The problem of countless worldwide returns is well known to me. Still, my stomach hurt when the message was broadcast on national television as the hot news of the day. From research shows that three million of the ten million fashion items purchased online in 2021 were returned by Belgians. There are probably all sorts of reasons for that. Too big, too small, too ugly, multiple sizes of the same piece, … You can’t think of it that crazy. Time to tackle the elephant in the room, because in my opinion that has not been done yet.
Both on the news and in an article from VRT the issues surrounding the free right of return were discussed and federal minister Petra De Sutter, among others, spoke regarding her research. She wants to drastically reduce the number of returns, because it costs traders a lot of money and it is extremely detrimental to the environment.
I especially agree with the latter. We should all be concerned regarding the enormous CO2 emissions caused by the distance that a single package has to travel several times. Let alone in which way of transport, because it is not just regarding domestic shipments. We may also feel a little embarrassed regarding all that packaging material, and its production, that is used for the numerous packages. And we may even get the jitters when returns are blatantly destroyed, because the fashion chains in question make less of a loss on liquidating garments than investing time and energy in unpacking and restocking them. Yes, this is a strategy (an example here).
So I partly agreed with the message and the concerns of the minister and the Flemish broadcaster, but not far into the article she went wrong for me. I quote: “If you can inform the customer properly online, you have less chance that he or she will make a mistake. The technology is here today: you can go very far in virtual reality. Or just good photos and videos with different models. I think that is really important,” says Petra De Sutter. Wait… Please what?
I think it’s fantastic that attention is being created for the problem. I find it somewhat charming that the media highlights this on national television. But I think that the responsibility is mainly placed with the consumer, which is downright nonsense.
I think it is necessary to create attention for the problem, but I think it is nonsense that the responsibility is mainly placed with the consumer. Yes, that can be said twice. Even Forbes has this her take on the matter hit the ball before. For me anyway. More nonsense? The premature conclusion that virtual reality and other hip techniques are presented as a solution to the problem. And that in the future consumers will simply have to learn to ask themselves a number of questions before purchasing a piece. Awareness of the problem is only a part, but not at all the core, of this problem? I don’t think I zoom out enough to get to the heart of the matter. I’m just trying to give a hint.
You can twist or turn it how you want… Clothing giants such as Zalando, Zara, De Bijenkorf, H&M and the like are at the basis of the free return system and, consequently, its impact on our purchasing behaviour. They not only make it possible, but also enormously attractive, to buy and return clothes effortlessly. Just think of the automatically resealable box, the printed return label in your shipment. And that, completely free. Where we want, when we want. When you introduce such a system, and even market it en masse as the USP of your company, you simply create a consumer who enjoys it. No wonder it is sometimes abused. It has become so bad in recent years that even many local traders – often with a heavy heart – implement the same system of free returns.
It immediately becomes clear that the consumer is not the causer, but the enjoyer. Competition in e-commerce land only exacerbates the problem. From the point of view of the (often smaller) entrepreneur, I do understand. When a certain item is offered in the competing webshop with free shipping and returns and this makes the final choice for the consumer… Yes, you can hardly help but succumb.
After all, the average consumer wakes up more quickly because of his wallet than the CO2 emissions of his fashion purchases. One cannot expect that he will automatically adjust his purchasing behavior without structural change.
So what must be done? As long as the option of free returns remains, the average consumer does not consider the harrowing impact of their free returns. After all, his wallet is more likely to wake him up than the CO2 emissions of his fashion purchases. One should therefore not expect that he will automatically adjust his purchasing behavior if nothing structural changes. Of course, every consumer bears the responsibility to make the best possible choices, but you simply cannot hold them fully responsible.
Op Instagram I asked my community regarding the impact of free returns and what they would see as a solution. That confirmed my feeling. According to the consumer, the solution lies in no longer offering free shipping and returns, and thus making them more expensive. Also UNIZO has the same view on the steps to be taken.
By making shipping and returns payable, which is ethically only normal, the consumer is forced to be more aware of his purchases. And will he wonder more than ever whether a purchase is necessary, whether he can also find it in the local store, … The virtual reality solutions that get Minister De Sutter so hot are no more than nice additions to the online shopping story . I would rather invest the money directly in local trade and short chain, instead of hip gadgets that may also have flaws. I am genuinely curious what next steps will be taken in this regard.
Interesting article? Feel free to share with your own network. Support my blog? That is also possible!
