Product returns – interdisciplinary interfaces between
knowledge, quality and product innovation management
Alena Klapalová
Department of Corporate Economy, Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk
University, Lipová 41a, 60200 Brno, Czech Republic, klapalov@econ.muni.cz
Michal Krčál
Department of Corporate Economy, Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk
University, Lipová 41a, 60200 Brno, Czech Republic, michal.krcal@mail.muni.cz
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to review existing research on intersections of four
disciplines, specifically knowledge, quality and product innovation management related to the
consumers´ product returns within the reverse logistics (reverse supply chain management)
discipline to identify gaps justifying further research activities. The primary aim of this
review is to summarize and evaluate existing literature pertaining the above-mentioned areas
of interest and to formulate potential research streams dedicated to the intersections that
would help to unify management practices.
Design/methodology/approach: Literature review of English-written peer-reviewed journal
articles was conducted in two scientific databases: Web of Science and SCOPUS. Multiple
keyword combinations were used for search to ensure potential intersections.
Findings: Identified state of the art in the literature shows that the existing intersections do
not link all four disciplines and that linkages exist only between two disciplines. It is evident
that only very weak interdisciplinarity exists in theory.
Research limitations/implications: A key limitation is that the paper is based primarily on
review of articles accessible in two databases. Both research and managerial implications
result from the review. The outcomes can assist researchers and managers to better understand
the link between the disciplines and individual functions in organizations and to promote the
integration of methods, tools and practices that potentially can lead to needed knowledge
integration across organizations.
Originality/value: The paper identifies gaps in the literature concerning the needed
interdisciplinary linkages between four disciplines as well as key drivers for interdisciplinarity
in research in the aforementioned four areas if interest.
Keywords: product returns, knowledge, quality and innovation management,
interdisciplinarity interface
Paper type: Literature review
1. Introduction
The volume of reverse flows of products, packaging and waste has been dramatically
increasing over the last few decades as a consequence of consumption growth induced by the
rise of purchasing power in many countries as well as by other drivers, e.g. intense global
competitiveness, growing customer expectations and pressures on profitability (Aquino et al,
2013). Consumers worldwide return goods of value $642.6 billion annually according to IHL
Group research (Berthiaume, 2015).
Product returns or product reverse flows represent a serious problem for many companies;
they are not their primary goal as their handling and management is rather costly and
demanding (Trebilcock, 2001). However, besides acting as the problem they might be also the
“holder” of information, providing feedback or signalling that something is going wrong or
away from the goals and aims of the company (Genchev et al., 2010). Such feedback should
be managed consciously and purposely and the best way is to use practice of knowledge
management. Knowledge management could help to know the reasons why consumers are not
satisfied with products and why product returns emerge as well as how to incorporate such
knowledge into product improvements (incremental innovation) or into new product
development (radical innovation) (Bhaskaran, 2006).
Knowledge about customers ‘needs, wants and expectations serves as the primary input
into the “spiral of progress in quality” which Juran and Gryna describes as the „crossfunctional
flow involved in the “development” of a new product” (in Gryna et al, eds, 2007, p.
19.1). Knowledge about experience and evaluation of products should represent a second-tier
input in this spiral as a feedback to help to improve product features or to help develop new
features or totally new product that would better meet expectations. To sum it up, information
why customers (or consumers) let products in reverse flows should be a feedback and an
important piece of knowledge for quality management together with product development or
innovation management to think about product improvement or new product development to
avoid future product returns or to minimise them, at least, through well designed and well
managed knowledge in the organization.
Such interconnections sound logical, nevertheless the question is, how this is reflected in
theory. Origins of each discipline are rather different in a sense of time of origin, breadth and
depth of development, field or background and focus together with its own methods and tools
applied in practice and the level of practical application of theories. While quality and
innovation management and the same can be written about reverse logistics (or reverse supply
chain management) or returns management used to be managed as to less or higher extent
functional domain in the organization (Holland et al, 2000; Beer, 2003; Mollenkopf et al,
2007) – even though such approach is far from to be ideal - knowledge management cannot
be applied as specific organizational function (Guptara, 1999). But still more authors point to
the strong need for multi or cross-functional integration and cooperation as many processes in
organizations cannot be managed effectively and efficiently to assure sustainable
competitiveness without such mutual effort (Lee and Dale, 1998; Sussan and Johnson, 2003).
