Reverse logistics is one of the most important issues in the supply chain (Ganjali, Shirouyehzad & Shahin 2014:51) and has received growing attention in the past few decades (Rajagopal, Sundram & Naidu 2015:39). Despite the increasing recognition of the importance of reverse logistics, many organisations are reluctant to meet the challenges involved in handling returns (Srivastava 2013:67). Unfortunately suppliers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers are still perceiving reverse logistics as a ‘necessary evil’ in their everyday operations rather than an opportunity for future performance (Genchev, Richey & Gabler 2011:242).

Reverse logistics starts where the conventional principles of supply chain management end (Sharma et al. 2011:101). It is a systematic process that manages the flow of products, parts and information from the point of consumption to the point of origin, by extending a product’s traditional life cycle (Rajagopal et al. 2015:39).

Reverse logistics has certain characteristics indicating the nature of the activity, namely: (1) it links the physical movement of all recovered materials from the customers to the suppliers (Mishra & Napier 2014:34); (2) it is induced by various forms of used products and materials (Li et al. 2012:1); (3) it involves the flow of products back upstream through the supply chain (Mishra & Napier 2014:33); (4) it includes completing the return of materials and acquiring related information (Mishra & Napier 2014:38); (5) it involves the management of any type of returns from any customer with the aim of lowering costs and increasing profits and (6) it is a complicated process that is difficult to manage (Lhafiane, Elbyed & Bouchoum 2015:369).

Reverse logistics features greater relative uncertainty in comparison with forward logistics flows (Bai & Sarkis 2013:306). It is different in terms of quantity, quality and time of return (Jindal & Sangwan 2015:394; Kannan, Pokharel & Kumar 2009:28), and it is a much more reactive process (Rajagopal et al. 2015:41). It is seldom that organisations initiate reverse logistics activity as a result of proactive planning measures. Rather, they do it in response to external downstream partners or customers (Bai & Sarkis 2013:306). For reverse logistics processes to be successful, organisations usually require specialised infrastructure with unique information systems for tracking, dedicated equipment for the processing returns (Kannan et al. 2009:28), trained manpower, other value-added services and flexibility to deal with operational issues (Prakash & Barua 2016:64). As a consequence, many organisations have typically pushed aside the issue of returns, preferring to focus only on the forward flow (Shukla 2015:84).

In essence, reverse logistics is a complex and dynamic process and not merely a reversal of the direction of the supply chain. Product returns are becoming inevitable across all industries, and returns can occur at any time during the product life cycle (Shaik & Abdul-Kader 2014:87). However, it is important to mention that while many challenges or barriers are experienced in reverse logistics, it offers many opportunities that forward logistics does not (Rogers, Melamed & Lembke 2012:111).

According to Rogers et al. (2012:107), reverse logistics has become an area of concern to professionals, and the tools needed to explore reverse logistics in a systematic manner have not yet been completely identified or described. As a result, many organisations are inefficient in the handling of their reverse logistics processes (Lambert, Riopel & Abdul-Kader 2011:562) and have not yet designed and implemented optimal processes for effective reverse logistics management (Mishra & Napier 2014:46). Therefore, it is important to understand the main forces governing reverse logistics and gain insight into the challenges and opportunities for efficiency and effectiveness (Coyle et al. 2013:634).

In the literature, there is evidence of studies that focused on the barriers in reverse logistics and others that focused on practices. During a literature study for this article, the researcher found evidence of recent studies on barriers in reverse logistics in developing countries. For instance, Laribi and Dhouib (2015) evaluated the main barriers that hinder Tunisian organisations from successfully implementing reverse logistics. Similarly, Sharma et al. (2011) analysed the different barriers that hinder the successful implementation of reverse logistics in India. Starostka-Patryk et al. (2013) analysed the different barriers in reverse logistics in Poland. Likewise, Abdulrahman, Gunasekaran and Subramanian (2014) conducted a quantitative survey reviewing the critical barriers that prevent manufacturing organisations from implementing reverse logistics in China. Finally, Bouzon Govindan, Rodriguez and Campos (2016) have conducted research focusing on the barriers of reverse logistics in Brazil.

