Int. J.

Production Economics 183 (2017) 561–569

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Decision support models for managing returnable transport items

in supply chains: A systematic literature review
Christoph H. Glock n
Institute of Production and Supply Chain Management, Department of Law and Economics, Technische Universität Darmstadt,
Hochschulstr. 1, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reports the results of a systematic literature review of decision support models for the
Received 26 August 2015 management of closed-loop supply chains involving returnable transport items (RTIs). RTIs are a special
Accepted 19 February 2016 type of reusable packaging materials, such as pallets, trays, boxes, or crates, and they represent an
Available online 27 February 2016
important corporate asset in many industries today. Decision support models for RTI closed-loop supply
Keywords: chains facilitate an efficient management of RTI usage, and they ensure that the finished product reaches
Closed-loop supply chain the customer at the least total cost and/or with a minimal environmental impact. The paper first reports
Returnable transport item the methodology of the literature review and then descriptively analyzes the papers found during the
RTI literature search. The sampled papers are then assigned to one of four content categories, and subse-
Systematic literature review
quently they are discussed in detail. Finally, suggestions for future research opportunities are proposed.
Decision support models
& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The management of supply chains has received increased atten-
tion in recent years. While the strategic role of supply chain man-
agement has traditionally been a popular field of research (see, for an
overview, Hochrein et al., 2015), also the development of decision
support models that facilitate an efficient management of supply
chain operations has received much attention. Decision support
models provide guidance for managing supply chains, and they
enable managers to assess the potential impact of changes to the
system before implementing potentially costly changes in practice.
Closed-loop supply chains are a special type of supply chains
that consider the return flow of used materials in addition to the
downstream flow of products (e.g., Guide and van Wassenhove,
2006). Efficiently managing product returns in addition to the flow
of final products may both reduce cost and contribute to improving
the sustainability of the supply chain by reducing waste.
A closer look at the literature reveals that research on the
management of closed-loop supply chains had thus far a one-sided
focus on managing the flow of materials and intermediate and
final products as well as their returns (for a recent review of
closed-loop supply chains, the reader is referred to Govindan et al.,
2015). The management of reusable packaging material that is
required for shipping products along the different stages of the
n
Tel.: þ 49 6151 16 75718; fax: þ 49 6151 16 2626.
E-mail address: glock@pscm.tu-darmstadt.de
supply has, in contrast, just recently started to attract the attention
of researchers.
Reusable packaging material, however, represents an important
corporate asset in many companies today (Breen, 2006). So-called
returnable transport items (RTIs), such as pallets, trays, boxes,
crates, or refillable liquid or gas containers or bottles play an
important role in modern logistics. Using RTIs for transporting
products along the stages of a supply chain can lead to many
benefits, including reduced packaging material and waste,
improved protection and security of products, more efficient
handling and cube utilization, better opportunities for out-
sourcing, pooling and standardization, and lower CO2 emissions
across the lifecycle of the packaging material (see Hekkert et al.,
2000; Hellström, 2009; Hellström and Johansson, 2010; Malecki
and Reimche, 2011). It is clear that the advantages the use of RTIs
offers can only fully be realized if the dispatch and return of RTIs
as well as the interactions between the RTIs and the products that
have to be shipped are appropriately managed.
The purpose of the paper at hand is to review works that propose
decision support models for an efficient management of RTI closed-
loop supply chains and to provide suggestions for future research
opportunities in this emergent stream of research. This review pro-
vides valuable information to researchers by summarizing the sci-
entific state-of-the-art, by assisting them in classifying their own
work in the existing literature and by identifying promising areas for
future research. For practitioners, this review supports the identifi-
cation and selection of an appropriate decision support model for the
management of an RTI closed-loop supply chain.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.02.015
0925-5273/& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
562 C.H. Glock / Int. J. Production Economics 183 (2017) 561–569

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: The next
section gives an overview of alternative RTI closed-loop supply chains.
Section 3 then describes the methodology of this review, descriptively
analyses the sample, and discusses decision support models for RTI
closed-loop supply chain management. Section 4 proposes opportu-
nities for future research, and Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Classification of RTI closed-loop supply chains
An RTI closed-loop supply chain is a supply chain where return-
able transport items (RTIs) are used for shipping products along the
different stages of the chain. Once a loaded RTI reaches the recipient
(R), it is emptied and sent back to the sender (S). If necessary, RTIs
could be cleaned, repaired or replaced, either at the sender or the
recipient, in addition. Apart from this, it may be necessary to test RTIs
before reusing them due to technical or legal reasons (e.g. in the case
of gas containers), which is a process step that could, for example, be
performed at the sender before refilling the RTIs. In an RTI closed-
loop supply chain, the focus is on the return of RTIs, and not on the
return of the finished products. The finished products could, how-
ever, be returned in addition to the RTIs, possibly using the same RTIs
the were used for the downstream shipment.
The literature discusses several types of RTI closed-loop supply
chains. The simplest case is a scenario where only a single sender
and a single recipient interact. The delivery of filled and the col-
lection of empty RTIs can be organized by the sender or the reci-
pient or by a third-party carrier. This type of RTI closed-loop
supply chain, which is illustrated in part a) of Fig. 1, was described
by Kim and Glock (2014), for example. In cases where the carrier is
unable to deliver a full RTI when picking up an empty one (or vice
versa), vouchers, which acknowledge the right for a future RTI
delivery, can be introduced into the system (e.g., Gnoni and Rollo,
2010). Apart from vouchers, it is also possible to charge a deposit
on RTIs when delivering RTIs to the recipient (e.g., Kroon and
Vrijens, 1995; Hellström and Johansson, 2010). In case the sender
serves more than a single recipient, additional opportunities for
delivering and collecting RTIs arise. One alternative in this case is
to establish a direct connection from the sender to each recipient
(similarly to the case illustrated in part a) of Fig. 1), while a second
alternative is to dispatch and/or collect RTIs in round-trips (cf. part
b) of Fig. 1 and Glock and Kim (2014), among others). A third
option is to introduce an intermediary/service provider (I) into the
system who is responsible for picking up the finished product at
the sender and for delivering it to the recipients, and who also
collects RTIs at the recipients and stores/pools them if necessary.
An example of such a system is illustrated in part c) of Fig. 1, and it
has been described in Hellström and Johansson (2010) and Kroon
and Vrijens (1995), among others.
Other authors differentiated RTI closed-loop supply chains
according to the ownership of the RTIs used. Mazeika Bilbao et al.
(2011), for example, used the term ‘open loop supply chain’ to
refer to a situation where the recipient owns the RTIs, and the
term ‘closed loop supply chain’ to describe the case where the
sender owns the RTIs. In addition, the authors differentiated
between buy/sell and leasing programs for RTIs.
3. The literature review
3.1. The review methodology
To identify works that propose decision support models for
managing RTI closed-loop supply chains, a structured literature

