The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-0552.htm

Barriers in omnichannel retailing Barriers in

omnichannel
returns: a conceptual framework retailing
returns
Jorge Luiz Gayotto de Borba, Mauricio Rodrigues de Magalh~aes,
Raquel Stefan Filgueiras and Marina Bouzon
Production and Systems Engineering, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina,
Florianopolis, Brazil Received 14 April 2020
Revised 23 April 2020
4 May 2020
Abstract 26 August 2020
Purpose – Performing retailing in a complete omnichannel manner is not a simple task, and it considerably 8 October 2020
increases the complexity of supply chain management operations. This paper aimed at identifying the barriers Accepted 10 October 2020
hindering efficient management of a return channel in this type of retail.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic literature review procedure was used, including descriptive
and content analysis of results. The review was performed using four academic databases. Applicable barriers
were categorized thematically, a conceptual framework was proposed and future research avenues
were drawn.
Findings – The contribution of this paper comprises a theoretical description of reverse logistics applied to
omnichannel retail, the identification of the return barriers in omnichannel and a conceptual framework for a
holistic view of the problem. In all, 43 barriers were identified including high investments, product restocking,
additional transportation costs and poor communication.
Research limitations/implications – The link between reverse logistics and omnichannel area is recent
and publications are still scarce, so the newness of this study limits the opportunity for further deepening or
more robust validation of the results.
Practical implications – The results offered may be used by managers in the areas of retail and supply chain
management in general in order to reduce the natural complexity in omnichannel environment.
Originality/value – Regarding previous literature on omnichannel retail, only a few works consider the after-
sales stage. This work intended to pave the way in this poorly explored intersection (reverse logistics and
omnichannel) by presenting a conceptual framework to classify various barriers in omnichannel retail return.
Keywords Omnichannel, Retail, Reverse logistics, Product return, Barriers
Paper type Research Paper

Introduction
Returned products play a key role in channel dimension and management within
online shopping. Companies use the return policy to replace the customer’s experience of
being able to test the product (present in physical sales and absent in online sales).
Therefore, customers have the opportunity to buy products, receive them, test them and if
they are not satisfied, return these products to the company (Mukhopadhyay and
Setoputro, 2004).
The omnichannel paradigm blends the management and strategies of the different retail
channels of a company. In an omnichannel situation, it is expected that logistics operations –
both direct and reverse flows – will demonstrate greater complexity (Jocevski et al., 2019).
Returns are frequent in omnichannel retail markets, because their return policies are
generally flexible, just as is found in most e-commerce purchasing opportunities (Zhang and
Shi, 2018). Regarding the refund policies, for instance, the majority of retailers have been
offering a full refund, although different paths can be followed by each company. For
example, Wal-Mart offered a 90-days full refund policy while Best Buy charged a 15%
restocking fee for goods as electronics (Shang et al., 2017).
International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-0552
The authors thank Sharon Felton, Ph.D., and Alexandre Daniel Scheidt for their English editing services. DOI 10.1108/IJRDM-04-2020-0140
IJRDM For companies to properly manage their return operations, it is interesting that they
understand the intentions and behaviours of customers using their reverse channels in order
to reduce costs, improve forecasts and optimize the return process (Xu and Jackson, 2019).
However, the after-sales stage is often neglected in this process (Sands et al., 2016).
Therefore, omnichannel retailers need to efficiently manage not only the different direct
distribution channels but also the reverse channels in order to ensure success in their logistics
operations and customer satisfaction. Regarding previous literature on multichannel or
omnichannel customer journeys, only a few works consider the after-sales stage (for instance,
Frasquet et al., 2019; De Keyser et al., 2015; Sands et al., 2016).
From a practical angle, while return percentages for “hard goods” as electronics are 50%
higher than the return percentages for other product categories (Shang et al., 2017), studies
among online fashion environment resulted in return rates between 13 and 45% (de Leeuw
et al., 2016). In addition, de Leeuw et al. (2016) suggested that return rates from online
purchases are twice as big as than the ones from brick-and-mortar stores. This is supported
by the difference between the average of products returned in the online and offline
businesses, which are, respectively, 33% and 8.9% in the US market, for example (Pennarola
et al., 2019).
Thus, to better understand the problems regarding the return of products in an
omnichannel retail market, as well as to increase the academic discussion on these relevant
issues, this paper aims to perform a thorough systematic literature review on reverse logistics
(RLs) within omnichannel retail areas. The main purpose of this review is to identify and
understand the barriers hindering efficient management of a return channel in this type of
retail and to group these barriers into a conceptual framework.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a conceptual
background on omnichannel definitions and issues. Section 3 brings the research methods
and a descriptive analysis of results, while Section 4 elaborates on the main results and
discussion. Section 5 presents the conceptual framework, and, finally, Section 6 brings the
concluding remarks and future paths of research on the topic.

Conceptual background
Omnichannel
With the increase of e-commerce in the 2000s and the acceptance from companies to this new,
secondary opportunity for retail purchases, many companies embraced online sales as a
competitive advantage. Thus, when companies started to manage more than one sales
channel, they evolved from a single channel retail to a multichannel environment (Adivar
et al., 2019).
Multichannel retailers operate more than one channel and they have created independent
systems for operations and logistics. For the customer, the processes are not integrated and
there is no interface between channels; each has a different target of the market or supplies
different needs of a consumer. Besides, when two channels from the same retailer sell to the
same market segment, they compete with each other, creating rivalry (Kotler and
Keller, 2012).
Beck and Rygl (2015) stated that there is an intermediate step between multichannel and
omnichannel, one in which channels have their own individual structure, but consumers can
enable interactions between them, called cross-channel. In contrast, many authors, such as
Chiu et al. (2011), Zhang et al. (2010a, b) and Nie et al. (2019), define cross-channel as a
behaviour or a strategy that is complementary to the multichannel and is represented by a
shift of information, products and resources between channels.
Through this change of perspective on multichannel, linked to the new profile of the
modern consumer, omnichannel emerged, with the aim of not only integrating channels but
making them one (Berman and Thelen, 2018). For H€ ubner et al. (2016a, b), such a strategy is Barriers in
only possible with an advanced logistics approach, where neither the customer nor the omnichannel
retailer can distinguish the channels; each channel has only a common logistics interface for
the customer. The strategy in omnichannel retailing is to ensure an integrated process, so the
retailing
consumer has an integrated view of the product in each channel, both in purchase and return returns
or exchange (Adivar et al., 2019). Omnichannel requires retailers to coordinate customer
interactions in order to create a continuous dialogue, not segmented by channel or type of
communication (Stelzer, 2013).
There are both advantages and disadvantages to this kind of operation. On one hand, the
omnichannel consumers are more difficult to please; they are connected to social media and
software, they seek information much more easily, compare prices and may find more
attractive offers (Berman and Thelen, 2018; Verhoef et al., 2015). However, on the other hand,
omnichannel strategy allows actions such as mutual promotion between channels, the
crossing of information from different channels and the sharing of physical resources and
common operations (Zhang et al., 2010a, b; Yrj€ol€a et al., 2018).
For the operation of omnichannel to be possible, information handling must be
standardized and precise to guarantee the connection of channels and customers with the
brand (Kazancoglu and Aydin, 2018). Therefore, it should maintain a close relationship with
customers in order to capture accurate information about their behaviour and preferences
and use those buyer details to ensure a positive shopping experience. This requires
technologies that can track consumer behaviour through physical and online channels
(Adivar et al., 2019). It is also important that companies pay attention to the characteristics of
their segment, keeping an innovative strategy with the consumers and the market (Savastano
et al., 2019).

