In a groundbreaking exploration of carbon emission reduction (CER) strategies within supply chain management, researchers have embarked on an ambitious analysis comparing two distinct carbon finance frameworks—bank-led carbon finance (BLCF) and firm-led carbon finance (FLCF). Utilizing extensive real-world data from State Grid and Yingda, paired with sophisticated numerical simulations, this study unveils critical insights into how small and medium-sized suppliers (SMSs) navigate varying financial models to achieve sustainable environmental outcomes. The implications of these findings extend far beyond academia, offering a strategic blueprint for industries aiming to harmonize economic growth with climate responsibility.
At the heart of this research lies the investigation of CER equilibrium behaviors under the two frameworks. The team initiated multiple simulation sets featuring SMSs with widely different initial carbon reduction levels, categorizing them as low, medium, or high types based on their starting CER values. Each simulation, iterating thousands of times to reach stability, revealed that despite the heterogeneity of initial conditions, the SMSs’ carbon reduction activities converge towards equilibrium points unique to each model. This meticulous process not only validates the research questions posed in earlier qualitative interviews but also reinforces the robustness of the conclusions through comprehensive sensitivity analyses.
Under the BLCF model, the study exposes a nuanced dynamic: while SMSs starting with low to medium CER levels benefit by increasing their carbon reduction efforts, those initially classified as high performers paradoxically face performance degradation over time. This counterintuitive result is attributed to the model’s uniform financing pricing scheme, which inadvertently imposes a disproportional financial burden on high-type SMSs. The relationship between investment in carbon abatement and its corresponding benefits is dictated by a convex cost curve—where marginal costs increase nonlinearly with greater emission reductions—creating what researchers term an “emission reduction trap.” High-type SMSs find themselves locked in a cycle where escalating marginal costs overshadow the value of their efforts.
The game-theoretic analysis of supply chain dynamics further elucidates this phenomenon. As CER approaches a critical threshold, profits for high-type SMSs experience dual compression. Core firms adjust orders (denoted by order quantity variables positively linked to CER levels), but the concomitant rise in component wholesale prices offsets potential gains, forcing these suppliers to dial back their emission reductions to maintain viable profit margins. This adjustment disrupts what should be a virtuous cycle of environmental and economic improvement, underscoring the limitations inherent in the BLCF model.
In sharp contrast, the FLCF framework demonstrates remarkable efficacy in elevating CER levels uniformly across SMS types. Simulations reveal that regardless of initial starting points, SMSs under firm-led carbon finance consistently achieve stable, significantly improved CER equilibrium states. Aggregate CER improvements under this model not only surpass initial levels markedly but also dwarf those attained under BLCF conditions. For instance, under comparable initial configurations, total CER levels soar dramatically in the FLCF context, showcasing the model’s systemic capacity to harness carbon finance incentives effectively.
This heightened performance under FLCF stems from an integrative role played by core firms acting as intermediaries across multiple dimensions. By spearheading sophisticated digital platforms, these firms effectively reduce information asymmetries that hinder optimal carbon management. Standardized data collection, multi-tier verification processes, and dynamic credit assessments translate fragmented CER data into quantifiable credit assets, enhancing transparency and facilitating informed financing decisions. Moreover, their stewardship extends to crafting a dynamic framework that aligns financing with CER needs through tiered incentives and resource allocation mechanisms, fostering a self-reinforcing cycle of investment, cost reduction, and environmental advancement.
Beyond technical facilitation, core firms under FLCF actively translate environmental value into economic value, promoting market-based incentives such as carbon-linked procurement preferences. These institutional mechanisms inject meaningful motivation for SMSs to invest in continuous carbon reduction efforts, benefiting from accrued brand premiums and innovation-driven advantages in the competitive marketplace. It is this holistic and systemic vision of carbon finance that explains the superior equilibrium performance observed.
When comparing profitability outcomes between the two models, the research highlights FLCF’s distinct advantages. Not only does it drive over 50% greater total carbon emission reduction among SMSs, but it also fosters substantial profit margin expansions for SMEs—approximately a 30% improvement—and simultaneous profit growth, roughly 14%, for core firms. Additionally, supply chain synergies flourish under the FLCF model, yielding an 18% uplift in overall supply chain profitability. This multi-level economic enhancement signals that sustainable environmental practices need not come at the expense of financial health; rather, integrated carbon finance strategies can be a win-win for ecology and economy.