There are not many studies that focus on investigating practices to overcome barriers or finding solutions in reverse logistics. One study, conducted by Mishra and Napier (2014:38), investigated factors that led to the successful implementation of reverse logistics. However, there are a few studies that focus on specific practices or issues to improve reverse logistics processes. For instance, Bai and Sarkis (2013) focused on flexibility as a practice to overcome uncertainty in reverse logistics. Genchev et al. (2011) investigated formalisation as a way of improving reverse logistics flows. Similarly, Kaynak, Koçoğlu and Akgün (2014) focused on centralisation as a practice to manage the reverse logistics process. Olorunniwo and Li (2010) investigated how information technology, information sharing and collaboration in the supply chain can impact an organisation’s performance in reverse logistics.

Limited research studies had been conducted on the barriers and practices in reverse logistics in South Africa. However, in one study, Badenhorst (2013a) focused on cost-related problems and solutions in reverse logistics in South Africa. In a similar study, Prakash and Barua (2015) focused on identifying and ranking solutions to overcome barriers in reverse logistics in the electronics industry. They used an analytical hierarchical process to determine weights for the criteria barriers and to prioritise the solutions. However, they did not match practices or solutions to the barriers they have identified.

As indicated above, several studies focused on the barriers in reverse logistics, but the researchers generally did not investigate or propose solutions to overcome these barriers. For instance, Bouzon et al. (2016:194) indicated that one limitation in their research is that their framework for the barriers in reverse logistics does not indicate any solutions to overcome the barriers. Similarly, Abdulrahman et al. (2014), Laribi and Dhouib (2015), Sharma et al. (2011) and Starostka-Patryk et al. (2013) conducted studies on the barriers in reverse logistics but did not focus on practices to overcome these barriers.

Considering the gaps in research, this study aims to develop a theoretical framework for matching operational barriers and applicable practices and seek inputs from practitioners to prioritise the implementation of applicable practices. This study will (1) use literature to identify the most significant operational barriers in reverse logistics, (2) use the literature to discuss potential practices to overcome these barriers, (3) develop a theoretical framework from the literature to indicate how certain practices can overcome operational barriers in reverse logistics, (4) conduct a survey by means of a questionnaire to find the most important practices and prioritise these practices according to their importance and ease of implementation and (5) conduct a gap-and-opportunity analysis based on the survey results to develop a priority list for the implementation of practices.

The article will begin with an introduction to the study containing the background, an overview of previous studies, the problem statement and an outline of the contribution to the field. This will be followed by a literature study, which will include an overview of the reverse logistics process, the operational barriers in reverse logistics, the practices to overcome operational barriers in reverse logistics and a theoretical framework showing how certain practices can overcome the operational barriers in reverse logistics. Then, the research design and methodology will be discussed. This will be followed by a presentation of the results of the survey and the gap-and-opportunity analysis. Then there will be a discussion of the results, where the final framework for prioritising practices to overcome operational barriers in reverse logistics will be presented. The article will end with limitations and recommendations as well as a conclusion.

Reverse logistics as a research area is essential (Bajor & Babić 2014:168) and is a relevant area for both practitioners and academics to explore (Harris & Martin 2014:11). Considering the little attention given to reverse logistics in organisations and the gaps identified in research, this study and article will contribute to the literature and research on reverse logistics in South Africa.

