Survey of Reverse Logistics Practices

The Case of Portugal

Ricardo Simões

, Carlos Carvalho

, Ricardo Félix

and Amílcar Arantes

Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, Lisboa, 1049-001, Portugal

Logistema, Alameda dos Oceanos, 31 1.02.1.1, Lisboa, 1990-207, Portugal

CERIS, CESUR, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, Lisboa, 1049-001, Portugal

Keywords: Reverse Logistics, Supply Chain Management, Survey.

Abstract: Reverse Logistics (RL) has gained substantial relevance in the field of supply chain management, mainly

because RL combines environmental, economic and social factors. Although there are studies on RL practices,

none of these studies are related to the Portuguese case. Therefore, a survey was conducted in Portugal to fill

this gap. This study was applied to a group of Portuguese companies of four industrial sectors. These four

sectors are highly diversified, regarding the way RL is managed. The results demonstrate that companies

consider the management of RL important. The most common practice used is the proper disposal of returned

products. The companies mainly adopt RL due to the benefits associated with the improvement of customer

satisfaction and the reduction in logistics costs. The biggest barrier to the implementation of RL is a lack of

strategic planning by the companies on handling returned products. The main reason affecting the

performance of RL activities is the lack of quality of the returned product. The study also allowed to estimate

the volume of returned products and the costs of RL.

1 INTRODUCTION

Currently, the world faces growing uncertainty on the

demand of consumers. Adding to that, the national

economic situation represents an aggravating factor

for the Portuguese market. Furthermore, the

seasonality of the sales and the implementation of

various campaigns and promotions throughout the

year are also responsible for an increased difficulty in

making accurate forecasts for the consumer demand.

On other hand, the operations of Reverse Logistics

(RL) decisively contribute to the value and

competitiveness of enterprises, where margins and

profitability are increasingly lower, therefore the

challenge is to transform costs in added value to the

supply chain management. Hence, it is increasingly

important to consider RL essential and stop labelling

it as "the forgotten child of the supply chain" (Morrel,

2001).

The poor implementation of RL systems have

disastrous effects for businesses and cause high costs

in transportation and storage, increase processing

times and accumulation of products with no

destination, conflicts with customers/suppliers, legal

and environmental issues. This lack of planning and

implementation of RL systems is a reality in Portugal,

making the costs of RL relatively high (Logistica

Moderna, 2013). One of the major difficulties for

companies is how to effectively and economically

collect all the products from the place where they are

no longer desired and transfer them to a place where

they can be processed, reused or recovered. There are

several studies on RL practices, but none

contemplates the Portuguese context. This work,

“survey of RL practices in Portugal”, intends to

contribute and fill this gap.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

In the past, RL was only seen as a cost for the

companies, however the perspective on RL is shifting

markedly whether by its economic value gained in

reusing used products, or by using used components

in the manufacture of new products (Savaskan and

Van Wassenhove, 2006). With concerns about

product returns and proper implementation of RL

systems, the academic community has been studying

this area and as a result, in recent years, increasingly

more scientific articles on this subject have been

published (Rubio et al., 2008).

SimÃ¸tes R., Carvalho C., FÃl’lix R. and Arantes A.

Survey of Reverse Logistics Practices - The Case of Portugal.

DOI: 10.5220/0006198403930400

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems (ICORES 2017), pages 393-400

ISBN: 978-989-758-218-9

393

In the early nineties, the first definition of RL

emerges. Stock (1992) emphasised the recovery

aspects of RL, defining as: "... the term often used to

refer to the role of logistics in recycling, waste

disposal, and management of hazardous materials; a

broader perspective that includes all logistics

activities such as recycling, substitution, reuse of

materials and disposal of products”. Furthermore,

Rogers and Tibben-Lembke (1998) summarize RL as

the process of moving goods from the final

destination to another point in the supply chain, in

order to capture unavailable value. More recently,

Pokharel and Muha (2009) stated that the focus of RL

refers to the waste management, recycling of

materials, recovery of components or product

recovery. According to the authors RL involves a

paradigm shift in terms of product life-cycle.

Traditionally the life cycle of a product was between

the period of its manufacture and its disposal ("cradle-

to-grave"). Currently RL allows a change of the

product life cycle, from the period of manufacture to

its recovery ("cradle-to-cradle").

