previous papers in the field.: Closed-Loop Supply Chain Models with Product Recovery and Donation. Yue Wang, Zhe Wang, Bangyi Li, Zhi Liu, Xiaodong Zhu, Qixiang Wang. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 227, 2019, 861-876. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.236.
Response 8: Thanks for your good advice, we have considered this paper’s opinion into our research in line 148-151, and added it to the references.
“Wang et al. [39] analyzed the effect of product recovery and donations on a closed-loop supply chain’s operation management and presented a two-part tariff contract with bargaining and a retailer-led revenue sharing contract to coordinate.”
Point 9: In the sixth section, in line 328, the number of table should be 2 instead of 1.
Response 9: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing, and we have amended to “table 2” in line 406.
Point 10: In section 7, there is no mention to the software environment used to perform the numerical analysis. this information is useful for the interested reader.
Response 10: It is really true as Reviewer suggested that the software information is useful for the interested reader, and we add the description of our software, which is Maple2019 in line 455.
“In this section, these conclusions are simulated by numerical examples using the Maple2019 software and analyzed further.”
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
first of all, thank you for the submission. Your manuscript presents interesting insights into possibilities for increasing green supply chain management and collaboration. By demonstrating win-win scenarios and the profit / greening sharing logic behind each scenario, the reader is able to contemplate new cooperation in supply chains for better environmental performance.
However, in its current form, particularly linguistically, the manuscript makes it hard for the reader to focus on the potential of your findings. I would suggest a major review of the paper before it can be properly considered for publication. The findings have interesting potential, but this potential is not realized as currently presented in the submitted manuscript.
The paper could be sufficiently original, but the originality must be grounded in a much more thorough review of green supply chain (and perhaps sustainable supply chain) literature, and then the connection to multi-objective modelling can be made.
The English level of the paper is poor. As a native speaker, I struggled to make sense of many sentences. Particularly in the abstract, 1. introduction and 8. conclusion sections, you must ensure that a native speaker supports the finalization of the manuscript. The abstract and introduction are of significant importance, in terms of generating the readers interest, and the English in both sections detracted from this.
E.g.: 24-25 Not comprehensible; 38-40 also not comprehensible. There are further examples in passages on every page of the manuscript. Line 58: you state that “green supply chain is not only a real problem”. I do not think you mean that greening supply chains is a problem.
Many value statements are made, that would profit from more academic rigor and supporting citations. The first source is provided in line 61. However, I would require sources for strong statements made in 35 “universal concern”, to explain the term “enterprises’ environmental cognition (line 36). Lines 41 – 47: Both the Sony and the BYD examples necessitate sources / citations. Line 69, statement about maturity of Green Supply Chain literature requires a source. Also lines 70 – 71 “scholars expand” necessitates a citation (which scholars?).
In general the introduction mixes elements of a literature review and an introduction, but does not clearly and convincingly identify why your research is necessary nor does it distinguish a gap in green supply chain management research and why multiple objective modelling should be applied.
I also note that the field of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is left out completely, and no explanation/clarification is given to only focusing on the environmental aspects of sustainability, rather than the triple bottom line (compare Elking) encompassing social, environmental and economic sustainability.
I suggest more of a thorough review of the field of SSCM and Green Supply Chain, identifying calls for more modelling, hypothesis testing, and positioning your paper viz-a-viz these developments. Suggestions for further consideration:
Ahi, Payman; Searcy, Cory (2013): A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. In Journal of Cleaner Production 52 (Supplement C), pp. 329–341. DOI: 10.1016/j .jclepro.2013.02.018
Beske-Janssen, Philip; Johnson, Matthew Phillip; Schaltegger, Stefan (2015): 20 years of performance measurement in sustainable supply chain management – what has been achieved? In Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20 (6), pp. 664–680. DOI: 10.1108/SCM-06-2015-0216.
Ferri, Laura Maria; Pedrini, Matteo (2018): Socially and environmentally responsible purchasing: Comparing the impacts on buying firm's financial performance, competitiveness and risk. In Journal of Cleaner Production 174 (Supplement C), pp. 880–888. DOI: 10.1016/j .jclepro.2017.11.035.
