The rapid development of the global economy has caused serious environmental pollution. Therefore, many enterprises carry out green R&D, production, and operation management activities in the supply chain [1]. For example, Haier Bio fulfills corporate responsibility via R&D, and carries the concept of green and low-carbon development throughout the whole chain of production and operation [2]. Moreover, Haier has reached agreement with JD.com to promote products through data-driven marketing technology. In April 2021, Honeywell made a solemn commitment to sustainability by achieving carbon neutrality in all of its operations and facilities by 2035, and has repeatedly set and exceeded aggressive sustainable development goals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from its operations and facilities by more than 90% since 2004 [3]. The “Green 360” program initiated by Wal-Mart states that all the products it sells must be 100% zero-cost manufacturing and energy renewable [4], and Wal-Mart can provide financing loans to these businesses.

However, green R&D needs a huge amount of capital, and it is often far from enough to rely only on manufacturers themselves when they conduct product R&D activities and expand new fields. Thus, how to relieve the shortage of capital in developing green products becomes one of the biggest challenges for many enterprises worldwide. Currently, banking financing is a main financing channel. Many banking institutions have started lending to green SEMs since the International Finance Corporation (IFC) announced the equator Principles in 2003. China has implemented green credit policies and encouraged banks and other financial institutions to provide credit support to cash-strapped, low-carbon enterprises since 2007 [5]. By the end of 2018, the accumulated amount of green credit provided by the industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Bank of China, Bank of Communications, and Postal Savings Bank of China had exceeded CNY 4.4 trillion [6]. Cornerstone Technologies Holdings Limited announced a green loan financing of about HKD 150 million in 2022. All these measures have played a positive role in supporting green R&D for the manufacturers. However, as capital providers, banks usually decide whether or not to grant loans by assessing the risks of lending enterprises only, albeit without considering supply chain risks, i.e., the risks of upstream and downstream stakeholders of enterprises. This is not conducive to the sustainable development of supply chain members.

With the rapid progress of Internet technology, the platform economy is conducive to improving the allocation efficiency of social resources and giving birth to many new forms of business with the characteristics of networking, digitalization, and intelligence. For example, JD.com collaborates with brands such as Huawei, Coach, and Burberry under the reselling model, in which the brands sell their products to JD.com at wholesale prices, and then JD.com sells them to consumers at a markup. However, when JD.com cooperates with Topsports, Sephora, and other brands, it adopts the agency selling model, and charges certain platform commission fees and sells its products through JD platform. Since 2010, the Amazon platform in the United States has not only sold various enterprises’ products through agency selling mode, but also opened a new selling channel to sell products. In addition, the platform provides enterprises with a new way of financing besides financing by bank, that is, to provide loans to manufacturers or suppliers who sell products on its platform. Thus, the platforms can not only provide online distribution channels but also online financing services for enterprises through supplier selling, credit and other transaction data, so as to facilitate the distribution of enterprises and relieve their capital pressure. For example, Alibaba, the owner of the Taobao platform, provides loans to B2B enterprises operating on its platform [7]. In 2018, JD.com launched “JD Express Bank”, a new online financial service based on big data analysis and new Internet technologies. Moreover, JD.com has also established the “Jingdong Bao” financing channel to meet the needs of small and median enterprises. Companies selling goods on Amazon platform can obtain loans from the Amazon platform, with the loan amount ranging from USD 1000 to 750,000 up to one year, and the annual interest rate ranging from 6% to 17% [8]. Platform financing channel has become a more convenient and efficient way: on one hand, it is conducive to the production and operation activities of enterprises; on the other hand, it can also make the platform obtain a higher income. Furthermore, the platform has the natural advantage of data collection, which can describe, predict, analyze, and guide consumers’ purchasing behaviors based on the acquired data and provide high-quality and accurate marketing services for all kinds of products, including green products [9]. At the same time, the platform’s data-driven marketing (DDM) activities can promote green products, strengthen green consumption concept of consumers, and improve the market share of green products [10]. Therefore, more and more manufacturers are selling green products on the platform. For example, JD.com uses DDM to cooperate with many well-known brands in the industry, such as mobile phone brand Huawei and food and home appliance brand Haier to sell their green products.

Green supply chain, also known as environment-conscious supply chain, is a mode of balancing economic growth and environmental protection and incorporating green environmental behavior into enterprise management [11]. In the 1990s, scholars began to study green supply chain management. In 1994, Moffat et al. [12] proposed the concept of green procurement when they studied the impact of products on the environment and advised that companies choose the right raw materials through environmental guidelines and focus on recycling. In 1996, scholars from Michigan State University proposed the embryonic form of green supply chain management theory. On this basis, Handfield [13] broadens the meaning of environmentally responsible manufacturing for enterprises, providing a reference for enterprises in the supply chain to reduce their impact on the environment in the process of operation.

