Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in global supply chains can be reduced by introducing renewable energy (RE) systems such as solar power generation systems. Some manufacturers commit themselves to the RE100 global initiative that encourages companies to source 100% of the electricity used in their business operations from RE. Thus, suppliers will face the risks of contract termination if suppliers fail to satisfy the target RE utilization rate to reduce GHG emissions. Besides costs, GHG emissions from electricity consumption during component production and GHG emissions from material production differ among suppliers due to differences in the availability of RE and regional energy mixes. Hence, in this study, we proposed a RE-based global supply chain network to reduce GHG emissions using an optimization model to satisfy the target RE utilization rate and GHG reduction rate simultaneously, where we considered the GHG emissions from electricity consumption and material production. In our model, the suppliers were allowed to purchase electricity generated by non-RE systems when they could not fulfill the electricity required to manufacture components from RE systems. We compared the RE utilization rate, GHG emissions, and total cost for two products (laptop and vacuum cleaner). We analyzed five scenarios for four countries (China, Malaysia, the United States, and Japan) where only one country implemented 100% RE, whereas the others installed 20-kW solar power generation systems and purchased additional electricity from non-RE providers. Both the laptops and vacuum cleaners exhibited a similar trend in terms of the GHG emissions and total cost.

1. [1] Ministry of the Environment, “Annual report on the environment, in Japan 2025.” https://www.env.go.jp/policy/hakusyo/r07/eng/2025_all.pdf [Accessed August 25, 2026]
2. [2] M. J. Meixell and V. B. Gargeya, “Global supply chain design: A literature review and critique,” Transp. Res. E: Logist. Transp. Rev., Vol.41, No.6, pp. 531-550, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2005.06.003
3. [3] D. J. Zhang, S. S. Dabadghao, and M. Udenio, “Global sourcing under tariffs: A perspective of time series analysis,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., Vol.280, Article No.109473, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109473
4. [4] Sharp Corporation, “2025 sustainability report,” 2025. https://global.sharp/corporate/eco/report/pdf/ssr2025_e.pdf?v=2025 [Accessed August 25, 2026]
5. [5] J. W. Lee et al., “Optimal sourcing strategy for enterprises to achieve 100% renewable energy,” Energy Rep., Vol.8, pp. 14865-14874, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.443
6. [6] Microsoft Corporation, “2025 Environmental Sustainability Report: Accelerating progress to 2030,” 2025. https://cdn-dynmedia-1.microsoft.com/is/content/microsoftcorp/microsoft/msc/documents/presentations/CSR/2025-Microsoft-Environmental-Sustainability-Report.pdf [Accessed August 25, 2026]
7. [7] Panasonic Corporation, “Sustainability data book 2025,” 2025. https://holdings.panasonic/global/corporate/sustainability/pdf/sdb2025e.pdf [Accessed August 25, 2026]
8. [8] Seiko Epson Corporation, “Epson group sustainability report 2025,” https://corporate.epson/en/sustainability/report/pdf/2025/epson_sr2025_all_e.pdf [Accessed August 25, 2026]
9. [9] L. Präger, J. Woytowicz, R. Reitberger, and W. Lang, “LCA-based calculation of GHG Protocol Scope 3: A bottom-up approach to determine GHG emissions of the construction activity of municipalities,” Build. Environ., Vol.285, Part A, Article No.113502, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113502
10. [10] Apple Inc., “Annual green bond impact report: Fiscal year 2023 update,” 2024. https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_downloads/additional_reports/2023/apple_greenbond_report_fy2023.pdf [Accessed August 25, 2026]
11. [11] Y. Nagai, “Planning method of a global supply chain network considering RE100 contract of photovoltaic power generation,” Bachelor’s Thesis, The University of Electro-Communications, 2025 (in Japanese).