The same can be concluded about the need to link all the four disciplines discussed in this
paper, however to the authors´ best knowledge this need is not echoed in academic writing.
The purpose of this paper is thus to provide literature research and specifically to:
• find out if any intersection of given four disciplines exist in the literature
• ascertain if and what linkages exist across these four disciplines
• classify existing knowledge, intersections and linkages
• explore the gaps in current research and suggest a research agenda for future work.
2. Theoretical background
This study tries to find the intersections between Knowledge Management (KM), Quality
Management (QM), Product Innovation Management (PIM), and Reverse Logistics (RL) in
the context of product returns (PR) within the discipline of reverse logistics (RL) (reverse
supply chain management respectively (RSCM)). The following text describes the disciplines’
important concepts needed for subsequent discussion of their joint connections to the product
returns as well as the concept and understanding of product returns itself.
2.1 Product returns (PR)
PR returned by consumers are defined by Yalabik et al (2005) as the taking-back of sold
products from consumers due to their dissatisfaction with the product with the money-back
guarantees provided by the manufacturer or the retailer. A similar definition describes
consumer returns as the “products that are purchased by the consumer from the manufacturer
or a retailer and then returned for a refund within the time window allowed by the return
policy” (Pince et al, 2016, p. 476). Time scope but no refunding is content of the definition
given by Souza et al (2005, p. 1) where commercial product returns are defined as “products
returned for any reason within 90 days of sale”.
Several reasons cause that consumers are disposing or returning the products: reverse flows
arise due to product failures, product damaged during the delivery, wrong delivery,
incomplete shipments, and due to lower than expected product quality, or just when consumer
is not satisfied (Lee, 2015); due to shortening product life cycle and product proliferation,
consumer fraud supported by the liberal return policies of retailers and impulse buying (Kang
and Johnson, 2009); due to increasing product complexity and growing “throwaway society”
(Cooper, 2005); due to the fact that product does not meet the expectations (Bernon et al,
2011; Rogers, Lembke and Bernardino, 2013); due to poor information quality about the
product and its use (Ferguson et al., 2006) and due to the unavailability of spare parts or repair
services (Cooper, 2010). Often new products (as the result of product innovation processes)
become returned (Schneider and Hall, 2011).
All the causes are directly linked to QM as well as K a IM and hint at the complexity and
ambiguity (multidimensionality) of the quality concept and quality perception in terms of both
product and process dimension (Hjorth-Anderson, 1984).
PR present the most typical flow of organisational processes and function which is reverse
logistics and reverse supply chain management (Closed loop supply chain management CLSM
- respectively). Rogers and Tibben-Lembke (1998, p. 2) define RL as ‘the process of
planning, implementing, and controlling the efficient, cost-effective flow of raw materials, inprocess
inventory, finished goods and related information from the point of consumption to
the point of origin for the purpose of recapturing value or proper disposal’. Prahinski and
Kocabasoglu (2006, p. 519) delineate between RL and RSCM. In their view RL management
focuses on transportation, warehousing and inventory management activities while RSCM
stands for “the effective and efficient management of the series of activities required to
retrieve a product from a customer and either dispose of it or recover value.” Closed loop
supply chain management (Govindan et al, 2015, p. 604) is define as “is the design, control,
and operation of a system to maximize value creation over the entire life cycle of a product
with dynamic recovery of value from different types and volumes of returns over time.“ The
crucial points from the definitions are that together with product there are also other important
types of flows, especially financial one and even more significant is the information flow. The
second point is the understanding of an economic substance of reverse logistics. As
mentioned above, RL processes are rather costly, require additional resources and need
management attention and activities. The task for management is to manage it, if necessary,
with the notion of some benefits or value recovery. This is strategic and whole organization
task with the involvement of other partners in supply chain together with some involvement
of customers (Daugherty et al, 2005; Richey et al, 2005; Álvarez-Gil et al, 2007).
