Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/111345
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering-
dc.contributorResearch Institute for Advanced Manufacturing-
dc.contributorResearch Centre for Digital Transformation of Tourism-
dc.contributorResearch Institute for Advanced Manufacturing-
dc.creatorWu, Wen_US
dc.creatorLi, Men_US
dc.creatorYang, Yen_US
dc.creatorHuang, Ben_US
dc.creatorWang, Sen_US
dc.creatorHuang, GQen_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-20T04:09:48Z-
dc.date.available2025-02-20T04:09:48Z-
dc.identifier.issn0967-070Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/111345-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPergamon Pressen_US
dc.rights© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/ ).en_US
dc.rightsThe following publication Wu, W., Li, M., Yang, Y., Huang, B., Wang, S., & Huang, G. Q. (2025). Optimal deposit-return strategies for the recycling of spent electric automobile battery: manufacturer, retailer, or consumer. Transport Policy, 164, 92-103 is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.01.035.en_US
dc.subjectDeposit-return policyen_US
dc.subjectSpent electric automobile batteryen_US
dc.subjectTake-back modelen_US
dc.titleOptimal deposit-return strategies for the recycling of spent electric automobile battery : manufacturer, retailer, or consumeren_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage92en_US
dc.identifier.epage103en_US
dc.identifier.volume164en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.01.035en_US
dcterms.abstractThere has been limited research on the supply chain performance of spent electric automobile battery recycling under various combinations of take-back models and deposit return strategies. This paper compares three deposit return strategies: manufacturer-targeted, retailer-targeted, and consumer-targeted approaches. Additionally, three take-back models—single-channel, mixed, and collaborative—are developed based on practical applications and evaluated in terms of their impact on supply chain profitability and collection rates. The results indicate that the optimal values of decision variables are influenced by the deposit return strategies, which, in turn, vary according to the take-back models. Furthermore, the deposit return scheme significantly enhances the collection rate, with manufacturer-targeted and consumer-targeted strategies outperforming the retailer-targeted approach in both supply chain profitability and collection rates. Notably, the consumer-targeted strategy results in the lowest retail price. Among the models, the collaborative take-back strategy demonstrates superior performance in both supply chain profitability and collection rates. Sensitivity analyses results reveal that higher subsidies and lower deposits result in greater total profits for the supply chain, while higher deposit and refund amounts lead to improved collection rates.-
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationTransport policy, Apr. 2025, v. 164, p. 92-103en_US
dcterms.isPartOfTransport policyen_US
dcterms.issued2025-04-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85216594539-
dc.identifier.eissn1879-310Xen_US
dc.description.validate202502 bcwh-
dc.description.oaVersion of Recorden_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumberOA_TA-
dc.description.fundingSourceRGCen_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.description.TAElsevier (2025)en_US
dc.description.oaCategoryTAen_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
1-s2.0-S0967070X25000411-main.pdf5.92 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Version of Record
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.