Abstract: With the “Internet+recycling” platform for third-party collector lacks of popularity. The online retailer is responsible for selling products, and meanwhile, it takes full advantage of its own popularity to promote “Internet+recycling” platform of third-party collectors to the consumers. This paper analyzes the optimal strategies of supply chain members in non cooperative and cooperative situations, and makes a comparative analysis. The conclusion shows that cooperation is more beneficial for members than noncooperation. Compared with the two cooperating situations of cost sharing contract and transfer payment contract, the internet retailer and third-party collector will invest more promotion efforts leading to lower recycle price and the greater recycled quantity. Under centralized supply chain, the recycled quantity, the efforts of the internet retailer and third-party collector will reach the maximum.

Key words: “Internet+ recycling” platform, cooperation, transfer payment contract, cost-sharing contract

摘要： 针对第三方回收商自有“互联网+回收”平台知名度不高的情况,网络零售商负责销售产品、推广销售平台的同时,利用自身平台知名度向消费者宣传推广“互联网+回收”平台。文章对比分析非合作和合作情形下,供应链成员的最佳策略。研究表明:供应链成员的合作比不合作更有利;成本共担契约下的供应链合作和转移支付契约下的合作相比,网络零售商和第三方回收商投入更多的推广努力,回收价格更低,回收量更大;协同合作情形下回收量、双方的推广努力达到最大,回收价格最低。

关键词: “互联网+回收”平台, 合作推广, 转移支付契约, 成本共担契约