The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

IJPDLM
37,7 The returns management process
in supply chain strategy
Diane Mollenkopf
568 Department of Marketing and Logistics, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Received October 2006 Ivan Russo
Revised May 2007
Accepted May 2007
Department of Business Economics, University of Verona, Verona, Italy, and
Robert Frankel
Department of Management, Marketing and Logistics,
Coggin College of Business, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider theory development related to returns
management within supply chain strategy. The marketing/logistics relationship relative to the returns
management process is investigated.
Design/methodology/approach – Grounded theory qualitative methodology. Managers in five
Italian firms, across marketing and logistics roles, at strategic and operational levels were interviewed.
Findings – Four key findings emerged: strong evidence exists that strategic goals and policies are
being implemented; cross-functional integration within the firms is broader than was expected; the
more integrated firms deal better with external factors influencing the returns management process;
and supply chain orientation – including forward and reverse supply chain flows – is linked to
effective returns management.
Research limitations/implications – Firms were pre-selected for participation, due to researcher’s
time constraints. Additionally, given the pan-European approach to many supply chains, this Italian
research needs to be replicated in other (western and eastern) European settings to determine the
robustness of the factors posited to be important to the returns management process. Finally, other
functional areas beyond marketing and logistics are involved in returns management, and will be more
formally incorporated into future research.
Practical implications – Returns management – increasingly being recognized as affecting
competitive positioning – provides an important link between marketing and logistics. The broad
nature of its cross-functional impact suggests that firms would benefit by improving internal
integration efforts. In particular, a firm’s ability to react to and plan for the influence of external factors
on the returns management process is improved by such internal integration.
Originality/value – Returns management has been under-represented in much of the logistics and
supply chain literature. This paper represents the first stage of an on-going research project aimed at
providing a theoretical framework for understanding the returns management process within a firm’s
supply chain strategy.
Keywords Returns, Supply chain management, Qualitative methods, Europe
Paper type Research paper
International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management
Vol. 37 No. 7, 2007
pp. 568-592 Introduction
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-0035
Many companies have adopted and implemented supply chain initiatives, particularly
DOI 10.1108/09600030710776482 as they globalize their operations. Emphasis on managing business processes across
extended supply chains is growing (Lambert et al., 1998). One of these processes – Supply chain
returns management – focuses on the reverse supply chain, and effective management
can be complicated by the boundary spanning nature of this process within a firm and
strategy
across the entire supply chain (Rogers et al., 2002). Effective management is important
because returns can erode profitability for a firm and can impact relationships with
customers and end-users, as well as impact a firm’s reputation with stakeholders.
In this paper, we use the Rogers et al. (2002) definition of returns management as all 569
activities related to returns: avoidance, gatekeeping, reverse logistics, and disposal.
Long the forgotten step-child of logistics/supply chain managers, the strategic
importance of effectively managing returns is becoming increasingly evident as firms
seek to maximize the value they create for themselves and for customers. When firms
view returns as just a cost center or a regulatory compliance issue, they miss potential
value that can be created for themselves and their customers. Mollenkopf and Closs
(2005) point out this value can only be created by understanding the multi-functional
components of marketing, logistics, operations and finance/accounting functions
which actively engage in managing return products. But little is known about the
nature of these inter-functional relationships within firms as they relate to returns
management. On the marketing and logistics front, integration of these functional
areas has been studied extensively for forward supply chains (Bowersox et al., 1999;
Mollenkopf et al., 2000; Stank et al., 2001) and research interest is now developing
around various aspects of reverse logistics (Carter and Ellram, 1998; Fleischmann et al.,
2000; Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001; Mollenkopf et al., 2005).
However, there has been limited attention to theory-based research in the returns
management arena (Jahre, 1995a; Carter and Ellram, 1998; Daugherty et al., 2001) and
the issue of functional integration has been largely ignored. Marketing strategy and
policy decisions can have a significant impact on the type and timing of product
returns, which would influence the nature and extent of reverse logistics activities a
firm would have to undertake. Yet the nature of the relationship between marketing
and logistics as related to returns management and subsequent reverse logistics
activities remains unknown. Thus, the current research seeks to better understand
linkages between marketing and logistics at both the strategic and operation levels
within firms as they deal with returns management. In trying to better understand the
nature of marketing and logistics involvement in returns management, we focus on
four specific research questions:
RQ1. What is the role of the returns management process in the firm’s overall
supply chain strategy?
RQ2. How are the marketing and logistics functional areas integrated into the
returns management process?
RQ3. What role does a firm’s supply chain orientation play in how it engages in the
returns management process?
RQ4. What external factors influence the returns management process within the
firm?
We employ a qualitative methodology, due to the exploratory nature of the research
itself. Our ultimate goal is to develop theory about the returns management process
within firms. As a first step, the focus of this research is returns management in
IJPDLM Western Europe, specifically within Italian firms. The Italian focus provides a useful
37,7 starting point due to the changing environment brought about by European economic
integration and a pan-European regulatory environment. This research setting
provides an opportunity to study both firm-level factors as well as external factors that
may influence how firms handle their returns management processes.

