Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article

Operationalizing transformative capacity: State policy and the financing of sustainable energy transitions in developing countries

  • We explored the capacity of the state to facilitate financing for sustainable energy transitions in a developing country context. We responded to the critical challenge of financing in developing and emerging contexts where significant financing gaps contribute to the inequitable deployment of renewable energy technologies. A critical realist case study design explored South Africa's transition to green hydrogen as an instrumental case to understand how policy instruments—regulative, economic, and informational—interact with financing social structures to enable or constrain transformative change in financing the energy transition. The conceptual framework drew on sustainability transitions literature and integrated insights from finance, policy, and institutional theories to operationalize the state's transformative capacity in modifying financing rules through policy interventions. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and analysis of academic and grey literature, including policy documents and government publications. The findings illustrated how policy instruments can reinforce, disrupt, transform, or displace structures, embodying varying degrees of the state's capacity to engender structural change. Critically, the findings support transition scholars who advocate for experimental policy engagements by offering opportunities to challenge fundamental values, norms, beliefs, and cognitive models.

    Citation: Amanda-Leigh O'Connell, Johan Schot. Operationalizing transformative capacity: State policy and the financing of sustainable energy transitions in developing countries[J]. Green Finance, 2024, 6(4): 666-697. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024026

    Related Papers:

    [1] Soumya Kanti Hota, Santanu Kumar Ghosh, Biswajit Sarkar . A solution to the transportation hazard problem in a supply chain with an unreliable manufacturer. AIMS Environmental Science, 2022, 9(3): 354-380. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2022023
    [2] Bijoy Kumar Shaw, Isha Sangal, Biswajit Sarkar . Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in an imperfect production process under breakdown consideration. AIMS Environmental Science, 2022, 9(5): 658-691. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2022038
    [3] Subhash Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Rekha Guchhait, Biswajit Sarkar . An environmental decision support system for manufacturer-retailer within a closed-loop supply chain management using remanufacturing. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(5): 644-676. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023036
    [4] Mowmita Mishra, Santanu Kumar Ghosh, Biswajit Sarkar . Maintaining energy efficiencies and reducing carbon emissions under a sustainable supply chain management. AIMS Environmental Science, 2022, 9(5): 603-635. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2022036
    [5] Richi Singh, Dharmendra Yadav, S.R. Singh, Ashok Kumar, Biswajit Sarkar . Reduction of carbon emissions under sustainable supply chain management with uncertain human learning. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(4): 559-592. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023032
    [6] Benjamin Hersh, Amin Mirkouei, John Sessions, Behnaz Rezaie, Yaqi You . A review and future directions on enhancing sustainability benefits across food-energy-water systems: the potential role of biochar-derived products. AIMS Environmental Science, 2019, 6(5): 379-416. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2019.5.379
    [7] Soumya Kanti Hota, Santanu Kumar Ghosh, Biswajit Sarkar . Involvement of smart technologies in an advanced supply chain management to solve unreliability under distribution robust approach. AIMS Environmental Science, 2022, 9(4): 461-492. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2022028
    [8] Anna Lymperatou, Ioannis V. Skiadas, Hariklia N. Gavala . Anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure and crude glycerol derived from animal fat—Effect of hydraulic retention time. AIMS Environmental Science, 2018, 5(2): 105-116. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2018.2.105
    [9] Raj Kumar Bachar, Shaktipada Bhuniya, Santanu Kumar Ghosh, Biswajit Sarkar . Sustainable green production model considering variable demand, partial outsourcing, and rework. AIMS Environmental Science, 2022, 9(3): 325-353. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2022022
    [10] Atinuke Chineme, Getachew Assefa, Irene M. Herremans, Barry Wylant, Marwa Shumo, Aliceanna Shoo, Mturi James, Frida Ngalesoni, Anthony Ndjovu, Steve Mbuligwe, Mike Yhedgo . Advancing circular economy principles through wild black soldier flies. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(6): 868-893. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023047
  • We explored the capacity of the state to facilitate financing for sustainable energy transitions in a developing country context. We responded to the critical challenge of financing in developing and emerging contexts where significant financing gaps contribute to the inequitable deployment of renewable energy technologies. A critical realist case study design explored South Africa's transition to green hydrogen as an instrumental case to understand how policy instruments—regulative, economic, and informational—interact with financing social structures to enable or constrain transformative change in financing the energy transition. The conceptual framework drew on sustainability transitions literature and integrated insights from finance, policy, and institutional theories to operationalize the state's transformative capacity in modifying financing rules through policy interventions. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and analysis of academic and grey literature, including policy documents and government publications. The findings illustrated how policy instruments can reinforce, disrupt, transform, or displace structures, embodying varying degrees of the state's capacity to engender structural change. Critically, the findings support transition scholars who advocate for experimental policy engagements by offering opportunities to challenge fundamental values, norms, beliefs, and cognitive models.



    A production system with a similar type of multi-product is gaining attention nowadays. A traditional economic production quantity (EPQ) produces each type of product separately [1]. This process uses a machine multiple times for a similar process. Production of multi-products in a shared production system can reduce machine usage and can produce the generic structure of multi-product. Agarwal [2] introduced an easy grouping concept under a common order cycle to solve a multi-product supply chain. They introduced a computation method to find the optimal value of the common order cycle. Rosenblatt and Rothblum [3] presented a multi-item production management policy under a single resource capacity constraint. Aliyu and Andizani [4] examined a multi-item production-inventory system with shortages, deterministic demand, deterioration, and capacity and budget constraints. They used a linear quadratic concept to find the value of the optimal control policy. Balkhi and Foul [5] discussed a multi-product production model in finite time periods where shortages and backorders are allowed for every product. For every product, they derived optimal production and restarting times for each period. Rahmani et al. [6] investigated a two-stage capacity-based production system with uncertain demand and production costs. An initial robust schedule was used by them. Chiu et al. [7] proposed a production model to find the production and shipment decisions, simultaneously, with the rework process. They considered a single-stage production process without involving the common intermediate part. Their outcomes helped managers to understand and control the effects of different system parameters on the optimal production-shipment policy. Additional studies related to multi-product production-inventory systems are found in the literature [8].

    The evolution of industries over the past century has been characterized by the integration of supply chains (SCs), titled a supply chain integration (SCI) [9]. The SCI activities within an organization, correspond to the suppliers, the customers and the SC levels [10]. In other words, the SCI is an organizational process to integrate the suppliers, the customers, and the internal functional units to optimize the SC's total performance of the SC [11]. Rosenzweig et al., [12] further defined the SCI as the linkages among various SC elements. Many authors discussed the SCI as a common place for SCs [13]. These integration definitions have undergone various modifications owing to research from different perspectives. The SCI aims at coordinating processes in the SCs as an important competitive advantage over competitors [14] and [15]. The experts of the supply chain management (SCM) believe that the integration leads to higher performance for SC levels [16,17,18]. Generally, the global competition and the demand for better customer services have significantly increased the needs for SCI among the companies. The most well-established frameworks for studying SC relate to lot-sizing problems [19].

    Gharaei et al. [20] proposed the growth patterns for all dead and live-grown items, along with mortality and survival probabilities. Gharaei et al. [21] developed and optimized a lot-sizing policy in an integrated EPQ model with partial backorders and re-workable products. They considered linear and fixed backordering costs. Gharaei et al. [22] designed and optimized an integrated four-level SC, which contained a supplier, a producer, a wholesaler, and multiple retailers. Gharaei et al. [23] provided a new generation of inventory models, entitled economic growing quantity (EGQ), which focused on growing items of agricultural industries, such as fisheries, poultry, and livestock. Gharaei et al. [24] addressed the optimum number of stockpiles and the economic period length for inventories. Amjadian et al. [25] designed an integrated five-level SC, which contained a supplier, a producer, a wholesaler, multiple retailers, and a collector. Accordingly, a closed-loop supply chain (CLSC) with multi-stage products were designed by them with respect to the green production principles and quality control (QC) policy under backlogged and lost sale. Taleizadeh et al. [26] described optimal decisions and operational strategies in a logistics network considering two capital-constrained manufacturers. They produced products of different qualities, and sold them to a retailer with deterministic demand over a specific period. Gharaei et al. [27] proposed a multi-product, multi-buyer SC model with stochastic constraints. Moreover, the model differentiated between the holding costs for financial and non-financial components, in which the first included the investment in the market, and the second included the cost for physical storage, movement, and insurance of products.