2.2 Knowledge Management (KM)
Darroch and McNaughton (2002, p. 2011) define KM as „the management function that
creates or locates knowledge, manages the flow of knowledge and ensures that knowledge is
used effectively and efficiently for the long-term benefit of the organization”. The Cranfield
study (1998) identifies ten KM processes: creating new knowledge, finding knowledge
internally, acquiring knowledge externally, having or keeping the knowledge together with
protecting the knowledge, processing the knowledge, re-using the knowledge, applying the
knowledge to some benefit, updating knowledge, sharing knowledge internally, and sharing
knowledge outside the organization. Efficient and effective management of these processes
helps organizations to gain and sustain competitive advantage (Schulze and Jobe, 1998). As
Smith (2011) states, the major challenge and the most difficult task is to recognize and to
select the right information from numerous sources and transform it into useful knowledge
and keep it for the potential future reuse. Reasons to return product can be documented, so
they may be of explicit nature, however due to the existing KM system, they also may be only
in the heads of customers or some employees who process them within the RL and RSC and
so to have implicit nature (Nonaka, 2008). Knowledge about product returns has in the
beginning the character of external knowledge that should be joint to existing internal
knowledge, so KM benefits innovation processes through the integration of external and
internal knowledge to the company (du Plessis, 2007).
2.3 Quality Management (QM)
Flynn et al (1994, p. 341) define QM as “an integrated approach to achieving and sustaining
high quality output, focusing on the maintenance and continuous improvement of processes
and defect prevention at all levels and in all functions of the organization, in order to meet or
exceed customer expectations”. From the definition it is evident that one of the main goals of
QM is to have satisfied (and loyal) customer and implicitly another goal is to avoid returns.
Flynn et al (1994) also stress the role of QM in product design because product failures are
most often caused by quality issues not satisfactory incorporated in product design.
QM in companies reflects the level of knowledge, competencies and skills, as well as the
values and attitudes of the managers and employees. The concrete approach to QM can vary
considerably (Talib et al., 2011). Knowledge, competencies, skills and values and attitudes
influence the scope and horizon, i.e. if QM would represent just quality inspection (narrow
focus) or quality is understood and managed through the lens of Total Quality Management
(TQM). TQM incorporates the philosophy of continuous improvement and the dominant role
of customers in managing all organizational processes (Kanyak, 2003). Colurcio (2009) based
on the results of multiple case study research confirms that TQM is an effective enabler of
knowledge generation or creation and dissemination because it provides policies and tools as
for instance involvement of all employees, teamwork, feedback mechanisms, and
communication that are inherently useful to create and spread and share the knowledge.
2.3 Product Innovation Management (PIM)
PIM is defined as “a continuous and cross-functional process involving and integrating a
growing number of different competencies inside and outside the organisational
boundaries”...which transforms business opportunities into tangible products and services
(Cormican and O’Sullivan, 2004, p. 821). Concept of PIM is broader as new product
development as it includes also small product adaptation, changes or improvements.
Honarpour et al (2017) in their recent survey argue that it is especially TQM and KM
among all the factors that affect innovation that have attracted a notable consideration in
scholarly researches. Both disciplines have been evaluated as being long-lasting practices for
attaining competitive advantage and to enable innovation. Results of their study show that
KM should have an increased chance of success through a TQM focus if applied and the
effective use of knowledge towards innovation.
3. Methodology
This literature review did not follow strictly the protocol for systematic literature review (see
Fink, 2014; Tate et al. 2015) however the initial search phase was conducted in a systematic
way. For the search we used citation indexing databases Web of Science (WOS) and
SCOPUS. Both databases have been chosen for their high level of rigorousness.
We also established several inclusion/exclusion criteria. Only peer-reviewed journal
articles and articles in press written in English were included into the search process since
peer-reviewed journal articles are considered to bring validated knowledge and authoritative
statements within the fields of interest (Ardito et al, 2015). Content of topics (in Web of
Science) and content of article titles, abstracts and keywords in SCOPUS were analysed. We
also excluded articles with subject area focused on mathematics, energy and chemical
engineering as we want to focus on texts related to management issues of given four
disciplines. We excluded articles not dealing with product returns in the context of quality,
innovation or knowledge management aspect directly or indirectly as well as articles that were
focused on optimisation and modelling.