Product returns in omnichannel

Regarding single channel retails, Mukhopadhyay and Setoputro (2004) highlight that at the
start of the e-commerce expansion, the brick-and-mortar retailers led the way in terms of
offering return options. On the other hand, in multichannel sales, despite the existence of
different channels, the customer only has the channel he/she used when purchasing in order
to return the products (H€ ubner et al., 2016b).
Omnichannel strategy poses significant challenges for retailers and supply chains to
design and manage effective strategies (Banerjee, 2019; Xu and Jackson, 2019; Jocevski et al.,
2019). Among these challenges, product return is an initiative that should be investigated
strategically by companies, as it is complex and directly interferes in their level of service and
customer loyalty (Ang and Tan, 2018; Xu and Jackson, 2019). Moreover, the reverse logistics
costs associated with returns were around $219.1 billion in the United States retail in 2008
(Bernon et al., 2013), and there was a considerable increase of 4% in the product return rates
from 2008 to 2016 (Shang et al., 2017). Table 1 brings some of the determinants and
consequences of the return processes.
Although the return process is described as a linear and singular phenomenon by some
authors (see Bernon et al., 2010; Rogers et al., 2002; Stock and Mulki, 2009), it does not consider
the implications for managing returns within an omnichannel concept. This is due to the
multiple ways in which a customer can execute a product return (Bernon et al., 2016), meaning
that both the determinants and the consequences of a return channel increase complexity
when contextualized in an omnichannel strategy.
This increase occurs because omnichannel’s continuous approach proposes integration of
returns, processes, information systems, inventories and performance measurement systems
that are typically operated as separate entities within RL management (Bernon et al., 2016).
Furthermore, for retailers, operation is more difficult because consumers still have the right to
IJRDM Determinants
Defective item Dissatisfaction with the product (size, colour, model, etc.)
Warranty repair Product delivered in disagreement with the order
Withdrawal from purchase
Consequences
Reprocessing Delivery process for another substitute product
Return transport Strategies for customer accessibility to return entry points
Inventory re-balancing Warehouse facilities and transportation costs
Table 1. Refund Remanufacturing costs (equipments and workers)
Determinants and Return request Final disposition/Re-sale of returned products
consequences of Collection of returned products Capacity and location of returns facility
returns Note(s): Adapted from Bernon et al. (2016) and Gupta (2013)

return such products through all channels available (H€ ubner et al., 2016). Customer
familiarity with electronic devices and the security of online shopping is an aggravating
factor in the increased return volume in an omnichannel, mainly due to customers’ inability to
touch, taste or test the product before purchase.
Another important feature that an omnichannel reverse channel must have is flexibility,
especially as many consumers look for the return policies before purchasing and, by making
it more flexible, retailers will improve customers’ perception of the buying process and the
company, also increasing customer confidence (Xu and Jackson, 2019). As an example, there
is experimental evidence showing that the customer’s deliberation time for a purchase
decision is shorter with the existence of a lenient return policy (Wood, 2001).
The solution adopted by each company to operate its RL differs due to some factors such
as sector, product, company size and output density (Andersson and Wictor, 2018; H€ ubner
et al., 2016). Besides the postal service, on omnichannel product return also has a variety of
methods for returns, such as returning the product to physical stores, showrooms or
collection points. The use of physical stores not only increases the reverse channel extent but
also may bring some benefits such as cross-selling during the customer’s visit to the store
(H€ubner et al., 2016). The showrooms are actually tools that can be used to try to reduce the
volume of returned products.
Unlike traditional stores, showrooms provide customers with the opportunity to consider
a variety of products, to test colours, sizes and pieces with a huge variety. However, the
purchase is not completed there. In short, the showrooms help customers to test the products,
receive help from a shop assistants and later finish the purchase in the sales channel of their
choice (Li, 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). They help to diminish RL operations as they seek to
mitigate the lack of experience characteristic to online shopping of seeing and trying
products.
The collection points are places that are not owned by the company but where customers
can leave their returned product, usually from partner companies or places of convenience
such as gas stations or markets (Bernon et al., 2016).
The issue regarding product return is that, for customers, it is normal and necessary in the
shopping experience, but many retailers still see it as an evil due to inefficiencies, delays or
errors during the purchasing process (Shamiss, 2018; Xu and Jackson, 2019).
Stock management is a central challenge, because managers need to be certain where
stock will come from. If a product is returned, managers need to know whether it will be
returned in store, warehouse or by e-commerce (Ang and Tan, 2018). The many uncertainties
in the reverse channel are also of great concern to managers. According to Agrawal et al.
(2018), companies require artificial intelligence (AI) that can reduce this uncertainty enough to
alter the balance in the strategic dilemma. For example, Amazon uses such a precise model of Barriers in
customer demand forecast that allows the company to switch from shopping-then-shipping omnichannel
to shipping-then-shopping (Davenport and Ronanki, 2018; Gans et al., 2017).
There are also uncertainties on the quality of the returned products, whether it is saleable
retailing
or if it needs repair; uncertainty on the quantity returned, how many pieces of a product will returns
be returned and uncertainty on when the return will happen. Finally, there is the uncertainty
on product mix return, that is, how many different products will be returned. These factors
and the different combinations of them have several effects on the return management
(Andersson and Wictor, 2018).

Methods
This paper follows a systematic literature review as a research methodology. This type of
review aims mainly to summarize the existing research, to offer an overview and critical
evaluation about it and to contribute to the theoretical development of the research field
(Dabic et al., 2020; Fink, 2001).
For that, a literature review must follow proper steps to ensure its accuracy, precision and
trustworthiness (Snyder, 2019). To ensure those characteristics, a systematic approach based
on a structured process was elaborated from the works of Furrer et al. (2020), Govindan and
Bouzon (2018) and Zupic (2015), which can be seen in Figure 1.
For the Research Design step, this work intends to pave the way in this poorly explored
intersection (reverse logistics and omnichannel) by responding to the following research
questions:

Research question definition

Research Design
Choice of the appropriate method

Compilation of Keywords definition

bibliometric data Database selection
Selection filters

Descriptive Assessment of quantitative aspects

Analysis of the portfolio

Comprehensive review of the

Content Analysis
studied content
Identification and description of
barriers

Description and interpretation of

Interpretation
findings
Results and framework building
Figure 1.
Systematic literature
Source(s): Adapted from Furrer et al. (2020), Govindan and review procedure
Bouzon (2018), and Zupic (2015)
IJRDM (1) What are the barriers in reverse logistics that hinder return channel management
from being efficient in an omnichannel retail?
(2) How are these barriers organized and related to each other?
The following subsections present the steps for compilation of bibliometric data and a
descriptive analysis of the literature. The content analysis is presented in Section 4.

Compilation of bibliometric data

For the portfolio research, papers were searched through a structured research methodology.
The research team was composed by two industrial engineers with one year of experience in
the study area, one doctoral researcher with five years of experience in omnichannel and one
Professor with ten years of experience in reverse logistics.
For this search, five databases were used. Initially, the papers were searched using the
Scopus database, and complemented with the Web of Science and Science Direct databases.
The last research to complete the portfolio used the Pro-Quest and UpToDate databases.
The keywords chosen were “Omnichannel”, and variations “Omni channel” and “Omni-
channel”, associated with “Reverse Logistics” or “Return”. For the Scopus search, the
keywords “Barriers” or similar “Challenges” and “Obstacles” were added to refine this search
further. There was no limitation on the period of publication.
Regarding the results, the research gathered a total of 107 papers, of which 32 were
selected. The first filter was applied to remove possible duplicates. The second filter was
applied by reading the paper title, keywords and abstract, and by seeking for the paper
adequate application to the research questions. The last filter was applied by reading the
entire paper to check its relevance to the theme. For that purpose, at least three out of the four
of the authors should agree that the paper was relevant to the work. Therefore, the reasons
why a document was not selected include: duplicate documents, documents that did not have
academic nature (magazine news, websites, etc.), documents that did not address either of the
two main topics (omnichannel and reverse logistics) and documents with access problems.
Figure 2 shows the filters used to get to the final portfolio.
In addition to these steps, for the description of the barriers, a backward search was also
performed and, thus, three more papers were added to the portfolio. These are Gibson et al.
(2016) and Wollenburg et al. (2018a, b), both quoted by Andersson and Wictor (2018), and
Schrotenboer et al. (2017), quoted by He et al. (2019). The full research results from this step
can be seen in Appendix.