    In multi-item production system, if multiple products share a common intermediate part, vendors can be interested in evaluating a two-stage production scheme. The first-stage makes common intermediate parts and the second stage produces end products to reduce overall system costs and shorten the replenishment cycle time. Reduce costs along with shortening the refill cycle period. Gerchak et al. [28] created a model for an arbitrary number of products with a normal demand distribution. They explained the service level measure where the production of common components might be required. Garg and Tang [29] discussed that there are differences among similar types of multiple products. They created two replicas of products with a difference of more than one position. They decided on necessary conditions when one type of delayed differentiation was more beneficial than the other. They found that variations in demand and lead times have significant effects on determining which point of differentiation should be delayed. Graman [30] explained a two-product, single-term, order-up-to cost model to decide inventory levels of end products and postponement capacity. Non-linear programming was chosen to decide the optimal solutions to inventory levels and capacity that minimized the system costs. The study indicated that altering product value, holding cost, cost of postponement, packaging cost, and fill rate reduced expected total cost and increased postponement capacity. Other studies addressed various aspects of the multi-product production management system [31]. It is inevitable to produce defective items due to various uncontrolled factors in the production process. Quality assurance, quality inspections, rework, and elimination of imperfect items, are studied in several studies [32]. In contrast to a continuous review model, a period review model is important within a multi-product-based production system. Several aspects of the periodic review model and multi-shipment issues are discussed in the literature too [33].

    Mukherjee et al. [34] estimated maximum product flow within a cross-dock. Mridha et al. [35] discussed a green product manufacturing system but did not discuss a multi-product system. Habib et al. [36] discussed a green product manufacturing system where raw materials were collected from multi-type waste products. Sarkar et al. [37] proposed a model that aimed to reduce waste by reworking defective products and maximizing profit. Saxena et al. [38] proposed an SC model for a single type of eco-designed product and solved the model using the Stackelberg-Nash game policy. Bachar et al. [39] described a production model where partial outsourcing of products was allowed to remove shortages from the system. Discussed studies formulated production and SC model single type of products without shared-production facility. This model expands on the earlier work of Chiu [7] for a period-review model flexible production system (Figure 1).

    Figure 1.  Total inventory position of manufactured and remanufactured multi-product in Stage 1 and Stage 2 for common and customized production, respectively.

    The proposed model describes a flexible production system integrated with shared-production techniques and remanufacturing. The flexible production system has a single machine. The vendor's annual demand is Mi=1δi for M number of different products. These M customized items are made using a two-stage shared-production system. Stage 1 makes only common components, and Stage 2 produces the final product with the rest of the components within sequence M. This two-stage production system has a common cycle time. The study aims to reduce machine usage by reducing the replenishment period and optimizing production quantity. The common parts are produced at the rate of q1,0 in Stage 1. Then, M different customized products are assembled (Figure 1) at a production rate q1,i. Here, i=0,1,2,...,M and i=0 indicates the shared-production process of Stage 1.

    Material and development costs of each product are added in unit production cost of product i for production and remanufacturing as Fi=(Cm1,i+CD1,iq1,i+αq1,i)+(Cm2,i+CD2,iq2,i+αq2,i). The production process at each Stage randomly produce yi portion of defective products at the rate g1,i, where g1,i = q1,iyi. Production rate q1,i of Stage 2 is greater than (δi+g1,i), i.e., (q1,ig1,iδi)>0, i.e., (1yiδiq1,i)>0. All defective products are remanufactured in each stage. The remanufacturing process begins at a rate q2,i as soon as the production process ends in both stages (Figure 2).

    Figure 2.  Inventory position of imperfect multi-product within a production batch size in Stages 1 and 2.

    Common components of all products are manufactured in Stage 1 in time T1,0 and remanufactured imperfect products at time T2,0. After completion of production and remanufacturing in Stage 1, M products are ready for the Stage 2. Total inventory from shared-production facility is represented in Figure 3. Production in Stage 2 happens in succession order, from i=1 to M. In Stage 2, customized production of all products takes (T1,i) time for product i and remanufacturing of finished products requires T2,i times. Then, products are sent for delivery in N number of shipments at time T3,i (Figure 4). The supply level of finished products from the flexible production system is represented in Figure 4.

    Figure 3.  Inventory position of common manufactured multi-product used for customized production for final products.
    Figure 4.  Finished multi-product inventory position for delivery throughout the cycle time.
    Index
    i Number of products i=1,2,...,M;i=0 represents shared-production of all products
    Decision variables
    t Production cycle length (time unit)
    N Number of shipments of finished products in each cycle (integer)
    q1,i Production rate of product i (units/time unit)
    q2,i Remanufacturing rate for product i (units/time unit)
    Parameter
    δi Market demand of product i (units/time unit)
    Ai Production lot size of product finished product i (units/cycle)
    Bi Production setup cost of product i ($/setup)
    Fi Unit production cost of product i ($/unit)
    Cm1,i Unit material cost of product i for production ($/unit)
    Cm2,i Unit material cost of product i for remanufacturing ($/unit)
    CD1,i Unit development cost of product i for production ($/unit)
    CD2,i Unit development cost of product i for remanufacturing ($/unit)
    H1,i Unit holding cost of new produced product i ($/unit/unit time)
    H2,i Unit holding cost per remanufactured item i ($/unit/unit time)
    H3,i Unit holding cost for storing finished product i ($/unit/unit time)
    H4,i Unit holding cost for safety stocks for product i ($/unit/unit time)
    FR,i Unit remanufacturing cost for product i ($/unit)
    T1,i Production uptime for product i (time unit)
    T2,i Remanufacturing time for product i (time unit)
    T3,i Delivery time of product i (time unit)
    hi Inventory level of common components for product i (units)
    h1,i Perfect quality item i at the end of the production up time (units)
    h2,i Perfect quality items i at the end of remanufacturing process (units)
    g1,i Random defective rate of product i in Stage 1
    g2,i Random defective rate of product i in Stage 2
    yi Defective percentage of product i in production
    B1,i Fixed delivery cost per shipment for product i ($/shipment)
    FT,i Unit delivery cost per unit product i ($/unit)
    TN,i Fixed interval of time between each of shipment of finished item i during T3,i
    (time unit)
    I(T)i On-hand inventory level of perfect quality items i at any time T (units)
    Ig(T)i On-hand inventory level of imperfect items i at any time T (units)
    Ic(T)i On-hand inventory level of finished product i at any time T (units)
    li Leftover finished product i in each TN,i (units)
    Gi Number of delivered finished product i in each shipment (units)
    β Completion rate of common component of products as compared to the finished
    product
    α scaling parameter of unit production cost
    TC Total cost of the production system ($)
    E[t] Expected production cycle length (time unit)
    E[TCU] Expected total cost ($/cycle)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    This section describes the mathematical modeling and total cost analysis of these study.

    A two-stage flexible production model produces M distinct multi-product with annual market demand δi. The production cycle is (Figure 1)

    t=T1,i+T2,i+T3,i=Aiδi. (5.1)

    Stage 1 produces common components of all products in a lot size A0. It depends on the production batch Ai of product i. Then, the following (Figure 1) equations are found:

    Ai=δit;A0=Mi=1Ai=δ0t, (5.2)
    T1,0=A0q1,0=h1,0q1,0g1,0, (5.3)
    h1,0=T1,0(q1,0g1,0);h2,0=h1,0+q2,0T2,0=Mi=1Ai, (5.4)
    T2,0=y0A0q2,0=g1,0T1,0q2,0=h2,0h1,0q2,0, (5.5)
    h1=h2,0A1, (5.6)
    hi=h(i1)Aiwhere,i=2,3,...,M (5.7)
    hM=h(M1)AM=0. (5.8)

    In Stage 2 (i=1,2,...,M), the following equations are found from Figures 2 to 4.