clean clean clean

test test test
R repair R R repair
repair
replace replace replace

clean clean
test test
S repair S repair
replace replace

clean clean
test … … test
R R R repair
repair
replace replace

clean
test
I repair
replace

clean
RTI flow
test
S repair finished products
replace flow
Fig. 1. Examples of alternative RTI closed-loop supply chains.
 C.H. Glock / Int. J. Production Economics 183 (2017) 561–569
review based on the methodologies of Tranfield et al. (2003),
Cooper (2010), Glock and Hochrein (2011), Hochrein and Glock
(2012), and Hochrein et al. (2015) was conducted. Before searching
the literature, the following inclusion/exclusion criteria were
defined:
 Only works that use analytical/optimization or simulation
methods to support the management of RTIs in supply chains
were considered.
 Only works that appeared in peer-reviewed journals were
considered. Thus, so-called grey literature (book chapters, con-
ference proceedings etc.) was excluded from the review.
 The literature review was limited to works written in English.
Papers that study the management of (reusable) containers
without a clear focus on container movements in a closed-loop
supply chain, such as works on the container repositioning pro-
blem (e.g., Choong et al., 2002; Karimi et al., 2005; Di Francesco et
al., 2009), were excluded from further analysis.
The methodology of the literature review can be summarized
as follows: In a first step, the following keywords were defined
that were then used to search the scholarly database Scopus:
“reusable packaging material”, “returnable transport items”,
“returnable containers”, “reusable container systems”, “pallet
management”, “pallet system”, and “container system”. Articles
were added to the working sample if they had one of these key-
words either in their title, abstract or list of keywords. The data-
base search led to a working sample of 840 articles whose
abstracts were completely read. After excluding irrelevant articles
based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria defined above, 41 articles
remained in the sample. These articles were completely read in a
second step to assess their relevance, and 17 papers remained in
the sample after this step. Subsequently, all references of the
sampled papers (forward snowball search) and all works that cited
papers contained in the sample (backward snowball search) were
checked as well. This led to an additional 39 papers, out of which
16 were found relevant and added to the sample. The literature
search thus led to a sample of 33 papers that propose decision
support models for the management of RTI closed-loop supply
chains. A summary of the literature search is presented in a review
protocol in the Appendix.
3.2. Descriptive analysis
The literature sample analyzed in this review consists of 33
papers in total. Fig. 2 illustrates how publication numbers evolved
over time. As can be seen, the number of published articles
increased dramatically since the year 2006, which could be an
indicator of the increasing relevance of an efficient management of
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6 The next section reviews the four content categories in detail.
4
0
1981-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2016
Fig. 2. Number of sampled articles published per year.
563
IEEE Trans. on Aut. Sci. and Eng.
IIE Transactions
Packaging Technology and Sci.
Int. Journal of Prod. Econ.
Other
0 5 10 15 20
Fig. 3. Number of articles published per journal.
RTI closed-loop supply chains.1 In addition, high publication
numbers in recent years indicate that the research stream has
matured enough to justify a review of the literature.
Fig. 3 shows the journals that published the highest number of
papers contained in our sample. As can be seen, the International
Journal of Production Economics published the highest number
of relevant papers (5), followed by Packaging Technology and
Science (4), IIE Transactions (3), and IEEE Transactions on Auto-
mation Science and Engineering (2). It is worth noting that
another 19 journals published one paper contained in the sample,
which indicates that the management of RTI closed-loop supply
chains seems to be of interest for a relatively broad research
community.
After analyzing the sampled papers in detail, we deduced that
research on the management of RTI closed-loop supply chains can
be differentiated into four different content categories (the num-
ber of papers per content category are included in brackets),
namely
1. Works that compare alternative packaging systems (10),
2. Works that forecast RTI returns, both with respect to return
times and return quantities (3),
3. Works that support the purchasing of new RTIs, e.g. by calcu-
lating RTI order quantities or RTI order cycles (2), and
4. Works that support the management of RTI systems by deriving
values for the systems’ operational variables (18).
The numbers in brackets show that the management of RTI
systems received the most attention so far, followed by works that
compare alternative packaging systems.
As to the practical applicability of the sampled papers, we
found that 20 papers (61%) developed general models without
referring to a specific industry or case study. The remaining 13
papers (39%) either explicitly referred to a practical case or
industry when developing the proposed model, or applied their
model to a practical case Industries that have been considered in
the sampled papers are the grocery sector (6 papers), the auto-
motive sector (3 papers), the consumer goods sector (2 papers),
and the chemistry and floricultural sector (1 paper each). As to the
methodologies employed, 25 papers (76%) used analytical/opti-
mization approaches, 7 papers (21%) employed a simulation
methodology, and 1 paper (3%) followed a hybrid approach that
involved both optimization and simulation methodologies.
1
Note that papers in press were added to the “2011–2015” time span.
564 C.H. Glock / Int. J. Production Economics 183 (2017) 561–569
3.3. Content analysis
3.3.1. Comparing alternative packaging system
Companies planning to introduce RTIs need to evaluate care-
fully whether or not using reusable packaging material is bene-
ficial for their operations. Even though RTIs require fewer
repurchases than one-way packaging material, higher investment
costs and long (empty) RTI movements may lead to high costs that
render the use of RTIs unattractive (see Rosenau et al., 1996). Even
from an environmental point of view, the need to return RTIs over
possibly long distances and the specific characteristics of the
materials required for producing them may lead to situations
where one-way packaging materials would be preferred over RTIs
to reduce the environmental impact of supply chain operations. As
a result, RTI systems should be evaluated carefully before their
introduction, and both their economic and their environmental
performance should be taken into account.
Mollenkopf et al. (2005), for example, developed a simulation
model for comparing the performance of two different container
systems, namely a system with disposable/recyclable and a system
with reusable containers (RTIs). The authors developed a total cost
function for each system that captures the total cost of operating
the respective system. The cost functions consider aspects such as
delivery distance, demand rate, pack quantity per container, or
disposal cost. The authors first generated simulation data for given
parameter ranges and then used a regression analysis to gain
insights into the relative performance advantage of each system. In
the regression analysis, the container cost ratio, the average daily
