Conference Agenda

Reverse logistics in the form of product returns severely impact ecological systems, deplete natural resources and exacerbate climate change. Approximately 25% of all returned goods ultimately end up in landfills. In e-commerce, return rates can soar to 30%, presenting a critical financial and operational challenge for online retailers.

Because generous return policies serve as vital risk-reduction mechanisms for consumers and offer retailers a distinct competitive advantage, outright banning returns is unfeasible. Therefore, the viable path forward is to mitigate the negative environmental externalities of these policies. While existing reverse logistics literature predominantly adopts an operations- or retailer-centric perspective, this study addresses a critical gap by integrating the under-researched consumer standpoint into sustainable supply chain discourse.

Grounded in the Techniques of Neutralization Theory, this study examines how consumers utilize neutralization techniques, cognitive rationalizations that justify deviant behaviors and mitigate guilt, to excuse frequent product returns despite being aware of their environmental degradation. Incorporating return policy type (lenient vs. restrictive) as a categorical moderator, empirical data was collected via two distinct questionnaires from 348 consumers with active product return experience (160 under lenient policy conditions; 188 under restrictive conditions).

Partial Least Squares (PLS) structural equation modeling reveals that personal return rationales (e.g., impulse buying, change of mind) trigger a wider array of neutralization techniques than product-related rationales (e.g., defects, poor quality). Across both policy frameworks, personal rationales led consumers to actively invoke condemning the condemners (arguing that the accusers have ulterior motives and thus in no position to make the accusation), denial of injury (arguing that no harm is associated with the return), metaphor of the ledger (arguing that return is fine because enough good deeds on environment protection have already been done), and defense of necessity (arguing that the return is necessary) techniques. Conversely, product-related rationales only prompted the defense of necessity technique under restrictive policy environments.

Furthermore, PLS-multigroup analysis (PLS-MGA) demonstrates that the influence of personal rationales on condemning the condemners and denial of injury is significantly stronger under lenient return policies than restrictive ones.

This study contributes to sustainability and behavioral literature by extending the Techniques of Neutralization Theory to the domain of green reverse logistics. It shifts the analytical focus from macro-level supply chain mechanics to micro-level consumer psychology, illustrating how corporate policy environments influence moral disengagement. By identifying policy leniency as a structural catalyst for cognitive rationalization, the study clarifies the socio-psychological barriers to sustainable consumer behavior and eco-responsible supply chains.

For e-retailers and supply chain managers aiming to build environmental resilience, these findings demonstrate that overly lenient return policies inadvertently alleviate consumer guilt regarding carbon footprints and waste. To counter this, managers should design targeted digital nudges, such as real-time environmental impact prompts during the online return process, to disrupt consumer rationalizations. Furthermore, strategically tightening policies for impulse-driven purchases while maintaining flexibility for genuine product defects can structurally reduce return volumes without eroding core customer goodwill.