    T1,i=Aiq1,i=h1,iq1,ig1,i, (5.9)
    h1,i=(q1,ig1,i)t1,i, (5.10)
    h2,i=h1,i+q2,iT2,i, (5.11)
    T2,i=yiAiq2,i=g1,iT1,iq2,i=h2,ih1,iq2,i, (5.12)
    T3,i=NtN,i, (5.13)
    Gi=h2,iN, (5.14)
    li=GiδiTN,i, (5.15)
    Nli=δi(T1,i+T2,i). (5.16)

    Different costs for the two-stage flexible production system are developed as follows.

    Total setup cost is the sum of the setup amount for Stage 1 and Stage 2 for item i in a production cycle. Therefore, total setup cost for the production process can be formulated as

    SEC=B0+Mi=1Bi. (5.17)

    Unit production cost depends on metrical cost, development cost, and production rate, and remanufacturing rate of product i. Thus, the unit production cost of the product i for both Stages are given by

    PRC=[Cm1,0+CD1,0q1,0+αq1,0+Cm2,0+CD2,0q2,0+αq2,0]A0+Mi=1[Cm1,i+CD1,iq1,i+αq1,i+Cm2,i+CD2,iq2,i+αq2,i]Ai. (5.18)

    Imperfect products are produced through the production process of both stages for the product i. Those imperfect products are remanufactured right after the production process are finished. The corresponding remanufacturing cost is

    REC=FR,0y0A0+Mi=1FR,iyiAi. (5.19)

    To overcome the stock out situation, some safety stock is required. Imperfect products are not send to the market as new products. The manufacturer uses the remanufactured products as safety stock to avoid shortages.

    SSC=H4,0(y0A0)t+Mi=1H4,i(yiAi)t. (5.20)

    IHC is used for holding common components, both manufactured and remanufactured product i, throughout T1,i and T2,i (Figures 1 and 2). Thus, the inventory holding cost is

    IHC=H1,0[h1,0T1,02+(h2,0+h1,0)T2,02+Mi=1hi(T1,i+T2,i)]+H1,0[(g1,0T1,0)T1,02]. (5.21)

    In Stage 2, IHCF is used for holding the production of customized product i (Figure 3). The associative cost is written as

    IHCF=Mi=1H1,i[AiT1,i2]. (5.22)

    IHCI is used for holding imperfect products after remanufacturing until the time T2,i. The corresponding holding cost is

    IHCI=H2,0[g1,0T1,02(T2,0)]+Mi=1[H2,i(q2,iT2,i2)(T2,i)]. (5.23)

    Total perfect customized products after production and remanufacturing are stored until the time T2,i for product i. Besides, number of reworked items are stored until time T3,i. Total holding cost for perfect customized products is

    HRR=Mi=1H1,i[h2,i+h1,i2(T2,i)+(N12N)h2,iT3,i]. (5.24)

    Defective customized product i is stored in every production cycle until the production up time T1,i. HCDIis given as follows:

    HCDI=Mi=1H1,i[g1,iT1,i2(T1,i)]. (5.25)

    Thus, the average holding cost of customized new items at the end of the production up time T1,i is HCMQ, which can be expressed as

    HCMQ=Mi=1H1,i[h1,iT1,i2]. (5.26)

    After finishing the production in two-stages, all finished products are stored for distribution. Then, products are sent in shipments. After sending product in shipment, other products are still stored. Thus, SHC is used to hold finished product i after production (Figure 4). Associative stock holding cost is

    SHC=Mi=1H3,i[N(Gili)TN,i2+N(N+1)liTN,i2+Nli(T1,i+T2,i)2]. (5.27)

    After Stage 2, finished products are sent to the market in N number of shipments. FVD is used for fixed transportation cost and IHC is used for variable transportation cost in T3,i. Corresponding transportation cost is

    FVD=Mi=1[NB1,i+FT,iAi]. (5.28)

    The total cost (TC) of the flexible production system is TC(t,N,q1,i,q2,i), which can be written as

    TC(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)=SEC+PRC+REC+SSC+IHC+IHCF+IHCI+FVD+SHC+HRR.+HCMQ+HCDI (5.29)
    =(B0+[Cm1,0+CD1,0q1,0+Cm2,0+CD2,0q2,0+αq1,0+αq2,0]A0+FR,0y0A0+H2,0(g1,0T1,02)(T2,0)+H4,0(y0A0)t+H1,0[h1,0T1,02+h2,0+h1,02(T2,0)+g1,0T1,02(T1,0)+Mi=1hi(T1,i+T2,i)])+Mi=1(Bi+[Cm1,i+CD1,iq1,i+Cm2,i+CD2,iq2,i+αq1,i+αq2,i]Ai+FR,iyiAi+NB1,i+FT,iAi+H2,i(q2,iT2,i2)(T2,i)+H1,i[Ai2(T1,i)+h1,iT1,i2+h2,i+h1,i2(T2,i)+(N12N)h2,iT3,i+g1,iT1,i2(T1,i)]+H3,i[N(GiIi)TN,i2+N(N+1)2IiTN,i+NIi(T1,i+T2,i)2]+H4,i(yiAi)t). (5.30)

    This is a period review model, i.e., inventory is checked in a certain time period. Substituting Eqs (5.1) to (5.16) in Eq (5.30), expected total cost (E[TCU]) for M number of products per cycle can be obtained as below.

    E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]=E[TC(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]E[t]=(B0t+δ0[Cm1,0+CD1,0q1,0+Cm2,0+CD2,0q2,0+αq1,0+αq2,0]+FR,0δ0E[y0]+w0t)+Mi=1([Bit+δi[Cm1,i+CD1,iq1,i+Cm2,i+CD2,iq2,i+αq1,i+αq2,i]+FR,iδiE[yi]+NB1,it+FT,iδi]+H1,itδ2i2(γ2,iγ1,iN)+H2,itδ2iE[yi]22q2,i+H3,itδ2i2[1q1,i+E[yi]q2,i+γ1,iN]+tH4,iδiE[yi]),wherew0=H1,0δ202[1q1,0+2E[y0]q2,0E[y0]2q2,0]+H2,0δ20E[y0]22q2,0+H1,0Mi=1((δiq1,i+δiE[yi]q2,i)[Mi=1(δi)ij=1(δj)])+H4,0δ0E[y0]γ1,i=[1δi1q1,iE[yi]q2,i],andγ2,i=[1δiE[yi]2q2,i+1q1,i+E[yi]q2,i]. (5.31)

    Eq (5.31) states the expected total cost of the proposed production system. There are four decision variables t,N,q1,i, and q2,i. The paper gives a unique solution to the problem and finds the best strategy for the flexible production system.

    A classical optimization technique is used to obtain the total cost E[TCU]. Solutions of decision variables are found by using first order derivatives. The convex nature of the objective function in Eq (5.31) are proved by the Hessian matrix. First order partial derivatives of Eq (5.31) with respect to t,N,q1,i and q2,i are given below.