volume of products to be transported, and the delivery distance
were found to be the three parameters that influence the relative
advantage of the container systems the most.
Cheng and Yang (2005) developed a discrete event simulation
model to compare three different container systems, namely dis-
posable containers, recyclable containers, and reusable containers
(RTIs). The authors first developed cost functions for each alter-
native and then employed optimization methods to calculate both
optimal container quantities for each system and the minimal
costs for operating the systems. The simulation model developed
in this paper thus helps to identify the optimal container system
for a given scenario and the corresponding operational policies for
each system.
Ray et al. (2006) studied the cost per pallet trip of two alter-
native pallet systems: purchased and rental pallets (RTIs). The
authors first conducted an empirical study to collect data on the
cost of using both types of systems. Subsequently, they approxi-
mated the cost of operating the systems analytically and verified
their approximation in a simulation model.
Grimes-Casey et al. (2007) proposed a game-theoretic model
for analyzing a company’s choice between disposable and refill-
able bottles (RTIs). The paper shows that companies only have an
incentive to employ reusable bottles if customer return rates are
sufficiently high. If some customers either dispose reusable bottles
or respond to deposits with a reduction in demand, the costs of
operating the RTI system increase, which encourages companies to
rely on disposable containers. The proposed model helps to find
the optimal bottler strategy (reusable vs. disposable bottles) as a
function of the company's expectations for consumer cooperation.
Levi et al. (2011) developed a model that helps to compare one-
way (paper) and reusable (plastic) container systems (RTIs), with a
special focus on the distribution of fruits and vegetables. The paper
first suggests a method for data collection and then develops a
model that measures both cost and environmental issues along
the entire lifecycle of the containers used in both types of systems.
The model supports the decision of which container system to use
in a certain application. The results of the paper indicate that both
systems can lead to good results depending on the scenario
considered (i.e., the type of product transported, the number of RTI
reuses, transportation distances etc.).
Menesatti et al., (2012) compared the use of disposable and
reusable containers (RTIs) in the floriculture sector. The authors
developed a model of a closed-loop supply chain with a single
producer, a distribution center, and multiple consumers. The
authors adopted the net present value (NPV) approach to calculate
the costs of both types of systems considering both operating and
investment costs. In a case study, the cost parameters were esti-
mated and a simulation study was performed to illustrate the
behavior of the model and to analyze which container system
should be used in the practical case.
Palsson et al. (2013) developed another model for evaluating
the performance of two alternative packaging systems that were
observed in a case study at Volvo. The evaluation model considers
both the cost of the packaging system as well as its environmental
impact. The criteria used for evaluating both packaging systems
are: (i) packaging fill rate, (ii) packaging material, (iii) transport,
(iv) materials handling, (v) waste handling, and (vi) admini-
stration.
Zhang et al. (2015) compared two different options for using
reusable packaging material in a supply chain. They assumed that
multiple suppliers deliver products to two assembly factories, and
that the suppliers can either use their own reusable packaging
material or that the suppliers can jointly use reusable packaging
material owned by the buyer. The option where the suppliers own
the purchasing material was referred to as the ‘dedicated mode’,
while the case where the buyer owns the packaging material was
termed the ‘shared mode’. For each mode, the authors computed
the total costs of the system consisting of transportation and
inventory carrying costs. Inventory considered in the models
include both ‘work-in-progress’ RTI inventory as well as RTI safety
inventory. In addition, the authors assumed that different types of
packaging material may be required for different types of products
delivered by the suppliers. The results of the paper indicate that
the shared mode has a cost advantage for the system studied. The
authors further found that the relative advantage of the shared
mode increases for a higher uncertainty of RTI returns or high
differences in the demands of the assembly factories, while it
decreases as the number of RTI categories becomes larger.
Mazeika Bilbao et al. (2011) studied the environmental impact
and the cost of alternative pallet systems considering the entire
pallet life cycle, from materials to manufacturing, use, transpor-
tation to end-of-life disposal. This was done by developing a linear
multi-commodity network flow model that considers both the
costs and the environmental impact of the pallet systems. With
respect to environmental issues, the energy required during the
pallet life cycle, toxic substances emitted as well as greenhouse gas
emissions caused were considered. The model proposed in this
paper also considers the fact that certain pallet management
systems may require that the pallet is made of a particular
material, which limits the available options for the pallet man-
agement system. The model supports decisions on the selection of
an appropriate pallet management system as well as the material
the pallets are made of.
Carrano et al. (2015) developed a model for assessing the
environmental impact of three different pallet management stra-
tegies, namely single-use expandable pallets, reusable (purchased)
pallets, and reusable (leased/pooled) pallets. The environmental
impact for each pallet system was measured by calculating the CO2
footprint of the respective system based on carbon equivalent
emission functions taking into account the pallet's entire lifecycle.
The pallet lifecycle was thereby divided into five phases – raw
material sourcing, manufacturing, transportation and use, refurb-
ishment, and end-of-life disposal. In addition, an optimization
model was developed to evaluate the environmental impact of
 C.H. Glock / Int. J. Production Economics 183 (2017) 561–569
mixed pallet management strategies under different handling,
loading, and end-of-life scenarios. The results of the paper indicate
that none of the pallet management strategies dominates the two
others, but that the appropriate pallet management strategy
instead needs to be selected according to the specific requirements
of the application. The model developed in this paper supports
such a selection.
3.3.2. Forecasting RTI returns
Another important task in managing RTI systems is the fore-
casting of RTI returns. The future return of RTIs is often uncertain
in practice; some RTIs are returned quickly after they have been
dispatched, some RTIs are returned a long time after their dispatch
date, and other RTIs are not returned at all. RTI returns may be
influenced by many different factors, such as customer behavior,
transportation processes, or the quality and lifetime of RTIs.
Appropriate information on future RTI returns makes it easier to
schedule downstream shipments as well as purchases of new RTIs,
which are necessary from time to time in case RTIs are lost in the
system or get damaged.
