Natasha Horowitz is a consultant in the Global Commerce and Transport Practice at the economics research firm IHS Global Insight. Prior to her current position, she worked as an economic consultant and an economic analyst for the U.S. Department of Transportation's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
These days most logistics and supply chain professionals are familiar with the concept of reverse logistics—the process of removing unsold or damaged goods from store shelves or receiving them from customers and subsequently disposing of or repairing and reselling them. But familiarity does not necessarily equate to action. Although reverse logistics can be a significant source of costs—and therefore of potential savings—in many organizations, it still receives much less attention than it deserves.
Companies that overlook reverse logistics are missing an important opportunity. In 2005, Forbes magazine estimated the annual cost of returns in the United States alone to be around US $100 billion. Those costs undoubtedly have increased and will continue to grow as more commerce moves online.
Reverse logistics is a complicated process that requires the capture of numerous data such as the frequency, volumes, and types of returns. In order to properly understand and manage the process, each product should be traced from the point of return through final disposition. Warranties and service agreements must also be monitored, and credits must be applied where needed. The goal is always to minimize the number of returns as well as the cost of handling them—and do it without alienating customers. Here are a few thoughts on how to accomplish that goal.
Develop the right policies
The efficiency and cost of reverse logistics processes are greatly influenced by a company's returns policy. A stingy policy will keep costs low but may hurt customer relations, whereas an overly generous one, while attracting customers, will increase costs. Any policy should be benchmarked against industry standards. The usual standard in retail is a 30-day return, but policies are harder to benchmark for business-to-business companies and will require research.
Returned-product acquisition is fairly straightforward for retailers—the customer simply brings products back to the store. Sellers of larger items, such as furniture, often contract with their delivery providers for return services. Business-to-business companies must decide who is responsible for unsold products and compare the costs and benefits of picking up inventory themselves, having distributors pick it up and deliver it to the disposition site, or outsourcing the process to a third-party logistics company (3PL).
One economical strategy is to pick up unsold merchandise during the delivery of new inventory, creating backhauls for a private or outsourced fleet. Customers of Cummins Engine, for example, initiate returns electronically. Damaged engines are picked up for remanufacturing by a dedicated fleet operated by Ryder when making deliveries of new parts. Some companies have found that collaborating with customers to streamline the return process, including at times offering financial incentives to minimize returns, can greatly reduce the need for backhauls of unsold goods.
Whatever approach a company adopts, the key to successful product acquisition is full visibility from the moment the product is returned, so that responsibility and payment for the return can be clearly assigned. Monitoring returns can cut credit issuance by as much as 30 percent, adding directly to the bottom line.
Once returned items have been aggregated, they must be transported to a sorting facility. In this stage, consolidation and optimization of shipments can greatly reduce transportation and handling costs.
Policies regarding disposal will depend on the type of product involved. The trick is always to balance the costs of transportation, sorting, and disposal against any potential recoverable value. High-value items such as electronics and automotive parts may be inspected, remanufactured, and resold. Unsold consumer goods, by contrast, may be shifted to areas where sales are stronger. Items with a short shelflife, such as fashion apparel, are often sold to third parties that then resell them through discount outlets or to developing countries. Items that are not economical to refurbish in-house may sometimes be sold at auction. Should final disposal be necessary, one option is to find a recycler that is willing to pay to reuse any recoverable material.
A symptom of inefficiency
Smart companies and their suppliers recognize that returns are often a symptom of inefficiencies elsewhere in the supply chain. For example, a retailer may be ordering too much of a particular product, the product may not be arriving on time to meet peak demand, or the packaging may be insufficient to prevent damage, to name just a few of the possible causes of returns. To find out why products are being returned, appropriate data should be captured, analyzed, and shared with management throughout the organization. This information should also be fed back to the product design team, as understanding the reasons for returns and failures can lead to better product design—and, eventually, fewer costly returns.
The theoretical goal of reverse logistics is to have zero returns, eliminating the need for the process in the first place! By continuously working toward this goal, supply chain managers can uncover significant sources of cost savings, gain an edge in customer and supplier relations, and collect invaluable information for improving other areas of their business.
Just 29% of supply chain organizations have the competitive characteristics they’ll need for future readiness, according to a Gartner survey released Tuesday. The survey focused on how organizations are preparing for future challenges and to keep their supply chains competitive.
Gartner surveyed 579 supply chain practitioners to determine the capabilities needed to manage the “future drivers of influence” on supply chains, which include artificial intelligence (AI) achievement and the ability to navigate new trade policies. According to the survey, the five competitive characteristics are: agility, resilience, regionalization, integrated ecosystems, and integrated enterprise strategy.
The survey analysis identified “leaders” among the respondents as supply chain organizations that have already developed at least three of the five competitive characteristics necessary to address the top five drivers of supply chain’s future.
Less than a third have met that threshold.
“Leaders shared a commitment to preparation through long-term, deliberate strategies, while non-leaders were more often focused on short-term priorities,” Pierfrancesco Manenti, vice president analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a statement announcing the survey results.
“Most leaders have yet to invest in the most advanced technologies (e.g. real-time visibility, digital supply chain twin), but plan to do so in the next three-to-five years,” Manenti also said in the statement. “Leaders see technology as an enabler to their overall business strategies, while non-leaders more often invest in technology first, without having fully established their foundational capabilities.”
As part of the survey, respondents were asked to identify the future drivers of influence on supply chain performance over the next three to five years. The top five drivers are: achievement capability of AI (74%); the amount of new ESG regulations and trade policies being released (67%); geopolitical fight/transition for power (65%); control over data (62%); and talent scarcity (59%).
The analysis also identified four unique profiles of supply chain organizations, based on what their leaders deem as the most crucial capabilities for empowering their organizations over the next three to five years.
