Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling and prioritizing the factors for online apparel return using BWM approach

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Online apparel industry is suffering from a major issue of return, with a high rate of return for apparels that are sold online it becomes necessary to investigate the probable reasons of return in online apparel industry. The objective of the study is to develop a multi-criterion approach for evaluation of various factors that are responsible for the return of apparels purchased online in context of India. A total of 34 factors were identified through literature review and discussion with experienced experts from the fashion domain. In this study, best–worst method has been employed to prioritize and rank the factors for online return more effectively. Sensitivity analysis has been carried out to check the robustness of the proposed model of the study. The findings of the study show that fit and size variation, defects, found a better product (wisdom of purchase), wrong product delivery, lenient return policy and value for money were identified as crucial factors for online apparel return. The present study provides valuable research implications which can be used for retail policy improvements and also to online selling strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aboutorab, H., Saberi, M., Asadabadi, M. R., Hussain, O., & Chang, E. (2018). ZBWM: The Z-number extension of best worst method and its application for supplier development. Expert Systems with Applications, 107, 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alharbi, S., & Naderpour, M. (2016, May). E-commerce development risk evaluation using MCDM Techniques. In International conference on decision support system technology (pp. 88–99). Cham: Springer.

  3. Altug, M. S., & Aydinliyim, T. (2016). Counteracting strategic purchase deferrals: The impact of online retailers’ return policy decisions. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 18(3), 376–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bai, C., Sarkis, J., & Dou, Y. (2017). Constructing a process model for low-carbon supply chain cooperation practices based on the DEMATEL and the NK model. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22(3), 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beck, B. (2001). Key strategic issues in online apparel retailing-the need for an online fitting solution (Vol. 30). Techexhange. com, http://www.techexchange.com/thelibrary/online_fit.html. Accessed 13 Feb 2019.

  6. Bhattacharya, A., Srivastava, M., & Verma, S. (2019). Customer experience in online shopping: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Global Marketing, 32(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bijan, Y., Keramati, A., & Salehi, M. (2013). Comparison of user satisfaction of ecommerce websites by the analytic network process. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v5i2.180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bullens, L., Van Harreveld, F., & Förster, J. (2011). Keeping one’s options open: The detrimental consequences of decision reversibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 800–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Büyüközkan, G. (2004). Multi-criteria decision making for e-marketplace selection. Internet Research, 14(2), 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chang, C. W., Wu, C. R., Lin, C. T., & Chen, H. C. (2007). An application of AHP and sensitivity analysis for selecting the best slicing machine. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 52(2), 296–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, M. K., & Wang, S. C. (2010). The critical factors of success for information service industry in developing international market: Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 694–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chern, Y., & Tzeng, G. H. (2012, December). A consumer e-loyalty assessment model: B2C service management by fuzzy MCDM techniques. In 7th international conference on computing and convergence technology (ICCCT) (pp. 346–353). IEEE.

  13. Chiu, W. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & Li, H. L. (2010). Improving the e-store business model for satisfying customers’ needs using a hybrid MCDM combined DANP with grey relational model. In Advances in intelligent decision technologies (pp. 113–121), Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

  14. Chiu, W. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & Li, H. L. (2013). A new hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR to improve e-store business. Knowledge-Based Systems, 37, 48–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chiu, Y. C., Shyu, J. Z., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Fuzzy MCDM for evaluating the e-commerce strategy. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 19(1), 12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cho, S., & Workman, J. (2011). Gender, fashion innovativeness and opinion leadership, and need for touch: Effects on multi-channel choice and touch/non-touch preferences in clothing shopping. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15(3), 363–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dailey, L. C., & Ülkü, M. A. (2018). Retailers beware: On denied product returns and consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 86, 202–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Davis, S., Hagerty, M., & Gerstner, E. (1998). Return policies and the optimal level of “hassle”. Journal of Economics and Business, 50(5), 445–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Donaldson, T. (2015). E-commerce return rates expected to exceed 30%. Retrieved from, https://sourcingjournal.com/topics/retail/e-commerce-return-rates-expected-to-exceed-30-39222/. Accessed February 2, 2019.