    E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]t=B0t2+w0+Mi=1(Bit2NB1,it2+H1,iδ2i2(γ2,iγ1,iN)+H2,iδ2iE[yi]22q2,i+H3,iδ2i2(1q1,i+E[yi]q2,i+γ1,iN)+H4,iδiE[yi]) (6.1)
    2E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]t2=2B0t3+Mi=1(2Bit3+2NB1,it3) (6.2)
    2E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]tN=Mi=1(B1,it2+H1,iγ1,iδ2i2N2H3,iδ2iγ1,i2N2) (6.3)
    2E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]tq1,i=Mi=1(H3,iδ2i2q21,i) (6.4)
    2E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]tq2,i=Mi=1(H3,iδ2iE[yi]2q2,iH2,iδ2iE[yi]22q2,i) (6.5)
    E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]N=Mi=1(B1,it+H1,itδ2iγ1,i2N2H3,itδ2iγ1,i2N2) (6.6)
    2E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]N2=Mi=1(H1,itδ2iγ1,iN3+H3,itδ2iγ1,iN3) (6.7)
    2E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]Nq1,i=0 (6.8)
    2E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]Nq2,i=0 (6.9)
    E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]q1,i=H1,0Mi=1δiq21,i(Mi=1δiMj=1δj)t+Mi=1(δiCD1,iq21,i+αH3,itδ2i2q21,iH1,itδ2i2q21,iH1,itδ2i2Nq21,i+H3,itδ2i2Nq21,i) (6.10)
    2E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]q21,i=2H1,0Mi=1δiq31,i(Mi=1δiMj=1δj)t+Mi=1(2δiCD1,iq31,i+H3,itδ2iq31,i+H1,itδ2iq31,i+H1,itδ2iNq31,iH3,itδ2iNq31,i) (6.11)
    2E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]q1,iq2,i=0 (6.12)
    E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]q2,i=H1,0Mi=1δiE[yi]q22,i(Mi=1δiMj=1δj)t+Mi=1(δiCD2,iq22,i+αH2,itδ2iE[y2i]2q22,iH3,itδ2iE[yi]2q22,i+H3,itδ2iE[yi]Nq22,i+H1,itδ2iE[y2i]2q22,iH1,itδ2iE[yi]2q22,iH1,itδ2iE[yi]2Nq22,i) (6.13)
    2E[TCU(t,N,q1,i,q2,i)]q22,i=2H1,0Mi=1δiE[yi]q32,i(Mi=1δiMj=1δj)t+Mi=1(2δiCD2,iq32,i+H2,itδ2iE[y2i]q32,i+H3,itδ2iE[yi]q32,iH3,itδ2iE[yi]2Nq32,iH1,itδ2iE[y2i]q32,i+H1,itδ2iE[yi]q32,i+H1,itδ2iE[yi]Nq32,i) (6.14)

    First order derivatives in Eqs (6.1), (6.6), (6.10), and (6.13) give unique solutions after equating the equations to zero (necessary condition of classical optimization). Thus, unique solutions t,N,q1,i, and q2,i are

    t=B0+Mi=1(Bi+NB1,i)w0+Mi=1(H1,iδ2i2(γ2,iγ1,iN)+H2,iδ2iE[yi]22q2,i+H3,iδ2i2(1q1,i+E[yi]q2,i+γ1,iN)+H4,iδiE[yi]) (6.15)
    N=(B0+Mi=1Bi)Mi=1δ2i2γ1,i(H3,iH1,i)(Mi=1B1,i)(w0+Mi=1A1) (6.16)
    q1,i=H1,0Mi=12Nδi(Mi=1δiMi=1δj)t+Mi=1B12αN (6.17)
    q2,i=H1,0Mi=12NδiE[yi](Mi=1δiMi=1δj)t+Mi=1C12αN (6.18)

    [See Appendix 1 for all the values]

    The following proposition proves that the ETC cost of the flexible production system is a global minimum.

    Proposition: Expected total cost of the production system in Eq (5.31) has a global minimum value at t,N,q1,i, and q2,i if the values principal minors of order one (H11), two (H22), three (H33), and four (H44) of the fourth order Hessian matrix are greater than zero.

    Proof: The Hessian matrix of order four can be written as

    H=|2Et22EtN2Etq1,i2Etq2,i2ENt2EN22ENq1,i2ENq2,i2Eq1,it2Eq1,iN2Eq1,i22Eq1,iq2,i2Eq2,it2Eq2,iN2Eq2,iq1,i2Eq2,i2|

    The first order principal minor is

    H11=2Et2=2B0t3+Mi=1(2Bit3+2NB1,it3)>0.

    The first order principal minor is

    H11=2B0t3+Mi=1(2Bit3+2NB1,it3)>0.

    The second order principal minor is

    H22=2Et22EN2(2EtN)2=(2B0t3+Mi=1(2Bit3+2NB1,it3))(Mi=1(H1,itδ2iγ1,iN3+H3,itδ2iγ1,iN3))(Mi=1(B1,it2+H1,iγ1,iδ2i2N2H3,iδ2iγ1,i2N2))2>0.

    The third order principal minor is

    H33=2EN2det(H22)(2EtN)2(2Eq1,i2)>0.

    The fourth principal minor is

    H44=2Eq2,i2det(H33)(2Etq2,i)2(2EN2)(2Eq1,i2)>0.

    Therefore, one can conclude that the unique solutions of the objective function provides a global minimum cost.

    The numerical examples are provided to investigate the outcomes of the mathematical model. Five distinct products are produced with a common component manufacturing rate β=q2,iq1,i. Associative input data are taken from Chiu et al. [7]. Annual demand of five products are δ1 = 3000 units/year, δ2 = 3200 units/year, δ3 = 3400 units/year, δ4 = 3,600 units/year, and δ5 = 3800 units/year. A linear relationship 1β is assumed for these relevant manufacturing rates. The relationship between the relevant amount of the common components and the participation rate β can be linear or nonlinear. All cases are investigated in the following subsections.

    The correlation between the common components production and the customized production of products is linear with the participation rate β = 0.5. Setup cost of Stage 1 (B0) = $8500/setup, remanufacturing cost of Stage 1 (FR,0) = $25/unit, holding cost (H1,0) = $5/unit/unit time, holding cost for safety stock cost for Stage 1 (H4,0) = $5/unit/unit time. Unit holding cost H1,1 = $10/unit/unit time, H1,2 = $15/unit/unit time, H1,3 = $20/unit/unit time, H1,4 = $25/unit/unit time, and H1,5 = $30/unit/unit time. Holding cost for remanufactured products for Stage 1 (H2,0) = $15/unit/unit time. Setup cost for Stage 2 are B1 = $8500/setup, B2 = $9000/setup, B3 = $9500/setup, B4 = $10,000/setup, B5 = $10,500/setup. Random defective rate in Stage 1 follows uniform distribution y0U[0, 0.04].

    q1,i=11/q1,i1/q1,0. Random defective rate in Stage 2 follows uniform distribution y1U[0, 0.01], y2U[0, 0.06], y3U[0, 0.11], y4U[0, 0.16], and y5U[0, 0.21]. Unit remanufacturing costs of Stage 2 are FR,1 = $25/unit, FR,2 = $30/unit, FR,3 = $35/unit, FR,4 = $40/unit, and FR,5 = $45/unit. q2,i=11/q2,i1/q2,0. Unit holding cost of remanufactured product for Stage 2 are H2,1 = $30/unit/unit time, H2,2 = $35/unit/unit time, H2,3 = $40/unit/unit time, H2,4 = $45/unit/unit time, and H2,5 = $50/unit/unit time. Fixed delivery cost per shipment are B1,1 = $1800/shipment, B1,2 = $1900/shipment, B1,3 = $2000/shipment, B1,4 = $2100/shipment, and B1,5 = $2200/shipment. Unit variable delivery cost are FT,1 = $0.1/unit, FT,2 = $0.2/unit, FT,3 = $0.3/unit, FT,4 = $0.4/unit, and FT,5 = $0.5/unit. Holding cost of finished product after Stage 2 are H3,1 = $70/unit/unit time, H3,1 = $75/unit/unit time, H3,3 = $80/unit/unit time, H3,4 = $85/unit/unit time, and H3,5 = $90/unit/unit time. Holding cost of safety stock for Stage 2 are H4,1 = $10/unit/unit time, H4,2 = $15/unit/unit time, H4,3 = $20/unit/unit time, H4,4 = $25/unit/unit time, and H4,5 = $30/unit/unit time.

