×

How to implement return policies in a two-echelon supply chain? (English) Zbl 1257.90032

Summary: We integrate a retailer’s return policy and a supplier’s buyback policy within a modeling framework. In this setting, consumers decide whether to buy and then whether to return the product, the retailer sets the retail price, quantity, and refund price, and the supplier chooses the wholesale price and buyback price. Both the demand uncertainty and consumers’ valuation uncertainty are considered; consumers realize their valuations only after purchase. We discuss four scenarios for each party in the supply chain that may offer or not offer return policy. We characterize each party’s optimal decisions for all scenarios and we show that the supplier’s best choice is to provide buyback policy and the retailer’s optimal response is to set refund price to be the same as supplier’s buyback price.

MSC:

90B50 Management decision making, including multiple objectives
90B30 Production models

References:

[1] Supply Chain Management Review 7 (6) pp 32– (2003)
[2] DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.11.043 · Zbl 1159.90301 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.11.043
[3] DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.10.044 · Zbl 1102.90350 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.10.044
[4] DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2008.06.006 · Zbl 1157.90438 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.06.006
[5] Marketing Science 4 pp 166– (1985) · doi:10.1287/mksc.4.2.166
[6] Marketing Science 16 (1) pp 81– (1997) · doi:10.1287/mksc.16.1.81
[7] Management Science 44 (2) pp 276– (1998) · Zbl 0989.90043 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.44.2.276
[8] DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.01.036 · Zbl 1237.90008 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.01.036
[9] DOI: 10.1177/109467059800100204 · doi:10.1177/109467059800100204
[10] Journal of Economics and Business 50 (5) pp 445– (1998) · doi:10.1016/S0148-6195(98)00013-7
[11] DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2003.07.006 · Zbl 1067.90107 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2003.07.006
[12] International Economic Review 36 (3) pp 691– (1995) · Zbl 0836.90019 · doi:10.2307/2527367
[13] DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.10.021 · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.10.021
[14] DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2008.01.030 · Zbl 1159.90362 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.01.030
[15] DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-3995.2010.00797.x · Zbl 1260.90111 · doi:10.1111/j.1475-3995.2010.00797.x
[16] DOI: 10.1287/msom.1080.0240 · doi:10.1287/msom.1080.0240
[17] The Journal of Industrial Economics 49 (3) pp 223– (2001)
[18] Marketing Science 20 (3) pp 219– (2001) · doi:10.1287/mksc.20.3.219.9765
[19] DOI: 10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00188-9 · doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00188-9
[20] DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.048 · Zbl 1077.90007 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.048
[21] Journal of Industrial Economics 44 (1) pp 17– (1996) · doi:10.2307/2950557
[22] DOI: 10.1016/S0925-5273(01)00207-9 · doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(01)00207-9
[23] DOI: 10.1007/s10957-006-9061-4 · Zbl 1139.90378 · doi:10.1007/s10957-006-9061-4
[24] International Journal of Production Economics 56-57 pp 677– (1998) · doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00009-7
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.