The first paper that proposed a method for forecasting RTI
returns is the one of Goh and Varaprasad (1986), who developed a
procedure for estimating the return distribution of RTIs. Their
method considered a set of different parameters that influence RTI
returns, namely the total number of trips made by a container in
its lifecycle, the average length of the container lifecycle, the
average trip duration, and the container loss rate.
Kelle and Silver (1989a) developed four different forecasting
procedures for predicting RTI returns based on different amounts
of information. The first model utilizes only the expected value
and the variance of demand during lead time as well as the
probability of each RTI being returned. The second method uses
the actual RTI issues during each previous period and the prob-
abilities of return in subsequent periods for any given RTI. The
third model uses the information required by model 2 and utilizes
the amount returned up to the present from each previous issue.
The third model requires that each RTI is identified individually,
e.g. by using an RFID system, which can be quite costly. To avoid
this additional cost, a fourth model was suggested that uses the
total amounts of RTIs returned in each of the prior periods without
identification of when the associated RTIs were issued in addition
to the information required by model 2. Numerical experiments
showed that models 2 to 4 have a significant performance
advantage over model 1; however, more data needs to be made
available.
Bojkow (1991) proposed a method for estimating the average
number of trips made by an RTI during its lifecycle. First, a simu-
lation model of a closed-loop RTI system was developed to gen-
erate data on the average trippage number of RTIs considering the
total number of containers put into circulation, all lost containers,
and all existing containers. Secondly, a simple formula was derived
for approximating the average number of trips made by an RTI.
3.3.3. Purchasing new RTIs
In case RTIs are damaged or get lost in the system, it is
necessary to purchase new RTIs to ensure that enough RTIs are
available to permit a smooth downstream product flow. Decisions
that need to be made in this case include how many RTIs as well as
when and where to order.
Kelle and Silver (1989b) proposed a purchasing policy for RTIs,
assuming that the RTI return rate is uncertain. The purchasing
policy considered the net demand, which equals the consumer
demand minus RTI returns. The authors developed a model to
minimize the total purchasing and expected RTI inventory carrying
costs under a prescribed service level. The resulting stochastic
model was reduced to a deterministic, dynamic lot-sizing problem
565
with possible occurrence of negative net demand. For this model
type, well-known exact and approximate solution methods are
available.
Buchanan and Abad (1998) developed an inventory control
model for RTIs based on a periodic review inventory system. The
RTI return rate of the customers was assumed a random fraction of
the number of RTIs in the field. The objective of the model is to
calculate the optimal number of new RTIs purchased at the
beginning of a period with the aim to minimize expected total
cost. The authors proposed a single-period and a multi-
period model for this scenario.
3.3.4. Managing container systems
Once an RTI system has been set up, the system needs to be
managed appropriately to achieve the objectives formulated for
the production and logistics functions. Activities that have to be
planned include the dispatch and return of containers, cleaning
and repair processes and the replacement of damaged or lost RTIs.
Coordinating an RTI system is especially challenging in light of the
interdependencies that exist between the finished products and
the RTIs used for transporting them.
Del Castillo and Cochran (1996) developed one of the first
models for the management of an RTI closed-loop supply chain.
The authors modelled the production and distribution activities of
a soft drink manufacturer using reusable bottles (RTIs). They stu-
died both the production of the finished product as well as the
handling and distribution of RTIs, and thus focused on the inter-
action between both types of items. First, a pair of linear programs
(an aggregated and a disaggregated one) were used to determine a
master plan for the system. Secondly, the master plan was fine-
tuned using a simulation model. The model was illustrated using
data collected in a case study.
Kroon and Vrijens (1995) studied another RTI closed-loop
supply chain. The authors considered the case where an RTI
agency is responsible for coordinating the system, and where an
RTI service provider collects used containers and dispatches them
upon request to the members of the supply chain. If a manu-
facturer requires RTIs for shipping products to a customer, a
request is made at the RTI agency, which instructs the service
provider to deliver RTIs to the manufacturer. The manufacturer
then sends the RTIs to the recipient, which, in turn, notifies the RTI
agency of the receipt. The RTI agency then instructs the service
provider to pick up the RTIs at the recipient, whereupon the RTI
usage cycle begins anew. The model proposed by the authors
supports the planning of I) the number of containers that should
be available in the system, II) the number and location of container
depots in the system, III) the organization of distribution, collec-
tion, and relocation of containers, and IV) the sizing of service,
distribution and collection fees.
Chew et al. (2002) developed a set of performance measures –
inventory turnover, out-duration of containers, average daily uti-
lization rate, and standard deviation of the utilization rate – to
monitor and control the deployment of RTIs in a supply chain. The
measures enable decision makers to predict the proper level of
RTIs in the system as well as corrective actions which may be
required to adjust the RTI inventory to customer demand. The
performance measures were implemented in Microsoft Excel to
develop a decision support tool that can directly be implemented
in practice.
Tsiliyannis (2005) modeled a closed-loop supply chain that
uses reusable packaging material (RTIs) for transporting products.
First, he formally described the material flow through the system
with the help of balance equations. Subsequently, he developed
performance measures to evaluate the environmental perfor-
mance of the system. These measures take into account the overall
consumption flow of the customer, the packaging material
566 C.H. Glock / Int. J. Production Economics 183 (2017) 561–569
discarded as waste, the (technical) reusability of the product, and
the actual reuse behavior of the consumer. For a given supply
chain and given RTI and consumer parameters, the model helps to
compare the environmental performance of different RTI systems.
Thoroe et al. (2009) considered a closed-loop supply chain
where containers circulate between a single vendor and a single
buyer. The authors studied the case where RFID tags can be used to
track the return flow of containers, and assumed that using an
RFID system increases container returns, at the expense of a higher
container price. They showed that using an RFID system leads to
less frequent purchases of new containers and smaller replace-
ment lot sizes. In addition, the lot size of reworked containers
decreases as well, which results in more frequent refurbishments.
Finally, the authors also proposed a model that helps to estimate
the diffusion speed of RFID-tagged containers in an existing RTI
inventory.