Companies have been using more liberal return

policies in order to reduce the risk of the final

customers and thus increase sales volume (Smith,

2005). In the United States, the estimates are even

more significant with the annual costs about $ 100

billion for the manufacturers and retailers

corresponding to a reduction in the yield at about

3.8% (Blanchard, 2007), while Greve and Davis

(2012) state that the electronics industry is over 14

billion dollars, as well as the rates of returns of the

end customers ranging from 5% to 9% of sales for

most retailers.

Implementing an effective system generate

multiple benefits for businesses, including increased

customer satisfaction level, reducing the level of

investment in resources, and reduce storage and

distribution costs (Andel, 1997). Thus, the integration

of RL in supply chains is increasingly used as a

strategy to increase profits or to promote

sustainability and customer satisfaction (Du and

Evans, 2008). That said, Brito and Dekker (2003)

identify the main reasons that lead companies to

adopt RL operations:

 Economics – RL programs can bring direct

gains through lesser use of raw materials,

reduction in disposal cost, etc. Companies also

have indirect gains due to competition,

environmental image, improve customer-

supplier relations, etc;

 Legislation - refers to any jurisdiction that

indicates that a company should recover all the

products produced by them or own

responsibility for end-of-life products. With the

growing concern for the environment, laws

have been emerging in European, that forced

companies to develop their RL processes with

the introduction of quotas for the recovery,

recycling and packaging;

 Corporate citizenship - concerns a set of values

and principles that motivate an organization to

become involved responsibly in RL activities.

This motivation arises from the need to hold a

responsible and conscientious stand towards

environmental issues.

The activities of a RL network in supply chains

may differ, such as, type of products returned, the

desired recovery and the logistics network

implemented. We can essentially identify 5 groups of

recurrent activities in various supply chains with RL

(Prahinski and Kocabasoglu 2006; Barker and

Zabinsky 2008; Silva et al. 2013). These groups are:

acquisition of products, collection of products,

inspection and disposal, recovery and distribution and

resale.

Ravi and Shankar (2005) studied the main barriers

to the implementation of RL operations in the

automotive industry. They concluded that there are

five main barriers, lack of knowledge of RL, lack of

commitment by managers, problems with product

quality, lack of strategic planning and financial

constraints. However, the lack of knowledge

regarding RL practices is the most significant barrier.

Therefore, managers should focus on the

development of their awareness on the use of RL.

Aberdeen Group (2006) conducted a study on RL

based on a survey of 175 companies from various

continents. The aim of this study was to analyze the

best management practices on RL. From the

companies surveyed, 61% mentioned that effective

management of RL is very important. The authors

also found that companies spend about 9% of sales in

costs related with RL.

According to a study by Chan and Chan (2008),

successful RL systems may result in greater customer

loyalty and reduced operating costs due to the reuse

or replacement of products. Their study consisted of

a total of 73 companies of the mobile industry in

Hong Kong and 34 interviews. This research showed

that companies in this sector consider RL important,

but compared to other issues RL importance is

smaller and this is the biggest barrier to the

implementation of RL.

Finally, Ravi and Shankar (2015) developed a

study, based on a survey of 105 companies in India,

where they investigated RL practices in four sectors

of the Indian industry: automotive, paper, food and

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

394

electronics. They concluded that the adoption of RL

practices is crucial and RL should be integrated at a

strategic level and also found that the volume of

returned products is a critical factor to RL

implementation. Nevertheless, the most important

factor to RL implementation is the economic benefit

associated.

The main objective of this work is to assess the

perception of RL practices in the Portuguese context.

In order to achieve this goal, the following research

questions (RQ) were addressed: RQ1 - What are the

most common RL practices in the Portuguese

industry?; RQ2 - What are the main reasons that lead

companies to the adoption of RL practices?; RQ3 -

What are the main barriers experienced by companies

in implementing RL practices?; RQ4 - What are the

main reasons affecting RL performance?

Accordingly, the work presented herein contributes to

expanding the knowledge on RL, in Portugal.

3 RESEARCH METHOD

For this work, a questionnaire survey methodology

was used to determine the perception on RL practices

in the Portuguese context. The questionnaire was

designed to obtain answers to all research questions

previously presented. The questions were based on

other published works (Andel, 1997; Daugherty,

Richey, Genchev, & Chen, 2005; Ravi & Shankar,

2005; Ravi V & Shankar, 2015; Rogers & Tibben-

Lembke, 1998; Tibben-Lembke, 2002; Tibben-

Lembke & Rogers, 2002), and addresses issues such

as the RL practices, reasons to adopt, barriers and

performance difficulties. The five point Likert scale

was considered appropriate for the evaluation of this

type of issues.