Extending the rigor of their analysis, the researchers conducted sensitivity tests focused on varying critical factors such as bank interest rates and order allocation preferences by core firms. Surprisingly, under the BLCF model, adjusting interest rates across a realistic range (5% to 9%) demonstrated negligible effects on the equilibrium CER levels. This finding suggests that traditional financial levers alone may be insufficient under uniform financing pricing to meaningfully accelerate carbon reduction efforts among SMSs.
Conversely, FLCF exhibited a subtler yet compelling dynamic in response to interest rate ceilings. While banks under this model have limited ability to shift CER equilibrium points by modifying financing rates, the rate caps notably influenced the speed with which firms reached stable carbon reduction states. Paradoxically, higher ceilings on financing rates—though generally perceived as increasing financial strain—correlated with faster convergence towards CER equilibrium. This counterintuitive outcome implies that stricter borrowing conditions may incentivize firms to devise more efficient CER strategies rapidly, achieving an optimal alignment of economic and environmental goals.
The role of core firms in procurement decisions also emerged as a pivotal factor influencing CER trajectories. Simulations adjusting the weight assigned to SMS carbon reduction in order allocations highlighted conditional impacts. Moderate emphasis on CER resulted in only marginal shifts in equilibrium states, indicating that incremental adjustments may be insufficient to stir substantial change. However, when core firms excessively prioritized CER beyond a critical threshold, a competitive imbalance ensued. High-performing SMSs capitalized on preferential procurement, enhancing profits despite elevated production costs through increased order volumes. Low and medium performers, in contrast, struggled to close the gap, leading to potential declines in collective CER and adverse downstream consequences, such as reduced consumer demand.
Within the FLCF context, core firms exerted constructive influence by prioritizing SMSs’ CER improvement trajectories over their current static performance levels. This strategic procurement focus consistently propelled SMSs towards superior equilibrium outcomes accompanied by enhanced profitability for core firms themselves, illustrating how stewardship coupled with targeted incentives can harness supply chain-wide environmental progress.
Crucially, the study reaffirmed these patterns across varying supply chain scales. Increasing the number of SMSs from three to six and nine sustained convergence towards uniform CER equilibrium states in both BLCF and FLCF models. This robustness across structural expansions bodes well for real-world applicability, suggesting that the insights gleaned are scalable and relevant for complex, multitier supply networks prevalent in modern industries.
Taken together, these findings emphasize the transformative potential of carbon finance models that move beyond traditional bank-led financing toward integrative, firm-led stewardship that leverages data, incentives, and market signals in concert. The research charts a comprehensive roadmap for businesses and policymakers striving to embed sustainability deeply into supply chain operations without sacrificing financial vitality. It also serves as a clarion call for reimagining carbon finance structures in a manner that unlocks synergy between environmental commitments and economic imperatives, paving the way for a more sustainable industrial future.
As industries worldwide grapple with escalating climate commitments and stringent regulatory landscapes, the evidence presented underscores the strategic value of reframing carbon finance from a transactional system into a governance-enabled, incentive-aligned ecosystem. Future research and implementation would benefit from exploring how digital innovation and cooperative governance mechanisms can further amplify the efficacy of firm-led carbon finance models across diverse industrial contexts. The integration of dynamic credit mechanisms, transparent data platforms, and market-responsive procurement policies emerges as a promising frontier for scalable, sustainable carbon reduction.
In sum, this illuminating comparative analysis not only advances academic understanding of carbon finance dynamics within supply chains but also offers actionable insights that can catalyze the broader societal transition toward net-zero emissions. By systematically unpacking the interplay between financial frameworks and environmental outcomes, the research propels both scientific inquiry and practical innovation, carving a decisive path forward in the global effort against climate change.
Subject of Research:
Comparative analysis of carbon reduction strategies within supply chains, focusing on the efficacy of bank-led versus firm-led carbon finance frameworks in influencing small and medium-sized suppliers’ emission reduction performance.
Article Title:
Unveiling the path to sustainable carbon reduction: a comparative analysis of bank-led vs. firm-led carbon finance strategies.
Article References:
Hu, X., Song, H., Mi, Y. et al. Unveiling the path to sustainable carbon reduction: a comparative analysis of bank-led vs. firm-led carbon finance strategies. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1655 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05906-5
Image Credits:
AI Generated
