Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part E

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/tre

The billion-pound question in fashion E-commerce: Investigating

the anatomy of returns
Joshua Marriott *, Tolga Bektaş , Erik Ka Ho Leung , Andrew Lyons
Management School, University of Liverpool, L69 7ZH, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study explores a critically under-researched aspect of Supply Chain Management (SCM), e-
E-commerce commerce returns in the fashion sector. By combining a comprehensive literature review with
E-commerce returns empirical data from the UK’s second-largest pure-play fashion retailer, the research offers new
Fast-fashion
insights into the scale and drivers of fashion e-commerce returns. Using a mixed-methods
Fashion supply chains
Reverse logistics
approach, the study uncovers detailed patterns in returned items and the reasons behind con­
Sustainable supply chain management sumer return behaviours, revealing the operational complexities these returns impose on reverse
logistics processes. In 2022 alone, fashion returns cost the UK industry an estimated £7 billion,
while contributing to 750,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions from discarded apparel. A novel frame­
work is proposed to address the challenges associated with high-volume returns, providing
practical strategies for improving returns management efficiency. The findings contribute
significantly to the SCM field by offering empirical evidence on the specifics of fashion returns, an
area previously lacking robust data. This paper not only fills this gap but also provides actionable
insights for both academic research and industry practice. By focusing on the management of
returns within fashion e-commerce, the study contributes to the development of more sustainable
and efficient supply chain strategies, advancing current knowledge within SCM research.

1. Introduction

Advances in technology and the widespread adoption of internet-enabled devices have fuelled exponential growth in e-commerce,
reshaping the retail landscape and significantly impacting industries such as fashion (Bell et al., 2018; Gao and Su, 2017). The COVID-
19 pandemic accelerated this trend, as lockdowns and social distancing measures led consumers to increasingly rely on online plat­
forms, solidifying e-commerce’s dominance in the retail sector (Nanda et al., 2021). Globally, fashion is the largest segment in the e-
commerce market, projected to reach a value of US$1,501.3 billion by 2027 (Statista, 2023). In the UK, fashion accounts for 31 % of
online sales, with 86 % of the population using digital platforms to purchase clothing and footwear (Statista, 2021a).
While e-commerce growth has transformed the retail industry, it has also magnified the environmental and operational challenges
of the fashion sector, particularly in handling returns. Fashion stands apart from other industries due to its notoriously high return
rates, with clothing and footwear representing 19.9 % of UK e-commerce returns, over three times higher than electronics, the second-
largest category at 6.2 % (Whittaker-Wood, 2019). This stark contrast highlights the scale of the problem, with fashion e-commerce
returns costing the UK an estimated £7 billion in 2022 with U.S. returns reaching an estimated $38 billion in 2023 (Webb, 2023; Zheng,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [Link]@[Link] (J. Marriott), tbektas@[Link] (T. Bektaş), [Link]@[Link]
(E.K.H. Leung), etmalyon@[Link] (A. Lyons).

[Link]
Received 19 October 2024; Received in revised form 22 November 2024; Accepted 1 December 2024
Available online 14 December 2024
1366-5545/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

2023).

1.1. Distinct features of returns

The return behaviours observed in the fashion industry differ significantly from those in other sectors, such as electronics, where
returns are predominantly functionality-based and standardised. Electronics returns are typically lower, around 9 % return rate
(Statista, 2024), and are driven by objective issues like defects or compatibility rather than subjective preferences (Harris, 2008; Ülkü
and Gürler, 2018). Returned electronics items are often refurbished for resale, helping to offset the impact of returns. In consumer
goods, including groceries and household items, return rates are generally below 7 % and limited to damaged or incorrect items; strict
return policies for perishables further limit return volumes (Statista, 2024). Home goods and furnishings, on the other hand, expe­
rience moderate return rates, primarily from shipping damage or size mismatches, while sports and outdoor equipment returns hinge
on product performance (Dopson, 2024; McCusker, 2024).
In contrast, fashion returns are driven by subjective factors like sizing and style preferences, influenced by the fast-paced nature of
trends and the rapid depreciation of inventory, which together create a highly time-sensitive returns management process (Blackburn
et al., 2004). Unique consumer behaviours, such as ‘wardrobing’ (purchasing items with the intent of brief use before returning) and
‘bracketing’ (buying multiple sizes or styles with the intention to return those that don’t fit), are prevalent in fashion but rare in other
sectors (Pei and Paswan, 2018; Whittaker-Wood, 2019). These behaviours contribute to a high volume and complexity of returns in
fashion, unlike the more predictable, functionality-driven returns seen in other industries where returns are often functionality-driven,
such as product malfunctions, compatibility issues, or feature limitations, that are generally easier to assess and manage within
standardised return frameworks (Harris, 2008; Ülkü and Gürler, 2018).
Further complicating returns management, the fashion industry lacks regulatory frameworks comparable to those in sectors like
electronics, where guidelines such as the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) legislation and Extended Producer Re­
sponsibility (EPR) laws impose responsibility on producers for collecting end-of-use (EOU) and end-of-life (EOL) products, ensuring
environmentally responsible handling of returns (De et al., 2023). In contrast, the absence of similar regulations in fashion often results
in the disposal of returned items due to minor wear or outdated styles, leading to significant waste. Retailers sometimes find it more
cost-effective to discard returns than to develop sustainable disposition routes, exacerbating the environmental impact of the fashion
industry (Ader et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2019).
The environmental repercussions of fashion returns are also substantial. In 2022, the UK alone discarded approximately 23 million
returned apparel items, contributing to 750,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions (Wright, 2023). This issue extends globally, as illustrated by
the 39,000 tonnes of discarded clothing in Chile’s Atacama Desert, where U.S. retailers dispose of returns, including brand-new items
with original tags (Joy, 2022; Mayne, 2021). Worldwide, reverse logistics (moving goods back from the consumer to the retailer) for
fashion is responsible for 25 % of the total e-commerce carbon footprint (Statista, 2021b), highlighting the pressing need for more
sustainable practices in managing returns.
Despite the economic and environmental impact of these distinct return behaviours, research in supply chain management (SCM)
has primarily focused on forward flows, such as the movement of goods from manufacturers to consumers, leaving reverse flows
underexplored (de Leeuw et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2016). Given the unique complexities of managing returns in fashion, driven by
subjective consumer factors, rapid trend turnover, and logistical challenges, there is limited applicability of general returns man­
agement frameworks from other sectors. The complexities of managing product returns in fashion retail, one of the largest and most
return-prone sectors, demand further investigation. Wen et al., (2019) highlight the lack of comprehensive studies in fashion supply
chain management, particularly in reverse logistics, pointing to returns as an underexplored area requiring academic attention.
Furthermore, the environmental and operational challenges specific to fashion returns remain inadequately addressed (Erol et al.,
2010). Mollenkopf et al., (2007), Pei and Paswan, (2018), Saarijärvi et al., (2017), and Xu et al., (2023b) call for more empirical
research to understand consumer perspectives, which are critical in shaping reverse supply chain strategies. Given the persistently high
return rates and the associated economic and environmental burdens, dedicated research on optimising reverse supply chain processes
is crucial.

1.2. Research aim and contribution

This paper aims to address a critical gap in the literature regarding e-commerce returns within fashion supply chains by providing a
detailed examination of the return process from both theoretical and practical perspectives. To achieve greater efficiency within
reverse flow supply chains and return handling strategies, it is crucial to first understand what has been explored in existing research
surrounding fashion e-commerce returns. By integrating a comprehensive review of prior studies with empirical evidence from a
leading UK retailer, this research investigates the unique complexities of fashion returns. The study extends existing reverse process
models by incorporating real-world data, focusing on key variables such as return reasons and product types, and offering actionable
insights for industry practice.
The research is guided by the following research questions:

• What is the return process, and what are the main factors impacting its efficiency as discussed in the literature?
• Which types of products are subject to returns, and what factors from a consumer’s perspective contribute to these return
occurrences?

2
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

Building on Pei and Paswan (2018), who highlighted the importance of understanding general product return patterns via qual­
itative methods, this study offers novel insights through a large-scale, quantitative dataset spanning multiple fashion categories,
including womenswear, menswear, and childrenswear. This approach enables a deeper analysis of return behaviours across product
types, capturing both legitimate and opportunistic return patterns unique to each category. Furthermore, we augment the findings of
Balaram et al., (2022), who examined bracketing behaviour but were constrained by a theoretical model limited to a single product
type. By grounding our findings in multi-category empirical data, we offer fresh perspectives into how bracketing impacts various
product lines, providing practical guidance for retailers in managing this behaviour.
In addition, while Phau et al., (2022) examined opportunistic behaviours within a specific cultural and luxury context, our study
quantifies their prevalence and operational impact across mainstream fashion categories. This demonstrates that such behaviours are
not confined to luxury markets but pose significant challenges to reverse logistics across broader retail contexts. By capturing trends
such as wardrobing and bracketing across various product lines within fashion e-commerce, our study delivers original insights that
advance the understanding of consumer return motivations beyond prior research, adding depth and practical implications for
retailers.
By providing an in-depth review and analysis of fashion e-commerce returns, the paper makes the following contributions:

• The paper fills a critical gap in the SCM literature by providing an in-depth review specifically on fashion e-commerce returns, an
area underexplored yet significant given the high return rates and the consequent economic and environmental impacts, as
highlighted by our inclusion of detailed industry data.
• To the authors’ knowledge, this study is a first to provide empirical evidence surrounding the types of products returned and the
reasons behind these returns, offering valuable consumer perspectives that have been previously underexplored (Mollenkopf et al.,
2007; Pei and Paswan, 2018; Xu et al., 2023b). By offering and contextualising new practical insights within existing literature and
industry practices, the paper not only validates but also extends our understanding of the operational challenges and behaviours
associated with fashion returns.
• Finally, a new framework for future research is proposed, offering actionable insights towards developing more sustainable and
efficient returns management strategies, relevant to both academic inquiry and industry practice.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: We begin with a methodological approach that includes a descriptive analysis
of the literature. This is followed by a synthesis of findings and empirical data to deepen our understanding of fashion returns. The
paper then develops a future research framework, offers recommendations, and concludes with a discussion of the study’s contri­
butions and limitations. Detailed figures and supplementary data are available in the accompanying ‘Supplementary Material

Fig. 1. Overview of the research method and literature roadmap (Adapted from Choi et al., 2018).

3
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

Appendix 1′.

2. Methodology

The research framework and methodology are outlined in Fig. 1, adapted from Choi et al., (2018) and Xu et al., (2023a), who
combined systematic methods with an exploration of industrial evidence. This approach enables us to address the research questions
by integrating insights from both the academic literature and real-world practices. To enhance this, we introduce empirical data
collected from the UK’s second-largest pure-play retailer, providing a grounded, practice-based perspective concerning fashion
returns. By combining these two dimensions, our analysis offers a more comprehensive understanding of the returns process.

2.1. Empirical data collection process

The empirical data was sourced from the retailer’s ‘End-of-Season’ reports over a 4.5-year period, between 2018 and 2022. These
reports were provided by the organisations’ quality assurance team, which included raw data detailing individual return transactions
across clothing and footwear. Our selection of this retailer was based on its market position as a leading player in the online fashion
sector, which serves as a representative sample of fashion e-commerce consumers.
To ensure a robust analysis, we specifically requested data over an extended time frame to identify trends in return behaviour. The
dataset comprises information on dispatched merchandise, returned merchandise, and reasons for return. This rich dataset allows us to
compile and compare dispatched and returned merchandise, facilitating calculations of return rates for each season.

2.1.1. Sample selection criteria and potential biases

The sample selection criteria were focused on the retailer’s established presence in the online fashion market and its substantial
customer base. Given that this research aims to investigate specific social processes associated with fashion returns, the selection of a
single retailer enables an in-depth examination of return behaviours and the underlying reasons for returns within a defined context.
However, this focus introduces potential biases. The primary concern is selection bias, as our findings may not be generalisable to
all retailers in the fashion industry. Differences in operational practices, customer demographics, and return policies may limit the
applicability of our insights to other contexts. Additionally, response bias may occur if the retailer’s reporting practices influenced the
data presented, particularly in how reasons for return are categorised.

2.2. Literature review process

We adopted a three-stage literature review methodology, an approach outlined by Tranfield et al., (2003) which includes planning,
conducting, and reporting the review. This structured method, detailed further by Denyer and Tranfield (2009), is recognised for its
rigour and has been widely utilised in recent Operations Management research, such as in the studies by Vörösmarty and Dobos (2020)
and Cai and Choi (2021). Through this comprehensive review, our research provides an in-depth understanding of existing studies on
fashion e-commerce returns within the SCM field. The key steps and outcomes of each stage in this process are summarised below.
In the first stage of planning the literature search, preliminary reading was conducted to identify potential keywords, including
‘fashion e-commerce returns’, ‘reverse logistics’, ‘reverse network’, ‘e-commerce returns’, ‘internet returns’, ‘returns’, ‘apparel’, ‘last-
mile’, and ‘fashion supply chain returns’. These keywords were combined using Boolean search criteria to focus on research at the
intersection of fashion e-commerce, returns management, and reverse logistics within the broader context of SCM. In the second stage
of conducting the literature search, the focus was on SCM related categories through the Web of Science and ScienceDirect databases,
with additional filter tools applied to select peer-reviewed articles written in English. This search yielded 303 papers, which underwent
a rigorous curation process to eliminate duplicates and ensure relevance. After a detailed manual review of titles, abstracts, and
keywords, we strictly applied inclusion criteria focused on fashion e-commerce returns within SCM research, further augmented by
reviewing references from the initial papers to capture additional relevant studies. This approach narrowed the selection to 57 key
papers published between 2004 and 2024. Finally, each selection was then subjected to a descriptive analysis to identify central themes
and methods, ensuring a focused and high-quality literature base for further review and analysis.

