Return shipping insurance (RSI) has been widely adopted by retailers on major online platforms such as Taobao.com and JD.com to compensate online consumers for their return shipping fee. There are two types of RSI, namely free RSI (f-RSI), under which the retailer covers the RSI premium, and for-a-fee RSI (faf-RSI), under which consumers pay the premium. We study the optimal f-RSI and faf-RSI strategies for a monopolistic online retailer as well as the impact RSI on the retailer’s returns policy. First, we find that RSI is complementary to the partial-refund returns policy as it further increases the retailer’s profit. Specifically, the retailer adopts the RSI strategy if and only if the RSI premium is relatively small; in addition, the RSI strategy is more appealing with a higher RSI compensation and product salvage value, and a smaller return shipping cost. Second, we find that under the f-RSI strategy, the retailer does not change its refund price, i.e., the refund amount equals the product salvage value; while, under the faf-RSI strategy, the retailer changes its refund price strategically according to the RSI premium, compensation, and number of RSI-sensitive consumers. Third, we find that the f-RSI strategy dominates the faf-RSI strategy from the profit and social welfare perspectives; whereas, the faf-RSI may lead to a “win-win” situation for the retailer and consumers.

零售商已经在主要的在线平台（如Taobao.com和JD.com）上广泛采用了退货保险（RSI），以补偿在线消费者的退货费用。RSI有两种类型，即免费RSI（f-RSI）（由零售商支付RSI溢价）和按需付费RSI（faf-RSI），由消费者按溢价支付溢价。我们研究了垄断在线零售商的最佳f-RSI和faf-RSI策略，以及RSI对零售商退货政策的影响。首先，我们发现RSI是部分退款退货政策的补充，因为它进一步提高了零售商的利润。具体而言，只有且仅当RSI溢价相对较小时，零售商才采用RSI策略。此外，RSI策略具有更高的RSI补偿和产品残值，因此更具吸引力，以及较低的退货运费。其次，我们发现在f-RSI策略下，零售商不会更改其退款价格，即退款金额等于产品残值；而在faf-RSI策略下，零售商会根据RSI溢价，补偿和对RSI敏感的消费者数量来策略性地更改其退款价格。第三，从利润和社会福利的角度来看，f-RSI战略主导着faf-RSI战略。而faf-RSI可能会为零售商和消费者带来“双赢”的局面。和RSI敏感消费者的数量。第三，从利润和社会福利的角度来看，f-RSI战略主导着faf-RSI战略。而faf-RSI可能会为零售商和消费者带来“双赢”的局面。和RSI敏感消费者的数量。第三，从利润和社会福利的角度来看，f-RSI战略主导着faf-RSI战略。而faf-RSI可能会为零售商和消费者带来“双赢”的局面。