    Annual demand for common components of products is δ0 = 17,000 units, which is obtained by applying Eqs (5.2) and (5.3). Then, by using Eqs (6.15) to (6.18), the optimum shipment number is obtained as N = 4, optimum production cycle time t = 0.6785 years, optimum production rate of Stage 1 q1,0=104,368unit/year, q1,1112,258 unit/year, q1,2 = 116,066 unit/year, q1,3 = 120,000 unit/year, q1,4 = 124,068 unit/year, and q1,5 = 128,276 units unit/year, optimum remanufacturing rate of of Stage 2 q2,0=85,752unit/year, q2,1 = 89,806 units/year, q2,2 = 92,852 units/year, q2,3 = 96,000 units/year, q2,4 = 99,254 units/year, and q2,5 = 102,621 units/year and the expected total cost is E[TCU] = $107,471,000/cycle. When the participation rate β rises, the total cost E[TCU] decreases 3.76% at β = 0.5 (total cost decreases from $111,511,910/cycle (β=1) to $107,471,000/cycle). These analytic results show that the expected total cost is a significantly useful investigation for manufacturers who produce multiple items through a shared-production facility. As the participation rate β=q2,iq1,i rises, the optimum cycle period t reduces significantly. The optimum cycle period t is decreased by 25.5% at β = 0.5 (declines from 0.8515 years (β=1) to 0.6785 years). Results indicate that the proposed two-stage multi-product flexible production system provides a reduced cycle length than with global minimum cost.

    This investigation examines the nonlinear relationship between shared-production and customized production with a participation rate β=q2iq1,i. Hence it has a more production rate than a linear participation rate. Using the new relation, parametric values are FR,0 = $40/unit, B0 = $13,493/setup, H1,0 = H4,0 = $8/unit time, H2,0 = $24/unit/unit time. Other parameters remain identical as expressed in Subsection 7.1. y0U[0, 0.04]. Therefore, Bi = $3507/setup, $4007/setup, $4507/setup, $5007/setup, and $5507/setup. FR,i = $10/unit, $15/unit, $20/unit, $25/unit, and $30/unit, and yi follows a uniform distribution with the interval [0, 0.01], [0, 0.06], [0, 0.11], [0, 0.16], and [0, 0.21], for five products, respectively.

    If β1/3 is the nonlinear relation, then F0 = β1/3F1 = $63/unit. Using Eqs (6.15) to (6.18) and (5.31), one can get the optimum numeral values of the shipment N = 4, optimum production cycle time t = 0.6005 (years), optimum production rate q1,0 = 101,821 unit/year, q1,1 = 105,272 unit/year, q1,2 = 109,518 unit/year, q1,3 = 113,233 unit/year, q1,4 = 117,072 unit/year, q1,5 = 125,146 unit/year, optimum remanufacturing rate q2,0 = 83,659 unit/year, q2,1 = 87,614 unit/year, q2,2 = 90,586 unit/year, q2,3 = 93,657 unit/year, q2,4 = 96,832 unit/year, q2,5 = 100,117 unit/year, and the expected total cost is E[TCU] = $104,837,961/cycle. For the non-linear relationship of β, when β increases, total cost E[TCU] decreases and it decreases by 2.45% (i.e., the total cost reduces from $107,471,000/cycle for β = 0.5, to $104,837,961/cycle) correlated to the initial linear occurrence. For the nonlinear case, optimum cycle time t decreases by 13.20% than the linear relationship β = 0.5 (it reduces from 0.6785 years to 0.5889 years). Hence, it shows that the proposed two-stage multi-product flexible production system is significantly useful for manufacturers for a short replenishment cycle. The manufacturer can provide multiple products with less cycle time. The analytic outcomes reveal that the shared-production has a higher cost than the customized production system. Besides, a nonlinear participation β1/3 provides less system cost than a linear relation. But, the optimum cycle period t reduces significantly for a non-linear participation rate.

    The managers aim to achieve a less cost-sensitive production system such that the system cost becomes low. In a high price-sensitive system, market demand decreases with a few price increases. The risk of borrowing from the online platform increases for high-price-sensitive products. Besides, a long cycle time can increase the risk of lost sales for a cost-sensitive system. Thus, a shared-production facility along with a flexible production system solve the problem by adjusting production and remanufacturing rate within a reduced cycle time. Thus, industry managers can reduce the risk of lost sales due to a flexible production system.

    A shared-production facility-based flexible production was discussed where multi-products were produced. The production system was a two-stage facility where each stage had a production and remanufacturing process. Multi-products were produced in the production process and imperfect products were remanufactured after finishing the production process. Both the production and remanufacturing processes had a single flexible machine. Thus, the shared production helped to produce common components of all products in Stage 1 and Stage 2 finished the rest. Results showed that the participation ratio of shared-production in the production process had a major impact on the system's cost and production cycle time. If the production cost of Stage 1 and Stage 2 became independent of one another, then the system cost was maximum. If the production cost of Stage 1 is linearly dependent on Stage 2, then the production cost of Stage 1 became less than Stage 2, and both the cycle time along with system cost were reduced. But, the maximum reduction in cost and cycle time happened when the relation β became non-linear. The flexible production system supported the whole process as the reduction of cycle time implies a fast production process in less amount of time. Adjustment of production and remanufacturing rate of the flexible production system helped the manager to decide on the new reduced cycle time. The present model developed a flexible production model by considering simultaneous scheduling and lot-sizing with a single machine. This study can be extended using parallel flexible machines [40]. The study can be extended for a supply chain scenario with multiple buyers. Moreover, consideration of uncertainty within the market demand will make the model more practical. Instead of linear relation [41], future research can be conducted using nonlinear control theory techniques [42,43]. Environmental issue of carbon emissions can be considered within the proposed system [44].

    This research is not funded through any source.

    There are no conflicts of interest.

    A1=(H1,iδ2i2(γ2,iγ1,iN)+H2,iδ2iE[yi]22q2,i+H3,iδ2i2(1q1,i+E[yi]q2,i+γ1,iN)+H4,iδiE[yi]

    B1=δiCD1,i2N+H3,itδ2iN+H1,itδ2iN+H1,itδ2iH3,itδ2iN

    C1=δiCD2,i2N+H3,itδ2iNE[yi]+H1,itδ2iNE[yi]+H1,itδ2iE[yi]H3,itδ2i2E[yi]+NH2,itδ2iE[y2i]NH1,itδ2iE[y2i]