Descriptive analysis
After the survey of the 35 articles that compose the bibliographic portfolio, a descriptive
analysis was performed to evaluate the quantitative data of the portfolio. Figure 3 presents an
overview of the papers, adapted from Kiessling and Vlacic (2019), showing how many of them
are empirical (divided into exploratory, case study and survey) or non-empirical (divided into
review or conceptual).

Figure 2.
Portfolio research
 Barriers in
omnichannel
retailing
returns

Figure 3.
Overview of selected
papers

Following the analysis, Graph 1 brings information regarding the distribution of the
publications per year.
The second analysis concerned the number of times the paper was cited in order to
obtain an indication of its relevance in the scientific environment. It is important to mention
that this index does not fully provide the relevance of the paper, since papers that are more
recent naturally receive fewer citations. In Graph 2, papers cited fewer than five times were
removed.
The result shown is based on the Google Scholar database, consulted in August 2020.
Usually, studies that are infrequently cited are used with caution, since there are few
validations about its results by other authors. However, it is important to mention that almost
80% of the selected articles were published after 2018, leaving a short period for them to be
used and cited.
Lastly, an analysis regarding where the papers were published, as well as the journal’s
impact factor, was elaborated. This result is shown in Table 2.

Results and discussion

While reverse logistics embodies its own inherent challenges, the introduction of the
omnichannel further heightens the complexity. In order to comprehend more easily the
specific characteristics of the omnichannel multiple barriers and impediments, the works of
Bernon et al. (2016) and Bouzon et al. (2016) were used as base to create a division of those
barriers into categories and then into clusters.
In this work, 44 barriers were identified from the paper portfolio. The barriers were then
divided into 10 different categories. At first, the 10 categories were created from the topics
mentioned by Bernon et al. (2016), such as aspects that can add complexity when managing a
reverse channel. Those barriers were selected by identifying, in the articles, problems
brought by the authors, which somehow interfered in the success of a return channel in an
omnichannel context.
For a better organization and understanding, the categories were divided into three
different clusters on the basis of the ownership of the returned product. Tables 3–5 identify
the barrier clusters as follows.
The next topics explain and discuss the clusters, categories and barriers.

Cluster 1 – return channel access

The first cluster refers to the moment when the customer holds the product and he/she wants
to return it to the company. It is necessary that the company makes reverse channels
available, so the return process initiates. To make this happen, the company has the
IJRDM

Figure 4.
Conceptual
Framework
 Barriers in
2019 16 omnichannel
retailing
returns
2018 11

2016 4

2017 3

2015 1
Graph 1.
Publications per year
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Journal Papers Impact factor

International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 5 4.744

Transportation Research 4 4.690
International Journal of Production Economics 2 5.134
International Journal of Production Research 2 0.152
Journal of Business Research 2 4.874
Journal of Retailing 2 5.873
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2 4.219
Decision Support Systems 1 4.721
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1 3.824
International Journal of Electronic Commerce 1 3.439
International Journal of Logistics Management 1 3.325
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 1 2.321
Journal of Business Logistics 1 3.850 Table 2.
Journal of Operations Management 1 2.955 Journals and impact
Economic Research 1 2.229 factor

responsibility of providing broad and efficient channels that offer easy access to the
customer.
Thus, this cluster was denominated “Return channel access” and approaches three
categories: utilization of physical stores, utilization of collection points and utilization of
postal service, and they address issues concerning the decision on which channel to use.

Utilization of physical stores

Very common to omnichannel retail, returning products in-store brings benefits such as
increasing the area covered by service points and cross-selling (Bijmolt et al., 2019; H€
ubner
et al., 2016). According to Zarei et al. (2019), this type of return is widely accepted by
consumers, losing only to home delivery.
IJRDM
Cluster Category Barrier Citations

Return channel Utilization of (1.1) Additional efforts in-store
access physical stores (1.2) Outdated communication
systems
(1.3) High investments
(1.4) Lack of know-how
(1.5) Difficulty in incorporating the
returned good to the store
inventory
(1.6) Need for layout adjustment
Utilization of (2.1) Distinct information systems
collection points between companies
(2.2) Poor communication
(2.3) Different product handling
and storage processes
(2.4) Limited available services
(2.5) Economic dependency of the
direct flow
Utilization of (3.1) Segmentation of channel
postal service integration
(3.2) Lack of visibility during
Table 3. return
Barriers identified in (3.3) Additional costs of
return channel access contracting the service
Wollenburg et al. (2018a, b)
Wollenburg et al. (2018a, b)
H€
ubner et al. (2016)
H€
ubner et al. (2016)
Wollenburg et al. (2018a, b)
H€
ubner et al. (2016)
Bernon et al. (2016)
Bernon et al. (2016)
Bernon et al. (2016)
Buldeo Rai et al. (2019b)
Wollenburg et al. (2018a, b)
Ang and Tan (2018); Bernon
et al. (2016)
Bernon et al. (2016)
H€
ubner et al. (2016)

Cluster Category Barrier Citations

Physical and Inventory rebalancing (4.1) Product restocking Bernon et al. (2016)
financial balance (4.2) increase of operating costs Schrotenboer et al.
(2017)
(4.3) Additional efforts in warehouses Schrotenboer et al.
(2017)
(4.4) Difficulty of measuring the Andersson and
returned volume Wictor (2018)
(4.5) Difficulty to conciliate Pennarola et al.
incorporations of online and (2019)
offline stores
Returns refund (5.1) Unwanted financial movement Ang and Tan (2018)
(5.2) Need for information systems Wollenburg et al.
integrated with financial systems (2018a, b)
(5.3) Unfeasibility by return volume Zhang and Shi
too large (2018)
(5.4) Loss of customer loyalty for bad Xu and Jackson
experience (2019)
Returns exchange (6.1) Unbilled product outbound Bernon et al. (2016)
(6.2) Store forecast imbalance Bernon et al. (2016)
(6.3) Risk of stockout Bernon et al. (2016)
Table 4. (6.4) Misplaced Products Bernon et al. (2016)
Barriers identified in Uncollected “Click- (7.1) Processing of products in good Bernon et al. (2016)
physical and financial and-Collect” orders condition
balance (7.2) Unnecessary in-store Processes Wiener et al. (2018)
 Barriers in
Cluster Category Barrier Citations
omnichannel
Process Direct and reverse (8.1) Inefficiency in logistics Bernon et al. (2016) retailing
efficiency flow integration operations returns
(8.2) Negative customer perception Bernon et al. (2016; Xu and
of the purchasing process Jackson (2019)
(8.3) Difficulty with receiving orders Ang and Tan (2018)
(8.4) Difficulty in managing the Ang and Tan (2018)
processing order
(8.5) Difficulty in delivering and Ang and Tan (2018)
collecting simultaneously
Return product (9.1) Additional transportation costs Chopra (2018); H€ ubner et al.
separation (2016)
(9.2) Additional handling costs H€ubner et al. (2016)
(9.3) Additional administrative Pennarola et al. (2019)
costs
(9.4) Additional warehouse efforts H€
ubner et al. (2016)
(9.5) Reduction of profit margin Pennarola et al. (2019)
Processing time (10.1) Negative perception of clients Bernon et al. (2016)
about process time
(10.2) Increase in return costs Ang and Tan (2018);
Wollenburg et al. (2018a, b)
(10.3) Stock build-up Andersson and Wictor
(2018)
(10.4) Increase in order processing Andersson and Wictor
time (2018) Table 5.
(10.5) Increase in warehouse costs Andersson and Wictor Barriers identified in
(2018) process efficiency