Oliveira, Ualison Rébula de; Espindola, Luciano Souza; da Silva, Isabele Rocha; da Silva, Iaslin Nostório; Rocha, Henrique Martins (2018): A systematic literature review on green supply chain management: Research implications and future perspectives. In Journal of Cleaner Production 187, pp. 537–561. DOI: 10.1016/j .jclepro.2018.03.083.
Sancha, Cristina; Gimenez, Cristina; Sierra, Vicenta (2016): Achieving a socially responsible supply chain through assessment and collaboration. In Embedding Sustainability Dynamics in Supply Chain Relationship Management and Governance Structures 112 (Part 3), pp. 1934–1947. DOI: 10.1016/j .jclepro.2015.04.137.
Seuring, Stefan; Müller, Martin (2008): From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. In Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15), pp. 1699–1710. DOI: 10.1016/j .jclepro.2008.04.020.
Some further general observations:
Authors have criticised a dyadic view of the supply chain ((Choi and Wu 2009; Mena et al. 2013)). You focus on a very specific set of assumptions about the supply chain. This should be better explained. The definitions of centralised and decentralised decision making in a supply chain context are not adequately described and defined. Please check English in 189 – 191. I was missing a brief description of the Stackelberg game. A hypothetical or ideal description of the type of supply chain (manufacturer and retailer) you are modelling would be useful. Should make clear that there are varying degrees of power relations between suppliers, sub-suppliers, final focal companies and retailers. Also, B2C and B2B relationships might entail differences for your modelling hypotheses. Do not use the phrase “easy to know that”. This expression recurs and is not academic. “Greening level of product” is awkward English. It and similar problematic compound nouns are used frequently in the article. I suggest noting the correct language for such concepts and compound nouns when returning to the green supply chain literature (such as that recommended above).
Finally what is did become apparent from reading the manuscript is what the underlying methodological logic was. It seems that this is deductive research, but there is no explicit mention of your methodology and how/why you chose to develop models, deductively derived from theory.
Best regards and good luck further refining the paper
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: First of all, thank you for the submission. Your manuscript presents interesting insights into possibilities for increasing green supply chain management and collaboration. By demonstrating win-win scenarios and the profit / greening sharing logic behind each scenario, the reader is able to contemplate new cooperation in supply chains for better environmental performance. However, in its current form, particularly linguistically, the manuscript makes it hard for the reader to focus on the potential of your findings. I would suggest a major review of the paper before it can be properly considered for publication.
Response 1: Thanks for your advice. To improve the quality of communication, we asked for the professional language review of some native English speakers and MDPI English editing. We have carefully polished and proofread the whole article once again. Some of the changes are marked in blue. We wish that modification will improve the quality of the article.
Point 2: The paper could be sufficiently original, but the originality must be grounded in a much more thorough review of green supply chain (and perhaps sustainable supply chain) literature, and then the connection to multi-objective modelling can be made.
Response 2: We have revived the literature review and added the line 101-117 to illustrate the research summary of green supply chain. Oliveira et al. [2] related to research surroundings and content focus in decade, put the research problem context of GSCM into three broad categories: importance of GSCM, green operations, and others. Actually, our article’s main direction is to research the operational performance by game model in green operation of GSCM. Therefore, the literature review is more inclined to green supply chain game optimization, multi-objective optimization and green supply chain contract coordination in green operation area of GSCM. The relevant content has showed in new literature review.
“The green supply chain is not only an important topic in everyday society but also receives significant attention in academia. Srivastav [18] defined the GSCM as Integrating environmental thinking into supply-chain management, including product design, material sourcing and selection, manufacturing processes, delivery of the final product to the consumers, as well as the end-of life management of the product after its useful life, which is the most widely used. Oliveira et al. [2] studied the research surroundings and content focus over the last decade, contextualizing the research problem of GSCM into three broad categories: the importance of the GSCM, green operations, and others; 45% of the total articles addressed green operations (at the top of the list). Enterprises are more willing to adopt GSCM practices because of increasing environmental pressures [19]. The most widely cited GSCM operation in the literature refers to operation performance [20-21], operational processes [22-23], the reduction of waste and environmental impact [24-25], and the development of Selection or Suppliers [26-27]. At present, a number of studies are investigating the influence of environmental concerns in supply chain management, such as those by Philip [28] and Sancha [29]. However, current green supply chain research has mainly focused on case studies, questionnaires, and other types of qualitative research but has been less involved in quantitative research [30].”