In recent years, many scholars have put forward many insightful views on the concept of green supply chain and its management. Some scholars analyze green supply chain management from the aspects of green procurement, environmental innovation concept, product manufacturing and recycling, environmental benefits [14,15,16,17,18], and so on. From the perspective of e-commerce and green production, Rahmani and Yavari [19] define green supply chain management as that which considers the necessity of the environment in supply chain management while paying attention to ecological benefits in product design, material supply, processing, transportation, and product recycling and reuse interaction. De et al. [20], taking a Norwegian Salmon Supply Chain Network as evidence, studied the impact of different supply chain arrangements in the food supply chain on the cost of carbon emissions (a kind of green R&D cost) to solve environmental problems, and considered the restrictions related to carbon emissions. Gao et al. [21] consider the issue of green supply chain management with green standards formulated by the government and focused on the study of green products with two different green technologies. The study found that the improvement of green R&D technologies can continuously improve the environmental benefits of development-intensive green products. Ma et al. [22] found that green supply chain management is an environmental management mode to attract consumers to green consumption through manufacturers’ green emission reduction technologies, which thus alleviates the global environmental crisis. Liu et al.’s [23] study from the perspective of agriculture found that green supply chain management is an effective measure to drive economic development, benefit the people, and reduce carbon emission pollution under the constraints of carbon tax. The above scholars define their understanding of green supply chain management from different industries and perspectives. By summarizing their common points, it can be seen that green supply chain management is a modern management mode that comprehensively considers environmental impact and resource efficiency. As an important way for manufacturing enterprises to fulfill policy requirements and environmental responsibilities and achieve sustainable development, green R&D has long attracted extensive attention of scholars. How to enhance the green R&D ability of enterprises in the supply chain is one of the core issues. However, the existing literature ignores the fact that most supply chain members face capital constraints when investing in green technologies; however, in reality, they are more vulnerable to capital constraints in operational decisions. Therefore, we consider whether the establishment of a financing relationship with the platform is more beneficial for manufacturers to produce green products compared to borrowing from banks during supply chain operations.

Traditionally, to mitigate the negative impact of capital constraints, many enterprises in the supply chain have turned to external institutions to meet their financing needs [24], among which financing by bank is one of the most common financing strategies. Some of the early literature studied co-financing and inventory decisions by incorporating capital constraints into traditional newsvendor models. Although the traditional bank credit financing may solve the financing problems of many enterprises, it is often difficult for enterprises to obtain loans directly from banks and other financial institutions, due to the lack of certain tangible internal resources, high transaction costs, high operational risks, serious information asymmetry, and high bank loan costs [25]. In addition to a bank, manufacturers can also finance through suppliers, retailers, etc. Kouvelis and Zhao [26] studied the situation where both retailers and suppliers are constrained by capital and need short-term financing, concluding that, if an optimally structured trade credit contract is provided, retailers always prefer supplier financing rather than bank financing. Wu et al. [27] studied the situation where manufacturers take measures to reduce carbon emissions, while retailers are funded by banks or manufacturers due to limited funds, and explained how financing and the capital of retailers affect order quantity and carbon emission reduction. Jin et al. [8] study three financing strategies of bilateral supply chains in which both suppliers and retailers are subject to financial constraints. The three financing strategies are, respectively, non-cooperative bank sole financing strategy, cooperative bank trade credit financing strategy, and bank supplier guarantee financing strategy. Yang et al. [28] studied financing and pricing decisions in a supply chain, and the results show that supply chain provides decision-making options for new entrants and manufacturers must choose financing by retailer or bank according to the conditions. Huang et al. [29] studied the case of financing by bank, and the government can subsidize banks by providing financing as well as manufacturers and retailers. Fang and Xu [30] studied the green supply chain financing system composed of a capital-constrained manufacturer, a retailer, and a bank, and analyzed the financing behavior of manufacturers. Tang et al. [31] studied two innovative financing schemes emerging in recent years. The first is purchase order financing, which allows financial institutions to provide loans to suppliers by considering the value of purchase orders issued by creditworthy buyers. The second is buyer’s direct financing, that is, manufacturers issue purchase contracts and loans directly to suppliers. Both of these financing methods enable suppliers to obtain production financing.

With the development of the online marketplace, the platform provides loan services for members of the functional supply chain. Platform is an emerging Internet financial business model, which has just entered the development period, but the effect of financing by platform cannot be underestimated. As a product of the Internet era, platform plays an increasingly prominent role in the financial field due to its advantages of low financing threshold and convenient financing methods, which helps to solve the financing problems of cash-strapped enterprises. Therefore, financing by platform has become a new direction of financing development. Gao et al. [32] studied how the service commission rates for the platform affect manufacturer’s wholesale price decisions and retailer’s order quantity decision when the retailer or manufacturer borrows money from the online P2P lending platform under the condition that both suppliers and retailers are faced with capital constraints. Yan et al. [33] studied the form of online finance and encouraged SME manufacturers, especially those with capital constraints, to consider online channel options and implement dual-channel strategies. Yan et al. [34] discussed a two-channel supply chain structure, in which retailers and e-commerce platforms can free ride on each other’s selling efforts, while e-commerce platforms can provide online financial services to capital-constraint suppliers.