The search of the papers was structured into several phases. First, attempt to find
intersections of all four disciplines lead to the combination of following search paths using the
AND operator: “reverse logistics”, “reverse supply chain”, “return management”, “innovation
management”, “product innovation management, product return(s)”, “quality management”
and “knowledge management”. Another variants included “new product development”,
“product development”, “product design”, “product redesign”, “product improvement”,
“improvement”, “total quality management”, “TQM”. During the second phase, search for
intersection of three disciplines was realized and within the last phase search for the
intersection of two disciplines was done where phrases “product return(s)”, “returns” and
“returns management” were employed in combination with other phrases and words from the
list above. Content analysis of abstracts and texts of the papers has been done during the third
and fourth phase.
4.Results
The results of the analysis of the reviewed articles are summarized in the Table 1. For each
paper, we identified methodology (qualitative, quantitative, mixed, and theoretical) together
with used research methods and strategies. The papers are categorised according to the
disciplines (described in the Theoretical background section; the brackets contain disciplines
that were not part of the research goal) they cover. Moreover, we described the purpose or
goal and contribution and implication of the analysed papers.
Table I Classification of literature interdisciplinarity interface
Paper Methodology Discipline Purpose Contribution/Implications
Aitken and
Harrison
(2013)
mixed
(existing
framework
testing, case
study,
interviews,
content
analysis of
documents)
RL
PR
KM
QM
to examine the
changes in governance
structures during RL
systems development
framework development for
governance structure
assessment to implement
RL with 6 factors (KM and
quality assurance)
Bernon and
Cullen (2007)
mixed (case
study,
interviews,
survey, focus
group, content
analysis of
documents)
RL
QM
PR
literature development
on reverse logistics
and development of a
framework for supply
chain integration
product QM programmes
should be developed on
strategic level as quality is
one of the main drivers for
PR; necessity to work with
quality costing to evaluate
the trade-offs of quality
control costs against the
costs of customer returns of
non-conforming products
Bernon et al
(2011)
Literature
review and
PR
RL
to present a conceptual
framework for
expanded understanding of
quality in PR (+ packaging
repeated
interviews
with supply
chain experts
QM managing retail RL
operations
materials, instruction
manuals and consumables
and quality of information
gained at the point of
return.
Need of management
reporting and accounting
(quality costing),
organisational integration –
functional, supplier and
customer integration
(training of store personnel
to provide support to
customers to purchase the
correct product and give
information relating to
proper use, easy to use
instructions and customer
help lines)
Bernon et al
(2013)
case study, indepth
semi
structured
interview,
walk-through
observations
PR
QM
PIM
„to empirically
explore supply chain
integration (SCI)
enabling
practices, their
benefits and barriers
in a retail product
returns process
context“ (p. 586)
the role of call centre to
keep and share good quality
of information linked to
return process and returned
products and of crossfunctional
integrated team
(product development and
product engineering);
importance of a formal set
of routines and processes
for a continuous review of
call centre data to analyse
and identify engineering
modifications to products;
enterprise resource system
to capture data related to
product quality issues from
customers that enables to
share routinely information
and data from call centre to
product development,
product engineering and the
quality department.
Dowlatshahi
(2005)
grounded
theory
development,
literature
review
and multiple
case study
analysis
RL
PR
QM
(PIM)
(KM)
to identify the present
state of theory in RL
by formulating the
propositions for
strategic factors and
sub-factors and to
develop a framework
for effective design
and implementation of
remanufacturing/
recycling operations
which allows for the
determination of the
the effectiveness of a RL
system is based on its
ability to use the existing
manufacturing resources,
processes, technologies,
and knowledge for
remanufacturing purposes.
Such system enables
product redesign and part
standardization issues could
be considered for further
evaluation and
improvements. Quality
viability of returned
products/parts in the
RL system
assessment of returned
products is one of the
strategic factor for
remanufacturing/recycling
operations.
