Taxonomy of the literature review and research gaps
| Literature | Cite | Description: key topic | Research gap | Contribution of this study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Return policy, product replacement and customer outcomes | Bonifield et al. (2010) | Customers' perceived quality of e-tailers moderates the impact of return leniency on perceived purchase risk | Understanding how stockouts during service recovery impact customers' perceived fairness, and retail SCs address the challenges of a lenient return policy with high service recovery standards in the context of product replacement | We introduce SCR as the capability to support a returns management program in the case of a stockout during product replacement |
| Bower and Maxham (2012) | Return shipping costs negatively impact customers' perceived fairness of product return process | |||
| Confente et al. (2021) | Return policy leniency mitigates customers' perceived risk for remanufactured products for both online and brick-and-mortar retail channels | |||
| Hjort and Lantz (2016) | Return policy leniency improve repeat customers' spending but reduces firm's profit in the long run | |||
| Janakiraman et al. (2016) | Return policy leniency improves customers' outcomes, stimulating purchases and decreasing the return hassle | |||
| Mollenkopf et al. (2007) | Customers' return service experience influences perceived fairness and customers' outcomes | |||
| Shang et al. (2019) | Retailers benefit from customizing the return policy leniency based on product maturity and variety to impact return and exchange likelihood | |||
| 2) Service recovery and justice theory | Andreassen (2000) | The perceived performance of service recovery impacts customer satisfaction | Distinguishing service recovery dimensions that represent, in fact, a distinct theoretical construct and understand the impact on customers' perceived fairness of the process and interactions with the retailer | We theorize service recovery at a more granular level to assess the key role of an inherent SC capability – resilience – on addressing the challenges of the service recovery process. We empirically test the impact of service recovery resilience on customers' outcomes |
| Collier and Bienstock (2006) | Interactive, procedural and outcome fairness constitute the e-service recovery three second-order dimensions | |||
| Craighead et al. (2004) | Service recovery techniques vary in their effectiveness to address different types of service failures | |||
| Gu and Ye (2014) | The impact of online management responses is greater among low satisfaction customers when experiencing service recovery | |||
| Holloway and Beatty (2003) | Managing customer expectations of online service recovery affects how they perceive the service failures | |||
| Kau and Loh (2006) | Customer satisfaction and purchasing behaviors are affected by perceived justice in service recovery | |||
| Lin et al. (2011) | Perceived justice differently impacts customer outcomes and the service recovery paradox | |||
| Maxham III (2001) | The level of provided service recovery affects customer outcomes | |||
| Roggeveen et al. (2012) | Customers' co-creation in service recovery positively affects outcomes with higher service failure severity | |||
| Zhu et al. (2004) | Resource allocation on service recovery depends on customers' risk profiles and firms' cost structure | |||
| 3) Measurements of service recovery | Akinci et al. (2010) | Assessed and refined E-S-Qual and E-RecS-Qual in bank service settings | Existing service recovery scales do not adhere to service recovery in SCM processes | Provide a measurement scale to capture perceived service recovery resilience efforts in SCM |
| Parasuraman et al. (2005) | Developed E-S-Qual and E-RecS-Qual scales | |||
| Peinkofer et al. (2022) | Adapted service recovery dimensions to SCM context | |||
| Sajjanit and Rompho (2019) | Conceptualized and developed a measure for customer-oriented product returns service |
| Literature | Cite | Description: key topic | Research gap | Contribution of this study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Return policy, product replacement and customer outcomes | Customers' perceived quality of e-tailers moderates the impact of return leniency on perceived purchase risk | Understanding how stockouts during service recovery impact customers' perceived fairness, and retail SCs address the challenges of a lenient return policy with high service recovery standards in the context of product replacement | We introduce SCR as the capability to support a returns management program in the case of a stockout during product replacement | |
| Return shipping costs negatively impact customers' perceived fairness of product return process | ||||
| Return policy leniency mitigates customers' perceived risk for remanufactured products for both online and brick-and-mortar retail channels | ||||
| Return policy leniency improve repeat customers' spending but reduces firm's profit in the long run | ||||
| Return policy leniency improves customers' outcomes, stimulating purchases and decreasing the return hassle | ||||
| Customers' return service experience influences perceived fairness and customers' outcomes | ||||
| Retailers benefit from customizing the return policy leniency based on product maturity and variety to impact return and exchange likelihood | ||||
| 2) Service recovery and justice theory | The perceived performance of service recovery impacts customer satisfaction | Distinguishing service recovery dimensions that represent, in fact, a distinct theoretical construct and understand the impact on customers' perceived fairness of the process and interactions with the retailer | We theorize service recovery at a more granular level to assess the key role of an inherent SC capability – resilience – on addressing the challenges of the service recovery process. We empirically test the impact of service recovery resilience on customers' outcomes | |
| Interactive, procedural and outcome fairness constitute the e-service recovery three second-order dimensions | ||||
| Service recovery techniques vary in their effectiveness to address different types of service failures | ||||
| The impact of online management responses is greater among low satisfaction customers when experiencing service recovery | ||||
| Managing customer expectations of online service recovery affects how they perceive the service failures | ||||
| Customer satisfaction and purchasing behaviors are affected by perceived justice in service recovery | ||||
| Perceived justice differently impacts customer outcomes and the service recovery paradox | ||||
| The level of provided service recovery affects customer outcomes | ||||
| Customers' co-creation in service recovery positively affects outcomes with higher service failure severity | ||||
| Resource allocation on service recovery depends on customers' risk profiles and firms' cost structure | ||||
| 3) Measurements of service recovery | Assessed and refined E-S-Qual and E-RecS-Qual in bank service settings | Existing service recovery scales do not adhere to service recovery in SCM processes | Provide a measurement scale to capture perceived service recovery resilience efforts in SCM | |
| Developed E-S-Qual and E-RecS-Qual scales | ||||
| Adapted service recovery dimensions to SCM context | ||||
| Conceptualized and developed a measure for customer-oriented product returns service |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.