The issue how the manufacturer selects its financing channel has been studied by many scholars. Firstly, Dong et al. [35] showed that the financial providers under online and offline environments are different. For online supply chain finance, e-commerce platform is the financial service provider, while offline supply chain finance is provided by commercial banks or other financial institutions. Secondly, Gong et al. [36] shows that e-commerce platforms play a role in product distribution and financial provision, which will influence the decisions of more supply chain members. He believes that e-commerce platforms play an important role in the platform economy, providing distribution channels for SME manufacturers, helping them promote the distribution and production, and alleviating capital strains through online financing projects. Zhen et al. [37] established a model in which a capital-constrained manufacturer sells products through retailers and third-party platforms and can obtain financing from third-party platforms, retailers, or banks. For the manufacturer, financing from a third-party platform strategy is always better than financing from bank strategy. In conclusion, it is an open question how the dual roles of third-party platform lending and participation in direct channels affect dual-channel management of manufacturers. Third-party platforms must balance interest income with revenue-sharing payments from manufacturers when setting interest rates. Higher interest rates may increase loan revenues but reduce the number of products sold on the platform.

The above research mainly focuses on financing behavior in the general product supply chain. This paper, for the first time, studies the influence of green R&D and DDM activities on channel selection and cooperation strategy when the platform provides two selling modes of agency selling and reselling, adding new contents to the existing supply chain financing theories.

互联网可以为企业和消费者提供新的沟通方式，可以为制造商和零售商提供新的分销渠道。Terry等人[38]提出，在线购物的平台模式可以为制造商提供扩大市场的机会。Mantin等人[39]提出，零售商越来越多地采用双分销渠道模式，即这些零售商不仅充当传统商家（购买和转售商品），而且还为第三方卖家提供在线平台，以争夺相同的客户。Li等人[40]指出，零售商可以通过产品分类的在线和离线销售获得更多利润。上述研究表明，制造商和零售商可以通过选择合适的平台销售策略来获得收益。

目前，大型电商平台广泛使用的两种基本销售模式是传统转售模式和新代理销售模式[41]。许多学者研究了制造商和平台如何选择和创新销售模式。Abhishek等人[42]研究了当一个制造商通过两个电子零售商进行销售时，两个电子零售商在不同销售模式配置下的平衡，并使用风格化的理论模型来回答电子零售商何时应该使用代理模式以及何时应该使用转售模式。Geng等人[43]讨论了上游制造商对附加产品定价与下游在线平台销售模式选择之间的相互作用，发现销售模式的选择会影响制造商在附加定价和捆绑之间的选择。在平台佣金率不太低、附加产品市场潜力不太大的条件下，平台更倾向于代理销售模式。Tan和Carrillo[44]探讨了数字商品在网络平台上销售时，代理销售和批发（转售）模式之间的销售策略选择，并表明代理销售模式有利于数字产品的销售，用于收入分享行为和上游出版商对价格的直接控制。郝和范[45]关注了批发（转售）或代理销售模式下电子书和电子书阅读器的定价，他们指出，转售模式下的电子书价格较低，因为市场上电子书和电子书阅读器之间存在互补关系。Liu等人[10]调查了平台在代理销售和转售之间的偏好，考虑到DDM的影响，建立并比较了四种模式：NO-DDM +代理销售，NO-DDM+转售，DDM +代理销售和DDM+转售。结果表明，随着DDM效率的提高，平台更愿意采用转售模式。Ha等人[46]研究了平台供应链中的销售策略选择，其中第三方平台可以提供代理销售渠道、转售渠道，或两者兼而有之的销售渠道并推导出均衡销售策略选择。

在经济社会高质量发展的大背景下，平台经济助力企业实现绿色转型发展。杜先生[47]以实践中新兴的平台导向型绿色广告问题为研究对象，探讨了平台经济在绿色经济发展中的作用，结论是平台采用最佳推广策略比基于绩效的推广策略可以获得更多的利润。最近，采用DDM技术的平台研究已成为研究人员的热门话题。传统的绿色模块化设计存在失去产品平台规划策略使用的风险。Liu等[48]构建了电子商务平台中绿色农产品信息化采用行为的理论模型，结果表明，安全环境和平台的信息技术对消费者在商业平台上接收绿色农产品信息的意愿具有积极影响。李[49]研究了智能平台投入的相应技术成本如何降低智能平台供应链中的渠道成本，研究表明，平台也可以在不承担任何渠道成本的情况下投资智能平台技术。然而，上述文献中没有涉及渠道结构和绿色研发。本文通过分析DDM和绿色研发对供应链销售模式和融资渠道的影响，填补了现有文献的空白。