This paper was extended by Kim and Glock (2014), who took
account of stochastic container return quantities. The authors
assumed that the use of an RFID system leads to improved infor-
mation on container returns, better return predictability, and
higher return rates. The impact of the RFID system on the con-
tainer return behavior was modelled assuming that RFID-tagged
containers have a higher mean return rate and a lower return
variance. The authors developed an economic feasibility criterion
that helps to assess under which conditions RFID-tagged con-
tainers should be used, and under which conditions traditional,
non-tagged containers should be preferred.
Atamer et al. (2013) studied a supply chain consisting of a
single manufacturer and multiple customers. The manufacturer
uses RTIs for shipping a single product with stochastic demand to
the customers with two supply options: either used RTIs that were
returned from the customers are used, or new RTIs are employed.
The RTI return quantity was assumed to depend both on customer
demand and on the acquisition fee for used RTIs specified by the
manufacturer. The authors assumed that the unit production cost
of a new RTI is different from the cost of reusing an RTI, and that
the customers are indifferent between both types of RTIs. For this
setting, the authors determined the optimal acquisition fee for
used RTIs and the optimal production quantity of new RTIs to
maximize the buyer’s profit. The model supports both the case of
unlimited production capacity and the case where the combined
capacity for filling and refilling RTIs is limited.
Goudenege et al. (2013) developed a model for a similar supply
chain with a single warehouse operated by a manufacturer and
multiple retailers. The model considers both the cost of investing
in different types of RTIs used in this system as well as the cost of
moving RTIs from the warehouses to the retail stores. Apart from
the costs associated with managing this system, the authors also
considered CO2 emissions that result from using and transporting
different types of RTIs. The model can be employed to evaluate the
use of different types of RTIs, e.g. reusable plastic containers vs.
cardboard boxes, and also to coordinate the flow of RTIs and fin-
ished products through the system.
Bottani et al. (2015) studied a supply chain where a manu-
facturer uses RTIs (here: pallets) for transporting a product to
multiple retailers. The authors assumed that the retailers return
RTIs with a high variability and that RTIs may be damaged during
transportation. They developed a simulation model for this supply
chain using Microsoft Excel that helps to decide about when and
where to order RTIs. Three ordering opportunities were con-
sidered in developing the model, namely a) retrieving RTIs from
one of the retailers provided that the retailer has enough RTIs on
stock, b) ordering new RTIs at an RTI service provider, and c)
ordering new RTIs at an RTI service provider in an emergency
order. The emergency order was assumed to be quicker than the
regular order, but also to result in higher costs per RTI.
Glock and Kim (2014) studied a supply chain consisting of a
single vendor and multiple retailers and assumed that RTIs are
used for transporting a finished product from the vendor to the
retailers. The authors compared two different shipment strategies:
early shipments and delayed shipments. In the first case, the
vendor is allowed to make shipments from a lot before the entire
lot has been completed, while in the second case shipments from a
lot are only made after its completion. Apart from the coordination
of the production and consumption processes, also the sizing of
the RTIs was investigated in this paper. The results of the paper
indicate that shipping batches to the retailers while the produc-
tion process at the vendor is still in progress is especially beneficial
in case the demand rates of the retailers are low (as compared to
the supplier's production rate) and the return lead times of RTIs
are high. Further, the analysis indicated that the vendor should use
few containers with a relatively large capacity if the buyers'
demand rates are low and the RTI return lead times are high, and
many containers with a relatively low capacity in the
opposite case.
Mashaei and Lennartson (2013a) studied a flow-shop produc-
tion line where pallets (RTIs) are used for transporting multiple
products through a production system. Once the product has
passed the final production stage, the pallets are returned to the
first production stage for reuse. The authors assumed that one
type of pallet is used for the different types of products produced
in this system, and that each pallet can only accommodate a single
product. The objective of the paper was to minimize the energy
consumption of the system for idle machines by determining the
number of pallets in the system, the velocity of the pallet conveyor
used for transporting the pallets through the system, and the
available machine modes (turning off a machine or keeping it in an
idle mode during production interruptions) for a given cycle time.
The (technical) design of the system described in Mashaei and
Lennartson (2013a) was studied by Mashaei and Lennartson
(2013b), who minimized the average tension force required for
transporting the pallets through the system subject to a set of
design constraints.
Similarly, Mensendiek (2015) studied the scheduling problem
of a supplier producing jobs for multiple buyers. The jobs for each
buyer have to be delivered in RTIs provided by the respective
buyer at certain release dates. In case no RTIs of a buyer are
available, the supplier can nevertheless process a job; however, an
additional handling cost accrues in this case, as the supplier has to
pack the job into auxiliary containers and repack it later. The
model presented in this paper is based on the single-machine
scheduling problem with weighted earliness and tardiness
penalties and batching and extends it to consider returnable
containers and repacking penalties.
Kim et al. (2014) studied a supply chain consisting of a single
vendor and a single buyer and assumed that RTIs are used for
transporting a deteriorating product from the vendor to the buyer.
The RTI return time was assumed stochastic, such that delays in
RTI returns may lead to RTI stockouts and a delay in the next
downstream shipment. The authors analyzed interdependencies
that exist between finished products inventory and RTI inventory
and showed that by returning larger lots of RTIs less frequently,
the RTI stockout risk can be reduced in the system.
Glock and Kim (In Press) extended the work of Kim et al. (2014)
and introduced different safety measures the supply chain can
adopt to protect itself against RTI stockouts into the model. First,
the vendor has the option to maintain an RTI safety stock at its
premises. In case a return shipment is late, a (partial) downstream
shipment can be made from the safety stock, which helps to avoid
stockouts at the retailer. Secondly, the option to introduce a safety
return time was considered. In this case, the retailer returns RTIs
earlier than needed on average to make sure that enough RTIs are
 C.H. Glock / Int. J. Production Economics 183 (2017) 561–569
available when the next downstream shipment is due. Finally,
both safety measures can be combined. The results of the paper
indicate that the RTI safety stock outperforms safety return times,
and that this safety measure should be the preferred mechanism
in practice.
Another extension of the Kim et al. (2014) model was proposed
by Hariga et al. (2016), who considered the renting of RTIs as an