2.3. Thematic summary

A literature matrix was prepared, summarising each article and categorising them by descriptive attributes (year, journal, title),
methodology (article type, theoretical lens, sampling protocol), and thematic categories (article purpose, context, keywords, design
variables, among others). The matrix aided in filtering and thematically categorising the articles based on their keywords and
summaries.
Three interconnected streams of research emerged from the analysis: first, the broader domain of returns management, focusing on
the strategies and policies for handling returns; second, studies centred around the operational intricacies of the return process,
particularly focusing on reverse logistics within e-commerce; and third, research addressing waste management, emphasising the
environmental challenges stemming from fashion returns. These research streams, along with their associated keywords, are illus­
trated in Fig. 2. The figure provides a thematic roadmap that highlights key areas within fashion e-commerce returns, offering a
structured framework for understanding the current landscape of this field. The figure also provides a basis for the structure of the
following section, where the three streams, namely returns management, reverse logistics and waste management are reviewed in

4
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, respectively.

3. The anatomy of returns in fashion e-commerce

The management of returns within the fashion e-commerce sector requires a multifaceted approach that spans strategic, opera­
tional, and environmental considerations. This section critically examines the diverse strategies and processes retailers employ to
handle customer returns. Through the literature, we explore various management strategies, the logistics of processing returns, and the
wider environmental repercussions of these practices. By synthesising insights across these areas, this section provides a detailed
understanding of how returns management impacts both business profitability and sustainability in fashion e-commerce.

3.1. Returns management: Strategic approaches to handling customer returns

Returns management is a critical supply chain function that encompasses the strategic policies and operational processes governing
the handling of returned goods within an organisation (Mollenkopf et al., 2007). At the strategic level, retailers must develop
comprehensive return policies that balance customer satisfaction with operational efficiency, addressing challenges such as fraud,
consumer opportunism, and return rate reduction (Rogers et al., 2002). These strategies often span various departments within a firm,
including marketing, customer service, and supply chain management, and aim to optimise both customer experience and financial
recovery.
A key aspect of returns management is its consumer-facing role, which directly impacts customer satisfaction and behaviour. This
includes managing customer requests for returns or exchanges, providing return labels, forms, and suitable packaging materials, and
offering multiple return options, such as postal services, courier pickups, or in-store drop-offs (Abdulla et al., 2019; Hjort and Lantz,
2012; Mollenkopf et al., 2007; Moorthy and Srinivasan, 1995; Patel et al., 2021). By integrating customer service, logistics, and in­
ventory management, returns management aims to streamline the returns process while maintaining a balance between operational
efficiency and customer satisfaction. Importantly, these activities influence customer perceptions of the brand and their likelihood to
return products in the future (Abdulla et al., 2019).
Return policies, a critical component of returns management, play a significant role in shaping consumer behaviour. While return
policies can enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty, they also serve as a tool for managing return-related costs, controlling in­
ventory turnover, and optimising operational efficiency (Shang et al., 2017). However, lenient return policies may unintentionally
encourage opportunistic behaviours, such as returning items after extended use, leading to increased return rates (Abdulla et al., 2022;
Guo and Chen, 2023). Understanding these consumer behaviours is essential for retailers to design effective returns management
strategies.
The following sections delve deeper into the intricate relationship between returns management strategies and consumer behav­
iour, exploring how various components of the returns process, such as return policies, consumer return options, and redistribution
channels, directly influence the propensity of consumers to return fashion products. This discussion provides a comprehensive un­
derstanding of the underlying reasons for returns and how retailers can strategically manage them.

Fig. 2. Network diagram showing the main streams of literature and associated keywords.

5
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

3.1.1. Return leniency

Return policies serve as strategic tools within the supply chain, influencing the volume, timeliness, and quality of product returns
(Guide and Van Wassenhove, 2009). These policies vary significantly across different types of retailers, and extensive research has
explored their influence, particularly from a marketing perspective, across various e-commerce sectors. Studies have examined return
policies such as money-back guarantees (MBGs) as signals of product quality (Lee and Rhee, 2018; Ülkü et al., 2013), opportunistic
deterrents like restocking fees (Shulman et al., 2009; Shang et al., 2017), and policy restrictions that impose certain hassles (Hsiao and
Chen, 2014).
In fashion e-commerce, return policies play a crucial role in shaping consumer behaviour (Huddleston, 2021). Retailers like ASOS,
with their pioneering ‘free returns’ policies, have set competitive benchmarks, prompting others to adopt similarly lenient return
policies to maintain customer loyalty (Ovchinnikov et al., 2023; Saarijärvi et al., 2017). Lenient return policies typically include full
refunds, flexible return windows, no-questions-asked returns, and minimal return effort required from the customer (Janakiraman
et al., 2016). Consumers are attracted to these lenient policies as they reduce the financial risks and efforts associated with returns,
such as the return method specified by the retailer.
Although lenient return policies are often considered essential for customer satisfaction and loyalty, they also present significant
challenges. These policies can contribute to higher return rates and exacerbate profit erosion (Hjort and Lantz, 2012). The impact on
profitability is particularly acute due to the short shelf life of apparel items, which is compounded by rapid changes in seasonality and
the transient nature of fashion trends (Blackburn et al., 2004). Despite these challenges, many retailers view high return rates as an
unavoidable consequence and regard liberalised return policies as necessary for expanding market share in a highly competitive
environment (Saarijärvi et al., 2017).
Leniency often manifests in the form of an MBG, allowing customers to return a product for a full refund if dissatisfied (McWilliams,
2012). MBGs serve multiple purposes; Moorthy and Srinivasan (1995) argue that MBGs can signal high product quality, which is
particularly valuable in the fashion industry, where consumers often face uncertainty. By offering MBGs, fashion retailers can
differentiate their products, build consumer trust, and potentially increase sales while discouraging unnecessary returns.
However, while McWilliams (2012) suggests that MBGs can help mitigate the adverse effects of high return rates, particularly for
lower-quality retailers, the effectiveness of MBG policies in the fashion industry depends on the retailer’s ability to recover value from
returned items through resale, refurbishment, or other means (Chen and Chen, 2017; Yang et al., 2017). Without a robust returns
management strategy, MBGs can exacerbate profit erosion, especially for the fashion sector, where return rates tend to be higher due to
subjective factors such as fit and style preferences (Harris, 2008; Ülkü and Gürler, 2018). Huang et al., (2018) further demonstrate that
MBGs may be detrimental to lower-quality fashion firms while benefiting those with higher-quality products. Given the proliferation of
fast fashion online, often characterised by low-quality offerings (Joy et al., 2012), retailers should exercise caution when implementing
MBGs to avoid exacerbating profit erosion and undermining their competitive position.
Other leniency levers within return policies are prevalent in the fashion e-commerce industry, each influencing consumer
behaviour and retailer profitability in distinct ways. Flexible return windows, which extend the time allowed for returns, have been
shown to increase customer satisfaction and reduce purchase hesitancy, though they can also lead to higher return rates (Janakiraman
et al., 2016). Abdulla et al., (2019) observed that most consumers decide whether to keep or return a purchase within a week, sug­
gesting that extended return periods may lead to increased losses as the value of returned items depreciates over time (Blackburn et al.,
2004). Despite these warnings, some UK retailers have extended return windows beyond the standard 28 days, a practice that may
compromise sustainability efforts and exacerbate vulnerabilities linked to higher return rates. An extreme example is Nordstrom,
which has eliminated time restrictions on returns altogether, allowing refunds at any time with proof of purchase (Ilchi, 2019).
Further examples of leniency include no-questions-asked returns, where customers can return products without providing a reason.
These are associated with higher trust and initial purchase rates but also encourage opportunistic behaviour, leading to increased
returns (Shulman et al., 2009; Wood, 2001). Free return shipping similarly boosts customer loyalty by removing financial barriers to
returns, yet this approach can significantly raise costs for retailers, particularly with high return volumes (Petersen and Kumar, 2009).
Restocking fee waivers are another leniency measure that enhances customer satisfaction but may lead to an uptick in returns since
customers face no penalty for returning items (Shang et al., 2017). These leniency levers are crucial for driving sales and fostering
customer loyalty, but they require careful management to avoid excessive return rates and protect profitability. As highlighted by
studies on the impact of opportunistic returns and the need for a balanced approach, leniency in return policies must be strategically
managed to mitigate potential negative effects (Abdulla et al., 2022; Lee and Rhee, 2018; Ülkü et al., 2013).

3.1.2. Inherent consumer behaviours

Return policies, while essential for maintaining customer satisfaction and fostering loyalty, can also give rise to various consumer
behaviours that have significant implications for retailers. These behaviours, often driven by the perceived leniency or strictness of a
retailer’s return policy, can range from genuine attempts to manage purchasing risks to more opportunistic actions that exploit these
policies (Phau et al., 2022). Understanding the behavioural responses triggered by return policies is crucial for retailers, particularly in
the fashion industry, where return rates are notably high. The following presents examples of the complex relationship between return
policies and consumer behaviour, detailing how different aspects of return policies can inadvertently encourage behaviours that may
undermine profitability and operational efficiency.
Bracketing:
‘Bracketing’, a consumer behaviour increasingly observed in online fashion retail, highlights the difficulties shoppers face when
making confident purchase decisions without the benefit of in-store trials. This practice involves consumers deliberately purchasing
multiple sizes or colours of the same item to try on at home, with the intention of returning those that do not meet their preferences (Xu

6
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

et al., 2023b). The uncertainty driving bracketing stems from the lack of standardised sizing within the fashion industry and the
inherent limitations of online product displays (Balaram et al., 2022). According to Narvar (2019), this behaviour is particularly
prevalent in fit-critical categories, such as women’s shoes and dresses, where inconsistencies in sizing and digital misrepresentation of
colours or prints are frequent concerns.
To mitigate these uncertainties, retailers often adopt leniency mechanisms such as MBGs or flexible return windows (Davis, 1995).
These policies, while intended to enhance consumer confidence, inadvertently encourage bracketing behaviour by allowing customers
to try multiple sizes of the same item, with the reassurance of a full refund and an extended return period (Lee and Rhee, 2018; Ülkü
et al., 2013). Balaram et al., (2022) suggest that bracketing is more common with low-priced products, as consumers feel less financial
risk. However, while bracketing may improve customer satisfaction and boost sales, retailers should encourage it with caution. The
high volume of returns associated with bracketing can erode profits due to the substantial costs of reverse logistics (Xu et al., 2023b).
Furthermore, as Abdulla et al., (2019) note, the rise in bracketing can strain logistics and inventory management, posing significant
challenges for online fashion retailers.
Wardrobing:
‘Wardrobing’ is another consumer behaviour that, while distinct from bracketing, also capitalises on lenient return policies (Pei and
Paswan, 2018). Unlike bracketing, where consumers are uncertain about fit or colour, wardrobing involves purchasing an item with
the intent of using it temporarily and then returning it for a full refund (Altug et al., 2021). This behaviour is often seen in the fashion
industry, where consumers might buy an expensive dress for a single event, only to return it afterward. Petersen and Kumar (2009),
describe wardrobing as a significant issue for retailers, as it not only leads to financial losses but also complicates inventory man­
agement and resale processes. Garments subjected to wardrobing often show significant signs of wear, requiring sanitisation, cleaning,
repackaging, and sometimes even repair, depending on the extent of misuse.
Shang et al., (2017) examine the competitive dynamics that exacerbates wardrobing, noting that generous return policies, while
designed to attract customers, are susceptible to exploitation by consumers who use products temporarily before returning them. The
study analysed how wardrobing impacts retailer profitability and explored strategies to mitigate its effects. Notably, their findings
suggest that even a slight uptick in wardrobing behaviour can significantly reduce profits when such behaviour is uncommon.
However, in cases where wardrobing is already widespread and highly beneficial to consumers, retailers may adjust their return
policies to paradoxically boost profits by capitalising on this behaviour. This research underscores the delicate balance retailers must
strike when designing return policies that protect their margins without alienating customers.
Snap and send back:
’Snap and send back’ is a term coined by the fashion industry to describe a particular type of opportunistic return behaviour. This
practice involves purchasing items, wearing them once for a ’hashtag moment’, usually to take photos for social media, and then
returning them after use (Adegeest, 2018). Similar to wardrobing, where items are bought with the intention of wearing and returning
them, ’snap and send back’ is driven by the same opportunistic motives. However, what sets this behaviour apart is its distinctly digital
element, fuelled by the rise of social media influencers and the pressure to showcase new outfits without the financial commitment
(Advanced Clothing Solutions, 2022). A report by Barclaycard (2018) revealed that 1 in 10 adults in the UK have purchased clothing
online with the intention of wearing it once to post a photo on social media, before returning the item for a full refund. Excessive
returners, such as those participating in the opportunistic trend, deliberately exploit return policies from the outset, extracting value
from the product at the retailer’s expense (Barclaycard, 2018; Phau et al., 2022).