The initial questionnaire that resulted from the

literature review was validated by a group composed

of one teacher, two researchers and two senior

consultants specialists in SCM. Later the corrected

and improved questionnaire was used in a pilot test

envolving five companies. After the pilot, some of the

questions were modified to convey their intended

meaning and a few other questions were deleted.

In this work, four sectors of Portugal industries

dealing with RL operations were selected for this

survey: Food Industry (FI), Automotive Industry

(AI), ConsumersElectronics (CE) and Manufacturing

(Mf) (metallurgical, energy, textile, paper and wood).

In the FI, RL has a unique role with regard to food

safety. With return policies for food products,

companies allow the return of defective or out of date

products, preventing infection or intoxication

problems. AI is one of the most dynamic and

important sectors in Portugal economy. RL is very

important, due to the type of returns (defective

product, etc.), as well as the reuse of the main

components and subsequent resale. In the CE, the

kind of product commercialized has short life cycle

due to software updates, among others, that originates

a high rate of replacement or removal. The very

nature of the products makes them obsolete because

of the introduction of new equipment and this is the

major challenge (Chan and Chan, 2008). Currently,

the Mf is losing importance and it is necessary to

achieve its revitalization by modernizing their

production processes. This is where RL enters since

it allows for the reduction of costs and less use of raw

materials.These four sectors are highly diversified in

nature with respect to how they operate their RL

programs.

Most of the companies selected to compose the

sample were identified by Logistema, a consultant

partner in this study. In total, 225 companies

operating in Portugal were identified for the survey.

The survey was conducted in May-September 2016.

Questionnaires were sent via email to logistics

directors and, in some case, to general email

addresses, with information about the study,

identifying the objectives and scope of the work, and

with a link to the questionnaire. Reminders were sent

to all the non-respondents. In addition, phone calls

were made in order to increase the number of

responses to the questionnaire.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis was carried out using a statistical

software (SPSS) and consisted essentially of ranking

the variables based on mean values and frequency

distributions. The objective was to test if the mean

values of the dependent variables (assumed as

normally distributed) differ among the categories.

The following procedure was adopted:

 Test the reliability and internal consistency of

responses, Cronbach’s coefficient (α), for

questions on a Likert scale. In this research a

Cronbach’s α>0.6 was considered as

acceptable, as it is an exploratory study (Hair et

al., 2010);

 The T-test was used to test the "indifferent"

value of the overall means, which is the value

in the measuring scale that represents a shift in

the perception;

 The Levene F homogeneity test was used to

verify that the variances of the dependent

Survey of Reverse Logistics Practices - The Case of Portugal

395

variables are similar; If the Levene F statistic

has a significance value greater than 0.05 then

ANOVA is performed; If the Levene F statistic

had a significance value lower than 0.05, which

means the variances of the dependent variables

are not similar, then the Welch test is used,

because is a more robust test for equality of

means;

 Finally, when the average values of the

dependent variable differ between the

categories considered, the post-hoc Tukey test

is applied to determine which categories differ.

4.1 Sample

Of a total of 225 questionnaires sent, 43

questionnaires were received (Table 1). This gives an

overall response rate of 19.2%. This situation is

common in surveys via email and can lead to non-

response bias (Kypri et al, 2004; Sax et al, 2003). To

test for non-response bias, we compared the sectors

distribution of potential respondents (those whom the

survey was sent electronically) with the distribution

of sectors that effectively answered the

questionnaires. Using the χ2 test, it was determined

that there is no statistically significant difference

between the sectors, which might indicate a low non-

response bias.

Out of 43 usable responses, the food industry

accounts for 51.2% of the answers, manufacturing

industry and automotive industry accounts for 18.6%,

electronic sector 11.6%. In terms of employees, 28

companies had more than 250 employees, 12 in the

range of 51-250 and 3 companies had fewer than 50

employees. In relation to the companies' sales volume

in the last year, 35% of companies had a turnover

between 50 and 250 million euros, 30% had sales of

over 500 million euros, 21% between 250-500

million euros, and 14% shows sales lower than 50

million euros. The distribution of firms by the

different sectors show that 73.9% of respondents are

positioned as producers, 10.9% are positioned as

retailers, and 8.7% are wholesalers.

Table 1: Survey respondent distribution.