Fassoula
(2005)
conceptual
paper and
literature
review
PR
QM
“to clarify how the
impact of reverse
logistics management
on cost of quality can
be quantified,
measured and
systematically
monitored by a
diagnostic too and to
explain the way
quality management
can incorporate most
aspects of reverse
logistics to achieve
process improvement
and an increase in
customer satisfaction”
(p. 631 – 632)
diagnostic tool
development and practical
guidelines to employ
quality costing into RL
processes
Gaur et al
(2016)
survey and
AHP
PR
QM
conceptual framework
introducing
consumers´
disposition behaviour
in CLSC setting
framework with tested
components can enhance
acquisition of higher
quality cores of product
returns in CLSC
Gehin et al
(2008)
conceptual
paper,
review
(PR)
PIM
to suggest new
tool to coordinate
supply chain and to
develop and design
tool REPRO for product
design and redesign
utilising end-of life
products
Guide and
Wassenhove
(2001)
literature
review
and
case study
PR
QM
to understand
relationship between
quality of product
returns, acquisition
management and cost
of remanufacturing
framework for profitability
of remanufacturing activity
analysis, suggestion of
nominal quality of PR
grading and explanation of
the product acquisition
management substance
Huang and
Yang (2014)
survey to examine the
relationship between
RL innovation and
environmental and
economic performance
through the lenses of
institutional theory
and to find out how
institutional pressures
moderate these
relationships
Several RL innovation
criteria were tested to
confirm impact of RL
innovation on firm´s
performance
Kumar
(2014)
Case study RL
PR
QM
“to develop a
knowledge
management
framework with
stress the importance of
formal KM and develop
and test KM framework
with the involvement of
Failure Mode Effects
and Criticality
Analysis (FMECA)
decision model” (p.
5326)
FMECA method of QM
Mollenkopf
et al (2007a)
survey PR
(P)IM
QM
to explore how firms’
returns management
systems affect
loyalty intentions and
to develop a
model
findings can help managers
to choose and decide when
investing in the returns
management system as an
element of service quality
improvement and a
potential means of
improved profitability
Mollenkopf
et al (2011)
case study PR
OM
PIM
KM
exploration of the
returns management
phenomenon across a
multi-disciplinary
managerial spectrum
and investigation of
cross-functional
integration between
marketing -operations
with the impact on
customer value
evaluation of the
importance of supplier
know.how (knowledge),
product quality and
operations management
dimensions as returns
management customer
value driver and
confirmation of the
importance of marketingoperations
cross-functional
integration
Mukherjee
and Mondal
(2009)
case study
and
Interpretive
Structural
Model (ISM)
RL
PM
PIM
(KM)
to study the
relationships among
key issues pertaining
to management of
remanufacturing
process and to extract
insights relevant to
managerial decision-
making
factors related to product
design and expertise of
employees play very
important role and trigger
activation of other issues in
remanufacturing
Ramani et al
(2010)
conceptual
paper,
literature
review
PR
RL
PIM
QM
to provide a map of
the primary drivers,
ongoing research, and
future needs for
researchers, educators,
and practitioners and
to provide foresight
into gaps that are
emerging in realizing
the quest for more
sustainable products
review of Quality Function
Deployment and checklist
utilisation within empirical
research for early ecoproduct
design to reduce
product returns
Ramirez and
Moráles
(2011);
Ramirez
(2012)
and Ramirez
and
Girdauskiene
(2013)
survey RL
KM
to analyse the
relationship between
the creation of RL
knowledge and the
importance of RL,
costs of RL, flexibility
and impact on RL
performance
Relationship between SECI
model of KM and RL and
SECI model, flexibility of
information distribution
and RL and importance of
RL knowledge creation for
RL performance
Smith (2005) review and PR to provide description of RL processes
survey
conceptual
paper
RL
KM
(QM)
practitioners of KM
with a sense of the
importance of RL as
an important part of a
company policies
throughout the product
life cycle and
explanation of the
effects on customer
relation management
(CRM) and
satisfaction (p. 166)
and drivers and CRM as
one of driver within a
knowledge-based system
Tibben-
Lembke
(2002)
conceptual
paper,
literature
review
PR
IM
QM
study on the utilization
of product life cycle
concept for RL
exploration of individual
phases of product life cycle
(together with quality
issues) and application of
knowledge for different RL
and operations decision
making, e.g. product
development, redesign,
improvement.