alternative measure to protect the supply chain against RTI
stockouts. The authors assumed that the vendor has the option to
rent RTIs from a nearby service provider, such that rented RTIs can
be employed in case RTI return shipments are late. The authors
assumed in addition that the renting fee charged by the service
provider is a function of the length of the renting period, but that a
minimum renting fee is charged by the service provider. Thus, in
case RTIs are returned from the retailer shortly after RTIs have
been rented, the renting of RTIs may turn out unprofitable. The
results of the paper indicate that renting RTIs is especially bene-
ficial in situations where both shortage costs and the risk of late
returns are high, and as well in situations where keeping finished
products in the vendor's storage facility is expensive. In the latter
case, renting RTIs ensures that products can be delivered to the
retailer without delays, which reduces finished products inventory
at the vendor.
Ni et al. (2015) developed a model for the coordination of a
pallet (RTI) pool system. The paper considered a pallet supplier
that produces new pallets, repairs used ones, and disposes non-
repairable pallets, a pallet pool center that provides customers
with pallets and takes pallets back from the customers, and cus-
tomers using the pallets. The aim of the model is to coordinate the
flow of pallets through the system, i.e. the quantities that flow
from the pool center to the customers, from the pool center to the
pallet manufacturer etc., and to minimize the total cost of the
system. The authors proposed a mathematical model that
describes this system and used a genetic algorithm to solve it.
Elia and Gnoni (2015) proposed a discrete event simulation
model to support the management of closed-loop systems for
pallets (RTIs). The authors investigated a scenario where a pro-
ducer uses pallets for transporting products to its customers. A
logistics service provider was considered in addition, who picks up
the pallets at the producer, stores them in its warehouse and
eventually unloads and reloads them, and then delivers the pallets
to the customers. Once pallets have been emptied at the custo-
mers, the service provider collects the empty pallets and even-
tually stores them for some time in its warehouse before returning
them to the producer. In a first step of the analysis, field data was
collected during observations made in practice, which was then
used to develop a process model of the pallet flow in the system.
The process model was subsequently used to develop a simulation
model that tracks the total unloading time per SKU, the total
picking queue per SKU, the total purchase cost for pallets, and the
value of pallet vouchers issued by the service provider as perfor-
mance figures. The model was finally validated in a case study.
4. Research opportunities
The literature review provided in Section 3 showed that a
broad range of different RTI closed-loop supply chains has been
studied in the past. Our in-depth analysis of the sample showed,
however, that several research opportunities exist that could fur-
ther our understanding of how RTI closed-loop supply chains
should be managed in practice. These research opportunities can
be summarized as follows:
First, we found that the majority of works contained in our
sample assumed that the sender owns the RTIs used in the supply
chain. Ray et al. (2006), Carrano et al. (2015) and Hariga et al.
567
(2016) are the only works we are aware of that studied scenarios
where the supply chain members have the opportunity to rent or
lease RTIs. This is surprising given the fact that RTIs are often
rented or leased in practice, and that large companies have
evolved over the years that specialize on renting out RTIs (e.g., the
Euro Pool System or the Commonwealth Handling Equipment
Pool). Thus, further research on managing RTI closed-loop supply
chains that use rented or leased RTIs is necessary, for example to
gain insights under which conditions rented/leased RTIs should be
preferred over owned ones, and from which sources RTIs should
be rented/leased.
Secondly, the role service providers play in shipping loaded and
collecting empty RTIs needs to be studied in greater detail. The
only two works contained in our sample that assumed that a
service provider is responsible for transporting RTIs are the ones of
Kroon and Vrijens (1995) and Elia and Gnoni (2015). Interesting
aspects that have not been investigated so far include the coor-
dination of the manufacturer's (sender’s) production cycle with
the service provider's preferred delivery schedule or the buyer's
(recipient's) preferred consumption cycle. In addition, the selec-
tion of an appropriate service provider or the question of whether
or not to operate a direct (RTIs are delivered and collected by the
sender) and an indirect (RTIs are delivered and collected by a
service provider) in parallel have not yet been considered in
existing decision support models.
Another interesting research opportunity is to develop decision
support models for managing deposit systems in RTI closed-loop
supply chains. Empirical evidence has shown that customer non-
compliance in returning RTIs is a major issue in many companies
(Breen, 2006). Clearly, deposits on RTIs could induce customers to
return RTIs in good condition and in a timely manner. Surprisingly,
Grimes-Casey et al. (2007) are the only authors that considered a
deposit system in their model. Therefore, developing further
decision support models that consider alternative design options
for an RTI deposit system seems to be promising.
A further observation we made is that the design of RTIs,
including the selection of materials for producing RTIs and the
sizing of RTIs, has not attracted much attention so far. It is, how-
ever, clear that the specific characteristics of RTIs, such as their
weight or dimensions, have a major impact on the logistics pro-
cesses RTIs are involved in and on the costs that accrue in dis-
tributing and collecting RTIs. A notable exception – despite the
works discussed in Section 3.3.1 that compared alternative con-
tainer systems and that in some cases also considered the mate-
rials the RTIs are made of – is the work of Glock and Kim (2014),
who studied the sizing of RTIs in a model of a closed-loop supply
chain. Future research in this area could, for example, study how
the dimensions and the size of RTIs impact the production, dis-
tribution and consumption processes in RTI closed-loop supply
chains.
Despite the design of RTIs, also the design of the RTI system has
not received much attention so far. Most models that evaluated
alternative packaging systems compared a set of given alternatives
(see Section 3.3.1), and only a few papers assumed that the
structure of the RTI system can be changed (e.g., Kroon and Vri-
jens, 1995). Thus, future research could treat the number and
location of RTI depots and/or centers for refurbishment as decision
variables. Existing works on the design of closed-loop supply
chains could provide valuable insights into the development of
such models (e.g., Faccio et al., 2011; Ghorbani et al., 2014).
As to the applicability of decision support models for RTI
closed-loop supply chains, we found that only a few papers
developed their models by explicitly referring to a practical case or
to a specific industry. Future research could therefore consider
specific industry characteristics in developing their proposed
models to improve the applicability of the proposed models. In
568 C.H. Glock / Int. J. Production Economics 183 (2017) 561–569