Industrial

Sector

Potential

Respondents

Frequency % Frequenc

Food 94 41.8 22 51.2

Electronics 51 22.7 5 11.6

Automotive 49 21.7 8 18.6

Manufacturin

31 13.8 8 18.6

Total 225 100 43 100

4.2 General Issues

The importance that companies give to RL

management is revealed by 33% of the responses, that

sees RL with the utmost importance, but for 26% of

respondents RL is "indifferent", and only 5% of the

companies surveyed claim to RL as "Not Important".

With the results we can say that RL in Portugal is

important and aligned with previously studies such as

the study by the Aberdeen Group (2006), which stated

that the majority of companies surveyed (60%)

considered that effective management of RL it is

extremely important to the overall performance. Also,

there is no significant difference between sectors.

RL offers many benefits (

Table 2), including:

improve logistics efficiency and reduction of logistics

cost. With 53.5% of the replies (23 responses each

option). The less observed benefits are "Improved

employee productivity" with only 2.3% of

respondents and "Increase on turnover " with 9.3% of

the answers. These results meet expectations of the

literature review.

Table 2: Observed benefits.

Benefit

N. of

responses

Improve logistics efficiency 23

Reduction of logistics costs 23

Improve relations/satisfaction with partners 22

Improved company image 21

Lower costs resulting from better planning 19

Minimising waste (eco-friendly) 16

Improvement on asset recovery 11

Lower costs in processing of returned products 8

Increase of net sales 4

Improve employee productivity 1

The volume of returned products that are

recovered was measured in this work (Table 3). With

26% of companies stated that they recover more than

50% of returned products, this reveals a growing

trend of RL practices and awareness of entities to

minimize the costs on raw materials. Unfortunately,

30% of the managers could not estimate a value, this

shows difficulties for companies to observe the value

recovered from returned products.

Table 3: Estimate of the value recovered.

Value (%of the returned product) Frequency (%)

Not aware 30

More than 50% 26

Less than 5% 21

Between 26% - 50% 14

Between 6% - 25% 9

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

396

The respondents were enquired to estimate the

costs of RL according to the volume of sales (

Table

). Most companies (about 70%), stated costs lower

than 2% of total sales volume. While 19% of

respondents indicate that they have no knowledge on

this subject and can´t estimate a value, which reveals

a lack of visibility of total costs. However, 5% of the

companies surveyed say that RL costs are more than

10% of total sales volume. The values obtained in

general support the values presented in the literature

review. Logistica Moderna (2013) stated that 23% of

companies in Portugal had an RL cost of less than 3%

of the sales volume, while Greve and Davis (2012)

reported values close to 4%. These values are aligned

and even exceed the values of previous studies, this

allows us to assume that companies have greater

knowledge on this topic and have an optimized

system that manages the reverse flow, but on the other

hand, may show a lack of visibility by managers on

the real cost.

Table 4: Costs of reverse logistics.

Costs (% sales volume) Frequency (%)

Less than 2% 70

Not aware 19

More than 10% 5

Between 2% - 5% 5

Between 5% - 10% 2

The vast majority of respondents already have RL

software implemented and operational. On the

negative side, investment in new infrastructures

specialized in RL management and R&D on new

techniques, companies have no plans to invest in the

short term.

4.3 Adoption of RL Practices

RL encompasses all the activities in managing and

controlling the reverse flow of products from the

customer to the manufacturer, for product recovery or

proper disposal. Regarding to the frequency which

companies execute these practices, the option with

the highest score is "Proper disposal of returned

products" with 4.05, followed by "Training of

employees" with 3.81 points, on other hand the least

common practice is "Product collection" with 3.02

points, as can be seen in Table 5. The item "Resale of

returned products" was eliminated by the Cronbach's

alpha (α). The results show that there is no statistical

difference at a significance level of 5% between the

most common practices and sectors. However,

analyzing the table the most used practice in FI, CE

and AI is the "Proper disposal of returned products"

while for the Mf sector is the "Training of

employees". These results can be explained because

not all products can be easily recycled. At this stage,

the products are destroyed for lack of knowledge of

new value recovery methods and lack of training of

employees who send the product for destruction

without trying to recapture value from it.