Skinner et al
(2008)
in-depth
interviews
and survey
PR
QM
(KM)
“examine the impact
that different
disposition
strategies have on
strategic performance
in the reverse
logistics” and
“the role of the returns
policy in the customer
decision-making
process as a
foundation for
determining
the appropriate
disposition strategy”
(p. 518)
return policy and especially
in the term of operational
service quality is assurance
of quality in the eyes of
consumers. Operational
service quality dimension
of performance (parameters
of efficiency and
timeliness) was tested in
model
5. Discussion and limitations
It seems that the intersection of knowledge, quality, product innovation management, and
product returns (RL or RSCM aspect) is still yet to be found. Most of the articles we have
found focus only on two or three researched areas. As can be seen from the overview,
probably the intersection of PM and KM and QM may be described as the most popular one.
However, the interface is often rather vague and the interest of the authors is usually
concentrated on one domain while the other play role of the context or supporting factors.
Except two papers (Ramani et al, 2010 and Kumar, 2014) there is no evidence of the
employment of methods and tools from the individual domain in product returns management.
Only two papers (Ramirez and Moráles, 2011 and Ramirez and Girdauskiene, 2013) join
specific approach of KM with RL more in depth (SECI model). Although the goal of this
paper was to examine the PIM, KM, QM, and product returns perspective together, we did not
find any such article.
There are several limitations of the paper. First, only two databases have been investigated
and so some other existing papers are omitted. Second, due to the limited extent of conference
paper, systematic review could not be presented. However, the core findings would be the
same. Third, due to the complexity of the research goal and fragmentation of concepts within
all four domains there is possibility that we omitted some papers in the databases that deal
with our topic.
6. Conclusion
Even though our review shows very weak evidence of intersection of knowledge, there are
several calls for integration and coordination of practices from these areas due to the strong
interdisciplinary and cross-functional nature of reverse logistics and interdependency with
various functions across internal and external business processes (Dowlatshahi,2000;
Jayraman and Luo, 2007; Meade et al, 2007; Mollenkopf et al, 2007b; Li and Olorunniwo,
2008). Integration must be based on knowledge of the importance of mutual linkages and
benefits of such intersections.
Future research thus should be devoted to the exploration of specific approaches, methods,
tools and techniques within PR and RL/RSCM to avoid, reduce or solve product returns in
harmony with the strategic goals of organisations and needs and wants of their stakeholders.
Acknowledgement
This paper was prepared thanks to the Research Project No GA16- 16-16260S „Přístup
management k redukci zpětných toků ve vazbě na spokojenost zákazníků a neustálé
zlepšování“ funded by the Grant Agency, Czech Republic.
References
Aitken, J. and Harrison, A. (2013), “Supply governance structures for reverse logistics
systems” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp.745-764.
Ardito, L., Messeni Petruzzelli, A. and Albino, V. (2015) “From technological inventions to
new products: A systematic review and research agenda of the main enabling
factors”, European Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 113-147.
Aquino, M. B. D., Balieiro, T. D. J., Gomes, A. A. and Faria, M. A. D. (2013), “The reverse
logistics as an environmental tool integrated to environmental management system for an
effective management of solid industrial waste”, Progress in Industrial Ecology, an
International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 205-220.
Álvarez-Gil, M. J., Berrone, P., Husillos, F. J. and Lado, N. (2007), “Reverse logistics,
stakeholders' influence, organizational slack, and managers' posture”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 463-473.
Bhaskaran, S. (2006), “Incremental innovation and business performance: small and medium‐
size food enterprises in a concentrated industry environment”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 64-80.
Beer, M. (2003), “Why total quality management programs do not persist: the role of
management quality and implications for leading a TQM transformation”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 623-642.