  20. Eckman, M., Damhorst, M. L., & Kadolph, S. J. (1990). Toward a model of the in-store purchase decision process: Consumer use of criteria for evaluating women’s apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(2), 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ertuğrul, İ., & Öztaş, G. Z. (2016). Performance analysis of online bookstores by using macbeth and promethee methods. İnternet Uygulamaları ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 7(2), 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Feng, Y. X., Zheng, B., & Tan, J. R. (2007). Exploratory study of logistics service quality scale based on online shopping malls. Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A, 8(6), 926–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Forbes, L. P., Kelley, S. W., & Hoffman, K. D. (2005). Typologies of e-commerce retail failures and recovery strategies. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(5), 280–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., & Haq, A. N. (2014). Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Greatorex, M., & Mitchell, V. W. (1994). Modelling consumer risk reduction preferences from perceived loss data. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(4), 669–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gupta, H. (2018). Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2016). Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria decision making method. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 107, 69–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2017). Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 152, 242–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2018). A framework to overcome barriers to green innovation in SMEs using BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS. Science of the Total Environment, 633, 122–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gupta, P., Anand, S., & Gupta, H. (2017). Developing a roadmap to overcome barriers to energy efficiency in buildings using best worst method. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 244–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ha, S., & Stoel, L. (2009). Consumer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a technology acceptance model. Journal of Business Research, 62(5), 565–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Han, K. S., & Noh, M. H. (1999). Critical failure factors that discourage the growth of electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 4(2), 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Harris, L. C. (2010). Fraudulent consumer returns: Exploiting retailers’ return policies. European Journal of Marketing, 44(6), 730–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hjort, K. (2013). On aligning returns management with the E-commerce strategy to increase effectiveness. Chalmers University of Technology; University of Borås.

  35. Holloway, B. B., & Beatty, S. E. (2008). Satisfiers and dissatisfiers in the online environment: A critical incident assessment. Journal of service research, 10(4), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hong, I. B., & Cha, H. S. (2013). The mediating role of consumer trust in an online merchant in predicting purchase intention. International Journal of Information Management, 33(6), 927–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hongyoun Hahn, K., & Kim, J. (2009). The effect of offline brand trust and perceived internet confidence on online shopping intention in the integrated multi-channel context. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 37(2), 126–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Janakiraman, N., Syrdal, H. A., & Freling, R. (2016). The effect of return policy leniency on consumer purchase and return decisions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Retailing, 92(2), 226–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jiang, L., Yang, Z., & Jun, M. (2013). Measuring consumer perceptions of online shopping convenience. Journal of Service Management, 24(2), 191–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jin, H., & Black, C. (2012). Assessing functional and aesthetics clothing needs of young male tennis players. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 5(2), 145–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kang, M., & Johnson, K. (2009). Identifying characteristics of consumers who frequently return apparel. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kasambala, J., Kempen, E., & Pandarum, R. (2014). Female consumers’ perceptions of garment fit, personal values and emotions considering their body shapes. The Retail and Marketing Review, 10(1), 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kaushik, V., & Dhir, S. (2019). Non-conformance in apparels: exploring online fashion retail in India. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-05-2018-0067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kaushik, V., Khare, A., Boardman, R., & Cano, M. B. (2020). Why do online retailers succeed? The identification and prioritization of success factors for Indian fashion retailers. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 39, 100906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Khosla, S. (2017). E-commerce boom in India: Why online shopping is here to stay. https://www.indiaretailing.com/2017/05/19/retail/e-commerce-boom-in-india-why-online-shopping-is-here-to-stay/. Accessed February 2, 2019.

  46. Kim, H., & Damhorst, M. L. (2013). Gauging concerns with fit and size of garments among young consumers in online shopping. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 8(3), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kim, J., Yang, K., & Yong Kim, B. (2013). Online retailer reputation and consumer response: Examining cross cultural differences. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 41(9), 688–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kumar, A., & Dash, M. K. (2016). Using DEMATEL to construct influential network relation map of consumer decision-making in e-marketplace. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 21(1), 48–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kumar, A., Aswin, A., & Gupta, H. (2020). Evaluating green performance of the airports using hybrid BWM and VIKOR methodology. Tourism Management, 76, 103941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lantz, B., & Hjort, K. (2013). Real e-customer behavioural responses to free delivery and free returns. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee, D. H. (2015). An alternative explanation of consumer product returns from the postpurchase dissonance and ecological marketing perspectives. Psychology & Marketing, 32(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Li, Y., Xu, L., & Li, D. (2013). Examining relationships between the return policy, product quality, and pricing strategy in online direct selling. International Journal of Production Economics, 144(2), 451–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Liao, C., Lin, H. N., Luo, M. M., & Chea, S. (2017). Factors influencing online shoppers’ repurchase intentions: The roles of satisfaction and regret. Information & Management, 54(5), 651–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lin, L. Y. (2011). The impact of advertising appeals and advertising spokespersons on advertising attitudes and purchase intentions. African Journal of Business Management, 5(21), 8446–8457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lin, C. K., Chen, Y. S., Chuang, H. M., & Lin, C. Y. (2016). Using VIKOR to improve e-service quality performance in E-store. In J. C. Hung, N. Y. Yen, & K.-C. Li (Eds.), Frontier computing (pp. 1041–1049). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0539-8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. Liu, J., Mantin, B., & Wang, H. (2014). Supply chain coordination with customer returns and refund-dependent demand. International Journal of Production Economics, 148, 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Liu, P., & Du, Z. (2008, May). Application of E-commerce risk assessment research with weight unknown TOPSIS method. In International symposiums information processing (ISIP) (pp. 345–349). IEEE.

  58. Madaan. (2017). 28,000 grievances in 5 months against e-commerce websites. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/58740893.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst. Accessed May 10, 2019.

  59. Massam, B. H. (1988). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques in planning. Progress in Planning, 30, 1–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. McConnell, A. R., Niedermeier, K. E., Leibold, J. M., El-Alayli, A. G., Chin, P. P., & Kuiper, N. M. (2000). What if I find it cheaper someplace else? Role of prefactual thinking and anticipated regret in consumer behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 17(4), 281–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Meng, W. (2007). The United States plus-size female consumer: Self-perception, clothing involvement, and the importance of store attributes. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

  62. Minnema, A., Bijmolt, T. H., Petersen, J. A., & Shulman, J. D. (2018). Managing product returns within the customer value framework. In Customer engagement marketing (pp. 95–118). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

  63. Mollenkopf, D., Russo, I., & Frankel, R. (2007). The returns management process in supply chain strategy. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.

  64. Mukhopadhyay, S. K., & Setaputra, R. (2007). A dynamic model for optimal design quality and return policies. European Journal of Operational Research, 180(3), 1144–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Mukhopadhyay, S. K., & Setoputro, R. (2004). Reverse logistics in e-business: Optimal price and return policy. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34(1), 70–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Nilashi, M., & Ibrahim, O. B. (2014). A model for detecting customer level intentions to purchase in B2C websites using TOPSIS and fuzzy logic rulebased system. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 39(3), 1907–1922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Nitse, P. S., Parker, K. R., Krumwiede, D., & Ottaway, T. (2004). The impact of color in the e-commerce marketing of fashions: An exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 898–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Norek, C. D. (2002). Returns management: Making order out of chaos. Supply Chain Management Review, 6(3), 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ofek, E., Katona, Z., & Sarvary, M. (2011). “Bricks and clicks”: The impact of product returns on the strategies of multichannel retailers. Marketing Science, 30(1), 42–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Oghazi, P., Karlsson, S., Hellström, D., & Hjort, K. (2018). Online purchase return policy leniency and purchase decision: Mediating role of consumer trust. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 190–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Understanding customer expectations of service. Sloan Management Review, 32(3), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Pei, Z., & Paswan, A. (2018). Consumers’ legitimate and opportunistic product return behaviors in online shopping. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 19(4), 301–319.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Pierola, A., Epifanio, I., & Alemany, S. (2016). An ensemble of ordered logistic regression and random forest for child garment size matching. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, 455–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Poh, K. L., & Ang, B. W. (1999). Transportation fuels and policy for Singapore: an AHP planning approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 37(3), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Powers, T. L., & Jack, E. P. (2015). Understanding the causes of retail product returns. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(12), 1182–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Rao, S., Rabinovich, E., & Raju, D. (2014). The role of physical distribution services as determinants of product returns in Internet retailing. Journal of Operations Management, 32(6), 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero defeofions: Quoliiy comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 68(5), 105–111.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Roese, N. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Rogers, D. S., & Tibben-Lembke, R. S. (1999). Going backwards: Reverse logistics trends and practices (Vol. 2). Pittsburgh, PA: Reverse Logistics Executive Council.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Román, S. (2010). Relational consequences of perceived deception in online shopping: the moderating roles of type of product, consumer’s attitude toward the internet and consumer’s demographics. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 373–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Saleh, M. A. E. H. (2012). An investigation of the relationship between unplanned buying and post-purchase regret. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(4), 106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Salimi, N., & Rezaei, J. (2018). Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method. Evaluation and Program Planning, 66, 147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Sampaio, C. H., Ladeira, W. J., & Santini, F. D. O. (2017). Apps for mobile banking and customer satisfaction: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(7), 1133–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Shin, E. (2013). Exploring consumers’ fit perceptions and satisfaction with apparel fit in general. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd. Accessed 19 Oct 2019.

  88. Shulman, J. D., Coughlan, A. T., & Savaskan, R. C. (2011). Managing consumer returns in a competitive environment. Management Science, 57(2), 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Singh, S. (2017). Missing SKU information form Snapdeal’s invoices: Rise in packaging problem vs reducing E-commerce fraud. http://indianonlineseller.com/2017/04/missing-sku-information-from-snapdeals-invoices-rise-in-packaging-problems-vs-reducing-ecommerce-fraud/. Accessed January, 11 2019.

  90. Singh, S., Singh, R. K., & Seth, N. (2017). Ranking of critical success factors for online retailing by TOPSIS approach. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 21(3), 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Spears, N. (2006). Just moseying around and happening upon it versus a master plan: Minimizing regret in impulse versus planned sales promotion purchases. Psychology & Marketing, 23(1), 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Speights, D., & Hilinski, M. (2005). Return fraud and abuse: How to protect profits. Retailing Issues Letter, 17(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Stock, J. R., & Mulki, J. P. (2009). Product returns processing: An examination of practices of manufacturers, wholesalers/distributors, and retailers. Journal of Business Logistics, 30(1), 33–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Su, X. (2009). Consumer returns policies and supply chain performance. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 11(4), 595–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Titiyal, R., Bhattacharya, S., & Thakkar, J. J. (2019). The distribution strategy selection for an e-tailer using a hybrid DANP VIKOR MCDM model. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(2), 395–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. United Parcel Service of America. (2015). UPS pulse of the online shopper 2015. https://pressroom.ups.com/assets/pdf/2015_UPS_Global_Pulse_of_the_Online_Study_White_Paper.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2019.

  97. van de Kaa, G., Kamp, L., & Rezaei, J. (2017). Selection of biomass thermochemical conversion technology in the Netherlands: A best worst method approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Van Welie, R., Abraham, J., Willemsen, R., & Nagelvoort, B. (2015). Global B2C E-commerce Report 2015, http://www.netcommsuisse.ch/dam/jcr:969b0986-e927-4a40-baf3ad4aa123fecd/Ecommerce%2520Foundation_Global%2520B2C%2520Ecommerce%2520Report%25202016_SeC16.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2019.

  99. Wallenius, J., Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Zionts, S., & Deb, K. (2008). Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science, 54(7), 1336–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Walsh, G., Albrecht, A. K., Kunz, W., & Hofacker, C. F. (2016). Relationship between online retailers’ reputation and product returns. British Journal of Management, 27(1), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Wood, S. L. (2001). Remote purchase environments: The influence of return policy leniency on two-stage decision processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. World Economic forum. (2019). Future of Consumption in fast-growth consumer markets: INDIA. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Consumption_Fast-Growth_Consumers_markets_India_report_2019.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2019.

  103. Yu, U. J., Lee, H. H., & Damhorst, M. L. (2012). Exploring multidimensions of product performance risk in the online apparel shopping context: Visual, tactile, and trial risks. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30(4), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Yu, X., Guo, S., Guo, J., & Huang, X. (2011). Rank B2C e-commerce websites in e-alliance based on AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 3550–3557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Zhang, Y. (2018). Product returns in a digital era: The role of multidimensional cognitive dissonance, regret, and buying context in the post-purchase appraisal process (Doctoral dissertation, Durham University).

  106. Zhang, L., Tan, W., Xu, Y., & Tan, G. (2012), Dimensions of consumers’ perceived risk and their influences on online consumers’ purchasing behaviour. Communications in Information Science and Management Engineering, 2(7), 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Zolfani, S. H., & Chatterjee, P. (2019). Comparative evaluation of sustainable design based on step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) and best worst method (BWM) methods: A perspective on household furnishing materials. Symmetry, 11(1), 74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Żurek, J. (2015). E-commerce influence on changes in logistics processes. LogForum, 11(2), 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Management, Kashipur, India

    Vineet Kaushik

  2. Department of Operations, Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida, India

    Ashwani Kumar

  3. Indian institute of Technology-Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India

    Himanshu Gupta

  4. Department of management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India

    Gaurav Dixit

Authors
  1. Vineet Kaushik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashwani Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Himanshu Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gaurav Dixit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashwani Kumar.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Table 6 A list of summary on the MCDM method in online shopping context
Full size table
Table 7 Pairwise comparison for apparel attributes (AA) sub factor
Full size table
Table 8 Pairwise comparison for disconformity (DC) sub factors
Full size table
Table 9 Pairwise comparison for dissonance (DN) sub factors
Full size table
Table 10 Pairwie comparison for service failure (SF) sub factors
Full size table
Table 11 Pairwise comparison for opportunism (OP) sub factors
Full size table
Table 12 Pairwise comparison for perception (PP) sub factors
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaushik, V., Kumar, A., Gupta, H. et al. Modelling and prioritizing the factors for online apparel return using BWM approach. Electron Commer Res 22, 843–873 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-020-09406-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-020-09406-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation