Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to identify the key issues faced by today's supply chain professionals when managing reverse logistics (RL) processes and compare these issues with the topics examined in extant research. By making such a comparison, the paper identifies areas of practical relevance that are being adequately addressed in the literature, as well as areas that may need further attention. Design/methodology/approach -The paper employed a Delphi method in order to uncover the most salient RL issues faced in industry, as viewed by practitioners. The paper then completed a systematic analysis of the RL literature in order to examine the degree to which topics addressed in the extant literature correspond with the framework proposed by Carter and Ellram (1998). Finally, the paper compared and contrasted the findings of the content analysis and Delphi study, which highlights areas for future investigation that may help to better align research with practice. Findings -In the Delphi study, the paper uncovered and ranked seven key issues for RL managers. These are: customer support, top-management support, communication, costs, formalization, timing of operations, and environmental issues. When compared to Carter and Ellram's (1998) framework, three of the seven factors coincide with factors described in the framework and two factors indirectly relate to the framework. The two factors not specifically represented are costs and formalization. Practical implications -The findings provide practitioners with an understanding of what factors are most important to consider when managing RL programs. The discussion of the comparison between the Delphi results and extant literature provides guidance as to how to address the RL issues uncovered in this study. Originality/value -This research effort suggests directions for future research that will better align academic topics with current managerial issues. Although the paper offers many suggestions for future research, the paper proposes that investigating ways to increase formalization of RL programs and establish RL as a profit center within organizations may be the areas in greatest need for additional scholarly research.

No abstract

Purpose -Although the importance of establishing sound metrics is often noted in the logistics literature, few research efforts have examined appropriate metrics for reverse logistics (RL) processes. Through the lens of goal-setting theory, the paper identifies and align salient RL goals and metrics, and uncover some of the most common challenges to RL professionals. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach -The paper used open-ended questions to gather qualitative data from 84 RL professionals from the defense industry. A content analysis method was employed to extract and categorize the goals, challenges, and metrics for RL processes. Findings -The paper identifies specific categories of goals, challenges and metrics. Several themes emerged from the study, to include customer service, disposition, costs, and process efficiencies. Using these themes, the paper matched goals to metrics and found a lack of uniformity and noted that metrics and goals often were not matched or were misaligned. Research limitations/implications -This research is limited by the defense industry sample and the research method. Caution should be used when generalizing the results, and further research is required to empirically test the validity of the findings. Nonetheless, in the context of goal-setting theory, the study contributes to the performance metrics literature by aligning RL metrics with goals and addressing challenges faced by RL practitioners. By investigating the topic from multiple perspectives, the study provides more detailed findings and demonstrates the differences between the inbound and outbound RL processes. Practical implications -This study provides insight into the metrics used to monitor and control RL processes. The findings may help firms to identify shortcomings and choose metrics that they can employ to align RL processes with firm goals. Originality/value -The study contributes to the performance metrics literature by aligning RL metrics with goals and addressing challenges faced by RL practitioners. By investigating the topic from both an inbound and outbound perspective, the study provides more detailed findings and demonstrates the differences between the inbound and outbound RL processes.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between the repurchase intention of a customer and his/her perception of various aspects of an e-tailer’s product return process, such as leniency, fairness and quality of the return process. Design/methodology/approach This research focuses on these aspects through the expectation disconfirmation theoretical lens, looking at the relationship between expectations shaped by the product return policy and the repurchase intention. This research collects data using a survey approach and analyzes it using structural equation modeling. Findings It was found that perceived return policy leniency, perceived fairness of the return experience and perceived quality of the return experience are important and supporting factors that influence a customer’s intention to be a return customer to e-tailers. Perceived leniency was found to not only be the most influential factor for return purchase intention but it also significantly impacted the perceived fairness and the quality of the return process. As a result, perceived leniency of the return policy had a “halo” effect on the other factors. Practical implications This suggests that the majority of an e-tailer’s effort should be expended determining a return policy and experience that is widely perceived as lenient as this will overall improve customer perception of the return process and increase repurchase intention. Originality/value This research extends research on lenient policy within the growing e-tailer sector by examining the return experience of the customer and subsequent repurchase intention based on multiple factors.