4.4 Reason to Adopt RL

The most important reason for RL adoption perceived

by the respondents was to "Improve customer

satisfaction", with a score of 4.23, the second most

important reason was to "Reduce logistics costs" with

4 points (

Table 6). The reason perceived with least

importance to companies is the "Lifecycle of

products" with a score of 2.86. Most of the

implementation factors to RL differ from the score 3

("indifferent" in a scale of importance), except

"Reduce stocks" and "Lifecycles of Product". The

results show no significant difference (at the 5%

significance level) between the reasons to adopt RL

and sectors. By observing the values obtained, is clear

that the main reason for companies to implement RL

operations is the need to improve customer

satisfaction.

4.5 Barriers to RL Adoption

The practice of RL is not free from barriers, so

efficient management of these barriers can result in

successful RL systems. Table 7 presents the barriers

to RL adoption by sector.

The biggest barrier identified by respondents is

the "lack of strategic planning related to reverse

logistics" with 3.58. The option with the lowest score,

Table 5: Adoption of reverse logistics practices by sector.

Practices

Type of sector (Cronbach’s α = 0.62)*

Global

ANOVA

Sig.

Welch

Sig.

FI CE AI Mf

Proper disposal of returned products 4.00 4.00 4.38 3.88 4.05 0.815

Training of employees 3.73 3.40 3.88 4.25 3.81 0.313

Recapturing value from returned products 3.45 3.00 3.75 3.00 3.37 0.511

Product collection 3.00 3.20 3.50 2.50 3.02

0.184

* Values on a Likert scale of 5 points (1 - Never; 5 – Always).

Survey of Reverse Logistics Practices - The Case of Portugal

397

with 3.02 points, is the "lack of technological

systems" which reveals that for companies,

technological systems are not the reason for a non-

implementation of RL.

Most of the barriers identified differ from the

score 3 ("indifferent" in a scale of importance), except

“financial constraints” and “lack of technological

systems” with significance values less than 5%, as

can be observed by T-test. Also, the results show no

significant difference at a significance level of 5%

between the barriers and the sectors. Is possible to

see, that among the sectors studied, CE ranks with a

bigger degree of importance in the barriers "lack

strategic planning related to reverse logistics" and

"lack of training". FI identifies the lack of training of

its employees as the biggest barrier. On the other

hand, the Mf ranks budget constraints and lack of

strategic planning as most significant barriers. As for

AI the greatest barriers to RL is lack of training, lack

of interest by managers and importance of reverse

logistics in relation to other matters”

4.6 Causes Affecting Rl Performance

Measuring the performance of any system is essential

to enable improvements in management processes.

This is especially important in the management of

RL, since it is characterized by high uncertainty in the

quality, quantity and timing of the returned products,

making the performance measurement a tricky task.

The results are shown in Table 8, where we can see

that the "uneven returned product" and "difficulty in

predicting returns" have the higher scores with 3.88

and 3.83 points, respectively. On the other hand the

"marketing difficulty of products used" with 2.81, is

identified as a reason that least affects RL. "uneven

returned product", "difficulty in predicting returns",

"visibility/viability of costs" and "transportation from

many sites to one/few places" obtained a different

score of 3 ("indifferent"), as can be observed by the

T-test.

The results also reveal that there is no statistically

significant difference between the reasons and

sectors. CE sector, ranks higher on the importance

scale for the factor "uneven returned product", but the

difference in scores between this sector and the

remaining are not significant in order to extrapolate

conclusions, but it is important to note this difference.

5 CONCLUSION

This research examines the perceptions of Reverse

Logistics (RL) in Portuguese companies through a

questionnaire-based survey. The results show that

Portuguese companies considered implementing RL

Table 6: Reasons to reverse logistics adoption.

Reasons

Type of sector (Cronbach’s α = 0.83)*

Global

T-Student

Sig.**

ANOV

A Sig.

FI CE AI Mf

Improve customer satisfaction 4.23 4.40 4.13 4.25 4.23 0.000 0.947

Reduce logistics costs 4.14 3.80 3.75 4.00 4.00 0.000 0.727

Legal requirements

4.14 4.40 3.75 3.25 3.93 0.000 0.250

Recapturing value of returned products

3.73 4.00 3.50 3.88 3.74 0.000 0.803

Increasing competitiveness 3.73 4.20 3.50 3.50 3.70 0.000 0.598

Reduce stocks

3.32 3.60 3.25 3.38 3.35 0.058 0.962

Lifecycles of Product

3.09 2.40 2.88 2.50 2.86 0.421 0.474

* Values on a Likert scale of 5 points (score of 1 indicates a low importance and 5 a higher one).