3.1.3. Managing opportunistic returns

The rise of opportunistic behaviours, such as ‘wardrobing’ and ‘snap and send back,’ presents significant challenges to profitability.
Shang et al. (2017) highlight the financial strain on retailers when lenient return policies are exploited, particularly when consumers
seek full or partial refunds for items that have been worn or used. Most academic research has focused on these opportunistic be­
haviors, where consumers intentionally plan to return items before even making a purchase, thereby extracting value at the retailer’s
expense.
It is important to distinguish between opportunism and return fraud. While opportunistic returns involve deliberate actions to
exploit return policies, return fraud refers to criminal activities, such as returning stolen goods or items without a corresponding
purchase transaction (Akturk et al., 2021). Although opportunism is more commonly studied, the implications of both behaviors
highlight the need for retailers to strategically re-evaluate their return policies. By doing so, they can better protect themselves from
exploitation while still accommodating legitimate customers.
Restocking fee:
One practical approach to managing opportunistic returns is the use of ‘restocking fees’, which are typically deducted from the
refund amount, thereby partially refunding the customer for the purchase price (Samatli-Pac et al., 2018). The primary aim of
restocking fees is to recoup some of the costs associated with handling returns, such as restocking, repackaging, and lost revenue from
the returned item (Altug and Aydinliyim, 2016). Numerous analytical studies have explored restocking fees as an effective deterrent
for reducing unwanted consumer returns (Altug and Aydinliyim, 2016; Hsiao and Chen, 2014; Shang et al., 2017); Shulman et al.,
2009, 2011; Su, 2009). Altug and Aydinliyim (2016) argue that such fees not only mitigate the financial burden of returns but also
serve as a deterrent to opportunistic behaviour without significantly deterring genuine customers.
In a recent example, ASOS introduced a partial refund system under its ‘fair use’ policy, targeting customers with frequent returns.
Under this policy, customers who return more than a certain threshold of items face a £3.95 deduction if they keep less than £40 worth
of their order. This strategy reflects the goals of restocking fees by encouraging more careful purchasing decisions, while still offering
lenient return options to the majority of customers. However, BBC News reported that some consumers have expressed frustration,

7
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

arguing that issues like inconsistent sizing and product quality, common in the online fashion industry, drive their frequent returns. For
instance, a customer noted having to order the same pair of jeans multiple times to find the correct fit (Moreau, 2024). This reaction
highlights a critical challenge for retailers: balancing operational costs with the need to maintain a positive customer experience in
light of genuine product issues.
Addressing the broader issue of customer uncertainty, Su (2009) provides a different perspective by examining the authentic risks
inherent in online shopping. This perspective advocates for a balanced approach to return policies, striving to create a system that
benefits both consumers and retailers by being neither overly punitive nor excessively lenient. Su (2009) highlights that full refunds
can be overly generous, suggesting that partial refunds, aligned with the salvage value of returned products, are often more optimal,
thereby maintaining supply chain efficiency. However, it is important to note that retailers must also comply with the constraints
imposed by the UK’s Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly concerning restocking fees and the use of partial refunds. Under this
legislation, products must be fit for purpose, as described, and of satisfactory quality. If a consumer returns an item purchased online
within the 14-day ‘cooling-off’ period and the item meets all required standards, retailers cannot charge a restocking fee or offer only a
partial refund (UK Government, 2015). Online retailers in the UK must carefully navigate these regulations when considering the
imposition of fees or partial refunds for returns.
Hassle costs:
Hassle costs are an effective non-monetary tool for managing opportunistic returns, imposing time, effort, or inconvenience on
consumers rather than explicit monetary penalties like restocking fees. These costs discourage opportunistic behaviour by making the
return process less appealing to consumers. Davis et al., (1998) found that retailers tend to offer low-hassle return policies for products
with long-term benefits, cross-selling opportunities, or high salvage value. In contrast, when the goal is to reduce frivolous or
opportunistic returns, higher hassle costs are strategically implemented to make the process more cumbersome. Building on this, Hsiao
and Chen, (2014) suggest that while hassle-free policies are often advantageous, incorporating calibrated hassle costs into MBGs can be
more profitable, particularly when product quality is high. This approach allows retailers to balance accommodating genuine cus­
tomers with mitigating the financial burden of excessive returns.
Incentivising:
In addition to traditional mechanisms like restocking fees and hassle costs, retailers have explored innovative strategies to curb
returns and mitigate financial losses while maintaining customer loyalty. Gelbrich et al., (2017) examined the concept of ‘keep re­
wards’, a strategy that offers consumers promotional incentives, such as discounts on future purchases, to encourage them to keep their
purchases. While this approach can temporarily reduce return rates by providing immediate value to the customer, it may inadver­
tently encourage overconsumption and exacerbate environmental issues, potentially conflicting with efforts to promote responsible
consumption and sustainability.
Foscht et al., (2013) build on the concept of incentivising consumers to keep their purchases, as suggested by Gelbrich et al., (2017),
but take it a step further by advocating for a more personalised approach to return policies. Their study proposes tailoring return
policies based on individual consumer behaviour, rewarding infrequent returners while discouraging those who frequently return
items. Additionally, Foscht et al., (2013) emphasise the importance of providing consumers with easy access to detailed product in­
formation, enabling them to make well-informed decisions when purchasing online. This approach not only mitigates the risks
associated with consumer uncertainty but also aligns with the growing demand for sustainable shopping practices, as highlighted by
WGSN (2022). In the post-COVID-19 era, where consumers are increasingly prioritising waste reduction and sustainable choices, such
policies can give retailers a competitive edge, showcasing their commitment to both customer satisfaction and environmental re­
sponsibility (Shen, 2014).
Retailers must strike a delicate balance between offering lenient return policies that attract and retain customers and implementing
measures that protect profitability. Restocking fees, hassle costs, and incentives, such as keep rewards, are all mechanisms that, when
used strategically, can help manage the financial implications of high return rates. These tools offer a way to maintain customer
satisfaction while mitigating the risks associated with lenient return policies.

3.1.4. Omnichannel strategies

In the evolving landscape of retail, omnichannel (OC) models have emerged as a strategic approach to manage the complexities of
returns. In fashion e-commerce, one of the challenges consumers face is the inability to touch and feel a product before purchasing,
thereby resulting in a higher return rate (Mandal et al., 2021). From a consumer’s perspective, physical touchpoints can alleviate the
uncertainty often associated with online shopping. By integrating e-commerce platforms with physical stores, OC retailing could offer
an environment that could significantly enhance customer satisfaction with the potential to optimise supply chain efficiency
(Difrancesco and Huchzermeier, 2020; Zhang and Choi, 2021).
OC retailing enables consumers to pick up and drop off online purchases or returns at physical brick-and-mortar (BM) stores,
offering convenience and additional benefits such as the ability to try on items and receive immediate refunds (Gao and Su, 2017). This
flexibility is especially appealing to consumers, with approximately 60 % of online shoppers preferring in-store returns over other
methods (Mandal et al., 2021). For retailers, this approach allows for prompt handling of refunds and the quick restocking of returned
items, which minimises profit loss and bolsters customer satisfaction. By consolidating deliveries and collections within the BM
location, OC strategies can enhance operational efficiency by streamlining return operations, reduce disruption in the supply chain,
and ultimately, mitigate environmental impacts (Hübner et al., 2016; Zhang and Choi, 2021).
Despite its benefits, the OC model is not without challenges. A case study by Bug et al., (2018) on the OC strategies of four German
fashion retailers highlighted significant variations in return methods and policies. The study found that many retailers focus heavily on
forward-centric services, potentially overlooking the optimisation of return flows, which could limit the full potential of a well-

8
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

rounded OC strategy. Expanding on the complexities of OC strategies, Mandal et al., (2021) examines optimal configurations for
managing fashion e-commerce returns. The study explores three configurations: online sales only, a showroom with online sales, and a
combination of BM stores with online sales that allow in-store returns. The findings suggest that for high-value, personalised products,
opening a showroom or physical store is optimal, while for low-value, standardised products, factors such as return rates and trans­
portation costs may make an online-only approach more favourable. Such high-value, personalised fashion items are evidenced in the
study by Bell et al., (2018), showcasing optimal performance in a showroom setting.
Moreover, considering retailers’ return policy strategies in OC operations, Letizia et al., (2018) and Nageswaran et al., (2020)
explain why some OC retailers may or may not offer products via multi-channel (i.e. online and BM), as well as offering full refunds, or
charging a restocking fee for fashion e-commerce returns. The decision on whether to offer a product through both online and retail
channels or exclusively online can depend on factors such as the product’s marginal value and salvage value (Letizia et al., 2018). For
instance, high salvage value might encourage a retailer to maintain both channels to maximise recovery from returned goods. On the
other hand, when considering how to manage returns, the strategy might differ based on the retailer’s infrastructure and partnerships.
Retailers like Nordstrom, with robust salvage partnerships for fashion e-commerce returns, should offer full refunds as they can
efficiently manage and recover value from these items (Nageswaran et al., 2020). Conversely, retailers with extensive store networks
and better in-store salvage opportunities, such as Zara, impose fees for e-commerce returns to encourage in-store returns (Adegeest,
2022).
OC strategies present a robust mechanism for managing returns, offering benefits for both consumers and retailers. However, its
implementation requires careful consideration of various factors, including the value of returned products, customer preferences,
operational cost, and the retailer’s operational capabilities.

3.1.5. Redistribution channels

The rise of e-commerce has intensified the challenge of managing returns, as highlighted, can significantly erode profit margins and
disrupt logistics. Retailers have increasingly turned to redistribution strategies, such as reselling returned goods through secondary
markets, refurbishing items, and internal trading among retailers, as essential tools to recover profits and minimise the financial impact
of returns (Beh et al., 2016).
Redistribution involves managing returned products to ensure they re-enter the market in a way that maximises recovery value.
Difrancesco et al., (2018) argue that the strategic handling of returns is crucial for online fashion retailers, as it directly influences
profitability. Their model, which integrates forward and reverse logistics networks, suggests that optimising the return process,
including refurbishment, can significantly enhance supply chain performance. Strategically setting return windows can optimise the
refurbishment cycle and improve service rates at testing and refurbishment facilities. Additionally, the study identifies decision factors
that retailers should consider when deciding whether to refurbish merchandise or sell it in the secondary market. This approach helps
minimise the degradation of product value, which is particularly important in fast-moving industries like fashion. Shang et al., (2017)
reinforces this point, noting that products returned late in the return window often present fewer options for resale or reuse, thus
adding to the challenges faced by retailers. Furthermore, Xu et al., (2015), argue that shorter return windows help preserve the resale
value of products. Nevertheless, a potential downside is that overly restrictive return windows might deter customers, reducing overall
sales and damaging customer loyalty. Retailers must, therefore, carefully balance the need for timely returns with customer
satisfaction.
Introducing secondary markets to manage returns can substantially increase overall sales volume and profitability, as demonstrated
by Huang et al., (2014). By offering discounted prices for returned products, retailers can appeal to different consumer segments,
thereby maximising total revenue. However, this approach is not without risks. The reliance on secondary markets can introduce
complications, such as the potential for market saturation or brand dilution, which could negatively impact long-term profitability.
Lee and Rhee (2018) present a compelling case for retailer-run resale markets as a strategy to reduce returns. They find that by
encouraging consumers to resell their products rather than return them, retailers can significantly decrease the volume of costly
returns. This approach also reassures consumers, promoting higher sales of new products. However, there is an inherent contradiction
in the assumption that resale markets will always diminish returns. In practice, if the resale market is not well-managed, it could
inadvertently cannibalise new product sales or fail to attract sufficient consumer interest, leading to financial losses.
Redistribution also affects supply chain dynamics, potentially creating conflicts between retailers and suppliers. Huang et al.,
(2014) note that while secondary markets can enhance profitability, they may exacerbate incentive misalignments within the supply
chain. Retailers may need to negotiate more favourable terms with suppliers, such as generous buyback or sales rebate contracts, to
ensure coordination. A failure to achieve this balance could lead to strained relationships within the supply chain, undermining the
benefits of redistribution.
While redistribution strategies offer substantial benefits, retailers must be cautious of potential pitfalls. Overreliance on secondary
markets or resale schemes could lead to market cannibalisation or brand dilution. Furthermore, poorly managed return windows or
supply chain conflicts could offset the gains from redistribution, leading to reduced profitability or even customer dissatisfaction.
Retailers should approach redistribution with a comprehensive strategy that considers these risks and ensures alignment with broader
business objectives.

3.2. Reverse logistics: Operational flow of returned goods

Reverse logistics is a core operational component within the broader returns management framework, focusing on the physical
movement and handling of returned goods from the end consumer back to the retailer or designated disposal sites (Rogers et al., 2002).

9
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

While returns management deals with the strategic policies that govern how returns are processed and managed, reverse logistics is
responsible for executing these policies through the practical, operational steps involved in moving and reintegrating products.
Key activities within reverse logistics include transportation, product recovery, gatekeeping, and disposition, all of which have a
direct impact on the efficiency and cost of handling returns (Rogers et al., 2002; Tibben-Lembke and Rogers, 2002). Reverse logistics is
particularly important in industries such as fashion, where the timely recovery, inspection, and restocking of returned goods are crucial
to minimising losses and maintaining inventory flow. However, many retailers view returns as a routine business cost and underes­
timate their true impact. This mindset leads to inefficient and poorly coordinated return processes (Frei et al., 2020).
This section will explore the operational aspects of reverse logistics, examining how the physical flow of goods, from collection and
transportation to processing and restocking, affects both the retailer’s profitability and the efficiency of the overall supply chain.
Understanding these logistics processes is essential for retailers looking to optimise their handling of returns, reduce waste, and
maximise product recovery.