However, shaping bricks-and-mortar stores to be able to deal with returned goods is not
simple; adaptations are required so consumers can use a sales/delivery channel as return
access points (Gibson et al., 2016). The key issues for increasing complexity in this operation,
which, in fact, cause many retailers to give up its implementation involves additional efforts
in store, refund or exchange operations and the need for an integrated IT system (Wollenburg
et al., 2018a, b).
It is also required that the company has resources and knowledge on omnichannel retail so
the return to the store can be successful (H€
ubner et al., 2016). Although many retailers rely on
the in-store return, few can incorporate these items into their inventory, causing additional
costs due to the need for a return process to the warehouse (Wollenburg et al., 2018a, b).
Another problem raised by the authors and also by Gao and Su (2017) regards the layout of
the physical store, which must be prepared to receive operations with returned goods or it can
cause problems in internal processes.
In this way, the following barriers can be identified: (1.1) Additional efforts in-store, (1.2)
Outdated communication systems, (1.3) High investments, (1.4) Lack of know-how, (1.5)
Difficulty in incorporating the returned good to the store inventory, and (1.6) Need for layout
adjustment.
Utilization of collection points
Collection points, also called convenience collection points, are a solution for retailers who do
not have many physical stores to extend the reach of their reverse channels. Collection points
also work as a tool to mitigate the impacts of fragmented demand and to reduce distribution
costs (Buldeo Rai et al., 2019a; Janjevic et al., 2019). Bernon et al. (2016) and (Ye et al., 2018)
identified that a major problem concerning the use of a partner company as a collection point
is the use of different IT systems that may not integrate, which creates management
IJRDM problems for both companies. In addition, partner companies typically sell different products
and therefore perform different logistics processes, which can lead to problems in handling
and storing returned products. Collection points lose competitiveness compared to the in-
store return, from the customer’s perception, for the fact these places do not perform product
exchanges, refunds or the experience of seeing and trying other products (Buldeo Rai
et al., 2019b).
Regarding the costs involved, Wollenburg et al. (2018a, b) stated that collection points are
not recommended when online order volume is low due to the high costs of investing in pick-
up locations and the substantial inventory costs because of the risk of waste and stock
obsolescence in decentralized locations. In short, using collection points for return operations
will only be justified if it is profitable for the direct flow.
Thus, the following barriers were identified in this category: (2.1) Distinct information
systems in companies, (2.2) Poor communication, (2.3) Different product handling and storage
processes, (2.4) Limited available services and (2.5) Economic dependency of the direct flow.

Utilization of postal service

This is the primary channel used since e-commerce and it is still heavily used in multichannel
scenarios (Marchet et al., 2018). Because it is the most traditional channel in product delivery
and consumers are familiar with it, it is important that companies know how to work with this
service and make it available for return (Andersson and Wictor, 2018).
The main problem with using the postal service in the omnichannel is that it segments the
integration of the company’s channels (Ang and Tan, 2018; Bernon et al., 2016). One of the
reasons is due to the lack of visibility during the return process, which creates uncertainty for
both company (which has an interest in tracking the product) and customer (who commonly
needs to wait for the return to be over to validate refund processes) (Bernon et al., 2016).
Postal service is, sometimes, a paid service and, hence, a problem for the customer. Buldeo
Rai et al. (2019b) showed that customers prefer free services delivered at home; however, by
adding fees, they are more likely to look for a delivery point. That is, in an omnichannel
scenario, the postal service loses strength to other channels such as brick-and-mortar and
collection points (H€ ubner et al., 2016b).
Therefore, the following barriers were found in this category: (3.1) Segmentation of
channel integration; (3.2) Lack of visibility during return; and (3.3) Additional costs of
contracting the service.

Cluster 2 – physical and financial balance

The second cluster refers to the moment when the ownership of the returned product changes
hands from the customer back to being the company’s responsibility. Barriers in this cluster
necessarily involve customer relationships and address the imbalance that the return of a
product creates, as this product represents the entry of an unexpected physical good and the
monetary or physical output of goods. Named “Physical and Financial balance”, this cluster
has four categories: Inventory rebalancing, Returns refund, Returns exchange and
Uncollected “click-and-collect” orders.

Inventory rebalancing
In stores and especially in warehouses, the entry of an unexpected product initiates a
restocking process that changes the current inventory of the facility (Bernon et al., 2016).
Restocking, as an additional process, represents an increase in operating costs and labour
efforts at these sites (Schrotenboer et al., 2017). A major difficulty is in accurately measuring
how many returned products will arrive in warehouses and how many will indeed be returned
to stock. Managing stock quantity is important since this information will directly impact the
company’s sales forecasts (Andersson and Wictor, 2018).
 In the multichannel, problems involving inventory rebalancing are much more Barriers in
representative in online sales, because such sales require a separate return facility to omnichannel
manage the return of products to company inventory. Online returns represent a large
increase in processing costs. On the other hand, offline sales can incorporate the returned
retailing
product immediately into their stock (Pennarola et al., 2019). The challenge for omnichannel returns
retail is to balance these characteristics since channels are mixed. It is hard to know how to
incorporate online returns into physical stores without damaging their inventory (Xu and
Cao, 2019).
Thus, the barriers identified in this category were: (4.1) Product restocking, (4.2) increase
of operating costs, (4.3) Additional efforts in warehouses, (4.4) Difficulty of measuring the
returned volume and (4.5) Difficulty to conciliate incorporations of online and offline stores.

Returns refund
The return process usually includes benefit to the customer, which may be through a
chargeback, an exchange for another product or through credit release for the consumer to
use in a future purchase. In the first case, the refund process is one of the most important
actions for easing the company’s return policies, whether a partial or total refund, and directly
affecting customers’ perception (Du et al., 2019; Xu and Jackson, 2019). However, managing
this service to customers requires financial movement from company assets, which is
undesired by many firms. Therefore, refunds and issues related to it are one of the reasons
some retailers are hesitant to accept returns (Ang and Tan, 2018). Wollenburg et al. (2018a, b)
claimed that for the refund process to be possible, the company’s information systems need to
be developed and integrated so that all the information from different channels required to the
process are available to the return channel. Besides, if the amount of products returned is too
great, the company will have to spend more money on the customer reimbursement process,
reducing the benefits it receives by allowing this service (Zhang and Shi, 2018).
In addition, retailers should be concerned about customer experience during the refund
process as well, since the company’s goal by allowing this service is to improve the shopping
experience and to build customer loyalty, so a bad experience can be harmful to the
company’s image (Xu and Jackson, 2019).
Thus, the barriers found in this category were: (5.1) Unwanted financial movement, (5.2)
Need for information systems integrated with financial systems, (5.3) Unfeasibility by return
volume too large and (5.4) Loss of customer loyalty for bad experience.
Returns exchange
Similar to refund, product exchange is a mechanism that offers benefits to costumers and hence
very strategic for retailers (Ang and Tan, 2018). The difficulties involved here are related to
inventory balancing: while the retailer is receiving back a product which is registered as sold,
thus initiating the restocking process, there is also the outbound of an unbilled product that is
within the store sales forecast, which may cause stockout (Bernon et al., 2016).
In cases where the exchange is scheduled and products are shipped to a store of the
customer’s preference, the risk is that the customer will not complete the exchange, making
the shipped product to be misplaced in the company’s distribution (Bernon et al., 2016).
Thus, for the category of returns exchange, the following barriers were observed: (6.1)
Unbilled product outbound, (6.2) Store forecast imbalance, (6.3) Risk of stockout and (6.4)
Misplaced products.

Uncollected “click-and-collect” orders

Click and Collect is a kind of delivery that mixes the use of both physical and virtual stores. It
has two types: BOPS (buy online pick up at store) and ROPS (reserve online for pick-up at
store) (Zhang et al., 2018).
IJRDM Due to the large use of this kind of delivery within the omnichannel retail, Bernon et al.
(2016) present a quite specific case about inventory rebalancing that is especially relevant due
to its high incidence: when costumers reserve an in-store product, but they do not withdraw in
the physical store. This creates a volume of products in perfect condition that are misplaced
and, in many cases, counted as a returned product. Those products end up going through the
entire return process. Besides that, in-store, an agent had to collect and put aside the reserved
product, update product inventory levels, and potentially trigger a replenishment process,
and then, if the online customer did not show up at the store, the agent would have to undo all
these process steps (Wiener et al., 2018).
For this specific case, two new barriers were identified; however, it was possible to observe
barriers already raised in other categories that are relevant here as well. The barriers
observed were: (4.1) Product restocking, (6.4) Misplaced products, (7.1) Processing of products
in good condition and (7.2) Unnecessary in-store processes.