Reverse logistics is a mandatory component of the supply chains in developed countries (Bouzon et al. 2016:184) but is still in a state of infancy in emerging economies (Abdulrahman et al. 2014:460; Bouzon et al. 2016:184), such as South Africa. Therefore, this research and article will also help to focus the attention of practitioners on the importance of reverse logistics and indicate how operational problems could be solved. Many organisations appear to have no formal plan in place to deal with returns and are inefficient in the handling of their reverse logistics processes (Lambert et al. 2011:562). The framework developed in this study will provide insight into those practices that are important and easy to implement to overcome barriers in operational processes in reverse logistics. According to Prakash and Barua (2015:574), there is a need for solutions to overcome the barriers in reverse logistics. Therefore, it is desirable to adopt reverse logistics practices, and feasible solutions must be projected and ranked so that the barriers in reverse logistics may be overcome on a priority basis (Prakash & Barua 2015:559). The research in this article makes a contribution in this regard.

Reverse logistics has been defined in different ways (Agrawal, Singh & Murtaza 2015:77). The scope of reverse logistics throughout the 1980s was limited to the movement of material against its primary flow (Bernon, Rossi & Cullen 2011:486). Some of the more recent definitions in reverse logistics contain various elements. For instance, Kussing and Pienaar (2012:447) have defined reverse logistics as ‘that part of returns management that plans, implements and controls the efficient and effective flow of goods and related information from the point of consumption to the point of recovery in order to recapture value or properly dispose of the goods’. Furthermore, Kussing and Pienaar (2012:447) have explained the elements in the definition of reverse logistics as follows: ‘Goods’ can cover raw materials, in-process inventory, finished goods, containers and packaging and waste materials.

The flow of ‘goods’ takes place in an upstream (reverse) direction within a supply chain, and the flow of waste takes place laterally or away from the supply chain. The flow can be between any intermediate point in the supply chain, including manufacturing returns, distribution returns from retailers and wholesalers and consumer returns.

However, Wang, Liu and Wei (2013:45) have stated that the flows also include information flow, cash flow and all parts of business flow.

Reverse logistics involves a number of key processes (Agrawal et al. 2015:77). When receiving a request to return a product, the seller must organise, retrieve and then determine the outcome of the returned product (Harris & Martin 2014:1). The general processes in reverse logistics are customer return request (Bernon et al. 2011:491), gatekeeping, collection, inspection or sorting and disposition (Agrawal et al. 2015:77; Lambert et al. 2011:561).

Figure 1 provides a graphic presentation of the key processes in reverse logistics.

The first process involves the notification of a product return (Lambert et al. 2011:561), which is known as a customer return request (Bernon et al. 2011:491). The second process in the reverse logistics process is gatekeeping, which is the authorisation of the product return as well as important information regarding the particular return (Bajor & Babić 2014:162). The next process in reverse logistics involves collection, where returned products are delivered to the facilities for inspection, sorting and disposition (Agrawal et al. 2015:78). Inspection and sorting take place when the overall appearance and state of the returned products are evaluated more intensively than during gatekeeping (Agrawal et al. 2015:78). Inspection will determine the condition of the returned product (Rubio & Jimenez-Parra 2014:3), and sorting refers to the decisions about what to do with products, for example, segregating them into categories, such as defective or nondefective (Shaik & Abdul-Kader 2014:97). Disposition is the final process in reverse logistics (Agrawal et al. 2015:78) and refers to the exit route that the returned product will take (Bernon et al. 2011:492). With product returns, a wide range of disposition options exist, all with different revenue streams (recovery options) (Rogers et al. 2012:108).

The disposition options can be categorised as reuse, product upgrade, material recovery and waste management (Hazen, Hall & Hanna 2012:248). Figure 2 provides an illustration of the disposition process and options.