3.2.1. The logistics of fashion returns

Retailers can incur significant costs when handling returned merchandise. The cost associated can occur in numerous ways,
whether that be transportation, processing time, and, depending on the condition, treatment of the returned merchandise (Mandal
et al., 2021). When retailers experience a high volume of returns, it can take as long as four weeks to process returned merchandise
(Advanced Clothing Solutions, 2022). Research by KPMG stated that fashion e-commerce returns re-entering the supply chain can cost
up to £20 per unit, depending on the product category and severity of treatment needed (Ram, 2016). Even when items are resold at
full price, the cumulative costs of managing returns can account for a 40 % loss in profit due to the extensive handling, logistics, and
refurbishment required (Tyler, 2023).
To better understand these logistical challenges, we have expanded de Leeuw et al’s., (2016)’s model of the fashion e-commerce
returns process, which originally outlined several stages an item goes through before re-entering stock. Specifically, this model em­
phasises four critical activities, gatekeeping, collection, sorting, and disposal, drawing on studies by Daaboul et al., (2014), Lambert
et al., (2011), and Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, (1998). Our adaptation retains their core framework but integrates recent developments
in practice and reverse logistics research. The original model focuses solely on return activity from a retailer perspective. We expand
upon this model further in section 6, incorporating empirical evidence to enhance the model by providing insights from both retail and
consumer perspectives. These additions could offer actionable guidance on optimising return policies and tailoring reverse logistics to
the fashion sector. The following will now detail each stage of the return process pertaining to the fashion industry:

[Link]. Customer return & authorisation (gatekeeping). Gatekeeping serves as the designated entry point into the reverse logistics
system (Rogers et al., 2002). Upon initiating a return, consumers usually receive authorisation, with a primary focus on inspecting the
returned product for manufacturing faults and other associated issues. This administrative step is crucial, as it determines whether a
product is eligible for reintroduction into the supply chain (gatekeeping). Gatekeeping has the ability to limit the volume of returns
(Rogers et al., 2002). Retailers typically leverage this point of entry as a means to safeguard resources and profit margins. However,
recent strategic decisions by Amazon and Walmart have involved refunding customers and permitting them to retain their unwanted
purchases upon return requests (Marian, 2021). While initially appearing cost-efficient compared to reintroducing returned items into
the supply chain, the long-term sustainability of this strategy is dubious, echoing concerns raised about the ‘keep rewards’ mentioned
earlier. This approach exacerbates issues of overconsumption and disposability, further contributing to environmental challenges
associated with fast-fashion.

[Link]. Collection. The second stage of the reverse logistics process involves retrieving merchandise from consumers, typically in two
phases: retrieval and transportation (Lambert et al., 2011). The method of collection varies between multi-channel and single-channel
e-commerce retailers. Multi-channel retailers, such as an OC retailer, which operates both online and in physical stores, are able to
offer the option of in-store returns. Returning items in-store improves customer satisfaction and simplifies the logistics of reverse flow
management (Difrancesco and Huchzermeier, 2020; Zhang and Choi, 2021). However, this is limited to those able to integrate their e-
commerce platforms alongside an existing physical BM network.
Single-channel e-commerce retailers, by contrast, rely on last-mile delivery methods to recover returned items (Beh et al., 2016).
Since they lack physical stores, they use logistics networks to handle both deliveries and returns. This can involve drop-off points at
locations like supermarkets, post offices, and parcel lockers, where customers can return items. By leveraging these methods, they
streamline the return process while reducing congestion and transportation costs; simulating qualities associated with the OC model
(Velazquez and Chankov, 2019). Although parcel lockers are an emerging solution to streamline returns and reduce congestion
(Edwards et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2022), adoption in the fashion industry remains low, with only 7 % of returns currently using lockers
(Mangiaracina et al., 2019). Their usage could increase with developments such as try-on features and instant refunds, further
enhancing returns efficiency. This would build on the research of Mandal et al., (2021) and Bell et al., (2018), both of whom
emphasised the significance of physical touchpoints in OC configurations to reduce fashion e-commerce returns.
Efficient transportation ensures that returned products are swiftly moved from drop-off locations back to distribution centres,
minimising delays and the cost of recovery (Esper et al., 2003). This phase is equally critical in maintaining a smooth flow of goods in
and out of the supply chain, playing a vital role in a well-functioning closed-loop supply chain (CLSC) (Chow and Li, 2018). However,
the fashion industry faces significant challenges like short product life cycles, volatile demand, and rigid supply chain infrastructure.
This rigidity severely limits the ability of retailers to quickly adapt to fluctuating return volumes and demand shifts, creating

10
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

bottlenecks in both forward and reverse logistics processes. These constraints complicate efforts to optimise the CLSC and prevent
retailers from achieving the same level of agility seen in other industries. Without flexible supply chain infrastructure, innovations in
returns management, such as same-day delivery or rapid restocking from returns, remain difficult to implement, thereby affecting
profitability (Ader et al., 2021; Niu et al., 2018; Zanjirani Farahani et al., 2022).
Despite these challenges, some e-commerce retailers are exploring radical recovery solutions. For example, JeansOnline, a Dutch
fashion e-commerce retailer, is trialling a system where couriers wait 15 min while customers try on items. This reduces opportunistic
behaviour, such as ‘wardrobing’, while increasing stock availability and profitability (de Leeuw et al., 2016). The retailer recognises
that swift stock recovery can mitigate profit decay. While blending forward and reverse operations may be an effective CLSC strategy,
retailers serving larger demographics may find it challenging to sustain this method. There remains an opportunity to design inno­
vative recovery models that cater to broader consumer bases more efficiently.

[Link]. Sorting (screening & disposition). Returned fashion items undergo screening before continuing in the reverse supply chain
flow. Screening allows retailers to assess the item’s condition and determine appropriate compensation for the customer (Nguyen et al.,
2018). Compensation is provided if the item can be resold as new or requires refurbishment. Screening also identifies defective items
and determines if an item is damaged beyond repair, aiming to minimise the number of returns processed.
During significant surges in returns, they may opt to outsource the entire process to third-party logistic (3PL) providers strategi­
cally, aiming to maximise the value of returned assets (Doxey, 2021). This strategic decision gains paramount significance in scenarios
characterised by high return volumes and a short product life cycle. The market has witnessed the emergence of specialised 3PLs
catering to intricacies involved within the reverse logistics process of fashion returns, such as; specialised cleaning methods, saniti­
sation, stain removal, and, repairs. Conversely, some businesses choose to manage returns internally within their supply chain, sorting
and screening items in large consolidation centres.
After returns undergo screening, their destination can be determined based on disposition, enabling the item to proceed to the next
stage of the supply chain. Returns are categorised into recovery options according to their quality characteristics (Guide and Van
Wassenhove, 2009). De Leeuw et al., (2016) identifies three possible outcomes for disposition:
Redistribution:
If the product is deemed suitable for resale without further recovery action, it can replenish inventory. At this stage, retailers may
redistribute the item to either a primary or secondary market, depending on its age and salvage value (Wen et al., 2018). In the primary
market, the item replenishes the original retailer’s stock and is redistributed to stores or central warehouses for e-commerce sales.
Meanwhile, in the secondary market, items are sold or traded to discount retailers or charity organisations (Caro and Gallien, 2012;
Zanjirani Farahani et al., 2022). Both scenarios contribute to circularity, as returned items re-enter the supply chain and are diverted
from landfills.
Rework:
If the product is deemed suitable for resale after ‘rework’ it undergoes further processing or recovery stages. However, for fashion
items in this stage, rework takes on a different meaning compared to other product categories (e.g. electrical items). Refurbishment for
fashion items involves ‘low-touch’ handling, including simple treatments like polishing, cleaning/deodorising (e.g. removing makeup
or perspiration stains), steam ironing, and repackaging (Advanced Clothing Solutions, 2022). Returns requiring more extensive
attention, such as remanufacture or repair (e.g. seam repair, button fixing, zipper repair), necessitate the skills of a seamstress or
technician depending on the item’s condition. Each example also requires specific machinery to address the issues.
Disposal:
If the product is not fit for resale, it is discarded, recycled, or disposed of via an alternative channel. Fashion items, notoriously
harmful for the environment due to their potentially harmful materials and chemicals, necessitate that retailers avoid waste man­
agement malpractices such as cannibalisation, incineration, or landfill (Ayvaz et al., 2015).

3.3. Waste management and environmental impact in fashion e-commerce

The rapid growth of the fashion industry, particularly fast fashion, has significantly escalated environmental concerns due to the
industry’s excessive resource consumption and waste generation. Fast-fashion brands, driven by the rapid turnover of low-cost
clothing, contribute to extensive clothing disposal, creating a cycle of waste with severe environmental consequences (Chan et al.,
2020). E-commerce, a major driver of fashion sales, exacerbates this problem by amplifying the volume of post-consumer waste,
especially through the high rates of product returns. These returns further intensify the industry’s environmental burden, as fashion’s
labour-intensive production processes and complex extended value chains already strain sustainability efforts (Bentahar and Benzidia,
2018; Cai and Choi, 2020). Effective waste management strategies are therefore essential for mitigating the environmental harm
caused by fashion e-commerce returns (Pinheiro et al., 2019). This section examines existing literature on waste management practices
aimed at addressing this challenge.

3.3.1. Textile waste and landfill contributions

Textile waste, though lightweight, poses significant environmental challenges, especially as fast fashion and e-commerce accelerate
consumption and disposal rates. In 2017, the rise of fashion e-commerce returns contributed to around 350,000 tonnes of apparel being
sent to landfill in the UK (WRAP, 2017). Life cycle assessments of fashion product, including e-commerce returns, reveal that recycling
and reuse significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to incineration or landfill disposal (Zamani et al., 2015).

11
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

Additionally, Farrant et al., (2010) emphasise that reselling second-hand clothing can diminish the demand for new garments, thus
lowering the overall environmental impact of fashion consumption.

3.3.2. Waste management for fashion e-commerce returns

Effective waste management is a critical concern in the fashion e-commerce sector, particularly given the high volume of returns
that often lead to excess inventory and discarded products. Reverse logistics plays a pivotal role in minimising the environmental
footprint associated with fashion returns by enabling the recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing of these items. As Dissanayake and
Sinha (2015) highlight, successful reverse supply chains require collaboration between retailers and consumers to ensure that returned
items are managed in a way that reduces waste and conserves resources.
The importance of incorporating waste management strategies into reverse logistics is further emphasised by the findings of
Velazquez and Chankov (2019). Their study revealed that large retailers are increasingly adopting green initiatives with logistics
service providers, recognising the significant environmental impact associated with high return rates. This proactive approach is
essential in addressing the waste generated through returns, yet it also exposes the disparity between large and small companies, the
latter of which often lack comprehensive strategies to mitigate their environmental impact. Moreover, the study underscored that
transportation methods significantly influence environmental outcomes, but it is concerning that none of the retailers had data on the
carbon footprint of their return processes. This gap highlights the need for improved waste management practices that encompass all
stages of reverse logistics, ensuring that the environmental impact of returns is minimised.
Incorporating recycling considerations at the design stage, as Muthu et al., (2012) suggest, can significantly reduce the carbon
footprint and other environmental impacts of returned goods. Furthermore, Fortuna and Diyamandoglu (2017a) argue that second-
hand clothing reuse, particularly through online exchanges, can extend garment life cycles and reduce waste, thereby supporting
broader waste management objectives.
The circular economy model, which emphasises designing products for longevity, repairability, and recyclability, is particularly
relevant to waste management in fashion returns. By adopting circular economy principles, fashion brands can reduce waste and
extend the life of garments through practices like recycling textiles into new products or offering repair services (Ashby, 2018). These
practices are crucial for mitigating the environmental challenges posed by the fast-paced nature of fashion e-commerce, ensuring that
returned products do not contribute to the growing problem of textile waste.

3.3.3. Innovative waste management technologies

Innovations in waste management technology are pivotal in addressing the challenges posed by fashion e-commerce returns.
Advanced sorting technologies, such as AI-driven categorisation, improve the efficiency of textile recycling, while chemical recycling
processes offer solutions for synthetic fibre waste (de Silva and Byrne, 2017). Digital platforms that facilitate the resale and recycling of
garments further enhance the lifecycle of fashion products by connecting consumers to second-hand markets and recycling services,
thereby reducing landfill contributions (Fortuna and Diyamandoglu, 2017b).

3.3.4. Global supply chain challenges in textile waste management

Managing textile waste across global supply chains is complex, particularly in the context of fashion e-commerce returns. Chal­
lenges include navigating varying regulatory environments, addressing the environmental impact of international shipping, and
ensuring proper waste management in diverse markets. A recent study by Zamani et al., (2015) used life cycle assessment methodology
to understand the emission output of textile recycling, whether that be through reuse or donation. The study compared the greenhouse
gas emissions of incineration and landfill against those of recycling, reuse, and donation. Despite re-entering the supply chain and
enduring the many stages of the reverse logistics process, the study showed that the reuse of garments has a higher likelihood of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
While Zamani et al., (2015) support avoiding landfill waste methods and suggest re-entering the supply chain via reuse, recycling,
or donation as environmentally beneficial, there are other challenges to be considered that may not be as progressive, particularly
when it comes to donation. Donating to developing countries, once seen as a solution to mitigate fashion e-commerce returns, raises
economic concerns, especially surrounding the development of the African textile market (Bukhari et al., 2018). East Africa’s textile
industry workforce, for example, has decreased by 96 % since the early 1980 s, coinciding with the rise of donated textiles in the region
(Kubania, 2015). These complexities underscore the need for careful consideration of the broader implications of waste management
strategies in global supply chains, particularly when such strategies may have unintended consequences on local economies.

