The Evolution of Closed-Loop Supply Chain Research
In Issue 1 of volume 57 of Operations Research (2009), Profs. Dan Guide and Luk Van Wassenhove outline how closed-loop supply chain (supply chains where the taking back of product from customers is important) research has advanced over the past 15 years or so. From the abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to introduce the reader to the field of closed-loop supply chains with a strong business perspective, i.e., we focus on profitable value recovery from returned products. It recounts the evolution of research in this growing area over the past 15 years, during which it developed from a narrow, technically focused niche area to a fully recognized subfield of supply chain management. We use five phases to paint an encompassing view of this evolutionary process for the reader to understand past achievements and potential future operations research opportunities.
To frame their discussion, Guide and Van Wassenhove identify five phases of research:
• Phase 1—The golden age of remanufacturing as a
technical problem.
• Phase 2—From remanufacturing to valuing the reverse-logistics process.
• Phase 3—Coordinating the reverse supply chain.
• Phase 4—Closing the loop.
• Phase 5—Prices and markets.
You can read the full paper here: 
The Evolution of Closed-Loop Supply Chain Research
.
The Editors of Operations Research have invited two leading scholars to provide their comments on this article. The first commentary is by Robert D. Klassen, Professor of Operations Management and J.J. Wettlaufer Faculty Fellow at the Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, Canada. Dr. Klassen’s primary point regards the definition of “business value”:
At the outset, and later emphasized again, Guide and Van Wassenhove (2009) narrowed their tutorial to a business perspective on value-added recovery activities. While it is always helpful to clearly delimit what is being examined, it also is important to critically assess if the limits exclude strategically or methodologically important aspects. And defi ning business value has become a rather contentious issue subject to increasingly complex debate, particularly with growing interest in sustainable development.
You can read Dr. Klassen’s full commentary:
Klassen Commentary
.
The second commentary comes from Dr. Moritz Fleischmann, Associate Professor of Supply Chain Management, Rotterdam School of Management. In his commentary, Dr. Fleischmann takes issue with some of the divides identified by Guide and Van Wassenhove:
Somewhat less convincing, in my opinion, are some of the presumed `dualities’ in the research development in the eld of CLSCs. This includes, for example, the `US market-driven approach’ and the `European waste-stream approach’ mentioned in Section 5. While there are certainly important di fferences between countries regarding their legislative context, this does not mean that pro fit driven CLSCs and corresponding research are a U.S. phenomenon exclusively (as documented e.g. in the book of Flapper et al., 2005, cited in this paper). Likewise, I do not observe the suggested stark contrast between `OR-based’ research and `business economics’ research (again Section 5) since many of the papers cited in the second stream also make use of OR techniques.
Dr. Fleischmann’s full commentary is here:
Fleischmann commentary
.
Drs. Guide and Van Wassenhove have provided a response to the commentaries:
Guide and Van Wassenhove Reponse
.
Now is your chance: what do you think the role of closed-loop supply chains has been? What is the state of research, and where is this field going?
Comments
Commenting has been disabled for this article.