As seen in Figure 2, reuse entails reusing or reselling the returned product in its current condition. In reuse, products are returned directly to inventory or repackaged and returned to inventory (Stock & Mulki 2009:42). Product upgrade involves repairing, reconditioning, refurbishing or remanufacturing and becomes an option if reuse is no longer available. Product upgrade implies improving the product from its end-of-life or end-of-use condition to a condition that is acceptable for future use or sale (Hazen et al. 2012:249). Material recovery involves recovering any portion of a returned product that may contain value (Hazen et al. 2012:249). It includes recycling, which involves recovering parts or extracting recyclable materials for reuse (Chan, Chan & Jain 2012:1324; Hazen et al. 2012:249). Finally, waste management is where an organisation decides that there is no longer value to reuse, upgrade or recover in the materials and the product becomes waste (Hazen et al. 2012:249). The option in waste management is disposal, which involves landfilling or incinerating parts or products provided that other disposition options are no longer available and that the materials are not worthy of recovery and sales at aftermarket (Khor & Udin 2012:7).

Reversing the flow of products is a challenge to most organisations in terms of the physical activities (Aitken & Harrison 2013:746). Operational barriers include problems related to the effective management of reverse logistics processes. The operational barriers that were identified in literature include inconsistent product quality, limitations to forecasting and visibility, inadequate information and technological systems and development barriers. Each of these barriers will be discussed in the rest of this section.

From the literature, various practices were identified for overcoming operational barriers in reverse logistics. This includes the use of the Internet or the World Wide Web, returns software, state-of-the-art technology, reverse logistics information and management systems, standardising reverse logistics processes, establishing a gatekeeping function, centralised return centres (CRCs), clear return policies, return avoidance strategies, outsourcing and collaboration and information sharing with supply chain partners. These practices will be discussed in the rest of this section.

The radar graph in Figure 3 shows the mean level of (1) the extent of the contribution of each practice and (2) the difficulty of implementing each practice.

From the radar graph, the following most significant observations can be made about the practices (Badenhorst 2013b):

The four practices identified will contribute a great deal towards the ability to overcome operational barriers in reverse logistics without requiring many resources. Therefore, they are regarded as not too difficult to implement. Consequently, it will make sense for organisations wishing to implement these practices to overcome some of the operational barriers in reverse logistics first. It is important to note that the practice ‘utilise special return software’ (numbered 2) has a relatively lower mean level (3.11) in terms of its contribution, but the difficulty of implementing this practice has a higher mean level (3.44). Therefore, this practice might be costly to implement and should be carefully considered in terms of value delivered to the organisation.

An opportunity analysis was conducted for the purpose of determining the extent of the contribution of the practices in relation to the difficulty of implementing them. These practices are discussed by means of a portfolio matrix (see Figure 4).

The portfolio matrix has the following four quadrants (Badenhorst 2013b):

The portfolio matrix indicates that all the practices that were identified in literature are indeed perceived to contribute, to at least a moderate extent, to the effective management of reverse logistics (all have mean values above 3.00). Therefore, none of the practices are in the white elephant or bread and butter quadrants, indicating that they are all important to some extent. Additionally, practices in the pearl quadrant (sixth of the 12) are considered to potentially add value and are not too difficult to implement (Badenhorst 2013b). Therefore, these practices should be an organisation’s first priority. The remaining six practices that are in the oyster quadrant do add value, but might be difficult or costly to implement. Therefore, these practices should be an organisation’s second priority.

Based on the results of the gap-and-opportunity analysis, two frameworks were created. The first framework (Table 3) indicates all the practices that have relatively high contribution values and are also not too difficult to implement. Therefore, these practices should be an organisation’s first priority.

Table 4 indicates those practices that appeared in the oyster quadrant of the opportunity analysis, which shows that they are not only relatively important but also difficult or costly to implement. Therefore, these practices should be an organisation’s second priority.

Based on the theoretical framework (see Table 1) that was developed, it is interesting to find that the practices of outsourcing and implementation of return avoidance strategies were considered important because they are the practices that can overcome all the operational barriers in reverse logistics. However, based on the results of this study, these two practices should be a second priority.

Some important practical implications are the following:

Essentially, organisations should determine which of these operational barriers are the most problematic. Based on this, organisations can consider implementing the practices proposed in this study.