Cluster 3 – process efficiency

Finally, the third cluster is broader and refers to the processes required to efficiently return a
product. Thus, this group deals with when the product is in full possession of the company
and the steps after its acquisition. The barriers of this cluster may or may not involve the end
consumer. Named as “Process Efficiency”, this cluster includes three categories: Direct and
reverse flow integration, Return product separation and Processing time.

Direct and reverse flow integration

An important decision of RL in retail concerns who will perform the return processes. It may
be the company itself, a third party, or the same link that performs the direct logistics flow
operations. The decision to keep both flows integrated is of great importance when sizing a
reverse channel, and one should keep in mind that this integration is increasingly complex
since direct and reverse flows require different efforts (Andersson and Wictor, 2018;
Herhausen et al., 2015). However, many authors such as Xu and Jackson (2019), Ang and Tan
(2018), Andersson and Wictor (2018), Guerrero-Lorente et al. (2017) and Bernon et al. (2016)
confirmed the importance of operating both flows in a coordinated manner, mainly for two
reasons: by splitting the operation of the channels, the buying experience is segmented, which
may lead to inefficiencies in the logistics processes and, more importantly, the customer may
feel differences while using different channels, which directly disrupts the most basic concept
of omnichannel (Bernon et al., 2016).
The processes that add complexity due to the integration of flows that make some
companies choose not to engage in omnichannel operations involve receiving orders,
processing orders and the delivery and backward distribution process (Ang and Tan, 2018).
Since it is a decision whether to segregate or integrate direct and reverse flows, this
category addresses the barriers of both situations. In the case of segregated channels, the
following barriers were identified: (3.1) Segmentation of channel integration; (8.1) Inefficiency
in logistics operations and (8.2) Negative customer perception of the purchasing process. In
the case of integrated channels, it was observed: (8.3) Difficulty with receiving orders, (8.4)
Difficulty in managing the processing order and (8.5) Difficulty in delivering and collecting
simultaneously.

Return product separation

This category concerns the RL stages of inspection and separation, which are extremely
important to determine channel efficiency. This is because such processes are 100%
dedicated to returns and adding them to the supply chain is one of the major drivers of
increased management complexity.
 The problem involving product separation is that it is an additional process, which is done Barriers in
in dedicated warehouses. This increases transportation costs due to the additional route omnichannel
required to bring the returned products to those locations, plus handling costs, administrative
costs and increased employee effort (Chopra, 2018; H€ ubner et al., 2016; Pennarola et al., 2019).
retailing
In cases where the product may return to sales, these processes still reduce the company’s returns
profit margin, even if the item will be sold at the original or a cheaper price (secondary
markets). In short, all these costs are added to the process (He et al., 2019; Pennarola
et al., 2019).
Thus, the following barriers were found: (9.1) Additional transportation costs, (9.2)
Additional handling costs, (9.3) Additional administrative costs, (9.4) Additional warehouse
efforts and (9.5) Reduction of profit margin.

Processing time
The time spent by both the customer and the company from the beginning of the return
process to the moment the product is allocated at its proper destination is crucial to both. On
the part of the customer, time is important because of the purchasing experience and
company loyalty. Returns that take a long time to be collected create a poor customer
perception and make that customer hesitate to buy from the company again (Bernon et al.,
2016). In their research, Gawor and Hoberg (2019) concluded that process time is more
important to customers than even the convenience while purchasing. On the part of the
companies, it is important that the return process is performed as quickly as possible so they
can be restocked (Muir et al., 2019). The longer these products stay in the reverse channel –
out of stores and unavailable for sales – more costs will be generate to the company (Ang and
Tan, 2018; Bijmolt et al., 2019; Wollenburg et al., 2018a, b). Transport along the reverse
network is of great importance here as it directly impacts the time it performs. Inefficient
return transportation can lead to stock build-up, increased order processing time, and
increased warehouse costs. This is because all these activities depend on transportation to be
able to continue (Andersson and Wictor, 2018).
The barriers found for this last category were: (10.1) Negative perception of clients about
process time, (10.2) increase in return costs, (10.3) Stock build-up, (10.4) increase in order
processing time and (10.5) increase in warehouse costs.
In some cases, different categories presented the same barrier, such as barrier (4.1) which
was identified in both Inventory rebalancing and Uncollected “Click-and-Collect” orders. This
happens either because of the proximity between categories, or in cases where a barrier has
different origins, such as barrier (3.1) segmentation of channel integration, which may occur
because of the hiring of a postal service or the use of untidied logistics operators. By
completing this full list of 44 barriers in this section, the first research question of this paper is
attained.

Conceptual framework
A conceptual framework was developed to better present the classification of barriers, the
category in which each belongs, possible links between them and the nature of each one. The
works of Adivar et al. (2019), Hossain et al. (2019) and Kumar et al. (2017) were used as basis
for the construction of the visual and informational part of the framework. During the
barriers’ analysis process, the barriers were divided into four distinct groups: management,
operational, financial and IT barriers, based on the classification used in Bouzon et al. (2016).
The management group includes barriers that interfere in the management or structuring
of the reverse channel. These factors involve important aspects such as customer
relationships, the importance given by the company to its buying experience, operations
IJRDM planning, forecasting of both demand and utilization of the return channel, knowledge of
processes, etc.
Operational barriers, in turn, refer to the elements that interfere in the lower level of the
company’s strategic planning. These involve the execution of the processes in warehouses,
collection points, transport operations, etc.
Financial barriers carry a great importance, since some companies fear to provide a return
channel because of the costs involved and its low financial return. During the literature
review process, it was noticed that a major contributor to the financial barriers are the
processes of separation of returned products (H€ ubner et al., 2016b; Pennarola et al., 2019).
Finally, the last group includes the IT barriers that relate to issues such as communication
systems, information systems, equipment used, etc. Although they appeared in only a few
barriers, Wollenburg et al. (2018a, b) stressed the importance of mastering technology issues,
particularly information systems, for a successful management of the omnichannel retail.
This is due to the massive integration between channels, which will only be possible if
channels communicate in a coordinated and organized manner and which require advanced
technologies.
Thus, the conceptual framework was elaborated based on the clusters, categories and
barriers previously identified. The clusters are represented by the large rectangles that
encompass the categories and barriers inserted in them. The categories, in turn, are
represented by white rectangles and by their names. Finally, the barriers are connected to
their respective categories through arrows and are also represented by rectangles and their
names. The colours of the barriers identify their nature, as shown in the picture legend.
Barriers that were spotted in two different categories are linked to both by distinguished
arrows.
It is presented in Figure 4. This framework attains the second research question presented
in the first section of this manuscript.

Managerial contribution
Regarding the managerial implications, the results shed light into the main barriers in the
reverse logistics process in an omnichannel context. With the increase of e-commerce and the
growing trend for omnichannel, it is crucial that companies become aware of the most
significant barriers of the business in relation to product returns. This work provides relevant
information on the subject to guide the management effort and action toward benefits for
both business and other stakeholders.
Therefore, this work helps companies to understand the factors that can influence the
performance of a reverse channel in an omnichannel environment. Using the research results,
managers can make better decisions on reverse channels. Decision-makers may consider the
450 401
400
350
300
250
200 176
149
150 128
95
100 71 76
24 26 35 41
50 11 12 13 15 16 19 20 20 23 25
7 8
0
)

b)

)
9)

9)

8)