Point 3: The English level of the paper is poor. As a native speaker, I struggled to make sense of many sentences. Particularly in the abstract, 1. introduction and 8. conclusion sections, you must ensure that a native speaker supports the finalization of the manuscript.
Response 3: We are very sorry for our bad English writing. To improve the quality of communication, we asked for the professional language review of some native English speakers and MDPI English editing. We have polished and proofread the whole article once again, especially in the abstract, introduction, literature review and conclusion.
Point 4: E.g.:24-25 Not comprehensible; 38-40 also not comprehensible. There are further examples in passages on every page of the manuscript. Line 58: you state that “green supply chain is not only a real problem”. I do not think you mean that greening supply chains is a problem.
Response 4: The errors are carefully revived in modified version, such as follow.
(1) “In particular, a revenue-sharing contract can facilitate the coordination of multiple objectives; in this way, both the manufacturer and the retailer achieve higher profits and environmental benefits compared to a decentralized control condition, which is of great significance in achieving a win–win situation for the economy and the environment.” in line 27-31.
(2) “On the other hand, customer related concerns and the market's fierce competition has helped environmental objectives become an important driving factor of enterprises’ development” in line 43-45.
(3) “The green supply chain is not only an important topic in everyday society but also receives significant attention in academia.” in line 101-102.
Point 5: Many value statements are made, that would profit from more academic rigor and supporting citations. The first source is provided in line 61. However, I would require sources for strong statements made in 35 “universal concern”, to explain the term “enterprises’ environmental cognition (line 36). Lines 41 – 47: Both the Sony and the BYD examples necessitate sources / citations. Line 69, statement about maturity of Green Supply Chain literature requires a source. Also lines 70 – 71 “scholars expand” necessitates a citation (which scholars?).
Response 5: We are very sorry for our negligence of supporting citations. We have added the necessary citations in the article. Such as citation 1 and 2 in line 39-40 is about a hot issue of universal concern, citation 3 and 4 in line 43 is about source of environmental concerns. Both the Sony and the BYD examples have added the sources of website. The scholar “Tian and Zhu; Guan et al.; Shi et al.” is added in line 128.
Point 6: In general the introduction mixes elements of a literature review and an introduction, but does not clearly and convincingly identify why your research is necessary nor does it distinguish a gap in green supply chain management research and why multiple objective modelling should be applied.
Response 6: In order to distinguish the introduction and literature review, we have separated the introduction and literature review to different section. We also added the contents why we use multiple objective model in line 76-89. Because of the interaction and contradiction between economic and environmental objectives, the decision-making process is quite complex, which makes it difficult for decision-makers to make decisions easily, multiple objective modelling is a good choice to solve relevant problem, such as follow.
“Recently, the multi-objective optimization of the supply chain has been considered by different researchers in the literature [13]. Because of the interaction and contradiction between economic and environmental objectives, the decision-making process is quite complex, which makes it difficult for decision-makers to make decisions easily [14]. Multi-objective optimization is also used to research the problem of GSCM operation, such as green supply chain network design [15], green supplier evaluation [16], sustainable distribution system [17], and so on. Therefore, this paper establishes a multi-objective optimization model and analyzes the game behavior and coordination contract between upstream manufacturers and downstream retailers to research whether this behavior can facilitate a win–win scenario for the profit and the ecological environment after pursuing the double objectives of economy and environment benefits. This will be of great practical significance in promoting the green transformation of traditional enterprises and achieving mutually beneficial cooperation between members in the green supply chain.”
Point 7: I also note that the field of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is left out completely, and no explanation/clarification is given to only focusing on the environmental aspects of sustainability, rather than the triple bottom line (compare Elking) encompassing social, environmental and economic sustainability.
Response 7: Thanks for Reviewer’s comment. Actually, we focus on a very specific set of assumptions about the supply chain. The SSCM and GSCM is a problem that including lots of field, such as operational performance, operation process, environmental impact and residue reduction and son on. It also includes lots of research method, such as questionnaire, case study, AHP, game theory and so on [1]. Due to the differences in specific areas of research, we cannot cover all the contents of GSCM. Our article’s main direction is to research the operational performance by game model in green operation of GSCM. Therefore, the literature review is more inclined to green supply chain game optimization, multi-objective optimization and green supply chain contract coordination in green operation area of GSCM. This study is based on related papers (Ghosh and shah, 2015 [2]; Jiang and Li. 2015 [3]; Yu and Han, 2017 [4]; Song and Gao, 2017 [5]), which focus on the game decision making of supply chain level in GSCM. Therefore, the field of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is left out. Instead, we consider the members’ operation decision in green supply chain, it’s also a research direction of GSCM.
