Reverse-Logistics Strategy for Product Take-Back

Markus Klausner, Chris Hendrickson

INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics · 2000 · 235 citations · 1 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Product take‑back of consumer goods is costly, with German power‑tool programs showing costs that exceed recycling revenues, highlighting the need for continuous flows of returned items. The study develops a model to determine optimal buy‑back spending and reverse‑logistics unit costs, aiming to make take‑back policies more attractive by combining profitable remanufacturing with less profitable recycling. The model controls the flow of end‑of‑life products by buying them back and applies empirical data from the German power‑tool program to optimize the buy‑back amount and unit cost. The analysis shows that remanufacturing profits can offset recycling losses and reverse‑logistics costs, enabling manufacturers to earn a profit.

Abstract

Product take-back of consumer products is generally expensive, especially reverse logistics. In the take-back program for power tools in Germany, costs exceed revenues for recycling power tools. Systematic analysis of take-back alternatives can make take-back policies more attractive. For example, an alternative take-back system for power tools would combine profitable remanufacturing and unprofitable materials recycling. The profit from remanufacturing could cover the loss from recycling as well as the costs of reverse logistics, allowing the manufacturer a profit. Remanufacturing requires a continuous flow of returned postconsumer products. By buying back end-of-life products, firms could control the flow of returned products. We developed a model that allows us to determine the optimal amount to spend on buy-back and the optimal unit cost of reverse logistics. We can use the latter to select a suitable reverse-logistics system for end-of-life products. We apply our model to the remanufacturing take-back concept for power tools, using empirical data on the current take-back program.

References

1