12. [12] M. Kotegawa, Y. Kinoshita, and T. Yamada, “Global supply chain network design under cap-and-trade system and analysis of carbon price and emission allowance,” Green Low-Carbon Econ., Vol.3, No.2, pp. 159-170, 2025. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewGLCE42022351
13. [13] International Energy Agency, “Renewables 2025: Analysis and forecasts to 2030,” 2025. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/76ad6eac-2aa6-4c55-9a55-b8dc0dba9f9e/Renewables2025.pdf [Accessed August 25, 2026]
14. [14] H.-W. Lo, C.-J. Pai, and M. Deveci, “A multi-objective model for integrated supplier order allocation and supply chain network transportation planning decision-making,” Inf. Sci., Vol.689, Article No.121487, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2024.121487
15. [15] R. Eslamipoor and A. Sepehriyar, “Promoting green supply chain under carbon tax, carbon cap and carbon trading policies,” Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol.33, No.5, pp. 4901-4912, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3721
16. [16] T. Nagao, H. Ijuin, Y. Kinoshita, K. Nagasawa, and T. Yamada, “Designing global supply chain network under carbon border adjustment mechanism for low-carbon economy,” Int, J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., Vol.146, No.3, pp. 1567-1583, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-025-17186-z
17. [17] M. A. Edalatpour, A. M. Fathollahi-Fard, S. M. J. M. Al-e-Hashem, and K. Y. Wong, “Global sustainable closed-loop supply chain network considering incoterms rules and advertisement impacts,” J. Ind. Inf. Integr., Vol.42, Article No.100737, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2024.100737
18. [18] Y. Yoshizaki, T. Yamada, N. Itsubo, and M. Inoue, “Material based low-carbon and economic supplier selection with estimation of GHG emissions and affordable cost increment for parts production among multiple Asian countries,” J. Jpn. Ind. Manag. Assoc., Vol.66, No.4E, pp. 435-442, 2016. https://doi.org/10.11221/jima.66.435
19. [19] K. Horiguchi, M. Tsujimoto, H. Yamaguchi, and N. Itsubo, “Development of greenhouse gases emission intensity in eastern Asia using Asian international input-output table,” Proc. 7th Meet. Inst. Life Cycle Assess. Jpn., pp. 236-239, 2012 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.11539/ilcaj.2011.0.116.0
20. [20] T. Suzuki et al., “Study of assembly reliability evaluation,” Proc. 13th Des. Syst. Conf., pp. 262-265, 2003 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmedsd.2003.13.262
21. [21] Y. Ueno et al., “Study of assembly reliability evaluation method: Application to piping work of heavy equipments,” Proc. 14th Des. Syst. Conf., pp. 168-171, 2004 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmedsd.2004.14.168
22. [22] Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “New international comparisons of GDP and consumption based on purchasing power parities for the year 2014 gross domestic product at current PPPs and current exchanges rates” (in Japanese). https://www.soumu.go.jp/toukei_toukatsu/index/kokusai/icp.html [Accessed August 25, 2026]
23. [23] Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, “Census of manufacture” (in Japanese). http://www.meti.go.jp/statistics/tyo/kougyo/result-2/h17/kakuho/hinmoku/index.html [Accessed August 25, 2026]
24. [24] H. Takatori, “Technical progress of large size injection molding machine,” Seikei-Kakou (J. Jpn. Soc. Polym. Process.), Vol.18, No.10, pp. 729-734, 2006 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.4325/seikeikakou.18.729
25. [25] NTT DATA Mathematical Systems Inc., “Nuorium Optimizer.” https://www.msi.co.jp/english/nuopt.html [Accessed August 25, 2026]
26. [26] J. Koketsu, A. Ishigaki, H. Ijuin, and T. Yamada, “Variability specific to a closed-loop supply chain with product deterioration,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.16, No.6, pp. 727-736, 2022. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2022.p0727
27. [27] S. Yamada, Y. Komatsu, S. Bracke, and M. Inoue, “Product architecture derivation methodology based on multi-objective design structure matrix integration and supply chain evaluation,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.19, No.2, pp. 88-99, 2025. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2025.p0088