570 Background
Returns management in Italy was originally studied and approached as an accounting
or production quality issue (Corsani, 1930; Ardemani, 1944; Onida, 1951; Saraceno,
1978). In the 1970-1980s, the notion of returns management in Europe became an issue
related to sustainable development; recovery practices were mandated through
environmental legislation. EU legislation and its green policy approach created
sensitivity about products at the end of their life. Thus, reverse logistics came to be
seen as a problem of sustainable development (De Brito and Dekker, 2004). The
Northern European countries have a history of being involved in green issues,
primarily focusing on consumer-level issues of waste and packaging recycling (Jahre,
1995a, b; Anderson and Huge Brodin, 2005). Recent legislation now mandates that all
EU countries follow new legislative directives relating to packaging (Directive
99/31/EC), cars (Directive 00/53/EC), and electrical/electronic equipment (Directives
02/96/EC and 02/95/EC). These European policies stipulate that all member nations
follow green policies in terms of reuse, recycling and product recovery.
The European Commission has shown interest in the development of the reverse
logistics field by sponsoring international scientific projects through the European
working group on reverse logistics, RevLog (Thierry et al., 1995; Fleischmann et al.,
1997). This group has focused much of its efforts on issues such as inventory
management, particularly in a remanufacturing context (Kleber et al., 2002; Kiesmuller,
2003; Kiesmuller and Scherer, 2003) and issues of network design and product flow
management (De Koster et al., 2002; Kokkinaki et al., 2002). The RevLog research has
intensely focused on quantitative modeling of product recovery related issues.
In Italy, research has been limited to issues of sustainable mobility for urban transit
situations (Borghesi et al., 1997; Maggi, 2001) with some preliminary forays into supply
chain and reverse logistics issues (Dallari and Marchet, 2003). Yet, reverse logistics and
returns management issues have been absent from academic research and
management attention in Italy until very recently. This is primarily due to the small
size of 90 percent of Italian firms where the priority is forward logistics. However, due
to the new green laws being enacted across Europe and changing market opportunities
(Christopher and Peck, 2003; Borghesi, 2006) academic interest in reverse logistics and
returns management is now developing in Italy. The current research represents a
preliminary attempt to understand the returns management phenomenon from the
perspective of Italian managers.
More generally, returns management literature has roots in both the marketing and
logistics disciplines, with the early focus on reverse channels and reverse logistics,
respectively. One early attempt in the marketing literature by Stanton and Zikmund
(1971) focused on the role of the consumer in the reverse distribution channel for
waste materials, exemplifying marketing’s early focus on environmental issues
(Lavidge, 1970). The study of waste disposal was deemed a social marketing issue;
reverse channels of distribution were seen as a logical extension of the marketing
function, designed to bridge the physical and nonphysical gaps that exist between Supply chain
producers and consumers (Ginter and Starling, 1978). strategy
By the 1980s, the logistics literature focused on product flow “going the wrong way”
(Lambert and Stock, 1982), that is, the opposite way with respect to the traditional flow
(Murphy and Poist, 1989). In particular, Stock (1992) was the first to approach the issue
with a holistic view, trying to create an academic framework for understanding the
reverse flow, with emphasis on managing returns as a problem to be solved. Kopicki 571
et al. (1993) studied the opportunities created in the context of reuse, recycling and
disposal of product and packaging waste. Because of the different implications of the
reverse flow, they concluded that reverse logistics was becoming an important issue
with respect to waste reduction. These authors also observed that reverse flows need to
be managed differently than forward flows.
The changing regulatory environment also motivated academic research in the
1990s. Both American and European laws were becoming increasingly strict for
manufacturers (Cairncross, 1992), leading to a focus on environmental management
systems (Willits and Giuntini, 1994) across the phases of the product life cycle. Thierry
et al. (1995) focused on issues of product recovery in specific sectors, with particular
attention on cost savings associated with refurbishing activities. Other authors
addressed the relationship between reverse logistics and green logistics (Güngör and
Gupta, 1999; Geyer and Jackson, 2004). This stream of research centered around the
cradle-to-grave approach, considering the environmental impact of waste product or
packaging materials (Witt, 1986, 1993; Barry et al., 1993; Andel, 1995).
The emphasis on management practices has led researchers to examine the
profitability of returns handling systems (Andel, 1997). Rogers and Tibben-Lembke
(1999) surveyed American firms and found a growing emphasis of cost reduction in
managing return systems. Other researchers (Guide and van Wassenhove, 2003;
Dyckhoff et al., 2004) have focused their research on product recovery to reduce
production costs. Blackburn et al. (2004) recommend the need to make disposition
decisions as soon as possible in the returns process due to the time-sensitivity of most
returned goods. That is, the longer it takes to make the disposition decision on a
returned product, the lower the expected market value of that product when re-inserted
into the forward supply chain. This is supported by Rogers et al. (2002), who position
the returns management process as a part of a firm’s overall supply chain strategy.
They demonstrate the impact of returns management on economic value added and on
customer and supplier relationships. Their focus on returns avoidance, gatekeeping,
reverse logistics and disposal demonstrates the need to manage returns across multiple
functional areas and with firms across the supply chain. Shifting from merely a
cost-focus to enhanced customer service and financial performance clearly underscores
the strategic role of returns in a company’s supply chain activities.
Both Dowlatshahi (2000) and Carter and Ellram (1998) reported that the
preponderance of the literature on reverse logistics was general, practitioner
oriented and took the form of application cases specific to individual firms. Drawing
from the logistics, marketing and management literature, Carter and Ellram (1998)
proposed a model of the factors affecting a firm’s reverse logistics practices, including
both external and internal factors. Following their call for theory-based research,
Daugherty et al. (2001, 2002) provide some of the few theory-based approaches found in
the literature to date, focusing on resource and relationship commitments and their
IJPDLM impact on overall reverse logistics performance. But little is known about how
37,7 marketing and logistics managers integrate their decisions and processes with respect
to returns. The current research begins to address this issue.

Methodology
Because the phenomenon of returns management from a cross-functional perspective
572 has been previously unexplored, a qualitative research methodology was chosen. Such
an approach is appropriate for generating depth of understanding when a phenomenon
is poorly understood (Flint et al., 2002) and over which the researcher has limited or no
control. In seeking to understand the role of returns management within Italian firms, a
grounded theory approach was adopted (Ellram, 1996; Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
Grounded theory has its roots in social science, and is focused on understanding how
people perceive and interact within a dynamic world (Flint and Mentzer, 2000). This
approach has been adopted by other researchers studying phenomena in the
business-to-business context (Flint et al., 1997, 2002).
We used a modified theoretical sampling approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) due to
scheduling constraints faced by the research team. Firms deemed to be appropriate
candidates were pre-identified and invited to participate in the research. The invited
firms were known to one member of the research team, based on long-standing
relationships between his university and the relevant business community. Invitations
to participate were purposefully extended to firms across different industry sectors and
supply chain echelons with the expectation that such diversity would generate a breadth
of issues and perspectives. Invitations to participate were sequentially extended until
diversity in the sampling pool was achieved. In all cases, senior-level managers were
approached; five firms agreed to participate. Each senior manager coordinated the roster
of participants in his company, with guidance from the research team related to
identification of appropriate functional responsibilities. In all cases, interviewees were
influential decision makers involved in the returns management process.
In the end, the participant pool consisted of three manufacturing firms and two
distributors of international parent firms, representing consumer durable goods; auto
parts; books; pharmaceuticals; and transmission and propulsion systems for marine
applications. A total of 16 managers across the five companies were interviewed,
reflecting diversity along several dimensions such as function (marketing, sales,
logistics, spare parts, supply chain) and level (strategic and operational), tenure on the
job, organization size, industry, product lines and supply chain role. A brief description
of the participating firms is provided in Table I and a profile of the managers is
provided in Table II.
In lieu of formal bracketing interviews, each member of the research team wrote a
“bracketing essay” prior to conducting the interviews. Bracketing is a technique to
minimize researcher bias with respect to both content and interpretation of interview
subject matter (Briggs, 1986). The researchers reviewed the essays with each other so
as to sensitize themselves to any pre-conceived biases or expectations, and to maximize
objectivity during the interviews. Additionally, the essays provided a reflective
analytic framework during interpretation of the interview transcripts. In essence,
bracketing is a comparative technique to reduce interpretive bias, i.e. every effort was
made to ensure that the research team did not impose any pre-existing conceptions
relative to what the data revealed (Valle et al., 1978; Thompson et al., 1989).
 Supply chain
Company Industry Supply chain
namea sector echelon Description strategy
Happy Household Manufacturer This multi-national (headquartered in Italy) operates
Home appliances in four different business sectors: heating, air
conditioning and air treatment, food preparation and
cooking, cleaning and ironing products
Revenues are approximately e1.4 billion (Italy)
573
Competition in the market is very intense based on
factors such as innovation, quality and price. One of
the main issues for this market is the growing power
of retailers, particularly in the UK and Germany.
Moreover, the consumer is becoming increasingly
sophisticated and demanding
Booksters Book Manufacturer This domestic firm is a large publisher of books and
publishing (publisher) magazines, serving three distinct channels: small
independent booksellers, hypermarket and
mega-stores
Revenues are approximately e1.6 billion (Italy)
Each channel presents different opportunities and
challenges and therefore must be managed very
differently, albeit with the same product in each
channel. In all three channels stock availability on the
retail shelf is critical
Little competition exists, but changes in the consumer
market and opportunities for developing new channels
will bring about environmental change in coming
years
KarPartz Auto spare Distributor This national distributor of auto parts/components for
parts an important multinational, also serves a small portion
of North Africa, but its main market is Italian car
dealers
Revenues are approximately e4.6 billion (Italy)
With the implementation of the pan-European block
exemption rule (2002), competition has increased,
principally because this firm lost its sole distributor
status
Pharmco Pharmaceuticals Distributor This Italian subsidiary of an international
pharmaceutical company engages in R&D, marketing,
manufacture and distribution of pharmaceutical and
healthcare products. The company serves two main
channels: hospitals and pharmacy
Revenues are approximately e34 billion (worldwide)
The firm operates in a public healthcare system that
imposes many constraints on providers
MarineWorld Marine Manufacturer This multinational company has headquarters in Italy
propulsion and Revenues are approximately e72 million (Italy)
transmissions The market is not competitive, but is very demanding
in terms of quality and performance of the product.
Yet the end consumer has no knowledge of who this
part manufacturer is Table I.
Profile of participating
Note: aPseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the firms firms
IJPDLM
Participant
37,7 pseudonym Organization Description