Bernon, M. and Cullen, J. (2007), “An integrated approach to managing reverse
logistics”, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.
41-56.
Bernon, M., Rossi, S. and Cullen, J. (2011), “Retail reverse logistics: a call and grounding
framework for research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 484-510.
Bernon, M., Upperton, J., Bastl, M. and Cullen, J. (2013), "An exploration of supply chain
integration in the retail product returns process", International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp.586-608.
Colurcio, M. (2009), “TQM: a knowledge enabler?”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp.
236-248.
Cormican, K. and O’Sullivan, D. (2004), “Auditing best practice for effective product
innovation management”, Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 819-829.
The Cranfield/Information Strategy Knowledge Survey: Europe's State of the Art in
Knowledge Management, The Economist Group, 1998.
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 and Transportation Review, Vol. 41
No. 2, pp. 77-92.
Darroch, J. and McNaughton, R. (2002), “Examining the link between knowledge
management practices and types of innovation”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 210-222.
Dowlatshahi, S. (2000), “Developing a theory of Reverse Logistics“, Interfaces, Vol. 30 No 3,
pp. 143-155.
Dowlatshahi, S. (2005), “A strategic framework for the design and implementation of
remanufacturing operations in reverse logistics”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 43 No. 16, pp. 3455-3480.
Du Plessis, M. (2007), “The role of knowledge management in innovation”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 20-29.
Fassoula, E. (2005), “Reverse logistics as a means of reducing the cost of quality”, Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 631-43.
Ferguson, M., V. D. R. Guide and Souza, G. (2006), “Supply chain coordination for false
failure returns”, Manufacturing Service Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 376–393.
Fink, A. (2014), Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper, SAGE,
Thousand Oaks, California
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), “A framework for quality
management research and an associated measurement instrument”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 339-366.
Gaur, J., Subramoniam, R., Govindan, K. and Huisingh, D. (2016), “Closed-loop supply chain
management: From conceptual to an action oriented framework on core acquisition”, Journal
of Cleaner Production. (in press)
Gehin, A., Zwolinski, P. and Brissaud, D. (2008), “A tool to implement sustainable end-oflife
strategies in the product development phase”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No.
5, pp. 566-576.
Govindan, K., Soleimani, H. and Kannan, D. (2015), “Reverse logistics and closed-loop
supply chain: A comprehensive review to explore the future”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 240 No. 3, pp. 603-626.
Gryna, F., Chua, R. C. H. and DeFeo, J. A. (2007), Juran´s quality planning and analysis for
enterprise quality, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Guide, V. D. R. and Wassenhove, L. N. (2001), “Managing product returns for
remanufacturing”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 142-155.
Guptara, P. (1999), “Why knowledge management fails”, Knowledge Management Review,
No. 9, pp. 26-29.
Hazen, T., Huscroft, B., Hall, J. J., Weigel, D. K. F. and Hanna, B. J. (2014), “Reverse
logistics information system success and the effect of motivation”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 201-220.
Hjorth-Anderson, C. (1984), “The concept of quality and the efficiency of markets for
consumer products”, Journal of Consumer Research, No 11, pp. 708–718.
Holland, S., Gaston, K. and Gomes, J. (2000), “Critical success factors for cross‐functional
teamwork in new product development”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.
2 No. 3, pp. 231-259.
Honarpour, A., Jusoh. A. and Md Nor, K. (2017), „Total quality management, knowledge
management, and innovation: an empirical study in R&D units”, Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, published online.
Huang, Y. C. and Yang, M. L. (2014), “Reverse logistics innovation, institutional pressures
and performance”, Management Research Review, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 615-641.
Kumar, S. (2014), “A knowledge based reliability engineering approach to manage product
safety and recalls”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41 No. 11, pp. 5323-5339.
Lee, D. H. (2015), “An alternative explanation of consumer product returns from the
postpurchase dissonance and ecological marketing perspectives”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 32 No.1, pp. 49-64.
Lee, R. G. and Dale, B. G. (1998), “Business process management: a review and
evaluation”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 214-225
Li, X. and Olorunniwo, F. (2008), “An exploration of reverse logistics practices in three
companies”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol 13 No. 5, pp. 381-
386.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., Zaheer, S., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A. S. (2004), “Integrating
quality management practices with knowledge creation processes”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 589-607.
Meade, L., Sarkis, J. and Presley, A. (2007), “The theory and practice of reverse
logistics”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 56-
84.
Mollenkopf, D. A., Rabinovich, E., Laseter, T. M. and Boyer, K. K. (2007a), “Managing
internet product returns: a focus on effective service operations”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 38
No. 2), pp. 215-250.
Mollenkopf, D., Russo, I. and Frankel, R. (2007b), “The returns management process in
supply chain strategy”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 568-592.
Mollenkopf, D. A., Frankel, R. and Russo, I. (2011), “Creating value through returns
management: Exploring the marketing–operations interface”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 391-403.
Mukherjee, K. and Mondal, S. (2009), “Analysis of issues relating to remanufacturing
technology–a case of an Indian company”, Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 639-652.
Nonaka, I. (2008), The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review Press,
Boston, Ma.
Prahinski, C. and Kocabasoglu, C. (2006), “Empirical research opportunities in reverse supply
chains”, Omega, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 519-532.
Pince, C., Ferguson, M. and Toktay, B. (2016), “Extracting maximum value from consumer
returns: Allocating between selling refurbished product and meeting warranty
demand”, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol 18 No. 4, pp. 475–492.
Ramani, K., Ramanujan, D., Bernstein, W. Z., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J., Kim, H. Handwerker,
C. and Thurston, D. (2010), “Integrated sustainable life cycle design: a review”, Journal of
Mechanical Design, Vol. 132, No. 9, pp. 0910041 – 1 – 091004-15.
Ramirez, A. M. and Moráles, J. V. G. (2011), “Improving Competitiveness Trough Creation
of Knowledge and Reverse Logistics“, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, Vol.
22, No. 4, pp. 443-450
Ramirez, A. M. (2012), “Product return and logistics knowledge: Influence on performance of
the firm”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 48 No.
6, pp. 1137-1151.
Ramirez, A. M. and Girdauskiene, L. (2013), “Creation of knowledge and reverse logistics.
empirical analysis from perspective of the resource based view theory”, Inzinerine
Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 478–487.
Richey, R. G., Genchev, S.E. and Daugherty, P. J. (2005), The role of resource commitment
and innovation in reverse logistics performance”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 233–258.
Rogers, D.S. and Tibben-Lembke, R.S. (1998) Going backwards: Reverse Logistics trends
and practices, Reverse Logistics Executive Council, Pittsburgh, P.A.
Schneider, J. and Hall, J. (2011), "Why most product launches fail", Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 21-23.
Schulz, M. and Jobe, L. A. (2001), “Codification and tacitness as knowledge management
strategies: an empirical exploration”, The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 139-165.
Skinner, L.R., Bryant, P.T. and Richey, R.G. (2008), “Examining the impact of reverse
logistics disposition strategies”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 518-39.
Smith, E. A. (2001), “The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 311-321.
Smith, A. D. (2005), “Reverse logistics programs: gauging their effects on CRM and online
behavior”, Vine, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 166-181.
Sussan, A. P. and Johnson, W. C. (2003), “Strategic capabilities of business process: looking
for competitive advantage”, Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol.
13 No. 2, pp. 46-52
Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Qureshi, M. N. (2011), “A study of total quality management and
supply chain management practices”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 268-88.
Tate, M., Furtmueller, E., Evermann, J. and Bandara, W. (2015) “Introduction to the Special
Issue: The Literature Review in Information Systems”, Communications of the Association
for Information Systems, Vol 37 No. 1, pp. 103 – 111.
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.
Trebilcock, B. (2001), “Why are returns so tough?”, Modern Materials Handling, Vol. 56 No.
11, pp. 45-51.
Yalabik, B, Petruzzi, N and Chhajed, D (2005), „An integrated product returns model with
logistics and marketing coordination“, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 161
No. 1, pp. 162-182