3.3.5. Extended producer responsibility (EPR)

Increased public pressure and government legislation, such as EPR, have compelled retailers to adopt new management systems for
recovering, repurposing, and safely disposing of EOU products (Ferguson and Souza, 2010). EPR mandates producers to take re­
sponsibility for the entire life cycle of their products, including EOU and EOL stages (De et al., 2023). The application of EPR varies by
jurisdiction, often set at the national or regional level, and covers a range of products beyond those strictly post-use. E-commerce
purchases, including returns, may fall under EPR regulations, particularly for products with potential environmental impact. In the UK,
EPR currently applies to electrical goods, batteries, vehicles, and packaging, with the fashion textile industry scheduled to join the
legislation by 2025 (WRAP, 2017). This policy aims to reduce fashion’s contribution to landfill waste and promote repurposing
through resale or recycling.

12
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

[Link]. Challenges in implementation. While EPR offers an opportunity for fashion retailers to demonstrate environmental steward­
ship, its implementation presents challenges, particularly for single-channel e-commerce retailers. Research indicates a lack of
infrastructure and coordination strategies across the sector’s extended value chain to effectively meet EPR guidelines and re­
sponsibilities (Zanjirani Farahani et al., 2022). Many fashion e-commerce businesses lack a physical network for collecting and treating
returned items, which hampers efforts to meet regulatory demands. In contrast, multi-channel retailers already practising voluntary
EOU garment takeback, typically facilitated through BM store networks, will experience a smoother transition to EPR compliance
(Denizel and Schumm, 2023).

3.4. Methodological summary of literature

Fig. 3 depicts the methodical approach adopted within each stream of literature.
While research methodologies in SCM vary, the analysis shows a predominant use of quantitative methods, accounting for 52.6 %
of all studies. This is followed by qualitative methods at 33.3 %, theoretical/conceptual approaches at 12.3 %, and mixed methods
making up just 1.8 %. Delving deeper by literature stream, in Returns Management, quantitative methods dominate with 66.7 %,
consisting primarily of analytical modelling and empirical analysis (e.g. survey methods). Qualitative methods, such as interviews,
case studies, and fieldwork, account for 22.2 %, while theoretical/conceptual methods contribute 8.3 %, and mixed methods represent
a minor 2.8 %.
In Reverse Logistics, quantitative methods remain dominant at 45.4 %, again largely involving analytical modelling. Interestingly,
both qualitative and theoretical/conceptual methods are equally represented at 27.3 % each, with no mixed methods in this area.
For Waste Management, qualitative methods are the leading approach at 80.0 %, with research primarily relying on case studies
and field work. This stream shows a balance between theoretical/conceptual approaches and mixed methods, each contributing 10.0
%, but there is a notable absence of any quantitative approaches in this area. We briefly review representative articles for each type
below:
Quantitative methods (analytical modelling, empirical analysis):
Quantitative methods represent a significant portion of the research within reverse logistics and returns management, making up
approximately 52.6 % of the reviewed studies. Analytical modelling plays a crucial role in enhancing our understanding of these areas,
with various techniques applied. For instance, DiFrancesco et al., (2018) focused on closed-loop supply chains (CLSC), illustrating how
strategic return windows can maximise profits despite product ageing and customer delay, suggesting adjustments in return policies
that can positively impact profitability. Xu et al., (2015) expanded upon Su’s (2009) model by incorporating the return policy coverage
window, during which consumers derive a trial value from the product that increases as the return window extends. Soto Zuluaga et al.,
(2017) developed a reverse cross-docking model aimed at efficiently managing high seasonal demand, demonstrating cost mini­
misation in return processes.
Balaram et al., (2022) and Xu et al., (2023b) delve into pricing strategies and the dynamics of bracketing behaviour, revealing that
the profitability of bracketing hinges on consumer behaviour and reverse logistics costs. This analysis offers insights into inventory
management to better accommodate returns. Also examining opportunistic tendencies, Phau et al., (2022) utilised survey methods to
explore the attitudes and intentions of consumers engaging in the recent development of ’wardrobing’ behaviour. Complementing
these findings, Choi and Guo (2018) explored the dual impact of consumer returns on inventory decisions and the enhancement of
quick response supply chains in mass customisation systems, indicating broader applicability of returns management strategies.
Mandal et al., (2021) extend the discussion to OC setups, proposing models for online retailers that incorporate offline showrooms and
physical stores, highlighting optimal strategies to manage returns based on product characteristics. Collectively, these studies un­
derscore the diverse applications of analytical modelling in refining reverse logistics strategies, emphasising the importance of stra­
tegic returns management and product recommendations in improving retail profitability and customer satisfaction.
Qualitative methods (interviews, case studies, field work):

Fig. 3. Methodological analysis summary by %.

13
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

Qualitative methods represent approximately 33.3 % of the studies and have been instrumental in exploring returns management
and consumer behaviour. Field studies, in particular, have provided rich insights. Saarijärvi et al., (2017) explored consumer attitudes
and intentions towards returns, while Patel et al., (2021) focused on policy decisions affecting returns. Using interviews and obser­
vations, Beh et al., (2016) investigated the influence of entrepreneurial business models on the reverse supply chain in the apparel and
fashion retail sector, highlighting critical features of second-life retailers.
In a qualitative study, Gelbrich et al., (2017) conducted interviews with online retail managers to assess the effectiveness of ’keep
rewards’ in enhancing lenient return policies. This approach provided valuable managerial insights into the benefits of using inno­
vative promotional strategies to reduce return rates. Building on these managerial perspectives, Pal et al., (2019) employed a case
study method to delve into the multidimensional value generated by reverse supply chain relationships in post-consumer clothing.
Their analysis highlighted the operational and strategic importance of these relationships in returns management. Similarly, Hjort and
Lantz (2016) used case study methods, utilising transactional data from a Swedish online retailer to investigate the impact of return
policies on both consumer behaviour and profitability. Together, these studies offer deep managerial insights into the complexities of
returns management, underscoring the need for targeted strategies to address operational challenges and optimise returns processes.
Theoretical/conceptual methods (review articles):
Theoretical and conceptual studies accounted for approximately 12.3 % of the articles reviewed. Denizel and Schumm (2023),
Nguyen et al., (2018), and Wen et al., 2018 place a significant emphasis on fashion returns. Denizel and Schumm (2023) investigate
circular economies (CE) in the apparel and textile sector, highlighting the unique challenges compared to CEs in industries like
consumer electronics. Nguyen et al., (2018) offer a systematic review of online consumer behaviour in order fulfilment, covering both
marketing and operations perspectives. Wen et al., 2018, motivated by the need to update research in fashion retail SCM, explored
analytical studies that used operational techniques and models in fashion retail supply chain issues.
Abdulla et al., (2019) and Janakiraman et al., (2016) also contribute to this stream, with Janakiraman et al., (2016) conducting a
meta-analysis to examine how return policy factors influence purchasing and return tendencies. Abdulla et al., (2019) reviewed return
policies and their impact on consumer return behaviours, developing a conceptual framework to guide future research.
Mixed methods:
Mixed-methods studies accounted for just 1.8 % of the research, with Foscht et al., (2013) being a notable example. Their study
utilised surveys and interviews to explore the characteristics, motivations, and attitudes of e-commerce consumers who frequently
return fashion items. This approach provided a more comprehensive view of the ’wardrobing’ behaviour, combining both consumer
attitudes and the practical challenges faced by retailers.

4. Industrial evidence

In this section, we present empirical evidence on fashion e-commerce returns, validating and quantifying key trends and behaviours
from previous literature. Our analysis highlights the scale and impact of returns, detailing product categories, return reasons, economic
effects, and environmental consequences.

4.1. Description of the industrial data

With annual sales of £2.15bn, our data source is the UK’s second-largest pure-play retailer (after Amazon), dominating the online
fashion market. Its unique selling point lies in its innovative credit offering, allowing customers to pay in instalments, particularly
appealing to young families and budget-conscious shoppers. With a majority of millennial and female customers (58 %), it boasts 4.4
million active customers, demonstrating a significant market share. Offering a wide range of clothing and footwear for all ages, the
retailer provides various delivery options including next-day, standard, and nominated, along with free Click & Collect on orders over
£30 to Yodel stores and Post Offices. For returns, they operate on a standard 28-day policy, free of charge if within the specified period
and in original packaging with tags attached, utilising 3PL services like Yodel stores and the Post Office.
The retailer serves as a representative sample of fashion e-commerce consumers. Data was extracted from the retailer’s ‘End-of-
Season’ (6-month period) reports, provided by the quality assurance team. The data was delivered in a raw format, detailing individual
return transactions across clothing and footwear for each season between Spring/Summer (SS) 2018 to SS 2022. We were able to
acquire four and half years’ worth of summary reports, with the main headlines being dispatched merchandise (units and cash value),
returned merchandise (units and cash value), and reason for return. We specifically requested data over a long period of time to search
for any trends. The data allowed us to compile the units in order to illustrate a comparison between dispatched and returned
merchandise from the retailers’ fashion category. This enabled us to calculate the return rate for each season. As Figure A1 (in the
supplementary e-companion) shows, despite the sale of units depleting from its predecessor, SS 2019 (1/01/19–30/06/19) recorded
the highest performance for returns (36 % return rate). The subsequent seasons reveal a sharp decline in dispatched units at the
beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Interestingly, returns for SS 2020, while also decreasing, still remain relatively high (31 %
return rate) in comparison to the sharp decline of dispatched units. Over the 4.5-year period, we can see that returned units are steadily
increasing after a 2-year plateau. For detailed return rate charts, including department-specific rates, refer to Appendix A of the
supplementary e-companion (Figure A2).
We analysed the data with a snapshot focus on the 12-month period between Autumn/Winter (AW) 2018 − SS 2019 (01/07/
2018–30/06/2019). This specific timeframe was strategically selected to capture a pre-pandemic context, providing insights into e-
commerce activities during a relatively normal period. This choice allows for a baseline understanding of return patterns unaffected by
the unique circumstances and shifts in consumer behaviour observed during the subsequent pandemic period. The data format

14
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

included filter tools to distinguish between each trading department, and by trading subcategory i.e. womenswear (trading depart­
ment), accessories (trading sub-category), bags (product range). It also included the monetary value of each unit returned, as well as
the reason for return. From the data, we were able to illustrate the economic magnitude and flow of returns as seen in Figure A3
(supplementary e-companion). The graph shows the products re-entering the retailer’s supply chain over the 12-month period (AW
2018 – SS 2019). The retailer accumulated over £1billion in clothing and footwear sales (29,991,112 units) but endured £375.4million
(10,179,729 units) in returns.
To emphasise the quantities of returned units, we have produced a hierarchal tree chart (Figure A4 in the supplementary e-
companion) to differentiate by product category, which indicates that the majority of the returns come from branded clothing and
footwear e.g. Womenswear branded clothing accounting for 40 % of returns between 2018/19. This supports the literature in regard to
fit inconsistency across fashion brands. Interestingly, the product categories with the highest amount of returns lean into higher price
point categories. This may allude to the emerging consumer behaviour in regard to the consumers who want to extract value from
higher price point items for a one-wear use (wardrobing).
Figures A5, A6, and A7 (found in the supplementary e-companion) provides a comprehensive breakdown of return reasons by
department. In line with standard e-commerce practices, customers are prompted with a multiple-choice question to elucidate their
motive for returning items. The return behaviours within e-commerce fashion differ significantly across product lines, with distinct
patterns emerging in womenswear, menswear, and childrenswear. In womenswear, the predominant reason for returns is ‘style does
not suit,’ accounting for 35 % of all returns, highlighting the subjective nature of consumer preferences in this category.
Bracketing behaviour, represented by returns labelled ‘ordered more than one for size/choice,’ constitutes 14.5 % of womenswear
returns. This notable percentage indicates a common trend where customers order multiple sizes or styles with the intention of
returning those that do not fit or match their preferences. Menswear exhibits a higher occurrence of bracketing behaviour, with 16.5 %
of returns attributed to this category. This result challenges the assumption that menswear is less prone to size-related uncertainty,
typically associated with standardised sizing conventions (Narvar, 2017). Childrenswear observes 17 % of returns attributed to
bracketing. This suggests that parents frequently order multiple sizes to ensure the best fit for growing children.
Additionally, sizing issues are evident in womenswear, with ‘too small’ and ‘too big’ together making up 28.5 % of returns. These
findings correlate with specific product categories that witness higher return rates; for instance, the ‘curve’ category is particularly
susceptible due to its fit-sensitive nature, while fabric composition nuances in ‘woven dresses’ and ‘woven separates’ categories
contribute to fit discrepancies. Other reasons include ‘no reason’ at 13 %, which points to potential areas for further exploration to
understand underlying motives, while product-related issues like poor quality and damage are relatively minor, contributing only 1.5
% and 0.5 %, respectively.
In childrenswear, fitting issues are prominent, with ‘too small’ being the leading return reason, accounting for 22 % of returns,
followed closely by ‘too big’ at 18.5 %. This highlights the challenges of fitting children’s clothing, likely due to growth variations and
sizing inconsistencies. ‘Style does not suit’ accounts for 19 % of returns, reflecting aesthetic preferences but appearing less frequently
than in womenswear. Additionally, 15 % of returns are categorised as ‘no reason,’ while other return reasons reflect similar challenges
in achieving accurate fit in childrenswear.
In menswear, ‘style does not suit’ is also the most commonly cited reason for returns, making up 24.5 %. Fit-related reasons,
including ‘too small’ (20.5 %) and ‘too big’ (16 %), remain prominent, though these factors appear slightly less critical than in
childrenswear. Additionally, 14 % of menswear returns lack a specified reason, while issues like poor quality and damage account for
only around 1 % each.