Davide Happy Home Supply Chain Director, male, age 45, ten years with firm;
responsible for global supply chain
Alberto Happy Home Export Service Manager, male, age 37, six years with firm,
574 previous experience as product manager
Luigi Happy Home Regional Sales Director Europe, male, age 40, 12 years with firm
in two different periods; export sales manager prior to current
position
Massimiliano Happy Home Logistics project Manager, male, age 35, eight years with firm;
directly involved in firm’s offshoring manufacturing activities
Stefano Booksters Physical Distribution Director, male, age 45, ten years with
firm, responsible for all inbound and outbound books coming
from the customers and from production
Fabio Booksters Sales Hardcover Line Director, male, age 50, 12 years with firm,
responsible for the sales people that work with book retailers
Alessio KarPartz Logistics Director, male, age 44, 15 years with firm, responsible
for more than 250 people, 90,000 items, four wagons per day
and 30 trucks every day
Francesco KarPartz Logistics Warehouse Manager, male, age 38, 17 years with firm,
responsible for more than 180 workers in the warehouse
Antonio KarPartz Spare parts Purchasing and Distribution Manager, male, age
37, 18 years with firm, sales manager for spare parts service
manager in the light commercial vehicles division prior this
position
Angelo Pharmco Supply Chain Management Director, male, age 38, two years
with firm, responsible for all the issues of Italian supply chain
(distribution to customers, dealing with customers both
hospitals and wholesalers, demand planning activities,
warehousing and distribution until the invoicing to the final
customer)
Chiara Pharmco Customer Service Manager, female, age 30, responsible for the
aspects related to customer master data management and
administrative problems (invoicing and pricing)
Michele Pharmco Trading Strategy Coordinator, male, age 45, responsible for
pricing, competitive bidding processes, projects and special
aspects of the hospital channel
Gabriele MarineWorld Operations Director, male, age 55, responsible for activities and
processes related to the manufacturing, assembly, logistics,
quality control, all the systems, safety environment and process
engineering
Pino MarineWorld Service Manager, male, age 36, responsible for training on the
new products and post-sale customer support through
worldwide service networks
Tiziano MarineWorld Sales Manager, male, age 34, manages three main customers;
responsible for the budget, for sales planning, pricing and new
product development
Matteo MarineWorld Logistics Manager, male, age 40, 22 years with firm, responsible
for production planning
Table II.
Profile of management Notes: All participants are key managers for their firms with decision-making power; pseudonyms
participants are used to protect the identity of the participants; some ages are estimates
Although the returns management process is an organizational – even a supply chain – Supply chain
phenomenon, we chose to focus on individual managers’ perceptions of the strategy
management process. Interviews were held individually with each participating
manager, and each interview lasted 60-90 minutes. The depth interviews were open
ended and discovery oriented, starting with a grand tour technique borrowed from
ethnography (McCracken, 1988). An interview guide that broadly identified topics of
interest was used to follow up the grand tour technique. These topics were identified 575
from previous research in returns management (Carter and Ellram, 1998; Rogers et al.,
2002; Mollenkopf and Closs, 2005). However, as the interviews progressed, new topics
were allowed to emerge as they were brought up by the interviewees. All interviews
were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim, as were the debriefing discussions
held by the research team after each set of interviews. The debriefing sessions were
conducted because of the inability to code transcripts of each interview before
proceeding to the next participating company, as advocated by Strauss and Corbin
(1998). Thus, we attempted to solidify our perceptions and thoughts with respect to
what we were hearing as we went along. The debriefing discussions were used to guide
future interviews, particularly as new ideas arose. All interviews were conducted in
English with the exception of two conducted in Italian. The Italian transcripts were
then translated into English by a professional translator. The Italian member
of the research team provided additional validation when interpreting the meaning of
the translated interviews. Because we achieved information redundancy via the
modified theoretical sampling approach, we were comfortable that theoretical
saturation had been achieved.
To ensure rigor in the data collection and analysis, we employed two sets of
trustworthiness criteria appropriate for qualitative methodology. From interpretive
research we applied criteria related to credibility, transferability, dependability,
confirmability and integrity (Hirschman, 1986); from grounded theory we applied
criteria of fit, understanding, generality, and control (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
Table III demonstrates that the data and analyses met these criteria.

Results
We focus the discussion of our results around four inter-related aspects that emerged
from the interviews: first, the role of the returns management process; second, the
nature and impact of cross-functional integration; third, supply chain orientation; and
fourth, external factors that influence the returns management process. Figure 1 shows
these aspects of the returns management phenomenon.

The role of the returns management process

Senior management in four of the five firms acknowledges that the returns
management process is not a top priority, but the reasons vary across the firms.
In Happy Home (pseudonyms have been used for company names), returns
management (and particularly the spare parts business which comprises a significant
portion of returns management activities) is not a top priority, although it was noted
that it is becoming an increasingly problematic issue. At this point in time, however,
the firm has too many “forward” problems for returns management to be perceived as
a priority. In Pharmco, returns management is not a major component of its business,
and the firm hopes that it never will be, for legal and safety reasons. Its primary
IJPDLM Trustworthiness criteria Method of addressing criteria in this study
37,7
Credibility
Extent to which the results Bracketing essays were utilized during
appear to be acceptable representations interpretation by the research team
of the data Three research team members gave input during
576 data collection and interpretation
Interviewers allowed participants to respond to
interviewers’ initial interpretations
Result: emergent models were altered and
expanded
Transferability
Extent to which the findings from one Modified theoretical sampling
study in one context will apply to other Result: data from all participants were
contexts represented by the theoretical concepts
Dependability
Extent to which the findings are unique to Many experiences covering recent and past
time and place; the stability or consistency of events were reflected upon by the participants
explanations Result: regardless of position of the firm and
when the story took place, consistency was found
across participants’ stories
Confirmability
Extent to which interpretations are the Interpretations, documents and summary of
result of the participants and the preliminary findings were independently
phenomenon as opposed to reviewed by the three researchers
researcher biases Finding: interpretations were broadened and
refined
Integrity
Extent to which interpretations are Interviews were of a non-threatening nature,
influenced by misinformation anonymous and professional
or evasions by participants Result: researchers never believed that
participants were trying to evade the issues being
discussed
Fit
Extent to which findings fit with the substantive Addressed through the methods to establish
area under investigation credibility, dependability and confirmability
Result: concepts were more deeply described, and
theoretical integration was made more fluid and
less linear, capturing the complexities of social
interaction discovered in the data
Understanding
Extent to which participants Participants were asked during the interviews to
by into results as possible representations confirm if researchers initial interpretations were
of their worlds accurate
Result: colleagues and participants bought into
the interpretations and subsequent findings
Generality
Extent to which findings discover multiple Interviews were of sufficient length and openness
aspects of the phenomenon to elicit many complex facets of the phenomenon
and related concepts
Result: captured multiple aspects of the
Table III. phenomenon
Trustworthiness of the
study and findings (continued)
Trustworthiness criteria Method of addressing criteria in this study
Supply chain
strategy
Control
Extent to which organizations can influence Some variables within the theory are aspects over
aspects of the theory which participants would have some degree of
control
Result: participants can influence returns 577
management process
Source: Adapted from Flint et al. (2002, p. 106) and Flint and Mentzer (2000, p. 23) Table III.