addition, we found a dominance of analytical approaches in the
study of RTI closed-loop supply chains, and therefore suggest
evaluating whether simulation or hybrid approaches could help to
generate further insights into the management of such supply
chains.
Finally, we found that most papers contained in our sample
assumed that the condition of RTIs does not change over time, or
that only two RTI conditions – usable and defect – exist. Clearly,
RTIs may pass through a range of different conditions over their
life cycle, ranging from a perfect condition (new) to minor scrat-
ches to situations where repairing an RTI may still be economical
or where it may not be economical anymore. The question at
which point in time (or at which RTI condition) an RTI should best
be repaired or replaced has not attracted much attention so far. We
therefore recommend developing models that support the sche-
duling of maintenance operations for RTIs in RTI closed-loop
supply chains.
5. Summary and conclusion
This paper provided a systematic literature review of decision
support models for the management of closed-loop supply chains
involving returnable transport items (RTIs). RTIs were defined as a
special type of reusable packaging material, and they have become
more and more important in practice over the last decades.
Decision support models for managing RTI closed-loop supply
chains facilitate an efficient management of such systems, for
example by determining dispatch dates and quantities for RTIs, by
forecasting RTI returns or by calculating optimal RTI replacement
quantities.
The literature review conducted in this paper showed that
research on RTI closed-loop supply chains has enjoyed an
increased popularity over the last six years, with publication
numbers increasing from an average of 0.56 papers/year between
1986 and 2010 to an average of 3.16 papers/year since 2011. Works
identified during the literature search were assigned to one of four
content groups, and subsequently all identified papers were dis-
cussed. Finally, several promising research opportunities were
derived from our sample.
The literature review conducted in this paper has several lim-
itations. Even though our literature search was guided by an
established review methodology, the methodology used could
limit the results as it focused only on articles that appeared in
peer-reviewed academic journals and that were published in
English. It is clear that limiting the literature search this way may
have led to the exclusion of potentially relevant articles from the
sample. In addition, changing the keywords used during the lit-
erature search could have led to a different sample and different
insights and conclusions. To reduce the potential limitations of this
review, established methodologies were used, such as forward and
backward snowball searches. Apart from the recommendations
made in Section 4, future research could increase the scope of this
review, for example by including works on the container reposi-
tioning problem, by including additional keywords in the litera-
ture search, by using alternative databases, or by analyzing the
‘grey literature’ in addition.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to the anonymous referees for providing
valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper that helped
to improve the paper significantly.

