Free and easy returns are a standard expectation, and the reverse logistics behind them are expensive and produce outcomes most customers would not expect.
The scale
Return rates in online retail are substantially higher than in physical shops, and in some categories such as clothing they are very high indeed.
Which produces an enormous volume of goods flowing backwards through supply chains that were built to move forwards.
Processing a return — receiving, inspecting, repackaging, restocking — costs a meaningful proportion of the item's value, and for low-value items it can exceed it.
Why some items are not resold
The economic logic.
Where the cost of inspecting and repackaging exceeds the item's resale value, the rational decision is to dispose of it rather than process it.
Which means low-value goods are frequently written off rather than restocked, and this has been documented by journalists and by campaign organisations.
Some are liquidated in bulk to secondary market buyers, some are donated, and some are destroyed.
Destruction of returned and unsold goods has attracted regulatory attention, and some jurisdictions have introduced restrictions or reporting requirements.
Where returned goods actually go
Several routes.
Restocked and resold as new, where the item is unopened and undamaged.
Sold as open box or refurbished, at a discount, which is the route that produces the refurbished market discussed elsewhere.
Sold in bulk to liquidators, who sell pallets to secondary retailers and to individuals, generally unsorted and unverified.
Donated, which is genuine and has tax implications that make it attractive.
And disposed of, which is the outcome that receives most criticism.
What this means for buying
Several practical implications.
An item sold as new may have been returned and restocked, which is normal and is why checking that packaging is intact on arrival is worthwhile.
Open box items are frequently genuinely unused returns at a real discount, which is among the better value available in retail.
And liquidation pallets sold to consumers are a genuinely poor proposition, since the contents are unverified and the proportion of unusable items is high.
The policy tightening
A trend worth noting since it affects expectations.
Several large retailers have shortened return windows, introduced return fees, or restricted returns from customers with high return rates.
The stated reasons are cost and, increasingly, environmental impact.
Which means the era of universally free returns is narrowing, and checking the policy before ordering is becoming necessary rather than optional.
Statutory rights to return remain unaffected where they apply, and they are narrower than most retailer policies.
The statutory position
Worth distinguishing from retailer generosity.
Many jurisdictions provide a cooling-off period for distance purchases, during which goods can be returned without a reason, typically around a fortnight.
This generally does not apply to goods bought in person, to certain categories such as perishables and personalised items, and to items that have been used beyond assessment.
Separately, rights to reject faulty goods apply regardless of any return policy and are considerably stronger.
Retailer policies are frequently more generous than the statutory minimum, which is a commercial choice and is revocable.
Reducing your own returns
Which addresses the problem at source.
Measuring rather than guessing on clothing and furniture.
Reading the specification rather than the image.
Ordering one size rather than several with the intention of returning, which is a widespread practice and is the single largest contributor to clothing return volumes.
And checking the return arrangement before ordering, since a return that is impractical is a purchase you are stuck with.
None of that is a moral instruction so much as a description of where the cost ultimately goes, which is into prices.
The environmental argument
Which has become part of the policy conversation.
Returns generate transport emissions in both directions, packaging waste, and disposal of goods that cannot economically be resold.
Several retailers have cited this in introducing return fees, which is a genuine consideration and also happens to reduce a substantial cost.
The measure that would address it most is better information at the point of purchase — accurate sizing, detailed specifications, honest imagery — since most returns are the result of the item not being what the buyer expected.
Restocking fees
A charge that has become more common and is disclosed in terms.
Some retailers apply a percentage restocking fee on returns of certain categories, particularly large items, opened electronics and special orders.
Where a statutory right to return applies, the permitted deductions are generally defined by law and are narrower than a discretionary restocking fee.
Which means a fee applied to a statutory return may not be lawful, and it is worth checking the position rather than accepting the deduction.
Open box as the buyer's opportunity
The other side of the returns problem.
Genuine unused returns sold as open box are frequently the best value in retail, since the discount reflects the packaging rather than the product.
What to establish is whether accessories are complete, what warranty applies, and whether the item was returned faulty or unwanted.
Retailers with their own open box programmes generally state this, and the discount on an unwanted return is a straightforward saving with very little risk.