Abstract:

It focuses on two common supply chain cost sharing contracts in real life in this paper： one is that the manufacturer bears part of the after-sales service cost for the retailer， the other is that the manufacturer bears parts of the after-sales service cost for the retailer， and the retailer bears parts of the quality cost for the manufacturer. The impact of using different cost sharing contracts on product pricing， quality level， after-sales service level and the profit of supply chain members is analyzed.It is found that （1） When the after-sales cost sharing ratio and the quality cost sharing ratio are lower than a certain level， the product quality level and after-sales service level under the two cost-sharing contracts can be improved， but the quality cost and after-sales cost are shared by each other The product quality level and after-sales service level under the contract will be higher. （2） The manufacturer’s profit under the contract for the mutual sharing of quality cost and after-sales cost is always higher than the profit under a single after-sales cost-sharing contract， but the manufacturer can only share a small proportion of after-sales service costs and consumers have a greater impact on after-sales service costs. When insensitive and the quality cost coefficient is large， compared with not using a cost sharing contract， the use of a single after-sales cost sharing contract can increase profits. This also explains why in emerging industries， manufacturers tend to use quality and after-sales cost sharing contracts， because consumers in emerging industries are often more sensitive to after-sales service costs， and use quality cost and after-sales cost sharing contracts and use single Compared with the after-sales cost sharing contract， the after-sales service level of the product can be improved to a higher level， thereby increasing the profit of the manufacturer. （3） Retailers may not necessarily benefit from a single after-sales cost-sharing contract. Only when the quality cost coefficient is small， compared with not using a cost-sharing contract， the retailer’s profit under a single after-sales cost-sharing contract will be higher. Compared with a single after-sales service cost-sharing contract， when both the quality cost coefficient and the after-sales cost coefficient are large， the retailer's profit under the contract for mutual sharing of quality cost and after-sales cost will be lower.

Key words: supply chain, cost sharing contract, product pricing, after-sales service level, quality level