First, 54% of retailers are looking for ways to increase their financial recovery from returns. That’s because the cost to return a purchase averages 27% of the purchase price, which erases as much as 50% of the sales margin. But consumers have their own interests in mind: 76% of shoppers admit they’ve embellished or exaggerated the return reason to avoid a fee, a 39% increase from 2023 to 204.
Second, return experiences matter to consumers. A whopping 80% of shoppers stopped shopping at a retailer because of changes to the return policy—a 34% increase YoY.
Third, returns fraud and abuse is top-of-mind-for retailers, with wardrobing rising 38% in 2024. In fact, over two thirds (69%) of shoppers admit to wardrobing, which is the practice of buying an item for a specific reason or event and returning it after use. Shoppers also practice bracketing, or purchasing an item in a variety of colors or sizes and then returning all the unwanted options.
Fourth, returns come with a steep cost in terms of sustainability, with returns amounting to 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste in 2023 alone.
“As returns have become an integral part of the shopper experience, retailers must balance meeting sky-high expectations with rising costs, environmental impact, and fraudulent behaviors,” Amena Ali, CEO of Optoro, said in the firm’s “2024 Returns Unwrapped” report. “By understanding shoppers’ behaviors and preferences around returns, retailers can create returns experiences that embrace their needs while driving deeper loyalty and protecting their bottom line.”
Facing an evolving supply chain landscape in 2025, companies are being forced to rethink their distribution strategies to cope with challenges like rising cost pressures, persistent labor shortages, and the complexities of managing SKU proliferation.
1. Optimize labor productivity and costs. Forward-thinking businesses are leveraging technology to get more done with fewer resources through approaches like slotting optimization, automation and robotics, and inventory visibility.
2. Maximize capacity with smart solutions. With e-commerce volumes rising, facilities need to handle more SKUs and orders without expanding their physical footprint. That can be achieved through high-density storage and dynamic throughput.
3. Streamline returns management. Returns are a growing challenge, thanks to the continued growth of e-commerce and the consumer practice of bracketing. Businesses can handle that with smarter reverse logistics processes like automated returns processing and reverse logistics visibility.
4. Accelerate order fulfillment with robotics. Robotic solutions are transforming the way orders are fulfilled, helping businesses meet customer expectations faster and more accurately than ever before by using autonomous mobile robots (AMRs and robotic picking.
5. Enhance end-of-line packaging. The final step in the supply chain is often the most visible to customers. So optimizing packaging processes can reduce costs, improve efficiency, and support sustainability goals through automated packaging systems and sustainability initiatives.
That clash has come as retailers have been hustling to adjust to pandemic swings like a renewed focus on e-commerce, then swiftly reimagining store experiences as foot traffic returned. But even as the dust settles from those changes, retailers are now facing renewed questions about how best to define their omnichannel strategy in a world where customers have increasing power and information.
The answer may come from a five-part strategy using integrated components to fortify omnichannel retail, EY said. The approach can unlock value and customer trust through great experiences, but only when implemented cohesively, not individually, EY warns.
The steps include:
1. Functional integration: Is your operating model and data infrastructure siloed between e-commerce and physical stores, or have you developed a cohesive unit centered around delivering seamless customer experience?
2. Customer insights: With consumer centricity at the heart of operations, are you analyzing all touch points to build a holistic view of preferences, behaviors, and buying patterns?
3. Next-generation inventory: Given the right customer insights, how are you utilizing advanced analytics to ensure inventory is optimized to meet demand precisely where and when it’s needed?
4. Distribution partnerships: Having ensured your customers find what they want where they want it, how are your distribution strategies adapting to deliver these choices to them swiftly and efficiently?
5. Real estate strategy: How is your real estate strategy interconnected with insights, inventory and distribution to enhance experience and maximize your footprint?
When approached cohesively, these efforts all build toward one overarching differentiator for retailers: a better customer experience that reaches from brand engagement and order placement through delivery and return, the EY study said. Amid continued volatility and an economy driven by complex customer demands, the retailers best set up to win are those that are striving to gain real-time visibility into stock levels, offer flexible fulfillment options and modernize merchandising through personalized and dynamic customer experiences.
Geopolitical rivalries, alliances, and aspirations are rewiring the global economy—and the imposition of new tariffs on foreign imports by the U.S. will accelerate that process, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Without a broad increase in tariffs, world trade in goods will keep growing at an average of 2.9% annually for the next eight years, the firm forecasts in its report, “Great Powers, Geopolitics, and the Future of Trade.” But the routes goods travel will change markedly as North America reduces its dependence on China and China builds up its links with the Global South, which is cementing its power in the global trade map.
“Global trade is set to top $29 trillion by 2033, but the routes these goods will travel is changing at a remarkable pace,” Aparna Bharadwaj, managing director and partner at BCG, said in a release. “Trade lanes were already shifting from historical patterns and looming US tariffs will accelerate this. Navigating these new dynamics will be critical for any global business.”
To understand those changes, BCG modeled the direct impact of the 60/25/20 scenario (60% tariff on Chinese goods, a 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, and a 20% on imports from all other countries). The results show that the tariffs would add $640 billion to the cost of importing goods from the top ten U.S. import nations, based on 2023 levels, unless alternative sources or suppliers are found.
In terms of product categories imported by the U.S., the greatest impact would be on imported auto parts and automotive vehicles, which would primarily affect trade with Mexico, the EU, and Japan. Consumer electronics, electrical machinery, and fashion goods would be most affected by higher tariffs on Chinese goods. Specifically, the report forecasts that a 60% tariff rate would add $61 billion to cost of importing consumer electronics products from China into the U.S.