Point 8: I suggest more of a thorough review of the field of SSCM and Green Supply Chain, identifying calls for more modelling, hypothesis testing, and positioning your paper viz-a-viz these developments. Suggestions for further consideration: Ahi, Payman; Searcy, Cory (2013): A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. In Journal of Cleaner Production 52 (Supplement C), pp. 329–341. DOI: 10.1016/j .jclepro.2013.02.018
Response 8: Thanks for your advice. These papers are very useful to perfect the article. Therefore, we supplement some viewpoints and contents of these articles to the introduction and literature review of the article, such as Ahi’s statement in line 39, Oliveira's viewpoint in line 106. We also have added them to the references which is highlight. However, we cannot easily cover all the contents of GSCM and SSCM due to the specific areas of research, just like the response of the 7th comment. In this paper, we only study the members’ optimal decision of green supply chain who consider both environmental and profit objectives due to the existent research of green supply chain’s game decision. Indeed, considering much more factors of GSCM can also be used as a direction for future research.
Point 9: Authors have criticised a dyadic view of the supply chain ((Choi and Wu 2009; Mena et al. 2013)). You focus on a very specific set of assumptions about the supply chain. This should be better explained. The definitions of centralised and decentralised decision making in a supply chain context are not adequately described and defined. Please check English in 189 – 191. I was missing a brief description of the Stackelberg game. A hypothetical or ideal description of the type of supply chain (manufacturer and retailer) you are modelling would be useful. Should make clear that there are varying degrees of power relations between suppliers, sub-suppliers, final focal companies and retailers. Also, B2C and B2B relationships might entail differences for your modelling hypotheses. Do not use the phrase “easy to know that”. This expression recurs and is not academic. “Greening level of product” is awkward English. It and similar problematic compound nouns are used frequently in the article. I suggest noting the correct language for such concepts and compound nouns when returning to the green supply chain literature (such as that recommended above).
Response 9: Thanks for Your’s advice.
(1) The explanation of the set of assumptions about the supply chain have been rearranged, we added the relevant reference, such as (Song and Gao) and (Jiang and Li) and modified the logical relationship of assumptions by (1)-(5). Actually, there are also some reference resources for the establishment of relevant models in the literature review. For example “Ghosh and Shah [21] set up a game model of green supply chain consisting of manufacturers and retailers only consider profit maximization, which the market demand determined by price and greenness. They also studied the optimal product decision under three kinds of power structure: the manufacturer-led Stackelberg game, the retailer-led Stackelberg game and the Nash game.”
(2) The definitions of centralised and decentralised decision making in a supply chain context have redescribed and redefined in line 260-265 and 294-298.
“The core idea of a centralized control model is that manufacturers and retailers make collective decisions to maximize the overall profitability of the supply chain. This game model treats the supply chain as a whole and is a vertical integration game model [54]. Here, manufacturers and retailers no longer make individual decisions based on their own interests but instead make collective decisions to maximize the overall profitability of the supply chain [55].”
“In this section, we introduce the decentralized decision game model, in which manufacturers consider both profit and environmental benefits and retailers still only consider profit. The core idea of a decentralized decision game is opposite to that of a centralized decision game. Manufacturers and retailers make their own decisions based on their own profits to maximize their own benefits, and the decision-making results are mutually influential.”
(3) For the hypothetical problems, we revived the Model hypotheses, and add introduction of the Stackelberg game in line 196-202. We also show the power relations between suppliers and manufacturer, that is manufacturer-led Stackelberg game.
“According to game theory, this paper establishes a decentralized decision game model (a manufacturer-led Stackelberg game model) in which the manufacturer first determines the product’s greening level and the wholesale price, and then the retailer reacts to determine the product’s retail price. We assume that the Manufacturer, as a downstream member of the supply chain, will be the leader of the decision-making. All members (the manufacturer and the retailer) are rational and pursue benefit maximization.”
(4) We delete the word of “easy to know that”, and use the “Greening level” represents the environmental protection of the products refer to (Song and Gao, 20185).
