Abstract Consumers have recently become very concerned about the role of return-freight insurance (RI) in the e-commerce platform, where it appears prior to making the online purchase decision. In an effort to encourage consumers to buy products, some e-tailers will offer complimentary return-freight insurance (CRI), and it has become an established and recognized practice. Some e-tailers have stopped offering this resource, however, and offer consumers the opportunity to purchase RI. To examine an e-tailer's RI strategy, we consider a market consisting of a manufacturer and an e-tailer. Three alternative scenarios are investigated: 1) Scenario N where there is no RI; 2) Scenario C where consumers may purchase RI; and 3) Scenario S where the e-tailer offers CRI. We find that the introduction of RI increases the price level, and it does not necessarily benefit the manufacturer and the e-tailer. The RI premium incurred by the e-tailer and the return-freight compensation play a critical role in selecting the RI strategy. When the former is low and the latter is high, the e-tailer is willing to offer CRI. Meanwhile, the manufacturer has the incentive to bear the RI premium for the e-tailer.

中文翻译：

---

电子零售商何时应提供免费退货运费保险

摘要 消费者最近变得非常关注退货运费险 (RI) 在电子商务平台中的作用，它出现在做出在线购买决定之前。为了鼓励消费者购买产品，一些电子零售商会提供免费退货运费险（CRI），这已经成为一种既定和公认的做法。然而，一些电子零售商已停止提供此资源，并为消费者提供购买 RI 的机会。为了检查电子零售商的 RI 策略，我们考虑一个由制造商和电子零售商组成的市场。研究了三种替代方案：1) 没有 RI 的方案 N；2）消费者购买RI的场景C；和 3) 场景 S，其中电子零售商提供 CRI。我们发现 RI 的引入提高了价格水平，它不一定有利于制造商和电子零售商。电子零售商产生的 RI 溢价和退货运费补偿在选择 RI 策略方面起着至关重要的作用。当前者低而后者高时，电商愿意提供CRI。同时，制造商有动力为电子零售商承担 RI 溢价。