Functional
Integration

Strategic/ Supply
Operational Chain
Policies & Orientation
Practices

Figure 1.
External Factors A general model of the
returns management
process

responsibility is to be prepared to handle product recall situations and ensure that

procedures are in place and strictly adhered to when and if a recall occurs.
Operational policy supports returns management at KarPartz and Booksters. That
is, these firms think of their distribution channel as both a forward and backward flow.
Although viewed as a normal activity, KarPartz policy mandates that outbound orders
always take precedence over return goods in regard to space on delivery vehicles.
At Booksters, managers have recognized the costs involved in managing returns and
have proactively revamped the supply chain to minimize the volume of return goods.
Only in MarineWorld is returns management specifically stated as a primary
priority. Ironically, the firm has very few returns. Management believes this is the case
because a return is a very expensive proposition; intensive efforts are made to
understand the context within which its specialized products are used so the firm may
avoid returns. Quality verification and validation, in conjunction with understanding
product usage at the end customer level, is inextricably tied to the returns management
process in this firm.
IJPDLM Strategic level. Rogers et al. (2002) discuss the returns management process at both the
37,7 strategic and operational levels. In this research, clear patterns emerged of strategic vs
operational approaches to returns management. Even though returns may not be
considered a priority for all five firms, each views returns management goals
strategically, in multiple ways. First, a number of the firms increased customer loyalty
by decreasing the risk of a return for their customers. Happy Home acquiesced to the
578 increasing level of retailer power. KarPartz is particularly concerned with maintaining
its customer base due to regulatory changes which have increased competition and
provided more choices for the end consumer. Booksters has always considered that
making the returns management process easy for its retailer customers is a given; this
is particularly true with regard to its smaller customers. All but one of the firms
(MarineWorld ) pull products from customer shelves to refurbish or dispose of product
in order to protect marketing channels, i.e. to ensure that product does not wind up
being devalued in secondary markets or inappropriate channels. In a related manner,
Happy Home and Booksters seek to improve profitability by pulling poorly selling
product and replacing it with new, improved products. Pharmco does the same, in
order to keep product past its “use by” date out of the market. Returns management is
an integral component of this strategic approach. Additionally, KarPartz and
Booksters utilize asset recovery programs within the returns management process,
recovering delivery and packaging containers on a regular basis.
The development and use of returns avoidance, gate-keeping and disposition
guidelines are integral components of these firms’ strategies. The literature suggests
that a firm identify types of returns, as well as develop policy and screening
mechanisms to execute these guidelines (Rogers et al., 2002; Lambert, 2004). Both
KarPartz and Happy Home expressly indicated that they have specific policy
directives which identify the types of returns handled. For example, Happy Home
divides returns into reasons of quality, commercial and logistics. Procedures also exist
for merchandise under warranty as opposed to not under warranty. Karpartz has
similar identifications for returns of different categories.
Returns avoidance is a critical component of the returns management process for
most of these firms. KarPartz’s priority is to achieve returns reduction through SKU
and inventory reduction; Booksters revamped its supply chain to minimize the volume
of return goods by producing less inventory upfront and replenishing faster;
Pharmco’s emphasis on improved order entry and order fulfillment efficiencies, and
reduced transportation damage drives its focus on reducing returns; and MarineWorld
emphasizes quality verification and validation in design and manufacturing.
Gate-keeping involves the screening of both a return request and the returned
merchandise. All the firms have a gate-keeping policy. The authorization of a return
request is housed in the marketing department of all of the firms except in Pharmco,
where it is handled by logistics because returns are usually due to logistics “mistakes”
(e.g. wrong product or damaged in transit). The physical screening process of return
merchandise is performed at the customer locations. Authorization and physical
screening seek to prevent unwarranted merchandise from entering the channel.
Finally, all the firms perform a disposition activity which is performed in-house, except
Booksters, which outsources this activity.
All the firms utilize a returns network and related product flow policies and
procedures. Happy Home’s process is somewhat haphazard; KartPartz and Pharmco
have explicit policy and procedures in place. All of the firms have credit rules and Supply chain
accompanying procedures, which determine how the return goods are to be valued, and strategy
these seemed to be well-established, although there is a degree of human subjectivity
involved in this value determination.
With respect to performance measurement and the returns good process, Happy
Home makes minimal use of metrics; Pharmco and KarPartz have a set of
measurements in place; Booksters utilizes its 3PL to collect this information, 579
particularly productivity numbers; MarineWorld collects return goods information as
part of its normal operations. A summary of the strategic elements of the returns
management process found in the five firms is provided in Table IV, which shows that
the firms do focus on returns at a strategic level, although not consistently across all
the elements identified by Rogers et al. (2002).
Operational level. Rogers et al. (2002) identify several operational level returns
management components. Gatekeeping at the operational level is oftentimes
challenging for these firms. While the authorization procedure is an internal
decision, the physical screening of the product at the initial point of return is carried
out by other supply chain members (i.e. their customers). Specifically, KarPartz and
MarineWorld receive return requests from their dealers, Happy Home and Booksters
receive return requests from retailers, and Pharmco receives return requests from
hospitals and pharmacies. In each of these circumstances, retail store-level clerks and
other customer front-line personnel are often unwilling or unable to gatekeep returns,
therefore the operational gatekeeping procedure can be problematic (Lambert, 2004) for
the five firms. This is a primary reason why returns avoidance is such a priority.
Happy Home is the only firm in our sample that does not have any explicit returns
avoidance strategies in place; this may be one reason the marketing manager reported
that the firm is being battered by the increased power exerted by the larger retailers –
the lack of strategy results in operational mayhem.
Routing of the return goods is driven by the returns authorization procedure and is
well established and well handled by firms via set policy procedures. When the product
is physically received, verification, inspection and processing activities take place.
Generally, this is a manual process, as was observed at KarPartz’s and Booksters’
facilities. At KarPartz, Booksters, and Happy Home, reason codes were assigned to all
returns (because physical returns are so infrequent for Pharmco and MarineWorld, this
issue was not explored with them).
After receipt of goods, disposition of the products must be determined. According to
Rogers et al. (2002), this typically includes refurbishment, re-manufacturing,
disassembly for parts, recycling, re-selling as is or via secondary markets, or scrap.
KarPartz employees perform a number of these disposition activities via a series of
defined written policy procedures at one of its return facilities; Booksters recycles
almost all of its product; Pharmco destroys all of its product due to legal compliance
regulations, and does so under control of government authority; Happy Home returns
are sold to refurbishment companies or sent to local scrap firms; and MarineWorld
negotiates options with customers on the rare occasion that a return must be made.
Customers must receive credit for their returns, and this activity requires
negotiation and pre-established rules. For Happy Home, such negotiations are
oftentimes a contentious process. KarPartz, Pharmco and MarineWorld follow very
well-established procedures, as does Booksters – but the latter is flexible especially in
 37,7