4.2. Summary of the data insights

The dataset obtained from the retailer provides valuable insights into online fashion returns, offering both quantitative trends and
nuanced understandings of consumer behaviour in fashion e-commerce. It illustrates how external factors, such as the pandemic, can
disrupt return patterns, while also highlighting dynamics between branding and customer satisfaction, notably observed in higher
return rates for branded clothing and footwear. Among the top reasons for returns, ‘style does not suit’ stands out, highlighting the

Fig. 4. Tailored reverse logistics model for fashion returns.

15
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

importance of aesthetics in online shopping. However, garment fit and quality issues remain predominant factors driving returns,
underscoring the ongoing challenges in meeting customer expectations.
Fig. 4 adapts de Leeuw et al.’s (2016) original model of reverse process for e-commerce returns, now enriched with real-world
evidence. This adaptation is one of the first to integrate fashion-specific elements, such as ‘product type’ and ‘reason for return,’
addressing gaps in prior reverse logistics models that predominantly focus on standardised product categories. This enhanced model
provides a detailed, practice-based perspective on the complexities of fashion returns and incorporates two unique attributes previ­
ously overlooked in scholarly discourse.
The two attributes identified can be seen in the model (Fig. 4), namely ‘product type’ and ‘reason for return’. ‘Product type’ de­
lineates product categories, encompassing womenswear, menswear, childrenswear, sportswear, and exclusive brands. ‘Reason for
return’ categorises the diverse motivations behind returns, including fit & quality, style compatibility, over-purchasing, unspecified
reasons, and supply chain disruptions. Grounded in empirical evidence, the revised model retains its applicability to fashion returns
while enhancing its specificity. Incorporating the consumer perspective is crucial because it directly influences how returns are
processed and managed within the reverse logistics framework. Factors such as the type of product returned and the reason for its
return can significantly dictate how retailers respond. For instance, complex items may require additional handling or repair, while
returns linked to stock quality issues might indicate broader supply chain inefficiencies. By integrating the consumer perspective, we

Fig. 5. A proposed research agenda framework for fashion e-commerce returns.

16
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

gain a fuller understanding of how reverse logistics operations can be optimised, offering retailers critical insights to better tailor
disposition routes, manage resources, and address potential delays (Mollenkopf et al., 2007).

5. A framework for future research agenda

The fashion industry faces increasing scrutiny to decarbonise its supply chains, particularly in the domain of reverse logistics, given
the significant waste generation and operational inefficiencies associated with returns (Wren, 2022). Despite the industry’s promi­
nence and its intersection with environmental concerns, substantial gaps remain in research addressing how fashion e-commerce
returns affect sustainability, consumer behaviour, and business strategy. This study has identified which fashion items are returned
most frequently and the reasons behind these returns, contributing to the construction of a tailored reverse logistics model for fashion
e-commerce. However, the challenges revealed in this analysis also spotlight numerous opportunities for future inquiry.
This research framework (Fig. 5) proposes future research avenues by focusing on three key themes that emerged in this study:
Reverse Logistics, Returns Management, and Waste Management. Each section below outlines research directions to address the
existing gaps in the literature while suggesting methodological approaches to advance both academic knowledge and practical
applications.

5.1. Reverse logistics: Enhancing operational efficiency and value recovery

Reverse logistics in the fashion sector remains a largely underexplored territory, despite its importance in recapturing value from
returns and promoting sustainability (de Brito and Dekker, 2004; Pal et al., 2019). Current research, dominated by analytical
modelling, lacks the empirical depth required to navigate the complex and unique challenges of fashion-specific reverse logistics.
Given the rapid depreciation of fashion inventory (Blackburn et al., 2004), research needs to pivot towards understanding the time-
sensitive nature of reverse logistics in this sector and how this affects operational efficiency and profitability.
Future studies should adopt mixed-method approaches, combining qualitative insights from case studies with quantitative analysis
of operational metrics. This can involve mapping internal processes and identifying inefficiencies through surveys, interviews, and
secondary data collection across various fashion retailers. By incorporating multiple data sources, researchers can better explore the
internal dynamics that shape reverse logistics strategies, including how managerial decisions converge to affect value recovery.
Additionally, further inquiry should focus on blended logistics models. Research could evaluate how incorporating sustainable
return solutions, such as parcel lockers or consolidation points, affects both retailer and consumer outcomes. With adoption rates still
low in fashion (Mangiaracina et al., 2019), surveys and modelling could examine the potential cost savings, emissions reductions, and
customer experience benefits associated with these logistics innovations. Understanding retailer barriers to adoption, along with
consumer preferences, is key to promoting wider use of such models.

5.2. Returns management: Navigating consumer behaviour and policy design

Effective returns management in fashion requires balancing consumer satisfaction with operational efficiency, particularly in the
context of lenient return policies. While these policies are designed to drive sales, they can simultaneously signal low product value to
consumers, encouraging opportunistic behaviours like bracketing (Xu et al., 2023b).
Our findings highlight that branded clothing is the most frequently returned product category across all departments, with sizing
and fit issues emerging as the primary reasons for returns. These results align with existing literature, which emphasises the lack of
standardisation in sizing across the fashion sector as a key driver of return behaviours, particularly bracketing. The variability in sizing
fuels consumer uncertainty, leading to behaviours such as ordering multiple sizes or styles to mitigate perceived fit issues.
Interestingly, our analysis reveals a counterintuitive result: menswear exhibits a higher rate of bracketing behaviour (16.5 %)
compared to womenswear (14.5 %), despite the latter traditionally being associated with greater variability in fit and style. Previous
reports, such as Narvar, (2017) found that women were more likely to engage in bracketing (44 %) compared to men (30 %). However,
our findings suggest that male consumers are increasingly adopting behaviours typically associated with womenswear, indicating a
potential shift in shopping patterns. This unexpected trend warrants further exploration to uncover the social, psychological, and
contextual factors driving bracketing behaviour in menswear.
To address these issues, retailers could adopt product-specific return policies that account for factors such as product type, return
rate history, and customer demographics, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach. A potential strategy might involve
reducing leniency for low-value products, particularly those prone to bracketing, while maintaining more flexible policies for high-
value or fit-critical items. For example, women’s shoes and dresses, which often face size inconsistency issues, could be subject to
more lenient returns, while lower-value, standardised products might benefit from stricter policies. Additionally, retailers could
explore tiered return policies, where leniency is adjusted based on a customer’s purchase and return behaviours, creating a more
strategic balance between consumer satisfaction and operational efficiency.
Future research should focus on how consumers respond to these tiered return policies. Behavioural experiments could help model
consumer reactions to different return scenarios, identifying designs that discourage opportunistic returns, such as bracketing, while
preserving customer loyalty and satisfaction. Furthermore, investigating the economic implications of these policies on retailers,
particularly in terms of operational costs and profitability, would provide valuable insights into their long-term sustainability.
In addition to refining return policies, retailers should explore innovative mechanisms to improve value perception and reduce
return rates. For instance, integrating AI technology into e-commerce platforms could guide consumers towards selecting the right

17
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

product and fit, offering a more personalised shopping experience (Wang et al., 2024). This would reduce reliance on lenient return
strategies and provide a more effective means of meeting both consumer expectations and business goals.
Moreover, research should further explore the distinction between opportunism and fraud. While many studies have focused on
consumer opportunism, returning goods after brief usage, fewer have examined criminal return behaviours, such as return fraud
(Akturk et al., 2021). Future research could investigate how retailers can protect themselves from fraudulent returns without alien­
ating genuine customers, possibly through case study methods. This line of inquiry could also assess the potential of restocking fees and
partial refunds to balance regulatory compliance (UK Government, 2015) with consumer expectations, whilst fostering trust through
transparent policies.
Finally, wardrobing, where consumers temporarily use a product before returning it, presents another area requiring deeper
investigation. As Shang et al., (2017) suggest, even small increases in this behaviour can significantly impact profitability. Research
should explore the profit paradoxes that arise from wardrobing, where retailers might need to adjust policies to recapture profits.
Collecting qualitative and quantitative data from retailers could aid in developing policy frameworks that mitigate wardrobing whilst
maintaining profitability.

5.3. Waste management: Reducing environmental impact in a circular economy

Waste generated from fashion e-commerce returns represents a critical environmental challenge. Fast fashion’s emphasis on rapid
product cycles and low prices has exacerbated textile waste (de Leeuw et al., 2016), while upcoming regulations, such as EPR mandates
(Denizel and Schumm, 2023), are pressuring fashion retailers to adopt more sustainable practices. However, the industry lacks suf­
ficient investment and co-ordination strategies amongst its extended value chain to adapt to these pressures. Retailers should stra­
tegically invest in both physical and digital infrastructure to effectively manage the entire life cycle of products, with a particular
emphasis on EOU and returned items (De et al., 2023).
Future research must focus on developing circular business models that facilitate the reuse, redistribution, and recycling of
returned products. Case studies of fashion brands successfully implementing redistribution models, where unsold or returned items are
repurposed or resold, could reveal best practices for scaling these operations without undermining brand equity or cannibalising
primary market sales.
There is also a critical need to introduce quantitative and mixed-method approaches to supplement the qualitative insights
currently dominating the waste management literature. By quantifying the environmental impact of textile waste and the financial
costs associated with waste management practices, future studies could support more informed policy-making and business decisions.
Empirical studies utilising life cycle assessment (LCA) models could track emissions across different return processes and recycling
options, offering concrete metrics that align with the EPR framework.

5.4. Methodological opportunities for future research

The current literature on returns management, reverse logistics, and waste management reveals several methodological gaps,
presenting significant opportunities for future research to diversify its approach. Quantitative methods, particularly analytical
modelling and empirical analysis dominate the study of returns management and reverse logistics. While these approaches provide
valuable insights into operational efficiency and consumer behaviour, they often overlook the nuanced, context-specific insights that
qualitative research can offer.
Future research should adopt more integrative methodologies, particularly mixed-method approaches, to combine quantitative
rigour with qualitative depth. In reverse logistics, for example, there is a need to investigate the consumer-retailer interaction and the
socio-economic implications of reverse logistics decisions. By incorporating mixed-method frameworks, blending empirical analysis
with case studies, interviews, or focus groups, researchers can bridge the gap between modelled outcomes and the complex, real-world
challenges firms face in managing reverse flows.
In the waste management domain, where qualitative research has traditionally prevailed, there is room to incorporate more
quantitative approaches, such as empirical testing and environmental impact analysis. This could help to create a stronger, data-driven
foundation for addressing the environmental consequences of fashion e-commerce returns.
Additionally, the literature shows a scarcity of theoretical or conceptual studies, particularly those addressing emerging trends like
the circular economy and its relationship with fashion returns. Developing conceptual frameworks to explore the intersections of
reverse logistics, sustainability, and consumer behaviour would contribute to advancing empirical research and informing industry
practice. These theoretical contributions would help frame new hypotheses, develop innovative approaches to returns management,
and guide future research toward more sustainable solutions.
In conclusion, the field would benefit from broadening its methodological toolkit. Integrating mixed methods and expanding
quantitative analysis into traditionally qualitative domains would bridge existing gaps, foster a more holistic understanding of returns
management practices, and support the development of scalable, actionable solutions to the environmental challenges posed by
fashion e-commerce returns.