)
)
19

19

16

19

18

19

19

17

18

18

18

18

16

17

15
18

16

16
18
19
1

01

1
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
20

20

20

20

20
20
20

2
l.,

.,

.,

.,

.,

l.,

l.,

.,

.,

.,

l.,

.,

.,

.,

.,
n,

a.,

g,

l.,

.,

.,
.,
al

al

al

al

l.,

al

al

al

al

al

al

al
al

al
al
ta

ta

ta
r
so

a
pr

be
ta
t

et

et

et

et

n A r et

et

et

et

et

et
et

et

t
ck

et
ee

re

e
ho

,e
Ho
ie
n

ic

ng

er

el,

et

ar

en
r,

el,
Ja

rg
(C

va

e
(H

so

(D

lle

no
ne
ev

ch
ur
Ra

sa

bo

ien

um

us
pf
ha

pf
d

bu
d

di

ib

(A

er
an

ub
kt
os
nj

ar
an

ten

za

ha
lza
(Z

(W
(A

(K

len
o
(G

(B
(Ja

M
(H

,H
de

ol
or

Graph 2.
er
u

ro

Ho
(

ol
(X

,H

(H
aw
ul

rg
ka
ch

W
(B

r,
bu
rg
er

(G
(S

ne

r,

Number of citations
(S

bu

len

ne
ub
len

ub
ol

(H
(W

(H
ol
(W
outcomes of the conceptual framework, making sure that they completely understand return Barriers in
issues in order to create a more efficient and convenient return process to consumers. omnichannel
The lack of knowledge regarding omnichannel operations and the uncertainties
surrounding the return processes magnify the problem of managing reverse logistics.
retailing
Thus, to overcome these challenges, the reverse channels must be flexible, primarily to meet returns
the needs of customers. Secondly, the return processes should be managed strategically by
understanding the intentions and behaviors of customers in order to reduce costs, improve
forecasts and optimize return operations. Therefore, in a multifaceted perspective, these
improvements can generate long-term benefits for both shareholders, customers and other
stakeholders.

Conclusion
This paper contributes to the studies in the area by deepening the knowledge on RL in
omnichannel retail, in addition to identifying the main impediments in the adoption of this
strategy related to return products policies. The aggravation of problems involving the
return of products happens for different reasons. When investigating the barriers around the
reverse channel problem, a total of 44 barriers were identified and grouped into 10 different
categories. The study of these categories was necessary to differentiate barriers that were
present at different times or points in the return process in order to better structure the
knowledge in this poorly researched arena. In turn, the categories were grouped into clusters
according to their similarity.
Subsequently, all barriers were analysed according to their grouping – management,
operational, financial or IT – to deepen the understanding of the return panorama.
Accordingly, in order to enrich the information presented, a conceptual framework was
created, showing in a clear and holistic way all identified barriers as well as their clusters,
categories, and their relations. It was noted that the management and operational barriers
were the ones that most appeared in the literature, highlighting their importance for the
management of the logistics channel.