580

Table IV.
IJPDLM

elements of returns
Summary of strategic

management processes
Happy Home Booksters KarPartz Pharmco MarineWorld

Strategic level
Determine RM goals and strategy
Increase customer loyalty through more open Yes Yes Yes
return policies
Protect marketing channels: pull product from Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A
customer shelves to refurbish/dispose, to ensure
product does not wind up being devalued in
secondary markets or inappropriate channels
Seek to improve profitability by keeping product Yes Yes Yes
“fresh” in the marketplace
Utilize asset recovery programs (for packaging Yes Yes
and delivery containers)
Adherence to legal/environmental compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes
regulations is strategically important
Develop avoidance, gatekeeping and disposition
guidelines
Guidelines seen to be integral to firm strategy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Identify returns by type Yes Yes
Focus on returns avoidance Yes Yes Yes Yes
Focus on gatekeeping Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Develop returns network and flow options Haphazard Yes Yes Rarely used Rarely used
Develop credit rules Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Determine secondary markets No N/A Not yet N/A N/A
Develop framework of metrics Minimal Productivity-focused Yes Yes Yes
regard to its smaller customers (who have historically used returning goods as a Supply chain
mechanism to avoid paying for new products that they are interested in purchasing). strategy
Finally, the analysis of returns and measurement of the return goods performance
revealed that all the firms are very focused on cost reduction and asset reduction
metrics, but do not appear to be very aware or very intent on measurement with
respect to return goods’ impact on short- or long-term sales, except MarineWorld.
It should be noted that it is much easier to measure the cost components that the firms 581
do focus on, rather than on sales impact. MarineWorld is the only company that
performed analysis with respect to future returns avoidance, or set goals to improve
future performance. Table V summarizes these findings at the operational level.
Section summary. While the returns management process is not considered a
priority in the five firms, there is strong evidence that there are significant strategic
goals and policies in place, not just an operational mind-set. It is also clear in Tables IV
and V that returns management strategies and operational activities are incomplete at
all firms. This probably relates to the non-prioritization of the returns management
process. It also indicates that the strategic goals and policies related to returns
management occur primarily in relation to other supply chain and/or logistics
initiatives that carry a higher priority internally (e.g. focus on customer loyalty or
customer service). Thus, what returns management successes these firms are enjoying
occurs in spite of the low prioritization of returns management itself.

Cross-functional integration
The degree and depth of logistics-marketing integration within each of the firms varies
considerably. Three of the firms exhibit high levels of cross-functional integration, but
for very different reasons. We would expect to see high levels of integration at the two
firms for whom returns were a “normal part of operations.” Indeed, KarPartz scores
high on integration because it recognizes that service to the dealers – which relies upon
marketing and logistics working together – is the firm’s competitive differentiator.
The legal environment in Europe recently changed the face of competition in this
industry, causing KarPartz to lose its sole-distributorship status in Italy. Thus, the
importance of service as a differentiator is becoming increasingly clear as prices begin
to drop in the marketplace. The returns management process, which is an integral
component of the service offering, is therefore benefiting as well. KarPartz is very
customer focused (both dealer and end consumer), and the firm’s efficiency is achieved
without sacrificing service. However, well this integration plays out through the firm’s
service performance, we note that the integration mindset appears to exist only at the
senior level of the firm, not at the operational levels. Likewise, at Booksters, integration
is strong due to a good working relationship between marketing and distribution
managers, which has not always existed. In fact, Booksters is the only firm that
explicitly stressed the strong personal working relationships of people across functions
as a key reason why integration has improved so much in the last five years.
Pharmco is the third firm that exhibits high levels of integration, although the
coordination between logistics and accounting is what stands out most prominently.
This integration exists for two reasons. First, the firm experiences significant financial
exposure due to the long cash-to-cash cycles which exist in this business model.
Second, compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley has further increased the integration between
logistics, and accounting (and marketing, as well).
 37,7

582

Table V.
IJPDLM

elements of returns
management processes
Summary of operational
Happy Home Booksters KarPartz Pharmco MarineWorld

Operational level
Process return request Marketing Marketing Marketing Customer service Marketing
Determine routing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Receive returns Process varies by Established, varies by An established, An established, manual An established, manual
country channel manual process process process
Select disposition Refurbishing or scrap Recycles Multiple Destroys, under control Negotiate options with
disposition of government authority customers
options
Credit Inconsistent across Well established, but Well established Well established Well established
customer/supplier markets; often flexible with smaller
contentious customers
Analyze returns and Focus on cost reduction Focus on cost/asset Focus on cost Focus on cost reduction Focus on sales impact,
measure performance reduction reduction improvement and returns
avoidance
At the other end of the integration spectrum are Happy Home and MarineWorld. Supply chain
Happy Home exhibits a clear lack of marketing-logistics-spare parts integration. strategy
This situation is primarily created because there is poor sales visibility across the firm.
The problem is now recognized as such, and is reflected in an increasing awareness of
the importance of those internal customers who manage spare parts activities. There is
also poor integration between marketing and logistics for product flows. The logistics
manager at the firm was the only mid-level manager who acknowledged the need for 583
marketing and logistics to “talk to each other.”
The issue of integration at MarineWorld is puzzling. The firm is very focused on the
end-user and highly collaborative with its channel dealers. Conversely, the firm is very
internally focused around a production mentality. There is very little visibility or
sharing of information across functions despite the use of SAP systems. Logistics is
primarily a plant-based activity that revolves around production planning. There is no
upstream/downstream awareness in the logistics function. Likewise, the marketing
function is primarily a sales function, which sees no need to get involved in production
planning decisions. Thus, the level of marketing-logistics integration is very low in this
firm.
Section summary. One generally thinks of the returns management process as
primarily a physical flow, but Pharmco, KarPartz, and Booksters point out the equally
important task of managing financial/administrative flows in the returns management
process. It would appear that marketing-logistics integration, using returns
management as a proxy, is best achieved when visibility of information is high and
strong personal relationships are able to support the information exchange. This is
consistent with the logistics literature relating to integration (Mollenkopf et al., 2000;
Daugherty et al., 2002).

Supply chain orientation

In our investigation of integration, we discovered a link to a firm’s managerial
horizons. Does the firm “see” the upstream suppliers and downstream customers
(including second tier and beyond), and does the firm understand the implications of
managing the upstream and downstream flows of products, services, finances and
information across all organizations in the supply chain? This finding extends the
current definition of supply chain orientation (Mentzer et al., 2001) to suggest that
supply chain orientation includes both the forward and reverse supply chain.
A weakness with regard to internal functional integration and the related ability to
possess a broad supply chain orientation limits each of the firms’ returns management
process, with the possible exception of Booksters. Senior management in Happy Home
stated that organizational culture is important to supply chain integration (i.e. forward
and back), but that the firm is “not there yet” (per Davide, Supply Chain Director).
Today, the supply chain is viewed as a forward flow, while “backward [flow] is a
problem.” In KarPartz, top management displays a supply chain orientation, although
this is primarily a distributor – dealer view. At the higher levels, the supply chain is
viewed as an integrated forward and backward flow, but this orientation does not
permeate the more operational levels of the firm. Booksters management possesses a
broad supply chain orientation, the firm views the entire channel from publishing to
the end consumer (in a forward and reverse manner), and has taken action
which reflects that it understands the implications of such an orientation.
IJPDLM Pharmco management views returns management as a supply chain responsibility and
37,7 the supply chain director has good supply chain orientation. However, the firm’s
responsibility is country-specific outbound distribution, and all upstream inbound
activities are managed more centrally in the organization, thus even this view is
somewhat limited. MarineWorld did not provide any evidence of having a supply
chain orientation. As mentioned previously, logistics is a plant-based mentality that
584 revolves around production planning. While the company does focus on the end
customer, this does not translate into a broader orientation of the downstream supply
chain. The customer focus, while acknowledged to be important, does not transcend
the internal functional silo approach to create a notion of process management across
the supply chain. Equally evident was the apparent limited focus on upstream supply
chain participants.
Section summary. Consistent with the literature, we saw solid evidence of the
inability to effectively possess and drive a supply chain orientation due to a lack of
cross-functional awareness and execution (Lambert et al., 1998; Stank et al., 2001).
The firms generally understand the importance of functional integration in improving
the returns management process, but acknowledge that performance in this area
requires considerable improvement.