6. Conclusion and research limitations

This position paper has reviewed the current state of research on fashion returns and reverse supply chains from an SCM perspective
through an extensive literature review paired with empirical data. The review highlights that research focused specifically on fashion

18
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

returns in SCM is currently limited despite the major environmental and economic concern. While past literature has explored returns
policies and reverse logistics models generally, dedicated research on the operational challenges and solutions for fashion e-commerce
returns is lacking. The methodological analysis highlighted an over-reliance on quantitative methods, particularly in areas where
qualitative or mixed methods could add significant value. Theoretical work is relatively well-represented but needs to be balanced with
more empirical research in Reverse Logistics. Future research should aim to diversify methodological approaches, particularly by
integrating qualitative and mixed-methods studies to deepen the practical and theoretical understanding of fashion e-commerce
returns.
This study directly responds to the recurring calls for more empirical research into fashion e-commerce returns, as highlighted by
scholars such as Mollenkopf et al., (2007) Pei and Paswan (2018), and Xu et al., (2023b). Specifically, Pei and Paswan (2018)
emphasised the need for comprehensive empirical data to better understand consumer return behaviours, pointing out that much of
the existing research is either too narrowly focused or relies heavily on qualitative methods.
Our findings reveal surprising patterns, particularly the higher prevalence of bracketing behaviour displayed in menswear
compared to womenswear. This challenges traditional assumptions and suggests a shift in male consumer behaviour that merits further
exploration. For practitioners, this insight highlights the need for menswear-specific strategies, such as improved fit tools and per­
sonalised recommendations, to mitigate bracketing while maintaining customer satisfaction. By addressing these evolving behaviours,
retailers can better adapt their returns management policies to the changing dynamics of fashion e-commerce.
To further validate and enhance the robustness of these findings, alternative methodologies could also be considered. Conducting
longitudinal studies across different retailers would allow for cross-comparison of return trends over time and across diverse retail
environments. Additionally, qualitative approaches, such as focus groups or in-depth interviews with consumers, could offer deeper
insights into the motivations behind behaviours like wardrobing and bracketing. Combining these qualitative insights with quanti­
tative analysis, akin to the survey-based approach of Phau et al., (2022) would provide additional contextual depth to the statistical
patterns observed here and continue to build on the knowledge Phau et al., (2022) began to uncover. Mixed-method approaches would
thus further enrich the findings, offering a holistic understanding of return behaviours across the fashion sector.
Another promising avenue for future research is exploring the role of secondary online marketplaces in returns management. These
platforms, which facilitate the resale of returned or second-hand goods, may influence both consumer behaviour and retailer stra­
tegies. For instance, the existence of secondary marketplaces could reduce waste and enhance value recovery by providing an addi­
tional channel for unsold inventory. However, they may also alter consumer attitudes toward returns, potentially increasing return
rates if consumers perceive a lower environmental or financial cost to their actions. Huang et al., (2014) highlight how secondary
markets can enhance supply chain efficiency by salvaging returns and leftovers, but they also note potential coordination challenges
among retailers, requiring adjustments to contracts and policies. Investigating the implications of these marketplaces could yield
valuable insights into the evolving dynamics of e-commerce returns and sustainability, particularly in the context of fashion
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to provide detailed empirical insights into return rates and behaviours across a
wide range of fashion product categories, extending beyond the general patterns identified in previous research. In doing so, this
research not only addresses calls for more rigorous data in SCM but also surpasses prior studies by examining return behaviours at a
granular level. These insights are particularly critical for retailers facing category-specific challenges that previous studies have only
explored to a limited extent.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this position paper. While our review offers valuable insights, it is important to
note a few considerations. Our inclusion criteria were tailored for precision, possibly excluding some relevant studies. Our search,
though thorough, focused on specific databases, potentially missing insights from other sources. Furthermore, the data is drawn from a
single retailer, which, while providing depth and context, limits the generalisability of the findings to the broader fashion industry. The
unique practices and customer demographics of this retailer may not reflect the experiences of other retailers, particularly those with
different operational models or market segments. Future studies could expand the scope to include a wider range of retailers and
geographic contexts to enhance generalisability.
In summary, this paper contributes to SCM by consolidating emerging insights on fashion returns, contextualising them within the
reverse logistics framework, and identifying critical gaps for future inquiry. It serves as a call to action for diverse research efforts to
deepen understanding of this under-theorized and under-studied issue at the intersection of fashion, e-commerce, sustainability, and
SCM.
Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
Statement: During the preparation of this work the authors used ChatGPT4.0 in order to improve readability and language. After
using this tool/service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the
publication.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Joshua Marriott: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Investigation, Data Curation, Visualization. Tolga Bektaş: Writing –
review & editing, Conceptualization, Supervision, Methodology. Eric Leung: Writing – review & editing, Methodology. Andrew
Lyons: Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to

19
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Editor, the Associate Editor, and the anonymous reviewers for providing thoughtful and constructive
comments throughout the review process.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at [Link]

Data availability

The authors do not have permission to share data.

References

Abdulla, H., Ketzenberg, M., Abbey, J.D., 2019. Taking stock of consumer returns: a review and classification of the literature. J. Operat. Manage. 65 (6), 560–605.
Abdulla, H., Abbey, J.D., Ketzenberg, M., 2022. How consumers value retailer’s return policy leniency levers: an empirical investigation. Prod. Oper. Manage. 31 (4),
1719–1733.
Adegeest, D.-A., 2018. Shopping for hashtags: Snap and send back. Fashion United. [online] Available at:[Link]
hashtags-snap-and-send-back/2018081538331 [Accessed: 2 Oct. 2024].
Adegeest, D., 2022. Zara to charge customers a fee for returning goods bought online. Fashion United. [online] Available at:[Link]
zara-to-charge-customers-a-fee-for-returning-goods-bought-online/2022051263063 [Accessed: 22 Sep. 2023].
Ader, J., Chai, J., Singer, M., Adhi, P., Touse, S., Yankelevich, H., 2021. Returning to order: Improving returns management for apparel companies. McKinsey &
Company. [online] Available at: [Link]
companies [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
Advanced Clothing Solutions, 2022. What really happens to your internet shopping returns? Advanced Clothing soloutions. [online] Available at:[Link]
[Link]/what-happens-to-your-internet-shopping-returns/ [Accessed 16 Apr. 2023].
Akturk, M.S., Ketzenburg, M., Yıldız, B., 2021. Managing consumer returns with technology-enabled countermeasures. Omega 102, 102337.
Altug, M.S., Aydinliyim, T., 2016. Counteracting strategic purchase deferrals: the impact of online retailers’ return policy decisions. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manage. 183,
376–392.
Altug, M.S., Aydinliyim, T., Jain, A., 2021. Managing opportunistic consumer returns in retail operations. Manag. Sci., Articles in Advance 1–19.
Ashby, A., 2018. Developing closed loop supply chains for environmental sustainability. J. Manuf. Technol. Manage. 29 (4), 699–722.
Ayvaz, B., Bolat, B., Aydin, N., 2015. Stochastic reverse logistics network design for waste of electrical and electronic equipment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 104,
391–404.
Balaram, A., Perdikaki, O., Galbreth, M.R., 2022. Bracketing of purchases to manage size uncertainty: Should online retailers be worried? Naval Research Logistics
(NRL), December 2021, 1–18.
2018 Barclaycard., 2018. Snap and send back. Barclaycard. [online] Available at: [Link]
[Accessed: 2 Dec. 2024].
Beh, L.-S., Ghobadian, A., He, Q., Gallear, D., O’Regan, N., 2016. Second-life retailing: a reverse supply chain perspective. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 21 (2),
259–272.
Bell, D.R., Gallino, S., Moreno, A., 2018. Offline showrooms in omnichannel retail. Manage. Sci. 64 (4), 1629–1651.
Bentahar, O., Benzidia, S., 2018. Sustainable supply chain management: trends and challenges. Transport. Res. Part E: Logist. Transport. Rev. 119, 202–204.
Blackburn, J.D., Guide, V.D.R., Souza, G.C., van Wassenhove, L.N., 2004. Reverse supply chains for commercial returns. Calif. Manage. Rev. 46 (2), 6–22.
Bug, P., Gordon, N., Staudenmaier, A.-S., 2018. Fashion Business Case Study on the German Click & Collect Situation. In: Chow, P.-.-S., Chiu, C.-.-H., Yip, A.C.Y.,
Tang, A.K.Y. (Eds.), Contemporary Case Studies on Fashion Production, Marketing and Operations. Springer, pp. 139–163.
Bukhari, M., Carrasco-Gallego, R., Ponce-Cueto, E., 2018. Developing a national programme for textiles and clothing recovery. Waste Manag. Res. 36, 321–331.
Cai, Y.-J., Choi, T.-M., 2020. A United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals perspective for sustainable textile and apparel supply chain management. Transport.
Res. Part E: Logist. Transportat. Rev. 141, 102010.
Cai, Y.-J., Choi, T.-M., 2021. Extended producer responsibility: a systematic review and innovative proposals for improving sustainability. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 68
(1), 272–288.
Caro, F., Gallien, J., 2012. Clearance pricing optimization for a fast-fashion retailer. Oper. Res. 60 (6), 1404–1422.
Chan, H.-L., Wei, X., Guo, S., Leung, W.-H., 2020. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in fashion supply chains: a multi-methodological study. Transport. Res. Part E:
Logist. Transport. Rev., 142.
Chen, B., Chen, J., 2017. When to introduce an online channel, and offer money back guarantees and personalized pricing? Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2572, 614–624.
Choi, T.-M., Guo, S., 2018. Responsive supply in fashion mass customisation systems with consumer returns. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (10), 3409–3422.
Choi, T.-M., Wallace, S.W., Wang, Y., 2018. Big data analytics in operations management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 27 (10), 1868–1883.
Chow, P.-S., Li, C.K.Y., 2018. Towards closed-loop fashion supply chains—reflections from retailer-facilitated used apparel collection programs. In: Chow, P.S.,
Chiu, C.H., Yip, A.C.Y., Tang, A.K.Y. (Eds.), Contemporary Case Studies on Fashion Production. Marketing and Operations, Springer Series in Fashion Business,
pp. 219–239.
Daaboul, J.L., Duigou, J., Penciuc, D., Eynard, B., 2014. Reverse logistics network design: a holistic life cycle approach. J. Remanuf. 4 (7), 1–15.
Davis, S., 1995. Money back guarantees in retailing: matching products to consumer tastes. J. Retail. 711, 7–22.
Davis, S., Hagerty, M., Gerstner, E., 1998. Return policies and the optimal level of ‘Hassle’. J. Econ. Bus. 505, 445–460.
De Brito, M.P., Dekker, R., 2004. A Framework for Reverse Logistics. In: Dekker, R., Fleischmann, M., Inderfurth, K.V., Wassenhove, L.N. (Eds.), Reverse Logistics.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
De Leeuw, S., Minguela-Rata, B., Sabet, E., Boter, J., Sigurðardóttir, R., 2016. Trade-offs in managing commercial consumer returns for online apparel retail. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 36 (6), 710–731.
De, A., Ray, A., Kundu, T., Sheu, J.-B., 2023. Is it wise to compete or to collaborate? Remanufacturing business models under collective extended producer
responsibility legislation. Transport. Res. Part e: Logist. Transport. Rev. 179 (September), 103294.