Future research
The present work has a predominantly theoretical character. The link between RL and
omnichannel area is recent and publications are still scarce, so the newness of this study
limits the opportunity for further deepening or more robust validation of the results.
However, this research opens the way for further studies to be pursued. Thus, the first
research suggestion regards more empirical studies, such as including case or field studies, in
order to validate the identified barriers or even to obtain new practical ones.
In addition, the studied literature does not approach the perspective of human resources
and how much it interferes in the process. It is possible to better dig into this issue, dealing
with human and intellectual resources in a more lenient way. Another important
characteristic is the fact that it is not contextualized in the reality of a specific country or
region, or even a specific industry sector. Future works should address the environment
characteristics where retail is inserted, as these may add complexity to the study, be it legal,
cultural, economic, etc.
Lastly, future researchers could also benefit from investigating how companies are
dealing with the problems from each cluster. Are the return forms evolving to guarantee more
convenience and practicality for the consumers? What are the tools used to mitigate the
problems concerning the physical and financial imbalance? Can the new additions from the
4.0 industry such as artificial intelligence or the Internet of things enhance the efficiency of
the return channel? All these questions can lead to new and relevant studies in the managerial
and academic fields.
IJRDM References
Adivar, B., H€
useyino € and Christopher, M. (2019), “A quantitative performance management
glu, I.O.Y.
framework for assessing omnichannel retail supply chains”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 48, pp. 257-269.
Agrawal, A., Gans, J. and Goldfarb, A. (2018), “Artifical intelligence in the boardroom”, The Corporate
Board, Vol. March/April, pp. 16-20.
Allen, J., Piecyk, M, Piotrowska, M., McLeod, F., Cherrett, T., Ghali, K., Nguyen, T., Bektas, T.,
Bates, O., Friday, A. and Wise, S. (2018), “Understanding the impact of e-commerce on last-mile
light goods vehicle activity in urban areas: the case of London”, Transportation Research Part
D: Transport and Environment, Elsevier, Vol. 61, June, pp. 325-338.
Andersson, A.A. and Wictor, E. (2018), Future Possibilities and Challenges for Returns in an
Omnichannel Distribution Network, Lunds Universitet, Lund.
Ang, A. and Tan, A. (2018), “Designing reverse logistics network in an omni- channel environment in
Asia”, Logforum, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 519-533.
Banerjee, M. (2019), “Development of omnichannel in India: retail landscape, drivers and challenges”,
in Exploring Omnichannel Retailing, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 115-137.
Beck, N. and Rygl, D. (2015), “Categorization of multiple channel retailing in multi-, cross-, and omni-
channel retailing for retailers and retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 27,
pp. 170-178.
Berman, B. and Thelen, S. (2018), “Planning and implementing an effective omnichannel marketing
program”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 598-614.
Bernon, M., Rossi, S. and Cullen, J. (2010), “Retail reverse logistics: a call and grounding framework for
research”, No. 2007. doi: 10.1108/09600031111138835 (accessed 23 November 2019).
Bernon, M., Upperton, J., Bastl, M. and Cullen, J. (2013), “An exploration of supply chain integration in
the retail product returns process”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 586-608.
Bernon, M., Cullen, J. and Gorst, J. (2016), “Online retail returns management”, edited by Mena and
Michael Bourlakis, C, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 46 Nos 6-7, pp. 584-605.
Bijmolt, T.H.A., Broekhuis, M., de Leeuw, S., Hirche, C., Rooderkerk, R.P., Sousa, R. and Zhu, S.X.
(2019), “Challenges at the marketing–operations interface in omni-channel retail environments”,
Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, No. November, pp. 1-11.
Bouzon, M., Govindan, K., Rodriguez, C.M.T. and Campos, L.M.S. (2016), “Identification and analysis
of reverse logistics barriers using fuzzy Delphi method and AHP”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 108, pp. 182-197.
Buldeo Rai, H., Verlinde, S. and Macharis, C. (2019a), “City logistics in an omnichannel environment.
The case of Brussels”, Case Studies on Transport Policy, Elsevier, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 310-317.
Buldeo Rai, H., Verlinde, S. and Macharis, C. (2019b), “The ‘next day, free delivery’ myth unravelled:
possibilities for sustainable last mile transport in an omnichannel environment”, International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Chiu, H.C., Hsieh, Y.C., Roan, J., Tseng, K.J. and Hsieh, J.K. (2011), “The challenge for multichannel
services: cross-channel free-riding behavior”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Elsevier B.V., Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 268-277.
Chopra, S. (2018), “The evolution of omni-channel retailing and its impact on supply chains”,
Transportation Research Procedia, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 30, pp. 4-13.
Dabic, M., Vla, B., Paul, J., Dana, L. and Sahasranamam, S. (2020), “Immigrant entrepreneurship: a
review and research agenda”, Vol. 113, November 2019, pp. 25-38.
Davenport, T.H. and Ronanki, R. (2018), “Artificial intelligence for the real world”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. January-February, pp. 1-10.
De Keyser, A., Schepers, J. and Konuş, U. (2015), “Multichannel customer segmentation: does the after- Barriers in
sales channel matter? A replication and extension”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 453-456. omnichannel
de Leeuw, S., Minguela-Rata, B., Sabet, E., Boter, J. and Sigurðardottir, R. (2016), “Trade-offs in
retailing
managing commercial consumer returns for online apparel retail”, International Journal of returns
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 710-731.
Du, S., Wang, L. and Hu, L. (2019), “Omnichannel management with consumer disappointment
aversion”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 215, pp. 84-101.
Fink, A. (2001), Conducting Research Literature Reviews, Sage Publications, Los Angeles.
Frasquet, M., Ieva, M. and Ziliani, C. (2019), “Understanding complaint channel usage in multichannel
retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, Vol. 47, pp. 94-103.
Furrer, O., Kerguignas, J.Y. and Gremler, D.D. (2020), Twenty-Seven Years of Service Research:
A Literature Review and Research Agenda, Vol. 3, pp. 299-316.
Gans, J., Agrawal, A. and Goldfarb, A. (2017), “How AI will change strategy: a thought experiment”,
Harvard Business Review, October 3, available at: https://hbr.org/2017/10/how-ai-will-change-
strategy-a-thought-experiment (accessed 10 October 2019).
Gao, F. and Su, X. (2017), “Online and offline information for omnichannel retailing”, Manufacturing
and Service Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 84-98.
Gawor, T. and Hoberg, K. (2019), “Customers’ valuation of time and convenience in e-fulfillment”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 75-98.
Gibson, B.J., Defee, C.C. and Ishfaq, R. (2016), The State of the Retail Supply Chain, Auburn University
SCM Programs, Auburn, p. 22.
Govindan, K. and Bouzon, M. (2018), “From a literature review to a multi-perspective framework for
reverse logistics barriers and drivers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier, Vol. 187,
pp. 318-337.
Guerrero-Lorente, J., Ponce-Cueto, E. and Blanco, E.E. (2017), “A model that integrates direct and
reverse flows in omnichannel logistics networks”, in Amorim, M., Ferreira, C., Vieira Junior, M.
and Prado, C. (Eds), Engineering Systems and Networks, Springer International Publishing,
Cham, pp. 89-97.
Gupta, S.M. (Ed.). (2013), Reverse Supply Chains: Issues and Analysis, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
He, Y., Xu, Q. and Wu, P. (2019), “Omnichannel retail operations with refurbished consumer returns”,
International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 271-290.
Herhausen, D., Binder, J., Schoegel, M. and Herrmann, A. (2015), “Integrating bricks with clicks:
retailer-level and channel-level outcomes of online-offline channel integration”, Journal of
Retailing, New York University, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 309-325.
Hossain, T.M.T., Akter, S., Kattiyapornpong, U. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2019), “Multichannel integration
quality: a systematic review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 49, pp. 154-163.
ubner, A., Holzapfel, A. and Kuhn, H. (2016a), “Distribution systems in omni-channel retailing”,
H€
Business Research, Vol. 9, doi: 10.1007/s40685-016-0034-7.
ubner, A., Wollenburg, J. and Holzapfel, A. (2016b), “Retail logistics in the transition from multi-
H€
channel to omni-channel”, edited by Mena and Michael Bourlakis, C, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 46 Nos 6/7, pp. 562-583.
Janjevic, M., Winkenbach, M. and Merchan, D. (2019), “Integrating collection-and-delivery points in the
strategic design of urban last-mile e-commerce distribution networks”, Transportation Research
Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, Vol. 131, pp. 37-67.
Jocevski, M., Arvidsson, N., Miragliotta, G., Ghezzi, A. and Mangiaracina, R. (2019), “Transitions
towards omni-channel retailing strategies: a business model perspective”, International Journal
of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 78-93.
IJRDM Kazancoglu, I. and Aydin, H. (2018), “An investigation of consumers’ purchase intentions towards
omni-channel shopping”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 46
No. 10, pp. 959-976.
Kiessling, T. and Vlacic, B. (2019), “Mapping the future of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: a
review and research agenda”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, pp. 1-11.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2012), Marketing Management, 14th ed., Pearson, New Jersey.
Kumar, V., Anand, A. and Song, H. (2017), “Future of retailer profitability: an organizing framework”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 96-119.
Li, H. (2018), “Omni-channel operations with showrooms and consumer returns”, 2018 15th International
Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, ICSSSM 2018, IEEE, pp. 1-6, No. 2006.
Marchet, G., Melacini, M., Perotti, S., Rasini, M. and Tappia, E. (2018), “Business logistics models in
omni-channel: a classification framework and empirical analysis”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 439-464.
Muir, W.A., Griffis, S.E. and Whipple, J.M. (2019), “A simulation model of multi-echelon retail inventory
with cross-channel product returns”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 322-338.
Mukhopadhyay, S.K. and Setoputro, R. (2004), “Reverse logistics in e-business”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 70-89.
Nie, J., Zhong, L., Yan, H. and Yang, W. (2019), “Retailers’ distribution channel strategies with cross-
channel effect in a competitive market”, International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier
B.V., Vol. 213, pp. 32-45.
Pennarola, F., Caporarello, L. and Magni, M. (2019), “Different strategies for different channels: influencing
behaviors in product return policies for consumer goods”, in Lecture Notes in Information Systems
and Organisation, Springer International Publishing, Vol. 27, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-90500-6.
Rogers, D.S., Lambert, D.M., Croxton, K.L. and Garcıa-Dastugue, S.J. (2002), “The returns management
process”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13, pp. 1-18.
Sands, S., Ferraro, C., Campbell, C. and Pallant, J. (2016), “Segmenting multichannel consumers across
search, purchase and after-sales”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, Vol. 33,
pp. 62-71.
Savastano, M., Bellini, F., D’Ascenzo, F. and De Marco, M. (2019), “Technology adoption for the
integration of online–offline purchasing: omnichannel strategies in the retail environment”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 474-492.
Schrotenboer, A.H., Wruck, S., Roodbergen, K.J., Veenstra, M. and Dijkstra, A.S. (2017), “Order picker
routing with product returns and interaction delays”, International Journal of Production
Research, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 55 No. 21, pp. 6394-6406.
Shamiss, S. (2018), Reducing the High Cost of Returns in the Omnichannel, Forbes Technology Council,
available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/06/26/reducing-the-high-cost-
of-returns-in-the-omnichannel/#2befe511412a (accessed 26 September 2019).
Serkan Akturk, M., Ketzenberg, M. and Heim, G.R. (2018), “Assessing impacts of introducing ship-to-
store service on sales and returns in omnichannel retailing: a data analytics study”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 15-45.
un, P., Ferguson, M. and Galbreth, M. (2017), “How much do online consumers really
Shang, G., Pekg€
value free product returns? Evidence from eBay”, Journal of Operations Management, Elsevier,
Vols 53–56 No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Snyder, H. (2019), “Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines”, Journal
of Business Research, Elsevier, Vol. 104, pp. 333-339.
Stelzer, J. (2013), “Looking beyond multichannel”, CRM Magazine, Vol. September 1.
Stock, J.R. and Mulki, J.P. (2009), “Product returns processing: an examination of practices of
manufacturers, wholesalers/distributors, and retailers”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 33-62.
Taylor, D., Brockhaus, S., Knemeyer, A.M., and Murphy, P. (2019), “Omnichannel fulfillment Barriers in
strategies: defining the concept and building an agenda for future inquiry”, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 863-891. omnichannel
Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, P.K. and Inman, J.J. (2015), “From multi-channel retailing to omni-channel
retailing
retailing”, Journal of Retailing, New York University, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 174-181. returns
Wiener, M., Hoßbach, N. and Saunders, C. (2018), “Omnichannel businesses in the publishing and
retailing industries: synergies and tensions between coexisting online and offline business
models”, Decision Support Systems, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 109, pp. 15-26.
Wollenburg, J., Holzapfel, A., H€ubner, A. and Kuhn, H. (2018a), “Configuring retail fulfillment
processes for Omni-channel customer steering”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Routledge, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 540-575.
ubner, A., Kuhn, H. and Trautrims, A. (2018b), “From bricks-and-mortar to bricks-
Wollenburg, J., H€
and-clicks”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 48
No. 4, pp. 415-438.
Wood, S.L. (2001), “Remote purchase environments: the influence of return policy leniency on two-
stage decision processes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 157-169.
Xu, J. and Cao, L. (2019), “Optimal in-store inventory policy for omnichannel retailers in franchising
networks”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 47 No. 12,
pp. 1251-1265.
Xu, X. and Jackson, J.E. (2019), “Investigating the influential factors of return channel loyalty in omni-
channel retailing”, International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 216,
pp. 118-132.
Ye, Y., Lau, K.H. and Teo, L.K.Y. (2018), “Drivers and barriers of omni-channel retailing in China: a
case study of the fashion and apparel industry”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 657-689.
Yrj€ol€a, M., Saarij€arvi, H. and Nummela, H. (2018), “The value propositions of multi-, cross-, and omni-
channel retailing”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 46
No. 11-12, pp. 1133-1152.
Zarei, M.M., Agudo-Peregrina, A.F.  and Ponce-Cueto, E. (2019), “Choosing the delivery and return
method in purchases: the effect of situational factors in omni-channel contexts”, Economic
Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, Routledge, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 2120-2137.
Zhang, C. and Shi, X. (2018), “Does omnichannel selling with pre-order and returns benefit consumers?”,
2018 15th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, ICSSSM 2018,
IEEE, pp. 1-6.
Zhang, J., Farris, P.W., Irvin, J.W., Kushwaha, T., Steenburgh, T.J. and Weitz, B.A. (2010a), “Crafting
integrated multichannel retailing strategies”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 168-180.
Zhang, T., Zhuang, G. and Huang, Y. (2010b), “A literature review on the studies of internet retailing
management”, Technology and Investment, Vol. 1, pp. 19-25, doi: 10.4236/ti.2010.11003.
Zhang, J., Xu, Q. and He, Y. (2018), “Omnichannel retail operations with consumer returns and order
cancellation”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 118,
pp. 308-324.
Zupic, I. (2015), Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 429-472.