Point 10: Finally what is did become apparent from reading the manuscript is what the underlying methodological logic was. It seems that this is deductive research, but there is no explicit mention of your methodology and how/why you chose to develop models, deductively derived from theory.
Response 10: Thanks for your advice, we mainly adopt mathematical model analysis method of game theory and multi-objective optimization in this research. The game model of green supply chain is general research in green operation, such as (Song and Gao, 2018 [5]). The multi-objective optimization method is also universal used to solve GSCM problem, such as (Wang et al. 2011 [6]). Because the manufacturer and retailer generally focus the maximization of their own interests, which have different degrees of objectives concern, eventually lead to loss of the enterprise benefits, it is very necessary to study operation and cooperation game strategies among them, especially the situation considering environmental and economic multi-objective. Therefore, we have added some discussion relating to game behavior and multi-objective in Introduction and Literature review, such as line 67-70, 75-80, 172-176.
“Whether the upstream and downstream members’ game behaviors in the supply chain (while considering environmental benefits) simultaneously stabilize economic benefits has become an important problem in the process of green development.”
“Therefore, it is very necessary to study game operation and cooperation strategies with the consideration of environmental benefits at the level of the supply chain. Recently, the multi-objective optimization of the supply chain has been considered by different researchers in the literature [13]. Because of the interaction and contradiction between economic and environmental objectives, the decision-making process is quite complex, which makes it difficult for decision-makers to make decisions easily [14].”
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. It’s really useful for us.
References in Response
[1] DE OLIVEIRA, Ualison Rebula, et al. A systematic literature review on green supply chain management: Research implications and future perspectives. Journal of cleaner production, 2018, 187: 537-561.
[2] GHOSH, Debabrata; SHAH, Janat. Supply chain analysis under green sensitive consumer demand and cost sharing contract. International Journal of Production Economics, 2015, 164: 319-329.
[3] JIANG S.Y.; Li S.C. Green supply chain game models and revenue sharing contract with product green degree [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2015, 23, 169-176.
[4] YU, Wei; HAN, Ruizhu. Coordinating a two-echelon supply chain under carbon tax. Sustainability, 2017, 9.12: 2360.
[5] SONG H.; GAO X. Green supply chain game model and analysis under revenue-sharing contract[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 170, 183-192.
[6] WANG F.; LAI X.; SHI N. A multi-objective optimization for green supply chain network design[J]. Decision Support Systems, 2011, 51, 262-269.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for sending me the paper “A multi-objective optimization model for green supply chain considering environmental benefits.” The authors have addressed a common topic of green supply chain. The authors have established a green supply chain game model with profit and environment objectives simultaneously considered by manufacturer, then analyse the multi-objective decision of supply chain members under centralized control, manufacturer-led Stackelberg game and revenue-sharing contract. I have read the paper and commented as follows.
First of all, the abstract does not provide clear research objectives. The authors should clarify the objectives in the abstract section.
Line 53, 54. It is unclear why the paper analyse the game behaviour as previous lines did not discuss anything relating to trade-off or game behaviour.
Section 1 is too much information but still lacks of explanation. There are many key points that the authors want to convey in section 1. I would suggest the authors to separate introduction and literature review sections to express ideas clearly.
Consequently, it is hard to justify followed sections as the authors did not clarify what have been done in the literature, the research objectives, and research contributions.
The manuscript should be proofread carefully. For example, within the first paragraphs, “on the other hand” was used twice.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: First of all, the abstract does not provide clear research objectives. The authors should clarify the objectives in the abstract section.
Response 1: We have re-written the abstract according to the Reviewer’s suggestion In line 13-18.
“Whether the upstream and downstream members in a supply chain (considering environmental objectives) simultaneously stabilize economic benefits has become an important problem in the process of green development. However, few quantitative studies on green supply chains have considered environmental and economic benefits to realize multi-objective optimization. To study operation and cooperation strategies with a consideration of the different objective on the level of supply chainh … ”
Point 2: Line 53, 54. It is unclear why the paper analyse the game behaviour as previous lines did not discuss anything relating to trade-off or game behaviour.
Response 2: It is really true that the article is unclear why we analyze the game behavior. Actually, the core problem we concern is that the upstream manufacturer and downstream retailer’s decision and cooperation in green supply chain under the situation of each member consider different objectives. Because the manufacturer and retailer generally focus the maximization of their own interests, which have different degrees of objectives concern, eventually lead to loss of the enterprise benefits, it is very necessary to study operation and cooperation game strategies among them. Therefore, we have added some discussion relating to trade-off or game behavior in Introduction and Literature review, such as line 62-70, 75-76.
“However, the upstream manufacturers and downstream retailers in the supply chain generally focus on maximizing their own interests [10], which have different degrees of objectives, eventually leading to the loss of the enterprise’s benefits. In 2018, BYD sold 247,811 new energy vehicles, a rise of over 90 percent from 2017, but its net profits attributable to its shareholders totaled 2.78 billion yuan, a drop of 31.63 percent year-to-year . Whether the upstream and downstream members’ game behaviors in the supply chain (while considering environmental benefits) simultaneously stabilize economic benefits has become an important problem in the process of green development.”
Point 3: Section 1 is too much information but still lacks of explanation. There are many key points that the authors want to convey in section 1. I would suggest the authors to separate introduction and literature review sections to express ideas clearly.
Response 3: Thanks for your advice. It is truly that Section 1 is too much information. Therefore, we have separated introduction and literature review to different section.
Point 4: Consequently, it is hard to justify followed sections as the authors did not clarify what have been done in the literature, the research objectives, and research contributions.
Response 4: We are very sorry for our inadequate introduction. We have reorganized the related content. The contributions of literature show in line 176-187, the research objectives show in line 67-73, the research contributions in society is clearly shows in line 87-89.
The research work includes “this paper establishes two supply chain game models with a centralized control game model and a manufacturer-led Stackelberg game model based on the theory of multi-objective optimization, in which the manufacturer considers both profit and an environmental benefits objective. We also analyzed the impact of a manufacturer's environmental preference for a supply chain’s optimal pricing, a product’s greening level, and overall performance. On this basis, this research further establishes a revenue-sharing contract coordination model to coordinate the behavior of manufacturers and retailers. Then, we compare the results of the above three models to determine how a revenue-sharing contract affects the decision variables of the green supply chain members. Finally, we hope to provide a decision-making reference for related enterprises to implement green supply chain management.”
The research objectives include “Whether the upstream and downstream members’ game behaviors in the supply chain (while considering environmental benefits) simultaneously stabilize economic benefits has become an important problem in the process of green development. Only cooperation in a supply chain enables its participators to create and capture mutual benefits, including profit or environmental protection enhancements, cost reductions, and operational flexibility to cope with high green products demand uncertainties [11]. To study operation and cooperation strategies with the consideration of different objective on the level of supply chain”
The research contributions of literature include “The above research on the multi-objective optimization of economic and environmental benefits focuses on the design of a supply chain network, as few studies use the method of multi-objective optimization and game theory, taking profit and environmental benefits as two objectives to make decisions on product pricing and product greening level. By taking all the above factors into consideration, this paper establishes two supply chain game models with a centralized control game model and a manufacturer-led Stackelberg game model based on the theory of multi-objective optimization, in which the manufacturer considers both profit and an environmental benefits objective.”
The research contributions in society include “This will be of great practical significance in promoting the green transformation of traditional enterprises and achieving mutually beneficial cooperation between members in the green supply chain.”
Point 5: The manuscript should be proofread carefully. For example, within the first paragraphs, “on the other hand” was used twice.
Response 5: We are very sorry for our negligence of mistakes. We have revived the problem in line 43 and proofread the article carefully.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I recognise that significant effort was made to address the feedback and critical comments and, in my opinion, you have significantly improved the quality of the article. Thank you for you effort to address the issues raised and make these clear in your responses to the many comments in my review.
There are still a small handful of typos / that I would suggest correcting before final submission:
49: Companies à companies
55-56: Sentence syntax is not quite right. May I suggest:
Sony reduced its total amount of CO2 emissions by approximately 238,000 tons in 2018 by using renewable energy.
59: CO2 à CO2
60: after “tons” insert “of”
75: suggest: “the high demand uncertainty (or uncertainties) of green products”
98: model à models of
103: Delete “(Section 9)”
106: after “defined” delete “the”; Integrating à integrating
107: after “including” insert a colon “:”
117: “development of Selection or Suppliers” à development or selection of suppliers
119: Philip à change to “Beske-Jannsen et al.”; after “Sancha” insert “et al.”
125: “only to consider” à “that only considered”
150: Contract à contract
152: Sharing Contract à sharing contract
203: Manufacturer à manufacturer
319: Retailer à retailer
458: Maple2019 à should there perhaps be a gap between Maple and 2019?
I have seen significant improve in the writing, comprehensibility and structure of the article, as well as the academic logic that had been missing in the first draft. Thank you for improving this and the opportunity to review your research.
All the best.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: There are still a small handful of typos / that I would suggest correcting before final submission: 49: Companies à companies
Response 1: We are very sorry for our negligence of this problem, we have changed “Companies” to “companies” in line 49.
Point 2: 55-56: Sentence syntax is not quite right. May I suggest: Sony reduced its total amount of CO2 emissions by approximately 238,000 tons in 2018 by using renewable energy.
Response 2: Thank you for your advice, we have corrected it in line 55-56.
“Sony reduced its total amount of CO2 emissions by approximately 238,000 tons in 2018 by using renewable energy.”
Point 3: 59: CO2 à CO2
Response 3: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing, we have changed “CO2” to “CO2” in line 56 and 59
Point 4: 60: after “tons” insert “of”
Response 4: We have inserted “of” after “tons” in line 59.
Point 5: 75: suggest: “the high demand uncertainty (or uncertainties) of green products”
Response 5: Thanks for your suggestion, we have revise it in line 75.
“…and operational flexibility to cope with the high demand uncertainty of green products.”
Point 6: 98: model à models of
Response 6: We have changed “model” to “models of” in line 98.
Point 7: 103: Delete “(Section 9)”
Response 7: We have deleted “(Section 9)” and changed the sentence in line 101-102.
“Finally, the paper provides a discussion of the results and concludes with an outlook on the implications for future research in Section 9.”
Point 8: 106: after “defined” delete “the”; Integrating à integrating
Response 8: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing, we have amended them in line 105-106.
“Srivastav [18] defined GSCM as integrating environmental thinking into supply-chain management”
Point 9: 107: after “including” insert a colon “:”
Response 9: We have inserted “:” after “including” in line 106.
Point 10: 117: “development of Selection or Suppliers” à development or selection of suppliers
Response 10: Sorry for our mistakes, we have changed “development of Selection or Suppliers” to “development or selection of suppliers” in line 116.
Point 11: 119: Philip à change to “Beske-Jannsen et al.”; after “Sancha” insert “et al.”
Response 11: Thanks for your correction, we have changed them in line 118.
“At present, a number of studies are investigating the influence of environmental concerns in supply chain management, such as those by Beske-Jannsen et al. [28] and Sancha et al. [29].”
Point 12: 125: “only to consider” à “that only considered”
Response 12: We have changed “only to consider” to “that only considered” in line 125.
“Ghosh and Shah [31] set up a game model of a green supply chain consisting of manufacturers and retailers that only considered profit maximization,”
Point 13: 150: Contract à contract
Response 13: we have changed “Contract” to “contract” in line 150.
Point 14: 152: Sharing Contract à sharing contract
Response 14: we also have changed “Sharing Contract” to “sharing contract” in line 152.
Point 15: 203: Manufacturer à manufacturer
Response 15: We are sorry for our incorrect, we have changed “Manufacturer” to “manufacturer” in line 203.
Point 16: 319: Retailer à retailer
Response 16: We are sorry for our mistake, we have changed “Retailer” to “retailer” in line 319.
Point 17: 458: Maple2019 à should there perhaps be a gap between Maple and 2019?
Response 17: Thanks for your opinion, we have sought relevant information. “Maple2019” should be a gap between Maple and 2019, and we modified it in line 458.
“In this section, these conclusions are simulated by numerical examples using the Maple 2019 software and analyzed further.”
Point 17: I have seen significant improve in the writing, comprehensibility and structure of the article, as well as the academic logic that had been missing in the first draft. Thank you for improving this and the opportunity to review your research.
Response 17: Thanks a lot for your advice, which improved and perfected our paper greatly. Thank you for broadening my knowledge of relevant fields
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for addressing my comments. I think the paper is publishable.
Author Response
Point 1: Thank you very much for addressing my comments. I think the paper is publishable.
Response 1: Your good advice was very much appreciated, which improved and perfected our paper significantly.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