** T-Student test for overall means (test value = 3 “indifference”).

Table 7: Barriers to RL adoption by sector.

Barrier

Type of sector(Cronbach’s α = 0.85)*

Global

T-Student

Sig.**

ANOVA

Sig.

FI CE AI Mf

Lack of strategic planning related to RL 3.50 3.80 3.50 3.75 3.58 0.002 0.926

Lack of training 3.64 3.80 3.63 2.88 3.51 0.002 0.197

Lack of interest by decision makers 3.41 3.60 3.63 3.63 3.51 0.012 0.956

Relations with partners 3.45 3.60 3.50 3.38 3.47 0.012 0.990

Importance of RL in relation to other issues 3.41 3.20 3.63 3.50 3.44 0.007 0.909

Financial constraints 3.05 3.60 3.38 3.75 3.30 0.108 0.501

Lack of technological systems 3.05 2.60 3.50 2.75 3.02 0.898 0.514

* Values on a Likert scale of 5 points (score of 1 indicates a low importance and 5 a higher one), α=0.85

** T-Student test for overall means (test value = 3 “Indifferent”)

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

398

Table 8: Causes that affect the realization of reverse logistics by sector.

Causes

Type of sector(Cronbach’s α = 0.82)*

Global

T-Student

Sig.**

ANOVA

Sig.

FI CE AI Mf

Uneven returned product 3.86 4.60 3.63 3.75 3.88 0.000 0.323

Difficulty in predicting returns 4.00 4.00 3.25 3.88 3.83 0.000 0.389

Visibility/Viability of costs 3.86 3.80 3.38 3.63 3.72 0.000 0.606

Transportation from many places to one/few place

3.36 3.80 3.25 3.88 3.49 0.002 0.574

Poor inventory management 3.32 3.20 3.25 3.38 3.30 0.079 0.955

Product lifecycle issues 3.32 2.80 2.75 2.75 3.05 0.789 0.364

Lack of clarity in relation to the disposal options 3.36 3.20 2.63 2.38 3.02 0.901 0.161

Difficulties in marketing used products 2.82 3.40 2.38 2.88 2.81 0.263 0.416

* Values on a Likert scale of 5 points (score of 1 indicates a low importance and 5 a higher), α=0.82

** T-Student test for overall means (test value = 3 “Indifferent”)

programs in their organization as a strategic-level

decision, as RL programs involve significant

allocation of capital and resources.

The findings show that organizations with higher

volume of returned products tend to develop expertise

in operating their RL programs, which is well aligned

with the literature. Although, the literature indicates

that economic, ecological and legislative are the

drivers that initiate RL activities, in the case of the

Portuguese companies, the adoption of RL is mainly

perceived as associated to economic benefits .

Interestingly, the findings indicated that

Portuguese companies have already invested in terms

of EDI, RL softwares, new logistic resources, etc.,

which is a good step in the right direction to adopt RL.

These findings are aligned with the literature that

consider the technologies for tracking and tracing of

products essential for successful RL programs. On the

other hand, companies do not have plans to invest in

the short term.

The main implications of this work are as follows:

 Managers need to consider integration of

collection, inspection and consolidation of used

products with forward logistics in RL

programs:

 Managers should reinforce the training of their

staff on new recovery methods in order to

reduce the destruction of returned products

without trying to recapture the value

associated;

 Enhancing customer satisfaction and reducing

logistics costs should be considered key in

improving the level of RL adoption;

 The strategic planning of RL should not be

neglected by managers;

 Companies should support RL on extended

information systems that allow the effective

exchange of information between forward flow

and reverse flow in the supply chain to ensure

good RL management.

For further work/research, it is recommended to

repeat this study, but considering a bigger sample

size. Also, it would be useful to hold interviews with

the entities and their partners in order to understand

the motivation factors and the vision that each party

provides for the implementation of RL strategies.

The present work has some limitations, mainly the

small sample size, which reduces the generalization

of the findings. However, it is believed that the work

presented expands the knowledge in the RL field by

addressing this topic in the Portuguese context thus

adding a relevant and empirical study to the literature.

REFERENCES

Aberdeen Group, 2006. Revisiting Reverse Logistics in the

Customer-Centric Service Chain.

Andel, T, 1997. Reverse logistics: a second chance to profit.

Transportation & Distribution, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 61–

66.