External factors influencing the returns management process

Another issue that became evident throughout this research relates to the external
influences on the way the firms perceive, strategize or manage the returns process.
External influences derive from customers, the competitive environment and the
regulatory environment. These factors provide an interesting context for evaluating
many of the returns management issues discussed previously.
Customer environment. The immediate customer of each firm is a retailer/dealer. No
firm interacts directly with the consumer. Ironically, MarineWorld – the least
integrated firm of the five with no explicit supply chain orientation – is most aware of
the needs of its end consumers, due to the demanding nature of marine pleasure craft
owners around the world. Happy Home is being heavily influenced by the customer
market. Powerful retailers are extending increasingly favorable returns policies to their
consumers, and in turn demanding that the manufacturer honor the return and credit
the retailer. While the powerful retailers from the USA, UK and Germany started the
returns “trouble” (terminology used by Luigi, Regional Sales Director, Europe), similar
retailer expectations with respect to returns is creeping across Europe. The lack of a
real returns avoidance strategy and a haphazard approach to managing the reverse
flow of product, coupled with this firm’s weak functional integration and lack of supply
chain vision are converging to create a difficult situation for Happy Home. Booksters is
also facing a changing retail environment as large footprint chains continue to gain
market share from the traditional independent booksellers. However, instead of
becoming victim to the retailers’ demands, Booksters is proactively managing its
marketing channels, aided by its high levels of functional integration and holistic
supply chain vision.
Competitive environment. KarPartz faces turbulence in its competitive environment.
This turbulence has been brought about primarily from the European block exemption
rule which opened the industry to more competitors. Having lost its sole
distributorship rights in Italy, the firm must now compete for the dealer market.
The high level of logistics-marketing integration enables the firm to proactively Supply chain
compete on service, while maintaining efficiencies for cost control. Happy Home also strategy
faces turbulence in the competitive environment. The need to reduce production costs
has driven the firm to outsource in China and it must now deal with the accompanying
complexity of a longer supply chain.
Regulatory environment. Booksters is the only firm that faces no apparent regulatory
issues. Environmental regulation such as the European Waste Electronic and Electric 585
Equipment Directive and design for the environment regulations are impacting both
Happy Home and KarPartz. While both firms acknowledge the additional complexity
and cost that these regulations will bring to their supply chains, neither firm appears to
be developing product recovery strategies or end-of-life plans for their products.
KarPartz appears to be in a better position to handle the additional requirements of a
returns management system under these additional constraints due to the “normal” role
of returns in its supply chain and a higher level of logistics-marketing integration.
However, both firms will soon need to face the changing world being brought about by
these regulatory changes. Pharmco faces regulatory changes of a different sort. The firm
has had to revamp its operations to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley, yet it acknowledges
that the changes have actually enabled increased supply chain efficiencies.
Section summary. The key finding suggests that while environmental change is
inevitable, some firms are better able or more willing to adapt to such changes.
With respect to returns management, those firms that are more highly integrated, with
strategic and operational procedures in place and a strong supply chain orientation
appear to be better positioned to react, or “pro-act” to their changing world.

Discussion and future research

Investigation of the five firms’ returns management processes has shed light on a
previously unexplored component of the returns management process in Italy. More
importantly, the research provides a preliminary understanding of the role of the
returns management process in a firm’s overall supply chain strategy. While differences
across firms were expected due to the distinct industrial segments explored, we found
many common themes emerging from the data. These relate to the strategic as well as
the operational level. Using Rogers et al.’s (2002) framework of the returns management
process, we were able to map many characteristics of the firms’ processes and develop
an understanding of how far the firms have developed with respect to returns
management, and in which areas they may need to address managerial attention. Both
functional integration and supply chain orientation are related to a firm’s management
of the returns process. Additionally, a firm’s awareness of the external environment, in
the form of customer, competitive and regulatory issues, seems to have bearing on how
a firm manages its returns activities.

Managerial implications
Managers can take away several relevant points from this preliminary research. First,
they should monitor and respond to the external factors which influence returns.
As customer, competitive and regulatory environments continue to change, returns are
an increasingly important component in managing “green” issues, consumer
protection issues, and perhaps most importantly legislative issues. Moreover, these
external factors impact physical flows, information flows and financial flows in the
IJPDLM supply chain – the scope of such impact is quite broad. Second, effectiveness of returns
37,7 management seems to be enhanced when functional areas within the firm coordinate
their strategic and operational activities. Among the participating companies,
those with higher levels of functional integration appear to be more adaptive and
pro-active in managing returns. Thus, managers need to actively pursue the
breakdown of functional silo-ism when it comes to returns management. Third,
586 managers need to integrate their reverse supply chain with the activities and processes
in their forward supply chains. We saw evidence that managing returns can impact
product design to minimize return volume or to make the product conducive to further
processing (e.g. refurbishment), can help protect marketing channels, and can add to
supply chain efficiencies.

Speculation of a causal model

The non-longitudinal approach to our in-depth interview protocol does not permit us to
define a cause-and-effect structural model. However, based on the extended periods of
time covered by the participants’ narratives as well as the nature of the participants’
discussions, we can speculate on a causal model (Figure 2), and provide direction for
future research and validation. Propositions to guide future research based on our causal
model are presented in Table VI. While our current findings suggest relationships
between the various constructs shown in Figure 2, the nature of the relationships needs
to be further explored. For example, while our findings suggest that functional
integration and effectiveness of a firm’s returns management process are inter-related,
we are unsure as to whether the relationship is direct or whether functional integration
moderates the relationship between a firm’s strategic/operational policies and practices
and the effectiveness of the returns management process.

Research limitations and future research

Methodological limitations must be considered. The modified sampling procedure was
carefully conducted to allow a priori both literal and theoretical replication in our data
collection process. Redundancy of thematic issues did emerge through our interviews,
suggesting theoretical saturation was achieved. However, additional research needs to
be conducted with Italian firms to see whether other themes emerge that we may have
missed due to the nature of our sampling process.