20
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

De Silva, R., Byrne, N., 2017. Utilization of cotton waste for regenerated cellulose fibres: Influence of degree of polymerization on mechanical properties. Carbohydr.
Polym. 174, 89–94.
Denizel, M., Schumm, C.Z., 2023. Closed loop supply chains in apparel: Current state and future directions. J. Oper. Manag. 1–34.
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., 2009. Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan, D.A., Bryman, A. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Sage
Publications Ltd, pp. 671–689.
DiFrancesco, R.M., Huchzermeier, A., Schröder, D., 2018. Optimizing the return window for online fashion retailers with closed-loop refurbishment. Omega 78,
205–221.
Difrancesco, R.M., Huchzermeier, A., 2020. Multichannel retail competition with product returns: effects of restocking fee legislation. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 43,
100993.
Dissanayake, G., Sinha, P., 2015. An examination of the product development process for fashion remanufacturing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 104, 94–102.
Dopson, E. (2024). Expert Guide to Best Practices (2024). Shopify [online] [Link] [Accessed 17 Nov. 2024].
Doxey, C., 2021. The controller’s toolkit. In: The Controller’s Toolkit. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 327–349.
Edwards, J.B., McKinnon, A.C., Cullinane, S.L., 2010. Comparative analysis of the carbon footprints of conventional and online retailing: a ’last mile’ perspective. Int.
J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 40 (1–2), 103–123.
Erol, İ., Nurtaniş Velioğlu, M., Sivrikaya Şerifoğlu, F., Büyüközkan, G., Aras, N., Demircan Çakar, N., Korugan, A., 2010. Exploring reverse supply chain management
practices in Turkey. Supply Chain Manage.: An Int. J. 15 (1), 43–54.
Esper, T.L., Jensen, T.D., Turnipseed, F.L., Burton, S., 2003. The last mile: An examination of effects of online retail delivery strategies on consumers. J. Bus. Logist. 24
(2), 177–203.
Farrant, L., Olsen, S.I., Wangel, A., 2010. Environmental benefits from reusing clothes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (7), 726–736.
Ferguson, M.E. & Souza, G.C. (Eds.). (2010). Closed-Loop Supply Chains: New Developments to Improve the Sustainability of Business Practices (1st ed.). Auerbach
Publications.
Fortuna, L.M., Diyamandoglu, V., 2017a. Disposal and acquisition trends in second-hand products. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2454–2462.
Fortuna, L.M., Diyamandoglu, V., 2017b. Optimization of greenhouse gas emissions in second-hand consumer product recovery through reuse platforms. Waste
Manag. 66, 178–189. [Link]
Foscht, T., Ernstreiter, K., Maloles, C., Sinha, I., Swoboda, B., 2013. Retaining or returning?: Some insights for a better understanding of return behavior. Int. J. Retail
Distrib. Manag. 41 (2), 113–134.
Frei, R., Jack, L., Krzyzaniak, S., 2020. Sustainable reverse supply chains and circular economy in multichannel retail returns. Business Strategy and the Environment
29 (5), 1925–1940.
Gao, F., Su, X., 2017. Omnichannel retail operations with buy-online-and-pick-up-in-store. Manag. Sci. 63 (8), 2478–2492.
Gelbrich, K., Gäthke, J., Hübner, A., 2017. Rewarding customers who keep a product: How reinforcement affects customers’ product return decision in online
retailing. Psychol. Mark. 34 (9), 853–867.
Guide, V.D.R., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2009. The evolution of closed-loop supply chain research. Oper. Res. 571, 10–18.
Guo, X., Chen, J., 2023. Manufacturer’s quality improvement and Retailer’s In-store service in the presence of customer returns. Transportat. Res. Part e: Logist.
Transportat. Rev. 177, 103218.
Harris, L., 2008. Fraudulent return proclivity: an empirical analysis. J. Retail. 844, 461–476.
Hjort, K., Lantz, B., 2012. (R)e-tail borrowing of party dresses: an experimental study. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 40 (12), 997–1012.
Hjort, K., Lantz, B., 2016. The impact of returns policies on profitability: a fashion e-commerce case. J. Bus. Res. 69 (11), 4980–4985.
Hsiao, L., Chen, Y., 2014. Return policy: hassle-free or your money-back guarantee? Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 615, 403–417.
Huang, X., Gu, J.-W., Ching, W.-K., Siu, T.-K., 2014. Impact of secondary market on consumer return policies and supply chain coordination. Omega 45, 57–70.
Huang, T., Ren, H., Chen, Y., 2018. Consumer return policies in competitive markets: an operations perspective. Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 656–7, 462–476.
Huang, Y.-C., Yang, M.-L., Wong, Y.-J., 2016. Institutional pressures, resources commitment, and returns management. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 21 (3), 398–416.
Hübner, A., Kuhn, H., Wollenburg, J., 2016. Last mile fulfillment and distribution in omni-channel grocery retailing: a strategic planning framework. Int. J. Retail
Distrib. Manag. 44 (3), 228–247.
Huddleston, C., 2021. Stores with the best and worst return policies. Go Banking Rates [online] Available at:[Link]
shopping/stores-best-worst-return-policies/ [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
Ilchi, L.., 2019. 11 Stores With Notable Return Policies. WWD. [online] Available at:[Link]
fashion-beauty-1203370762/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2024].
Janakiraman, N., Syrdal, H.A., Freling, R., 2016. The effect of return policy leniency on consumer purchase and return decisions: a meta-analytic review. J. Retail. 92
(2), 226–235.
Joy, A., Sherry, J.F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., Chan, R., 2012. Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory – J. Dress Body Cult.
163, 273–295.
Joy, E., 2022. Behind fashion’s waste crisis in the Atacama desert. Conscious Life and Style. [online] Available at:[Link]
waste-atacama-desert/ [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
Kubania, J., 2015. How second-hand clothing donations are creating a dilemma for Kenya, The Guardian. [online] Available at:[Link]
2015/jul/06/second-hand-clothing-donations-kenya [Accessed: 22 Sep. 2023].
Lambert, S., Riopel, D., Abdul-Kader, W., 2011. A reverse logistics decisions conceptual framework. Comput. Ind. Eng. 36 (3), 561–581.
Lee, C.H., Rhee, B.-D., 2018. Retailer-run resale market and optimal returns and resale policy. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 268 (2), 504–514.
Letizia, P., Pourakbar, M., Harrison, T., 2018. The impact of consumer returns on the multichannel sales strategies of manufacturers. Prod. Oper. Manag. 272, 323–349.
Lin, Y., Wang, Y., Lee, L.H., Chew, E.P., 2022. Profit-maximizing parcel locker location problem under threshold Luce model. Transport. Res. Part e: Logist. Transport.
Rev. 157 (Lmd), 1–24.
Liu, Z., Li, K.W., Li, B.-Y., Huang, J., Tang, J., 2019. Impact of product-design strategies on the operations of a closed-loop supply chain. Transport. Res. Part e: Logist.
Transportat. Rev. 124, 75–91.
Mandal, P., Basu, P., Saha, K., 2021. Forays into omnichannel: An online retailer’s strategies for managing product returns. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 292 (2), 633–651.
Mangiaracina, R., Perego, A., Seghezzi, A., Tumino, A., 2019. Innovative solutions to increase last-mile delivery efficiency in B2C e-commerce: a literature review. Int.
J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 49 (9), 901–920.
Marian, P., 2021. Managing & mitigating returns. WGSN. [online] Available at: [Link] [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
Mayne, J., 2021. Unthinkable pollution: mountains of unused clothes accumulate in the Atacama Desert. X. [online] 03 Jan 2022 Available at: [Link]
MayneJason/status/1478132597792247810?s=20 [Accessed 06 Sep. 2024].
McCusker, B., 2024. Online retailing: delivery, collection and returns uk 2024. Mintel. [online] Available at: [Accessed 17 Nov. 2024].
McWilliams, B., 2012. Money-back guarantees: helping the low-quality retailer. Manag. Sci. 588, 1521–1524.
Mollenkopf, D.A., Rabinovich, E., Laseter, T.M., Boyer, K.K., 2007. Managing internet product returns: a focus on effective service operations. Decis. Sci. 38 (2),
215–250.
Moorthy, S., Srinivasan, K., 1995. Signaling quality with a money-back guarantee: the role of transaction costs. Mark. Sci. 144, 442–466.
Moreau, E., 2024. Asos shopper hit out at new £3.95 returns charge. BBC News. [online] Available at: [Link] [Accessed:
2 Dec. 2024].
Muthu, S.S., Li, Y., Hu, J.Y., Ze, L., 2012. Carbon footprint reduction in the textile process chain: recycling of textile materials. Fibers Polym. 13 (8), 1065–1070.
Nageswaran, L., Cho, S.-H., Scheller-Wolf, A., 2020. Consumer return policies in omnichannel operations. Manag. Sci. 6612, 5558–5575.
Nanda, A., Xu, Y., Zhang, F., 2021. How would the COVID-19 pandemic reshape retail real estate and high streets through acceleration of E-commerce and
digitalization? J. Urban Manage. 102, 110–124.

21
J. Marriott et al. Transportation Research Part E 194 (2025) 103904

Narvar, 2017. The Essential Guide to Retail Returns. Narvar. [online] Available at: [Link]
[Accessed 17 Nov. 2024].
Narvar, 2019. The state of online returns: A global study. Narvar. [online] Available at: [Link] [Accessed 22 Sep.
2023].
Nguyen, D.H., de Leeuw, S., Dullaert, W.E.H., 2018. Consumer behaviour and order fulfilment in online retailing: a systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 20 (2),
255–276.
Niu, B., Chen, L., Zhuo, X., Yue, X., 2018. Does buy-back induce more fashion sub-sourcing? Contract property and performance analysis. Transport. Res. Part E:
Logist. Transport. Rev. 113 (March), 22–37.
Ovchinnikov, A., Pun, H., Raz, G., 2023. The impact of inventory risk on market prices under competition. Decis. Sci. 54 (1), 29–42.
Pal, R., Sandberg, E., Paras, M.K., 2019. Multidimensional value creation through different reverse supply chain relationships in used clothing sector. Supply Chain
Manage.: An Int. J. 24 (6), 729–747.
Patel, P.C., Baldauf, C., Karlsson, S., Oghazi, P., 2021. The impact of free returns on online purchase behavior: evidence from an intervention at an online retailer.
J. Oper. Manag. 67 (4), 511–555.
Pei, Z., Paswan, A., 2018. Consumers’ legitimate and opportunistic product return behaviors in online shopping. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 1904, 301–319.
Petersen, J.A., Kumar, V., 2009. Are product returns a necessary evil? antecedents and consequences. J. Mark. 733, 35–51.
Phau, I., Akintimehin, O.O., Shen, B., Cheah, I., 2022. “Buy, wear, return, repeat”: investigating chinese consumers’ attitude and intentions to engage in wardrobing.
Strateg. Chang. 31 (3), 345–356.
Pinheiro, E., de Francisco, A.C., Piekarski, C.M., de Souza, J.T., 2019. How to identify opportunities for improvement in the use of reverse logistics in clothing
industries? A case study in a Brazilian cluster. J. Clean. Prod. 210, 612–619.
Ram, A., 2016. UK retailers count the cost of returns. Financial Times. [online] Available at: [Link]
[Accessed 02 Feb. 2024].
Rogers, D., Tibben-Lembke, R.S., 1998. Going backwards: reverse logistics trends and Practices. In: Going backwards: reverse logistics trends. Reverse Logitics
Executive Council.
Rogers, D.S., Lambert, D.M., Croxton, K.L., García-Dastugue, S.J., 2002. The returns management process. Int. J. Logist. Manage. 13 (2), 1–18.
Saarijärvi, H., Sutinen, U.M., Harris, L.C., 2017. Uncovering consumers’ returning behaviour: a study of fashion e-commerce. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 27
(3), 284–299.
Samatli-Pac, G., Shen, W., Hu, X., 2018. The impact of consumer loss aversion on returns policies and supply chain coordination. Int. J. Operat. Res. Inform. Syst. 94,
1–20.
Shang, G., Ghosh, B.P., Galbreth, M.R., 2017. Optimal retail return policies with wardrobing. Prod. Oper. Manag. 26 (7), 1315–1332.
Shen, B., 2014. Sustainable fashion supply chain: lessons from H&M. Sustainability 6 (9), 6236–6249.
Shulman, J.D., Coughlan, A.T., Savaskan, R.C., 2009. Optimal restocking fees and information provision in an integrated demand-supply model of product returns.
Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 114, 577–594.
Soto Zuluaga, J.P., Thiell, M., Colomé Perales, R., 2017. Reverse cross-docking. Omega 66, 48–57.
Statista, 2021a. e-commerce in the United Kingdom 2021. Statista. [online] Available at: [Link] [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
Statista, 2021b. Sustainability in e-commerce. Statista. [Link] [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
Statista, 2023. Fashion e-commerce - Market data analysis & forecast. Statista. [online] Available at: [Link]
commerce-report-fashion/ [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
Statista, 2024. Most returned online purchases by category in the UK 2024. Statista [online] Available at: [Link]
997848/most-returned-online-purchases-by-category-in-the-uk [Accessed 17 Nov. 2024].
Su, X., 2009. Consumer returns policies and supply chain performance. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 11 (4), 595–612.
Tibben-Lembke, R.S., Rogers, D.S., 2002. Differences between forward and reverse logistics in a retail environment. Supply Chain Manage.: An Int. J. 7 (5), 271–282.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.
Manag. 143, 207–222.
Tyler, A., 2023. Fashion’s returns problem: A tangled knot for the apparel industry. HSBC. [online] Available at:[Link]
global-research/fashions-returns-problems [Accessed: 02 Sep. 2024].
UK Government, 2015. Consumer Rights Act 2015. [online] Available at: [Link] [Accessed 1 Sep. 2024].
Ülkü, M.A., Dailey, L.C., Yayla-Küllü, H.M., 2013. Serving fraudulent consumers? The impact of return policies on retailer’s profitability. Serv. Sci. 5 (4), 296–309.
Ülkü, M.A., Gürler, Ü., 2018. The impact of abusing return policies: a newsvendor model with opportunistic consumers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 203, 124–133.
Velazquez, R., Chankov, S.M., 2019. Environmental impact of last mile deliveries and returns in fashion e-commerce: A cross-case Analysis of six retailers. In: In: 2019
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), pp. 1099–1103.
Vörösmarty, G., Dobos, I., 2020. A literature review of sustainable supplier evaluation with Data Envelopment Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 264.
Wang, Q., Ji, X., Zhao, N., 2024. Embracing the power of AI in retail platform operations: Considering the showrooming effect and consumer returns. Transport. Res.
Part e: Logist. Transport. Rev. 182, 103409.
Webb, B., 2023. British Fashion Council sets out 10-step plan to slash returns. Vogue Business. [online] Available at: [Link]
british-fashion-council-sets-out-10-step-plan-to-slash-returns [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
WGSN, 2022. Fashion e-commerce: Mass-market strategies. WGSN. [online] Available at: [Link] [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
Whittaker-Wood, F., 2019. What country has the highest online shopping return rate? Payments Journal. [online] Available at:[Link]
highest-online-shopping-return-rate/. [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
Wen, X., Choi, T.-M., Chung, S.-H., 2018. Fashion retail supply chain management: a review of operational models. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 207, 34–55.
Wood, S.L., 2001. Remote purchase environments: the influence of return policy leniency on two-stage decision processes. J. Mark. Res. 382, 157–169.
WRAP, 2017. Valuing our clothes: the cost of UK fashion. Wrap. [online] Available at:[Link]
fashion_WRAP.pdf. [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
Wren, B., 2022. Sustainable supply chain management in the fast fashion Industry: A comparative study of current efforts and best practices to address the climate
crisis. Cleaner Logist. Supply Chain 4, 100032.
Wright, G., 2023. The cost of fashion returns: 23 million returned garments destroyed last year. The Retail Gazette. [online] Available at:[Link]
[Link]/blog/2023/03/fashion-returns/ [Accessed 1 Jun. 2023].
Xu, Y., Hua, G., Cheng, T.C.E., Choi, T.M., Li, Y., Liu, S., 2023b. Retailing and ordering strategies for online apparel retailers facing bracketing purchase behaviour. Int.
J. Prod. Res. 61 (9), 2840–2852.
Xu, L., Li, Y., Govindan, K., Xu, X., 2015. Consumer returns policies with endogenous deadline and supply chain coordination. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 242 (1), 88–99.
Xu, X., Sethi, S.P., Chung, S., Choi, T., 2023a. Reforming global supply chain management under pandemics: The GREAT-3Rs framework. Prod. Oper. Manag. 32 (2),
524–546.
Yang, H., Chen, J., Chen, X., Chen, B., 2017. The impact of customer returns in a supply chain with a common retailer. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2561, 139–150.
Zamani, B., Svanström, M., Peters, G., Rydberg, T., 2015. A carbon footprint of textile recycling: a case study in Sweden. J. Ind. Ecol. 19 (4), 676–687.
Zanjirani Farahani, R., Asgari, N., van Wassenhove, L.N., 2022. Fast fashion, charities, and the circular economy: challenges for operations management. Prod. Oper.
Manag. 31 (3), 1089–1114.
Zhang, T., Choi, T., 2021. Optimal consumer sales tax policies for online-offline retail operations with consumer returns. Naval Res. Logist. (NRL) 686, 701–720.
Zheng, S., 2023. The true cost of apparel returns: Alarming return rates require loss-minimization solutions. Coresight Research. [online] Available at:https://
[Link]/research/the-true-cost-of-apparel-returns-alarming-return-rates-require-loss-minimization-solutions/ [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].

22