Barker, T. J. and Zabinsky, Z. B., 2008. Reverse logistics

network design: a conceptual framework for decision

making. International Journal of Sustainable

Engineering, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 250–260.

doi:10.1080/19397030802591196

Blanchard, D., 2007. Supply Chains Also Work In Reverse.

Industry Week, vol.1, pp. 48-49.

Brito, M. P. de and Dekker, R., 2003. A Framework for

Reverse Logistics, pp. 29. Rotterdam.

Brito, M. P. de, Dekker, R. and Flapper, S. D. P., 2005.

Reverse Logistics: A Review of Case Studies. In B.

Fleischmann & A. Klose (Eds.), Distribution Logistics,

vol. 544, pp. 243–281. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer

Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17020-1

Chan, F. T. S. and Chan, H. K., 2008. A survey on reverse

logistics system of mobile phone industry in Hong

Kong. Management Decision, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 702–

708. doi:10.1108/00251740810873464

Daugherty, P. J., Richey, R. G., Genchev, S. E. and Chen,

H., 2005. Reverse logistics: Superior performance

through focused resource commitments to information

technology. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics

Survey of Reverse Logistics Practices - The Case of Portugal

399

and Transportation Review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 77–92.

doi:10.1016/j.tre.2004.04.002

Du, F. and Evans, G. W., 2008. A bi-objective reverse

logistics network analysis for post-sale service.

Computers & Operations Research, vol. 35, no. 8, pp.

2617–2634. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2006.12.020

Greve, C., and Davis, J. (2012). Recovering lost profits by

improving reverse logistics. UPS White paper.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. and Anderson, R. E.,

2010. Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall. New

Jersey, 7

edition.

Kypri, K., Stephenson, S. and Langley, J., 2004.

Assessment of Nonresponse Bias in an Internet Survey

of Alcohol Use. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental

Research, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 630–634.

doi:10.1097/01.ALC.0000121654.99277.26

Logistica Moderna., 2013. Estudo Supply Chain em

Portugal, pp. 70–73.

Morrel, A. L., 2001. ‘The forgotten child of the supply

chain’. Modern Materials Handling, vol. 56, pp. 33–36.

Pokharel, S. and Mutha, A., 2009. Perspectives in reverse

logistics: A review. Resources, Conservation and

Recycling, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 175–182.

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.11.006

Prahinski, C. and Kocabasoglu, C., 2006. Empirical

research opportunities in reverse supply chains. Omega,

vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 519–532.

doi:10.1016/j.omega.2005.01.003

Ravi, V. and Shankar, R., 2005. Analysis of interactions

among the barriers of reverse logistics. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 72, no. 8, pp.

1011–1029. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2004.07.002

Ravi, V. and Shankar, R., 2015. Survey of reverse logistics

practices in manufacturing industries: an Indian

context. Benchmarking: An International Journal, vol.

22, no. 5, pp. 874–899. doi:10.1108/BIJ-06-2013-0066

Rogers, D. and Tibben-Lembke, R. (1998). Going

Backwards : Reverse Logistics Trends and Practices.

Reverse Logistics Executive Council.

Rubio, S., Chamorro, A. and Miranda, F. J., 2008.

Characteristics of the research on reverse logistics

(1995–2005). International Journal of Production

Research, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1099–1120.

doi:10.1080/00207540600943977

Savaskan, R. C. and Van Wassenhove, L. N., 2006. Reverse

Channel Design: The Case of Competing Retailers.

Management Science, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–14.

doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0454

Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K. and Bryant, A. N., 2003.

Assessing Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in

Web and Paper Surveys. Research in Higher

Education, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 409–432.

doi:10.1023/A:1024232915870

Silva, D. A. L., Santos Renó, G. W., Sevegnani, G.,

Sevegnani, T. B. and Serra Truzzi, O. M., 2013.

Comparison of disposable and returnable packaging: a

case study of reverse logistics in Brazil. Journal of

Cleaner Production, vol. 47, pp. 377–387.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.057

Smith, A., 2005. Reverse logistics programs: gauging their

effects on CRM and online behavior. VINE, vol. 35, no.

3, pp. 166–181. doi:10.1108/03055720510634216

Tibben-Lembke, R. S., 2002. Life after death: reverse

logistics and the product life cycle. International

Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 223–244. Retrieved

from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/0960

0030210426548

Tibben-Lembke, R. S. and Rogers, D. S., 2002. Differences

between forward and reverse logistics in a retail

environment. Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 271–282.

doi:10.1108/13598540210447719

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

400