Functional
Integration
Awareness of
External Factors Strategic
Policies/Practices
Customer markets Effectiveness of
Competitive Returns Management
environment Process
Operational
Regulatory
Policies/Practices
environment
Figure 2.
Supply Chain
A proposed causal model
Orientation
of effective returns
management
 Supply chain
Research proposition Description
strategy
1 Strategic policies and practices are positively associated with the
effectiveness of a firm’s returns management process
Operational policies and practices are positively associated with the
effectiveness of a firm’s returns management process
Strategic policies and practices are positively associated with operational 587
policies and practices
2 Functional integration is positively associated with the effectiveness of a
firm’s returns management process
Functional integration moderates the relationship between strategic and
operational policies and practices and the effectiveness of a firm’s returns
management process (alternative proposition)
3 Supply chain orientation is positively associated with the effectiveness of
a firm’s returns management process
Supply chain orientation moderates the relationship between strategic and
operational policies and practices and the effectiveness of a firm’s returns
management process (alternative proposition)
4 Awareness of external factors (customer, competitive and regulatory
environments) is positively associated with a firm’s strategic policies and
practices
Awareness of external factors (customer, competitive and regulatory
environments) is positively associated with a firm’s operational policies
and practices Table VI.
Awareness of external factors (customer, competitive and regulatory Propositions for future
environments) is positively associated with the effectiveness of a firm’s research (as shown in
returns management process Figure 2)

Furthermore, our focus on Italian firms may in itself be limiting. Given the
pan-European approach to many business practices, especially related to supply chain
management, this research needs to be replicated in other national settings within
western and eastern Europe to determine the robustness of the factors posited to be
important to the returns management process. This is especially critical because
returns management research and practice in Italy are still new and underdeveloped.
Much can be learned by comparing results in Italy with practices in other European
settings, such as The Netherlands or Scandinavia, where reverse logistics and
sustainability issues are much more advanced in both practice and research. Ideally,
this research will be extended beyond the horizons of Europe. For example, the
external factors discussed in this paper may have very different influences on returns
management in other parts of the world. Other factors may be even more important.
In this research, we focused primarily on the logistics-marketing interface to
understand returns management, but clearly other functional areas are involved.
Accounting/finance was particularly important for at least one of our firms. What role
does it play in other firms? What other functional areas should be considered to better
understand the returns process? Future research needs to further explore other
functional linkages to develop a better understanding of integration as it relates to
returns management.
We focused our efforts on single firms, and while we were able to ascertain their
perceptions of broader supply chain issues related to returns, we still know very little
IJPDLM about the returns management process across the supply chains within which these
37,7 firms operate. Future research could take a broader supply chain approach and study
the returns management across firms. For example, collecting data from the customers
and suppliers (at multiple tiers) of our focal firms should provide an extended
understanding of returns management issues across the supply chain. Our focus on
functional integration would then become a study of interorganizational integration.
588 Following the previous suggestion, we note that as supply chains continue to
globalize, the impact on returns must be considered, and management processes need
to be put in place to manage across the globally extended supply chain. For example,
one of the firms we interviewed recently offshored some manufacturing activities to
Asia; subsequently, it noted an unexpected decline in product quality, with a
subsequent increase in return products. Alternatively, another company is on the verge
of outsourcing production to Asia, but stated that they expect no changes in product
quality to ensue. Is this because the managers at the second company are simply naı̈ve,
or do they have better processes in place to ensure that product quality is maintained
and therefore, subsequent returns can be avoided? More importantly, the literature on
supply chain globalization has not considered the impact that globalization will have
on returns. Not only may quality issues cause an increase in return rates, but also
returns avoidance will likely become more challenging for firms dealing with extended
supply chains. The lead time involved in global supply chains may also create
problems with respect to supplying replacement and spare parts. Thus, the issues
related to globalization represent a rich area for future research on returns
management.
Finally, future research needs to more specifically explore the role of returns
management in firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Although CSR
was not a major topic of discussion with our participants, awareness of CSR was
evident. As firms continue to develop and implement CSR programs, returns
management as part of supply chain strategy may become increasingly important.
Future research needs to be able to capture and assess the link between CSR and
returns management.

Conclusion
Our purpose in this research was to develop an understanding of the linkage between
functional integration and the way a firm manages its returns process. While
we focused our attention on marketing and logistics integration, we discovered that
other functional areas need to be incorporated into such research. Additionally, we
identified several other factors that influence the returns management process; there
may be more factors we have not yet discovered. Based on this work, we posit a
preliminary theoretical model to guide future returns management research. The
model needs to be further developed, but we believe theory will become an increasingly
valuable tool to manage return flows within supply chains.