    [1] Abdmouleh Z, Alammari RAM, Gastli A (2015) Review of policies encouraging renewable energy integration & best practices. Renew Sust Energ Rev 45: 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.035 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.035
    [2] Anyebe PAA (2018) An Overview of Approaches to the Study of Public Policy. Int J Polit Sci 4: 8–17. https://doi.org/10.20431/2454-9452.0401002 doi: 10.20431/2454-9452.0401002
    [3] Arocena R, Sutz J, Innovation systems and developing countries. DRUID Working Papers 02–05, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies, 2002. Available from: http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/lm/DRUIDwp/02-05.pdf.
    [4] Avelino F, Rotmans J (2011) A dynamic conceptualization of power for sustainability research. J Clean Prod 19: 796–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.11.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.11.012
    [5] Bakir C (2006) Governance by Supranational Interdependence: Domestic Policy Change in the Turkish Financial Services Industry, In: Batten J.A., Kearney C. Editors, Emerging European Financial Markets: Independence and Integration Post-Enlargement (International Finance Review, Vol. 6). Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-3767(05)06008-5 doi: 10.1016/S1569-3767(05)06008-5
    [6] Bakir C (2021) Actions, contexts, mechanisms and outcomes in macroprudential policy design and implementation. Public Policy Adm 36: 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076719827057 doi: 10.1177/0952076719827057
    [7] Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, The Basel Framework. Bank for International Settlements, 2024. Available from: https://www.bis.org/baselframework/BaselFramework.pdf.
    [8] Bhaskar R (2008) A Realist Theory of Science. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.2307/2215817
    [9] Bhattacharyya R (2021) Green finance for energy transition, climate action and sustainable development: overview of concepts, applications, implementation and challenges. Green Financ 4: 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3934/GF.2022001 doi: 10.3934/GF.2022001
    [10] Browne J, Coffey B, Cook K, et al. (2019) A guide to policy analysis as a research method. Health Promo Int 34: 1032–1044. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/day052 doi: 10.1093/heapro/day052
    [11] Bygstad B, Munkvold BE, Volkoff O (2016) Identifying generative mechanisms through affordances: A framework for critical realist data analysis. J Inf Technol 31: 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.13 doi: 10.1057/jit.2015.13
    [12] Carfora A, Pansini RV, Romano AA, et al. (2018) Renewable energy development and green public policies complementarities: The case of developed and developing countries. Renew Energ 115: 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.008 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.008
    [13] Corrocher N, Cappa E (2020) The Role of public interventions in inducing private climate finance: An empirical analysis of the solar energy sector. Energy Policy 147:111787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111787 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111787
    [14] CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research), South African Hydrogen Economy Activities - National Hydrogen Energy & Fuel Cell R & D Strategy development. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, 2006. Available from: https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/hydrogen_seminar/presentations/15_mathe_csir.pdf.
    [15] Danermark B, Ekströ m M, Jakobsen L, et al. (2005) Explaining society: an Introduction to critical realism in the social sciences. Taylor and Francis, Hoboken.
    [16] DMRE (Department of Mineral Resources and Energy) (2024a) The South African Energy Sector Report 2023. Department of Mineral Resources and Energy. Available from: https://www.dmre.gov.za/Portals/0/Resources/Publications/Reports/Energy%20Sector%20Reports/SA%20Energy%20Sector%20Report/2023-South-African-Energy-Sector-Report.pdf?ver = 6TOu3ZWrjDaMhxVQWcR3vQ%3d%3d.
    [17] DMRE (Department of Mineral Resources and Energy) (2024b) IPPPP Quarterly Report | Quarter 4 2023/24. Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, . Available from: https://www.dmre.gov.za/Portals/0/Resources/Publications/Reports/IPPPP/IPPPP-Quarter4-Report-as-at-31March2024.pdf.pdf?ver = 5GTn78y10qvjb_jky7_0XA%3d%3d.
    [18] Dolata U (2009) Technological innovations and sectoral change. Res Policy 38: 1066–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.03.006 doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.03.006
    [19] Dolata U (2013) The Transformative Capacity of New Technologies. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203070086
    [20] DSI (Department of Science and Innovation) (2021) Hydrogen Society Roadmap for South Africa 2021. Department of Science and Innovation. Available from: https://www.dst.gov.za/images/South_African_Hydrogen_Society_RoadmapV1.pdf.
    [21] DST (Department of Science and Technology) (2007) National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Research, Development and Innovation Strategy. Department of Science and Technology. Available from: https://www.hysa-padep.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Document-2_National-Hydrogen-and-Fuel-Cell-Technologies-Research-Development-and-Innovation-Strategy.pdf.
    [22] DTI (2012) Financial Sector Code for Black Economic Empowerment. Department of Trade and Industry. Available from: http://www.thedtic.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/BEE_Financial_sector_code.pdf.
    [23] DTI (2017) Amended Financial Sector Code 2017. Department of Trade and Industry. Available from: http://www.thedtic.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/Amended_Financial_Sector_Code.pdf.
    [24] DTIC (2023) Green Hydrogen Commercialisation Strategy for South Africa: Final Report. Department of Trade, Innovation and Competition. Available from: https://pccommissionflo.imgix.net/uploads/images/GHCS-Full-Report-17Oct23-Public-Submission90553.pdf.
    [25] Duggan N, Hooijmaaijers B, Rewizorski M, et al. (2022) Introduction: The BRICS, Global Governance, and Challenges for South–South Cooperation in a Post-Western World. Int Political Sci Rev 43: 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121211052211 doi: 10.1177/01925121211052211
    [26] Dunn WN (2018) Problem Structuring in Public Policy Analysis. International Public Policy Association. Available from: https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/5aeff35b03d17.pdf.
    [27] Dziwok E, Jä ger J (2024a) A critical overview of green finance, In: Jä ger J., Dziwok E. Editors, Understanding Green Finance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2–17. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803927558.00008
    [28] Dziwok E, Jä ger J (2024b) Neoliberal, reformist and transformative-progressive green finance and possible futures, In: Jä ger J., Dziwok E. Editors, Understanding Green Finance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 214–223. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803927558.00024
    [29] Easton G (2010) Critical realism in case study research. Ind Mark Manag 39: 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.06.004 doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.06.004
    [30] Eberhard A, Naude R (2016) The South African Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme: A Review and Lessons Learned. J Energy South Afr 27: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2016/v27i4a1483 doi: 10.17159/2413-3051/2016/v27i4a1483
    [31] Environment, Forestry and Fisheries Portfolio Committee (2021) Cost of air pollution in SA: DoH briefing ESKOM & SASOL on non-compliance with environmental laws. Available from: https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/33374/.
    [32] Epstein GA (2005) Introduction: Financialization and the World Economy, In: Epstein G.A. Editor, Financialization and the world economy, Paperback edition 2006, reprinted 2014. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar, 3–16.
    [33] Fabozzi FJ, Drake PP (2013) Finance: capital markets, financial management, and investment management. Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
    [34] Farrell N (2023) Policy design for green hydrogen. Renew Sust Energ Rev 178:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113216 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.113216
    [35] Fields N, Ryves D, Yeganyan R, et al (2023) Evidence-Based Policymaking: Insights and Recommendations for the Implementation of Clean Energy Transition Pathways for Kenya's Power Sector. Energies 16: 7904. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16237904 doi: 10.3390/en16237904
    [36] Fitch Ratings (2020) Fitch Downgrades South Africa to 'BBB-'; Outlook Stable. Fitch Ratings, Inc. Available from: https://www.fitchratings.com/site/fitch-home/pressrelease?id = 996021.
    [37] Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T, et al (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31: 437–440. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437 doi: 10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437
    [38] Franz T, McNelly A (2024) The "Finance-Extraction-Transitions Nexus": Geographies of the Green Transition in the 21st Century. Antipode 56: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.13049 doi: 10.1111/anti.13049
    [39] Gardiner J, Freke T (2024) Green bonds reached new heights in 2023. Bloomberg Professional Services, February 8. Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/insights/trading/green-bonds-reached-new-heights-in-2023/.
    [40] Garud R, Nayyar PR (1994) Transformative capacity: Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strateg Manag J 15:365–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150504 doi: 10.1002/smj.4250150504
    [41] Geddes A, Schmidt TS (2020) Integrating finance into the multi-level perspective: Technology niche-finance regime interactions and financial policy interventions. Res Policy 49: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103985 doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.103985
    [42] Geels FW, Kern F, Fuchs G, et al (2016) The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Res Policy 45: 896–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.015 doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.015
