The last dramatic changes in the market and business world conditioned the increase in the importance of customer satisfaction and the quality of suggested products. Moreover, the appearance of numerous companies providing the same services resulted in the significant growth of the level of rivalry. In these regards, demands for the quality of the final product became much stricter as it has to meet the customers requirements and promote the image of the company.
These facts also contributed to the intensive development of various reverse logistics practices. Being aimed at the improvement of the final products quality, these practices could be considered the major concern of the modern business world.
Besides, Stock and Mulki (2009) also state that product returns became a critical activity for numerous companies that tend to seize the market and guarantee the constant demand for their products. Yet, in the article Product Returns Processing: An Examination of Practices of Manufacturers, Wholesalers/Distributors, and Retailers, they also admit the fact that the value of returned products exceeds 100% billion per year (Stock & Mulki, 2009). The given number evidences the increased significance of the given practice and introduces the necessity of its precise investigation to understand the major concerns. The above-mentioned article tends to provide crucial data related to the given issue and outline the main tendencies.
Yet, it states that despite the great significance of the return practice, there are still numerous organizations that do not realize the crucial nature of product returns, which is conditioned by their impact on such spheres as profitability and customer service. Stock and Mulki (2009) delve into the empirical data regarding the reverse logistics practices of various companies. They conduct the study to obtain credible data that will be able to create a clear image of the current situation related to the given issue.
Results show that despite the tendency towards the reconsideration of the returns role, there are still few executives that have product processing as their primary responsibility (Stock & Mulki, 2009). The majority of modern companies use the same elements of the supply chain to obtain the rejected product. However, the given pattern could sometimes be inefficient as it does not rest on the local peculiarities. Moreover, the paper states that returning items to stock, repackaging, and selling as scrap were the three top disposition options peculiar to the process that could impact the whole return process and introduce several challenges.
Stock and Mulki (2009) recognize the fact that the modern market provides numerous possibilities for return management and accepts it as the core element of its functioning; but at the same time, the bigger part of retailers report a recovery rate of over 75% of the product cost (Stock & Mulki, 2009). In general, the paper states that the given procedure still has numerous perspectives for its evolution as its importance could hardly be overestimated.
Altogether, the given paper could be taken as the credible source that provides the relevant information related to the reverse logistic procedures. Furthermore, the authors contribute to the better understanding of the main process peculiarities, outlining the main difficulties and the most vulnerable aspects. Having investigated the given case study, one could recognize the great significance of the given tool and the main challenges which appear in the course of product return. Finally, the article improves the comprehending of the cooperation between retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers in terms of reverse logistics procedure.
Reference
Stock, J., & Mulki, J. (2009). Product Returns Processing: An Examination Of Practices Of Manufacturers, Wholesalers/Distributors, and Retailers. Journal of Business Logistics, 30(1), 33-62. Web.