Abstract:Problem definition: Recent global crises have caused unprecedented economic uncertainty and intensified retailers’ concerns over inventory risks. Mitigating inventory risks and incentivizing retailer orders is critical to managing retail supply chains and restoring their norms after severe impacts. We study the allocation of inventory risk using contracts in a retail supply chain with a risk-neutral manufacturer and a risk-averse retailer. We consider two factors that affect the effectiveness of contracting: (1) asymmetric risk aversion information—retailers’ attitudes are typically diverse and unknown to the manufacturer, and (2) uncertain outside opportunity—retailers typically face a volatile external business environment. Methodology/results: With a game-theoretic model that captures the interaction among risk aversion, information asymmetry, and outside opportunity, we derive the contracting equilibrium under two widely adopted risk allocation schemes—push (i.e., the retailer bears the inventory risk) and pull (i.e., the manufacturer bears the inventory risk) contracts. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that pull contracts are more effective in risk mitigation, we show that push contracts may induce larger expected order quantities and achieve the highest supply chain efficiency due to the interaction of asymmetric risk aversion information and risky outside opportunities. We also find that the manufacturer may obtain higher profits with push contracts when both the heterogeneity in the retailer’s risk attitude and the risk of the outside opportunity are sufficiently high. In addition, when the risk of the outside opportunity is in a medium range, the push contract allows the manufacturer to fully eliminate the information rent and achieve the supply chain’s first-best outcomes. We further evaluate the effects of product profitability and demand uncertainty and generalize the retailer’s risk measure to any coherent risk measure. Managerial implications: Our analysis highlights the importance of modeling asymmetric risk aversion information and risky outside opportunities in analyzing supply chain contracting. When considering these practical factors, allocating more inventory risks to a risk-averse retailer may be better than a risk-neutral manufacturer. Our results provide novel insights into the selection of proper contract types for managing inventory risks in retail supply chains. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.0624 .

Financial hedging incentive contracts in global supply chains: A distributionally robust approach

Supply Chain Coordination Involving Retailer with Flexible Objectives

Supply Chain Coordination under Asymmetric Risk Aversion Information

Coordination of a Risk-averse Supply Chain with Price Competition

Coordination of Supply Chains involving Various Agents with Behavioral Preferences

Robust contract design and coordination under consignment contracts with revenue sharing

Cash Hedging in a Supply Chain.

Risk hedging in a supply chain: Option vs. price discount

Supply chain coordination with risk aversion retailers

Coordinating Supply Chains with a Risk-Averse Retailer and a Call Option Contract

A Framework of Hedging Decisions for Supply Chain Partners.

Hedging Against Demand Ambiguity in New Product Development: a Two-Stage Distributionally Robust Approach

Supply chain network equilibrium with strategic financial hedging using futures

Risk hedging via option contracts in a random yield supply chain

The Coordination of a Capital-Constrained Supply Chain with a Risk-Averse Retailer

Financial Hedging Decisions on Procurement Risk with Value-at-Risk Consideration

Allocating Inventory Risk in Retail Supply Chains: Risk Aversion, Information Asymmetry, and Outside Opportunity

Lead-time Quotation and Hedging Coordination in Make-to-order Supply Chain

Incentive mechanisms in a green supply chain under demand uncertainty

Optimal Decisions of a Supply Chain with a Risk-Averse Retailer and Portfolio Contracts

Supply chain coordination through capacity reservation contract and quantity flexibility contract