    [43] Geels FW, Schot J (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res Policy 36: 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
    [44] George L (2024) Bigger investors pouring money into emerging markets belie EM outflows | Reuters. Reuters, May. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/markets/bigger-investors-pouring-money-into-emerging-markets-belie-em-outflows-2024-05-23/.
    [45] Gevaert S, Pause L, Cezne E, et al. (2023) Green Hydrogen in the Global South: Opportunities & Challenges. Utrecht University. Available from: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/431204/20230711-Report-Green-Hydrogen-0320234434.pdf?sequence = 1 & isAllowed = y.
    [46] Gibson CW (2022) 'How will this affect our credit rating?': municipal debt and governing the environment. Environ Sociol 8: 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2022.2054131 doi: 10.1080/23251042.2022.2054131
    [47] Hafner S, Jones A, Anger-Kraavi A, et al. (2020) Closing the green finance gap – A systems perspective. Environ Innov Soc Transit 34: 26–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.007 doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.007
    [48] IEA, Africa Energy Outlook (2022) International Energy Agency, 2022. Available from: https://www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2022.
    [49] IEA (2021) Financing Clean Energy Transitions in Emerging and Developing Economies. International Energy Agency. Available from: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/6756ccd2-0772-4ffd-85e4-b73428ff9c72/FinancingCleanEnergyTransitionsinEMDEs_WorldEnergyInvestment2021SpecialReport.pdf.
    [50] IFC (2017) Green Finance: A Bottom-up Approach to Track Existing Flows. International Finance Corporation. Available from: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/788041573021878350/pdf/Full-Report.pdf.
    [51] IFRS Foundation (2016) Jurisdictional Profile: South Africa. IFRS Foundation. Available from: https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/publications/jurisdictions/pdf-profiles/south-africa-ifrs-profile.pdf.
    [52] IMF, IMF Conditionality, International Monetary Fund (2023) Available from: https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2023/IMF-Conditionality.
    [53] Institute of Directors in Southern Africa (2017) King IV Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa. Institute of Directors in Southern Africa. Available from: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iodsa.co.za/resource/collection/684B68A7-B768-465C-8214-E3A007F15A5A/IoDSA_King_IV_Report_-_WebVersion.pdf.
    [54] IRENA (2020) Green hydrogen: a guide to policy making. International Renewable Energy Agency. Available from: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Nov/IRENA_Green_hydrogen_policy_2020.pdf.
    [55] IRENA (2023) World energy transitions outlook: 1.5℃ pathway. International Renewable Energy Agency. Available from: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2023/Jun/IRENA_World_energy_transitions_outlook_2023.pdf.
    [56] IRENA (2023) CPI, Global landscape of renewable energy finance. International Renewable Energy Agency. Available from: https://mc-cd8320d4-36a1-40ac-83cc-3389-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2023/Feb/IRENA_CPI_Global_RE_finance_2023.pdf?rev = 8668440314f34e588647d3994d94a785.
    [57] IRENA, IEA, REN21 (2018) Renewable energy policies in a time of transition. International Renewable Energy Agency. Available from: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Apr/IRENA_IEA_REN21_Policies_2018.pdf?rev = 72587b606dc442bd8c8b4f74e0f4a574.
    [58] Isah A, Dioha MO, Debnath R, et al. (2023) Financing renewable energy: policy insights from Brazil and Nigeria. Energ Sustain Soc 13: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-022-00379-9 doi: 10.1186/s13705-022-00379-9
    [59] Kemfert C, Schmalz S (2019) Sustainable finance: political challenges of development and implementation of framework conditions. Green Financ 1: 237–248. https://doi.org/10.3934/GF.2019.3.237 doi: 10.3934/GF.2019.3.237
    [60] Kern F, Verhees B, Raven R, et al. (2015) Empowering sustainable niches: Comparing UK and Dutch offshore wind developments. Technol Forecast Soc Change 100: 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.08.004 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.08.004
    [61] Knuth S (2018) "Breakthroughs" for a green economy? Financialization and clean energy transition. Energ Res Soc Sci 41: 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.024 doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.024
    [62] Kuhmonen I, Siltaoja M (2022) Farming on the margins: Just transition and the resilience of peripheral farms. Environ Innov Soc Transit 43: 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.04.011 doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2022.04.011
    [63] Larionova M, Shelepov A (2022) BRICS, G20 and global economic governance reform. Int Polit Sci Rev 43: 512–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121211035122 doi: 10.1177/01925121211035122
    [64] Loorbach D, Schoenmaker D, Schramade W (2020) Principles for a Positive Finance Future. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. https://ssrn.com/abstract = 3732696
    [65] Lütz S (2005) The finance sector in transition: A motor for economic reform? Ger Pol 14: 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644000500154029 doi: 10.1080/09644000500154029
    [66] Melicher RW, Norton E (2020) The Financial Environment, In: Melicher R.W., Norton E. Authors, Introduction to Finance: Markets, Investments, and Financial Management, Seventeenth edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 5–23.
    [67] Migendt M, Polzin F, Schock F, et al (2017) Beyond venture capital: an exploratory study of the finance-innovation-policy nexus in cleantech. Ind Corp Change 26: 973–996. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtx014 doi: 10.1093/icc/dtx014
    [68] Mirzania P, Balta-Ozkan N, Marais L (2020) One technology, two pathways? Strategic Niche Management and the diverging diffusion of concentrated solar power in South Africa and the United States. Energ Res Soc Sci 69: 101729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101729 doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101729
    [69] Monaca SL, Spector K, Kobus J (2024) Financing the Green Transition. J Int Aff 73: 17:32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26872776
    [70] Moura J, Soares I (2023) Financing low-carbon hydrogen: The role of public policies and strategies in the EU, UK and USA. Green Financ 5: 265–297. https://doi.org/10.3934/GF.2023011 doi: 10.3934/GF.2023011
    [71] Naidoo CP (2020) Relating financial systems to sustainability transitions: Challenges, demands and design features. Environ Innov Soc Transit 36: 270–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2019.10.004
    [72] National Treasury, Treasury on FATF greylisting, South African Government (2024) Available from: https://www.gov.za/news/media-statements/treasury-fatf-greylisting-29-feb-2024.
    [73] Newell P, Bulkeley H (2017) Landscape for change? International climate policy and energy transitions: evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Clim Policy 17: 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1173003 doi: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1173003
    [74] Ngwu FN, Bavoso V, Chen Z (2017) Securitisation in BRICS: Issues, challenges and prospects. Res Int Bus Fin 42: 1219–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.060 doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.060
    [75] O'Connell AL (2024) The financing dynamics of niche innovation in energy transitions: A South African perspective. Energ Res Soc Sci 111: 103478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103478 doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103478
    [76] Omann I, Kammerlander M, Jä ger J, et al (2020) Assessing opportunities for scaling out, up and deep of win-win solutions for a sustainable world. Clim Change 160: 753–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02503-9 doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02503-9
    [77] Omri A, Ben Jabeur S (2024) Climate policies and legislation for renewable energy transition: The roles of financial sector and political institutions. Technol Forecast Soc Change 203: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123347 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123347
    [78] O'Sullivan M (2006) Finance and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0009
    [79] Pathania R, Bose A (2014) An analysis of the role of finance in energy transitions. J Sustain Financ Invest 4: 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2014.929000 doi: 10.1080/20430795.2014.929000
    [80] Penna CCR, Schot J, Steinmueller W (2023) Transformative investment: New rules for investing in sustainability transitions. Environ Innov Soc Transit 49: 100782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100782 doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2023.100782
    [81] Peris-Blanes J, Segura-Calero S, Sarabia N, et al. (2022) The role of place in shaping urban transformative capacity. The case of València (Spain). Environ Innov Soc Transit 42: 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.12.006 doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2021.12.006
    [82] Polzin F, Egli F, Steffen B, et al. (2019) How do policies mobilize private finance for renewable energy?—A systematic review with an investor perspective. Appl Energy 236: 1249–1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.11.098 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.11.098
    [83] Polzin F, Migendt M, Tä ube FA, et al. (2015) Public policy influence on renewable energy investments—A panel data study across OECD countries. Energy Policy 80: 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.026 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.026
    [84] Polzin F, Sanders M (2020) How to finance the transition to low-carbon energy in Europe? Energy Policy 147: 111863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111863 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111863