References
Andel, T. (1995), “Conversion to reusable wins believers”, Transportation & Distribution, Vol. 36,
p. 94.
Andel, T. (1997), “Reverse logistics: a second chance to profit”, Transportation & Distribution,
Vol. 38, pp. 61-5.
Anderson, H. and Huge Brodin, M. (2005), “The consumer’s changing role: the case of recycling”, Supply chain
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 77-86.
strategy
Ardemani, E. (1944), Costi E Risultati Di Esercizio Nelle Grandi Imprese Meccaniche a Produzione
Varia, Società Editrice “Vita e Pensiero”, Milano.
Barry, J., Girard, G. and Perras, C. (1993), “Logistics shifts into reverse”, Journal of European
Business, Vol. 5, pp. 34-8.
Blackburn, J.D., Guide, R.D.V.J., Souza, G.C. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (2004), “Reverse supply 589
chains for commercial returns”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 6-22.
Borghesi, A. (2006), Marketing-Logistica, Giuffre, Milano.
Borghesi, A., Buffa, A. and Canteri, R. (1997), Manuale Di Logistica, Cedam, Padova.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Stank, T.P. (1999), 21st Century Logistics: Making Supply Chain
Integration a Reality, Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
Briggs, C. (1986), Learning How to Ask: A Sociolingual Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in
Social Science Research, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Cairncross, F. (1992), “How Europe’s companies reposition to recycle”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 35-45.
Carter, C.R. and Ellram, L.M. (1998), “Reverse logistics: a review of the literature and framework
for future investigation”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 85-102.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2003), Marketing Logistics, Butterworth Heinemann, London.
Corsani, G. (1930), Le Determinazioni Di Convenienza Economica Nelle Imprese Mercantili E
Manifatturiere – Il Fondamento Economico-Tecnico Delle Vie Della Gestione, Tip.
Sordomuti, Firenze.
Dallari, F. and Marchet, G. (2003), Rinnovare La Supply Chain: Come Gestire La Trasformazione
Della Logistica E Dei Trasporti, Il Sole 24 Ore, Milano.
Daugherty, P.J., Autry, C.W. and Ellinger, A.E. (2001), “Reverse logistics: the relationship
between resource commitment and program performance”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 107-23.
Daugherty, P.J., Myers, M.B. and Richey, R.G. (2002), “Information support for reverse logistics:
the influence of relationship commitment”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 85-106.
De Brito, M.P. and Dekker, R. (2004), “A framework for reverse logistics”, in Dekker, R.,
Inderfurth, K., van Wassenhove, L.N. and Fleischmann, M. (Eds), Reverse Logistics:
Quantitative Models for Closed-loop Supply Chains, Chapter 1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
De Koster, R.B.M., De Brito, M.P. and van de Vendel, M.A. (2002), “Return handling: an
exploratory study with nine retailer warehouses”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 30 Nos 8/9, pp. 407-20.
Dowlatshahi, S. (2000), “Developing a theory of reverse logistics”, Interfaces, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 143-55.
Dyckhoff, H., Lackes, R. and Reese, J. (Eds) (2004), Supply Chain Management and Reverse
Logistics, Springer, New York, NY.
Ellram, L. (1996), “The use of the case study method in logistics research”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 93-138.
Fleischmann, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Dekker, R., Van der Laan, E.A., Van Nunen, J.A.E.E.
and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (1997), “Quantitative models for reverse logistics: a review”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 103, pp. 1-17.
IJPDLM Fleischmann, M., Krikke, H.R., Dekker, R. and Flapper, S.D.P. (2000), “A characterisation of
logistics networks for product recovery”, Omega, Vol. 28, pp. 653-66.
37,7 Flint, D.J. and Mentzer, J.T. (2000), “Logisticians as marketers: their role when customers’ desired
value changes”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 19-45.
Flint, D.J., Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (1997), “Customer value change in industrial
marketing relationships: a call for new strategies and research”, Industrial Marketing
590 Management, Vol. 26, pp. 163-75.
Flint, D.J., Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (2002), “Exploring the phenomenon of customers’
desired value change in a business-to-business context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66
No. 4, pp. 102-17.
Geyer, R. and Jackson, T. (2004), “Supply loops and their constraints: the industrial ecology of
recycling and reuse”, California Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 55-73.
Ginter, P.M. and Starling, J.M. (1978), “Reverse distribution channels for recycling”, California
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 72-82.
Guide, V.D.R.J. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (2003), “Business aspects of closed-loop supply
chains”, in Guide, D.R.V.J. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (Eds), Business Aspects of
Closed-Loop Supply Chains, Carnegie Mellon University Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 17-42.
Güngör, A.A. and Gupta, S. (1999), “Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and
product recovery: a survey”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 36, pp. 811-53.
Hirschman, E.C. (1986), “Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method, and
criteria”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 237-49.
Jahre, M. (1995a), “Household waste collection as reverse channels – a theoretical perspective”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 39-55.
Jahre, M. (1995b), Logistics Systems for Recycling – Efficient Collection of Household Waste,
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg.
Kiesmuller, G.P. (2003), “A new approach for controlling a hybrid stochastic
manufacturing/remanufacturing system with inventories and different leadtimes”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 147 No. 1, pp. 62-71.
Kiesmuller, G.P. and Scherer, C.W. (2003), “Computational issues in a stochastic finite horizon
one product recovery inventory model”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 146 No. 3, pp. 553-79.
Kleber, R., Minner, S. and Kiesmuller, G.P. (2002), “A continuous time inventory model for a
product recovery system with multiple options”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 279 No. 2, pp. 121-41.
Kokkinaki, A.I., Dekker, R., de Koster, R.B.M., Pappis, C. and Verbeke, W. (2002), “Web
applications for reverse logistics networks”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Forthcoming.
Kopicki, R., Berg, M.J., Legg, L., Dasapppa, V. and Maggioni, C. (1993), Reuse and Recycling:
Reverse Logistics Opportunities, Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
Lambert, D.M. (2004), Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnership, Perfomance, Supply
Chain Management Institute, Sarasota, FL.
Lambert, D.M. and Stock, J.R. (1982), Strategic Physical Distribution Management,
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998), “Supply chain management: implementation
issues and research opportunities”, The International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Lavidge, R.J. (1970), “The growing responsibilities of marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Supply chain
No. 1, pp. 25-8.
strategy
McCracken, G. (1988), The Long Interview, Sage, Beverly Hill, CA.
Maggi, E. (2001), La Logistica Merci Urbana; Criticita’ E Proposte Di Soluzione, paper presented
at XXII Conferenze Italiana di Scienze Regionali, Venezia.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001), “Defining
supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25. 591
Mollenkopf, D. and Closs, D.J. (2005), “The hidden value in reverse logistics”, Supply Chain
Management Review, July/August, pp. 34-43.
Mollenkopf, D., Gibson, A. and Ozanne, L. (2000), “The integration of marketing and logistics
functions: an empirical examination of New Zealand firms”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 89-112.
Mollenkopf, D.A., Closs, D.J., Twede, D., Lee, S. and Burgess, G. (2005), “Assessing the viability
of reusable packaging: a relative cost approach”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 169-97.
Murphy, P.R. and Poist, R.P. (1989), “Management of logistics retromovements: an empirical
analysis of literature suggestions”, Transportation Research Forum, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 177-84.
Onida, P. (1951), Il Bilancio D’esercizio Nelle Imprese: Significato Economico Del Bilancio Problemi
Di Valutazione, Giuffre, Milano.
Rogers, D.S. and Tibben-Lembke, R.S. (1999), Going Backwards: Reverse Logistics Trends and
Practices, Reverse Logistics Executive Council, Pittsburgh, PA.
Rogers, D.S. and Tibben-Lembke, R.S. (2001), “An examination of reverse logistics practices”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 129-48.
Rogers, D.S., Lambert, D.M., Croxton, K.L. and Garcia-Dastugue, S.J. (2002), “The returns
management process”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 1-18.
Saraceno, P. (1978), La Produzione Industriale, Libreria Universitaria Editrice, Venezia.
Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B. and Closs, D.J. (2001), “Performance benefits of supply chain logistical
integration”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 2/3, pp. 32-46.
Stanton, W.J. and Zikmund, W.G. (1971), “Recycling solid wastes: a channels-of-distribution
problem”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 34-9.
Stock, J. (1992), Reverse Logistics, Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Thierry, M., Salomon, M., van Nunen, J. and van Wassenhove, L. (1995), “Strategic issues in
product recovery management”, California Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 114-35.
Thompson, C.J., Locander, W.B. and Pollio, H.R. (1989), “Putting consumer experience back into
consumer research: the philosophy and method of existential phenomenology”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 16, pp. 133-46.
Valle, R.S., King, M. and Halling, S. (1978), “An introduction to existential-phenomenological
thought in psychology”, in Valle, R.S. and King, M. (Eds), Existential-Phenomenological
Alternatives for Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-16.
Willits, S.D. and Giuntini, R. (1994), “Helping your company go green”, Management Accounting,
Vol. 75 No. 8, pp. 43-7.
IJPDLM Witt, C.E. (1986), “Oldsmobile cuts cost, reduces handling with reusable containers”, Material
Handling Engineering, Vol. 41, pp. 81-5.
37,7 Witt, C.E. (1993), “Reusable distribution packaging saves money”, Materials Handling
Engineering, Vol. 48, p. 14.

About the authors

592 Diane Mollenkopf, Assistant Professor of Logistics at the University of Tennessee has directs her
research primarily to issues of logistics and supply chain integration. Much of this work has been
conducted in an international environment. A current integration-related research interest
focuses on returns management and closed loop supply chains. Her work has been published in
The Journal of Business Logistics, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Supply Chain Management Review, Transportation Journal, Journal of Services
Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, as well as in several international publications.
Diane Mollenkopf is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Ivan Russo is a Assistant Professor in the College of Economics at the University of Verona,
Italy. He is involved in several projects and research efforts related to supply chain management
and internationalization. His research interests focus on the relationship between marketing and
logistics, returns management and supply chain management, and the internationalization of
small and medium-sized enterprises. He earned his PhD in Business Economics at the
Department of Business Economics in the College of Economics at the University of Verona.
He has published in academic publications on the subject of marketing, logistics and
outsourcing. E-mail: [email protected]
Robert Frankel, a Kip Associate Professor of Marketing and Logistics at the University of
North Florida and a Fulbright scholar, has research interests in supply chain management and
integration, international marketing, and pedagogy. He has published in Journal of Business
Logistics, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, and Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, among others. E-mail: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints