Abstract

In a supply chain coordinated by a revenue sharing contract, under-reporting of sales revenue has been a common practice amongst retailers who always have private information about the market demand. In this article, we aim to design a mechanism to mitigate this problem. One may design a contract to elicit truthful information from the retailer while maximizing supplier’s payoff. However, we find that such contracts fail to coordinate the supply chain, when the market demand is high. Hence, we study an audit-based revenue sharing contract. First, we design a laboratory experiment to investigate the impact of retailer’s decisions on the subsequent choices made by the supplier. We find that the audit probability chosen by the supplier increases with the gap between retailer’s order quantity and the sales reported by the retailer. We follow this up with a simulation experiment which incorporates the findings of our laboratory experiment. Audit cost and the penalty announced by the supplier for not reporting true sales turned out to be important in making decisions for both the players. We also find the threshold auditing cost beyond which auditing is not economically viable for the supplier.

Highlights

  • In a revenue sharing contract, the problem of under-reporting of sales is common when a retailer possesses private information about demand

  • These are termed as Normalized Audit Count (NAC)

  • When information is available to all the parties in a supply chain, traditional revenue sharing contract is helpful in coordinating the supply chain

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In a revenue sharing contract, the problem of under-reporting of sales is common when a retailer possesses private information about demand. This information provides him (without loss of generality, we refer to the retailer as “he” and the supplier as “she”) scope to understate sales. Under-reporting sales figure results in the retailer transferring lower than the contracted share of the revenue to the supplier This underreporting of sales can be termed as cheating on part of the retailer (Heese and Kemahlioglu-Ziya, 2014). We have assumed asymmetry in the demand distribution between the players This is a reasonable assumption since, in this era of globalization when the firms are based in different locations across the world, the supplier’s belief about the market demand may be different from the information available with the retailer

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.