The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Manufacturer's Return Policies and Retail Competition
Abstract
Manufacturers' returns policies are a common feature in the distribution of many products. The obvious rationale for returns policies is insurance. Practitioners, not surprisingly, have a different perspective and view returns as a cost of doing business. In this paper, we study the strategic effect of returns policies on retail competition and highlight its profitability implications for a manufacturer. The setting for our research is the distribution of products with uncertain demand, limited shelf lives, and retail competition. Our objective is to provide a better understanding of when manufacturers should adopt returns policies. The insights are obtained with a model based on the economics of strategy and decision making under uncertainty. We show that when retailing is competitive and there is no uncertainty in demand, a returns policy subtly induces retailers to compete more intensely. The provision of a returns policy reduces retail prices without affecting wholesale prices, thereby reducing retailer margins and improving manufacturer profitability. The intuition is that with a returns policy, Cournot-like levels of retail stocks cannot be sustained. Each retailer will order stocks so that it will not be constrained by stocks, and so, intensifying retail competition. When, however, demand is uncertain and there is a single retailer, a returns policy encourages the retailer to over-stock, and so decreases (upstream) manufacturer profits. While the provision of a returns policy leads to lower retail margins, the optimality of returns policy depends on the overall uncertainty and marginal cost. A returns policy reduces the dispersion in retail prices between the high and low states of demand and the range of retail prices in the returns case is contained within the range of retail prices for the no-returns case. In the general setting, when there are competing retailers and demand is uncertain, there is a trade-off for the manufacturer between the benefits (more intense retail competition) and the costs (excessive stocking) of a returns policy. We find that a manufacturer should accept returns when the marginal production cost is sufficiently low and demand uncertainty is not too great. To validate the results of our theory, we conduct an empirical test with data from a major U.S. retailer. The tests confirm our prediction that a returns policy intensifies retail competition and reduces retailer margins. Our theory and empirical test should interest practitioners and researchers in distribution, especially those concerned with managing retail competition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Wood, S. L. (2001) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.157.18847 · Cited by 434
Are Product Returns a Necessary Evil? Antecedents and Consequences
Petersen, J. A., & Kumar, V. (2009) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.3.035 · Cited by 346
Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals
Stremersch, S., Camacho, N., Vanneste, S., & Verniers, I. (2015) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.09.004 · Cited by 102
Optimal Pricing, Ordering, and Return Policies for Consumer Goods
Ketzenberg, M. E., & Zuidwijk, R. A. (2009) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2009.01017.x · Cited by 83
Tandon, U., Mittal, A., & Manohar, S. (2021) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-020-00436-1 · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- Padmanabhan, V., & Png, I. P. L.
- Venue
- Marketing Science
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 81-94
- ISSN
- 0732-2399 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-548X
- OpenAlex
- W1989229635
- Cited by
- 466
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Manufacturer's Return Policies and Retail Competition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mksc.16.1.81
- The paper
- Padmanabhan, V., & Png, I. P. L. (1997). Manufacturer's Return Policies and Retail Competition. Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.16.1.81
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.