Corresponding author
Marina Bouzon can be contacted at: marinabouzon@gmail.com
 IJRDM

Table A1.
Research result
Database Keywords Field Authors Tittle Citations Journal Impact

Scopus “Omnichannel” Title/ Abstract/ (Marchet et al., Business logistics models in omni-channel: a 41 International Journal of Physical 4.744
OR “Omni channel” Keywords 2018) classification framework and empirical analysis Distribution and Logistics
Appendix

OR “Omni-channel” Management
(Bijmolt et al., 2019) Challenges at the marketing–operations interface in 1 Journal of Business Research 4.874
omni-channel retail environments
(Wollenburg et al., Configuring Retail Fulfillment Processes for Omni- 35 International Journal of Electronic 3.439
2018a, b) Channel Customer Steering Commerce
(Gawor and Customers’ valuation of time and convenience in e- 25 International Journal of Physical 4.744
Hoberg, 2019) fulfillment Distribution and Logistics
Management
“Reverse Logistics” Title/ Abstract/ (Pennarola et al., Different Strategies for Different Channels: Influencing 1 Organizing for Digital Innovation N/A
OR “Return” Keywords 2019) Behaviors in Product Return Policies for Consumer
Goods
(H€
ubner et al., 2016) Distribution systems in omni-channel retailing 149 Journal of Business Research 4.878
(Xu and Jackson, Investigating the influential factors of return channel 8 International Journal of Production 5.134
2019) loyalty in omni-channel retailing Economics
“Barriers” Full text (Taylor et al., 2019) Omnichannel fulfillment strategies: defining the concept 3 International Journal of Logistics 3.325
OR “Challenges” and building an agenda for future inquiry Management
OR “Obstacles” (Bernon et al., 2016) Online retail returns management: Integration within an 95 International Journal of Physical 4.744
omni-channel distribution context Distribution and Logistics
Management
(Buldeo Rai et al., The “next day, free delivery” myth unravelled: 20 International Journal of Retail and 2.321
2019b) Possibilities for sustainable last mile transport in an Distribution Management
omnichannel environment
Web of science “Omnichannel” Title/ Abstract/ (Muir et al., 2019) A Simulation Model Of Multi-Echelon Retail Inventory 3 Journal of Business Logistics 3.850
OR “Omni channel” Keywords With Cross-Channel Product Returns
OR “Omni-channel”
(Ang and Tan, Designing reverse logistics network in an omnichannel 4 LogForum Scientific Journal of N/A
2018) environment in Asia Logistics
(Zhang and Shi, Does Omnichannel Selling with Pre-Order and Returns 2 15th International Conference on N/A
2018) Benefit Consumers? Service Systems and Service
Management
“Reverse Logistics” Title/ Abstract/ (Li, 2018) Omni-Channel Operations with Showrooms and 4 15th International Conference on N/A
OR “Return” Keywords Consumer Returns Service Systems and Service
Management
(Zhang et al., 2018) Omnichannel retail operations with consumer returns 16 Transportation Research 4.690
and order cancellation
(He et al., 2019) Omnichannel retail operations with refurbished 7 International Journal of Production 0.152
consumer returns Research
Science direct “Omnichannel” Full text (Adivar et al., 2019) A quantitative performance management framework for 12 Journal of Retailing and Consumer 4.219
OR “Omni channel” assessing omnichannel retail supply chains Services
OR “Omni-channel” 24 Journal of Operations Management 2.955

(continued )
Database Keywords Field Authors Tittle Citations Journal Impact

(Serkan Akturk Assessing impacts of introducing ship-to-store service on

et al., 2018) sales and returns in omnichannel retailing: A data
analytics study
(Buldeo Rai et al., City logistics in an omnichannel environment. The case 5 Electronic Commerce Research and 3.824
2019a) of Brussels Applications
(Kumar et al., 2017) Future of Retailer Profitability: An Organizing 128 Journal of Retailing 5.873
Framework
(Herhausen et al., Integrating Bricks with Clicks: Retailer-Level and 401 Journal of Retailing 5.873
2015) Channel-Level Outcomes of Online-Offline Channel
Integration
(Janjevic et al., 2019) Integrating collection-and-delivery points in the strategic 15 Transportation Research 4.690
design of urban last-mile e-commerce distribution
networks
“Reverse Logistics” Full text (Hossain et al., 2019) Multichannel integration quality: A systematic review 20 Journal of Retailing and Consumer 4.219
OR “Return” and agenda for future research Services
(Wiener et al., 2018) Omnichannel businesses in the publishing and retailing 26 Decision Support Systems 4.721
industries: Synergies and tensions between coexisting
online and offline business
(Du et al., 2019) Omnichannel management with consumer 19 International Journal of Production 5.134
disappointment aversion Economics
(Chopra, 2018) The Evolution of Omni-Channel Retailing and its Impact 11 Transportation Research 4.690
on Supply Chains
Pro-Quest and “Omnichannel” Title/ Abstract/ (Allen et al., 2018) Understanding the impact of e-commerce on last-mile 76 Transportation Research 4.690
UpToDate OR > “Omni channel” Keywords light goods vehicle activity in urban areas: The case of
<replaced as Paramark–> London
OR “Omni-channel”
(Guerrero-Lorente A Model that Integrates Direct and Reverse Flows in 5 Engineering Systems and Networks N/A
et al., 2017) Omnichannel Logistics Networks
(Zarei et al., 2019) Choosing the delivery and return method in purchases: 1 Economic Research 2.229
the effect of situational factors in omni-channel contexts
“Reverse Logistics” Title/ Abstract/ (Banerjee, 2019) Development of Omnichannel in India: Retail Landscape, 5 Engineering Systems and Networks N/A
OR “Return” Keywords Drivers and Challenges
(H€
ubner et al., 2016) Retail logistics in the transition from multi-channel to 176 International Journal of Physical 4.744
omni-channel Distribution and Logistics
Management
(Andersson and Future Possibilities and Challenges for Returns in an 2 - N/A
Wictor, 2018) Omnichannel Distribution Network
Backward research (Wollenburg et al., From bricks-and-mortar to bricks-and-clicks 71 International Journal of Physical 4.744
2018a, b) Distribution and Logistics
Management
(Schrotenboer et al., Order picker routing with product returns and 23 International Journal of Production 0.152
2017) interaction delays Research
(Gibson et al., 2016) The State of The Retail Supply Chain 13 - N/A
retailing
omnichannel
returns
Barriers in