    [85] Presidential Climate Commission (2022) A Framework for a Just Transition in South Africa. Presidential Climate Commission. Available from: https://pccommissionflo.imgix.net/uploads/images/22_PAPER_Framework-for-a-Just-Transition_revised_242.pdf.
    [86] Presidential Climate Commission (2021) South Africa's NDC Targets for 2025 and 2030. Technical Report No.2. Presidential Climate Commission. Available from: https://www.climatecommission.org.za/publications/south-africas-ndc-targets-for-2025-and-2030.
    [87] Ragosa G, Warren P (2019) Unpacking the determinants of cross-border private investment in renewable energy in developing countries. J Clean Prod 235: 854–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.166 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.166
    [88] Rahman S, Moral IH, Hassan M, et al (2022) A systematic review of green finance in the banking industry: perspectives from a developing country. Green Financ 4: 347–363. https://doi.org/10.3934/GF.2022017 doi: 10.3934/GF.2022017
    [89] Ridder HG (2017) The theory contribution of case study research designs. Bus Res 10: 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-017-0045-z doi: 10.1007/s40685-017-0045-z
    [90] Ryszawska B (2018) Sustainable Finance: Paradigm Shift, In: Bem A, Daszyńska-Żygadło K, Hajdíková T, Juhász P (Editors) Financ Sustain. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92228-7_19
    [91] Ryszawska B (2016) Sustainability transition needs sustainable finance. Copernic J Financ Account 5: 185. https://doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2016.011 doi: 10.12775/CJFA.2016.011
    [92] Sasol Limited (2021) Sasol and IDC formalise partnership to co-develop South Africa's hydrogen economy. Sasol Limited. Available from: https://www.sasol.com/media-centre/media-releases/sasol-and-idc-formalise-partnership-co-develop-south-africa-s-hydrogen.
    [93] Sayer A (2000) Realism and Social Science. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203403204-7
    [94] Sayer A (1992) Method in Social Science. London: Taylor & Francis Group. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ujlink-ebooks/detail.action?docID = 178537.
    [95] Schot J, Geels FW (2008) Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 20: 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651 doi: 10.1080/09537320802292651
    [96] Schot J, Roberta B del R, Steinmueller E, et al. (2022) Transformative Investment in Sustainability. An Investment Philosophy for the Second Deep Transition. Deep Transition Project. Available from: https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/632d6cde6052c1b591d8dcbc/6374ee806f8d7b0ebbb045d0_Investment_Philosophy_16-11-22_NC_-_14.10pm.pdf.
    [97] Scott WR (2014) Crafting an Analytic Framework I: Three Pillars of Institutions, In: Scott W.R. Author, Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc., 55–85.
    [98] Seyfang G, Gilbert-Squires A (2019) Move your money? Sustainability Transitions in Regimes and Practices in the UK Retail Banking Sector. Ecol Econ 156: 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.09.014 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.09.014
    [99] Shahrokhi M, Cheng H, Dandapani K, et al (2017) The evolution and future of the BRICS: Unbundling politics from economics. Glob Financ J 32: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.002 doi: 10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.002
    [100] Sikka A, Khanna N, Purkayastha D (2023) Transition Finance, In: Mohanty, M., Sarkar, R. Editors, The Role of Coal in a Sustainable Energy Mix for India: A Wide-Angle View. London: Routledge India, 299–310. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781003433088.
    [101] Spector J (2015) Why Green Bonds Are Laying the Groundwork for Climate-Friendly Financing - Bloomberg. Bloomberg UK, August. Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-11/why-green-bonds-are-laying-the-groundwork-for-climate-friendly-financing.
    [102] Stake RE (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvpb3z73.14
    [103] Strange S (1990) Finance, Information and Power. Rev Int Stud 16: 259–274. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20097226.
    [104] Suaste Cherizola J (2021) From Commodities to Assets: Capital as Power and the Ontology of Finance. Rev Cap Power 2: 1–29.
    [105] Tavares FBR, Collaç o FM de A, Oliveira MC (2024) Green Finance Instruments and the Sustainable Development Goals Achievement in Developing Countries: A systematic literature review. Bol Conjunt 17: 433–463. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.10719989 doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.10719989
    [106] The Presidency, South Africa's Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET IP). The Presidency, South Africa (2022) Available from: https://pccommissionflo.imgix.net/uploads/images/South-Africas-Just-Energy-Transition-Investment-Plan-JET-IP-2023-2027-FINAL.pdf.
    [107] UNCTAD, World Investment Report (2023) Investing in Sustainable Energy for All. United Nations. Available from: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2023_en.pdf.
    [108] UNFCCC (2022) Round table on "Innovative Finance for Climate and Development, " The Sharm El-Sheikh Climate Implementation Summit. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available from: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/information_note_round_tables_scis_7-8_novemeber_2022.pdf.
    [109] UNIDO (2018) Introduction and User Manual: Sustainable Energy Regulation and Policymaking for Africa. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Available from: https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/2009-04/training_manual_on_sustainable_energy_regulation_and_policymaking_for_Africa_0.pdf.
    [110] United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. A/RES/70/1 Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations. Available from: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf.
    [111] United Nations (2015b) The Paris Agreement. United Nations. Available from: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.
    [112] Vedung E (1998) Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories, In: Bemelmans-Videc M.L., Rist R.C., Vedung E. Editors, Carrots, Sticks & Sermons, 1st edn. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Routledge, 21–58. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081748-2
    [113] Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, et al. (2004) Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–ecological Systems. Ecol Soc 9: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.258101 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.258101
    [114] Walter T, Wansleben L (2020) The Assault of Financial Futures on the Rest of Time, In: Scoones I., Stirling A. Editors, The Policy of Uncertainty: Challenges of Transformation. London: Routledge, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003023845
    [115] WCED (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. United Nations. Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf.
    [116] Weiss L (1998) The Myth of the Powerless State. New York: Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501711732
    [117] Weiss L (2000) Developmental states in transition: adapting, dismantling, innovating, not 'normalizing.' Pac Rev 13: 21–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/095127400363631
    [118] Weiss L (2003) States in the Global Economy: Bringing Domestic Institutions Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491757
    [119] Wigboldus SA, Van Eldik ZCS, Vernooij DM (2021) Transition pathways and transitions to sustainability: A critical exploration of perspectives, typologies and agendas. Stichting Wageningen Research, Wageningen Plant Research (WPR). https://doi.org/10.18174/559148
    [120] Wolfram M (2016) Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: A framework for research and policy. Cities 51: 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011 doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011
    [121] Wolfram M, Borgströ m S, Farrelly M (2019) Urban transformative capacity: From concept to practice. Ambio 48: 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01169-y doi: 10.1007/s13280-019-01169-y
    [122] World Bank (2022) Inequality in Southern Africa: An Assessment of the Southern African Customs Union. World Bank. Available from: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099125303072236903/pdf/P1649270c02a1f06b0a3ae02e57eadd7a82.pdf.
    [123] World Bank Group (2018) Overcoming Poverty and Inequality in South Africa. World Bank. Available from: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/pdf/Overcoming-Poverty-and-Inequality-in-South-Africa-An-Assessment-of-Drivers-Constraints-and-Opportunities.pdf.
    [124] World Energy Council (2021) National Hydrogen Strategies. World Energy Council. Available from: https://www.worldenergy.org/assets/downloads/Working_Paper_-_National_Hydrogen_Strategies_-_September_2021.pdf.
    [125] Wüstenhagen R, Menichetti E (2012) Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: Conceptual framework and opportunities for further research. Energy Policy 40: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.050 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.050
    [126] Yang J, Luo P (2020) Review on international comparison of carbon financial market. Green Financ 2: 55–74. https://doi.org/10.3934/GF.2020004 doi: 10.3934/GF.2020004
    [127] Zademach HM, Dichtl J (2016) Greening Finance and Financing the Green: Considerations and Observations on the Role of Finance in Energy Transitions, In: Jones A, Strö m P., Hermelin B., Rusten G. Editors, Services and the Green Economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52710-3_7
    [128] Zhang D, Zhang Z, Managi S (2019) A bibliometric analysis on green finance: Current status, development, and future directions. Financ Res Lett 29: 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.02.003 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2019.02.003
  • GF-06-04-026-S001.pdf
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Biswajit Sarkar, Bikash Koli Dey, Is online-to-offline customer care support essential for consumer service?, 2023, 75, 09696989, 103474, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103474
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1025) PDF downloads(121) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)  /  Tables(5)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog