Distribution Adviser — Returns and Reverse Logistics Economics

Follow the return until its value is resolved

Map the movement of goods, information and financial responsibility across stores, warehouses, partners and support teams. Identify where inventory becomes stranded, condition is disputed or ownership of the next decision is unclear. Test whether reporting captures the final outcome or stops when a return leaves the original location.

Questions the recommendation must answer

Which decisions should be made at the point of return, and which require specialist assessment? When does transport or handling cost exceed recoverable value? Which recurring return reasons indicate an upstream problem in product information, fulfilment or quality? How should exceptions be controlled without delaying ordinary cases?

Develop practical options for routing, disposition authority and performance measures. Consider stock accuracy, customer communication and fraud exposure alongside cost. Coordinate with relevant specialists where product, contractual or regulatory requirements affect disposal or repair decisions.

Expertise required

Candidates should have substantial retail, distribution or reverse-logistics operating experience, with evidence of improving an end-to-end returns process. Strong analytical skills and financial literacy are needed to distinguish accounting transfers from genuine value recovery. Applicants should understand the practical constraints of both stores and central facilities.

They should describe a case in which fixing an upstream cause was more valuable than accelerating the return process itself. The ability to make clear recommendations across organisational boundaries is essential.

The adviser will deliver a process and economics assessment, prioritised improvement options and a test plan with decision criteria. Management retains responsibility for implementation and customer policy. Success is better visibility of returned inventory, clearer disposition decisions and reduced avoidable loss, supported by evidence that improvements do not merely shift work, delay recognition of cost or make legitimate customer returns unnecessarily difficult.