Logistics 2025, 9(2), 58; https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9020058 - 25 Apr 2025
Abstract
Background: Optimizing reverse chains is more difficult than forward linear supply chains. Careful consideration should be given to recovery strategies to optimize product reuse as well as recycling. Methods: Using a 450-product dataset from the Melbourne area collection project and literature sources, we
[...] Read more.
Background: Optimizing reverse chains is more difficult than forward linear supply chains. Careful consideration should be given to recovery strategies to optimize product reuse as well as recycling. Methods: Using a 450-product dataset from the Melbourne area collection project and literature sources, we applied a calculation model with four recovery options. It modeled different return quality levels, three market segments, cost structures, buy-back and resell prices, carbon emissions, and the percentage of reuse and recycling for the four Rs (volume-based). We compared fifteen recovery strategies with one, two, three, or four recovery options and carried out sensitivity analyses to explore the impact of return volumes and quality, recovery cost, and market prices. Results: The main findings are as follows: (i) Product reuse has a lot of potential, but currently only for premium brands and requires the returned products to be of good quality. (ii) Environmental footprints are reduced in almost all scenarios, so economic viability is the main bottleneck in applying (more) reuse. (iii) Eco-design and circular business models may pave the way to reduce costs and increase market acceptance. Conclusions: We conclude with three suggested strategies for promoting reuse of electronic equipment: 1. Collecting discarded products earlier; 2. Incentivizing modular product design; 3. Greater consistency in asset management and refurbishment operations.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advancements in Building Resilient Reverse Supply Chains: Strategies, Technologies, and Sustainable Practices)