Appendix. : Review protocol

Filter type Descriptions and guidelines Results

Inclusion Articles that were identified:

criteria
1. During the database search
2. In a forward or backward snowball search
Topic: Only articles that propose decision support models for the management of RTIs in supply chains.
Language: Limited to English
Time span: All articles published up to July 2015.
Article type: Only articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals
Keywords “Reusable packaging material”, “Returnable transport items”, “Returnable containers”, “Reusable container
systems”, “Pallet management”, “Pallet system”, and “Container system”
Keyword Search online database Scopus with the keywords defined above.
search Ensure substantive relevance by requiring that all articles contain at least one of the keywords either in their
title, abstract or keywords. 840
Consolidation I Ensure relevance of content by subjecting all papers to a manual analysis of their abstract. 41
Consolidation II Ensure relevance by reading all papers left in the sample. 17
Snowball Search for additional articles by backward/forward snowball searches for all papers in the sample. 16
approach
Final sample 33
size
 C.H. Glock / Int. J. Production Economics 183 (2017) 561–569
References
Atamer, B., Bakal, I.S., Bayindir, Z.P., 2013. Optimal pricing and production decisions
in utilizing reusable containers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 143 (2), 222–232.
Bojkow, E., 1991. Basic considerations on the calculation of the trippage number for
returnable containers. Packag. Technol. Sci. 4 (6), 315–331.
Bottani, E., Montanari, R., Rinaldi, M., Vignali, G., 2015. Modeling and multi-
objective optimization of closed loop supply chains: A case study. Comput.
Ind. Eng. 87 (9), 328–342.
Breen, L., 2006. Give Me Back My Empties or Else! A preliminary Analysis of Cus-
tomer Compliance in Reverse Logistics Practices (UK). Manag. Res. News, 29; ,
pp. 532–551.
Buchanan, D.J., Abad, P.L., 1998. Optimal policy for a periodic review returnable
inventory system. IIE Trans. 30 (11), 1049–1055.
Carrano, A.L., Pazour, J.A., Roy, D., Thorn, B.K., 2015. Selection of pallet management
strategies based on carbon emissions impact. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 164 (6),
258–270.
Cheng, Y.-T., Yang, T., 2005. Simulation of design and analysis of a container reverse-
logistics system. J. Chin. Inst. Ind. Eng. 22 (3), 189–198.
Chew, E.P., Huang, H.C., Horiana, 2002. Performance measures for returnable
inventory: a case study. Prod. Plan. Control 13 (5), 462–469.
Choong, S.T., Cole, M.H., Kutanoglu, E., 2002. Empty container management for
intermodal transportation networks. Transp. Res. Part E 38 (6), 423–438.
Cooper, H.M., 2010. Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-By-Step
Approach, 4th ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Del Castillo, E., Cochran, J.K., 1996. Optimal short horizon distribution operations in
reusable container systems. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 47 (1), 48–60.
Di Francesco, M., Crainic, T.G., Zuddas, P., 2009. The effect of multi-scenario policies
on empty container repositioning. Transp. Res. Part E 45 (5), 758–770.
Elia, V., Gnoni, M.G., 2015. Designing an effective closed loop system for pallet
management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 170 (C), 730–740.
Faccio, M., Persona, A., Sgarbossa, F., Zanin, G., 2011. Multi-stage supply network
design in case of reverse flows: a closed-loop approach. Int. J. Oper. Res. 12 (2),
157–191.
Ghorbani, M., Arabzad, S.M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., 2014. A multi-objective
fuzzy goal programming model for reverse supply chain design. Int. J. Oper. Res.
19 (2), 141–153.
Glock, C.H., Hochrein, S., 2011. Purchasing organization and design: a literature
review. Bus. Res. 4 (2), 149–191.
Glock, C.H., Kim, T., 2014. Container management in a single-vendor-single-buyer
supply chain. Logist. Res. 7, 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12159-014-0112-1.
Glock, C.H., Kim, T., 2016. Safety measures in the joint economic lot size model with
returnable transport items. Int. J. Prod. Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2015.06.016 (In press)
Gnoni, M.G., Rollo, A., 2010. A scenario analysis for evaluating RFID investments in
pallet management. Int. J. RF Technol. 2, 1–21.
Goh, T.N., Varaprasad, N., 1986. A statistical methodology for the analysis of the life-
cycle of reusable containers. IIE Trans. 18 (1), 42–47.
Goudenege, G., Chu, C., Jemai, Z., 2013. Reusable containers management: from a
generic model to an industrial case study. Supply Chain Forum 14 (2), 26–38.
Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., Kannan, D., 2015. Reverse logistics and closed-loop
supply chain: A comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
240 (3), 603–626.
Grimes-Casey, H.G., Seager, T.P., Theis, T.L., Powers, S.E., 2007. A game theory fra-
mework for cooperative management of refillable and disposable bottle life-
cycles. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (17), 1618–1627.
Guide, V.D.R., van Wassenhove, L.N., 2006. Closed-loop supply chains: an intro-
duction to the feature issue (Part 1). Prod. Oper. Manag. 15 (3), 345–350.
Hariga, M.A., Glock, C.H., Kim, T., 2016. Integrated product and container inventory
model for a single-vendor single-buyer supply chain with owned and rented
returnable transport items. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (7), 1964–1979.
Hekkert, M.P., Joosten, L.A.J., Worrell, E., 2000. Reduction of CO2 emissions by
improved management of material and product use: the case of transport
packaging. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 30 (1), 1–27.
Hellström, D., 2009. The cost and process of implementing RFID technology to
manage and control returnable transport items. Int. J. Logist.: Res. Appl. 12 (1),
1–21.
569
Hellström, D., Johansson, O., 2010. The impact of control strategies on the man-
agement of returnable transport items. Transp. Res. Part E 46 (6), 1128–1139.
Hochrein, S., Glock, C.H., 2012. Systematic literature reviews in purchasing and
supply management research: a tertiary study. Int. J. Integr. Supply Manag. 7
(4), 215–245.
Hochrein, S., Glock, C.H., Bogaschewsky, R., Heider, M., 2015. Literature reviews in
supply chain management: a tertiary study. Manag. Rev. Q. 65 (4), 239–280.
Karimi, I.A., Sharafali, M., Mahalingam, H., 2005. Scheduling tank container
movements for chemical logistics. AIChE J. 51 (1), 178–197.
Kelle, P., Silver, E.A., 1989a. Forecasting the returns of reusable containers. J. Oper.
Manag. 8 (1), 17–35.
Kelle, P., Silver, E.A., 1989b. Purchasing policy of new containers considering the
random returns of previously issued containers. IIE Trans. 21 (4), 349–354.
Kim, T., Glock, C.H., 2014. On the use of RFID in the management of reusable con-
tainers in closed-loop supply chains under stochastic container return quan-
tities. Transp. Res. Part E 64 (4), 12–27.
Kim, T., Glock, C.H., Kwon, Y., 2014. A closed-loop supply chain for deteriorating
products under stochastic container return times. Omega 43 (3), 30–40.
Kroon, L., Vrijens, G., 1995. Returnable containers: an example of reverse logistics.
Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 25 (2), 56–68.
Levi, M., Cortesi, S., Vezzoli, C., Salvia, G., 2011. A comparative life cycle assessment
of disposable and reusable packaging for the distribution of Italian fruit and
vegetables. Packag. Technol. Sci. 24 (7), 387–400.
Malecki, R.A., Reimche, J., 2011. Managing returnable containers logistics-a case
study part I-physical and information flow analysis. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 3
(2), 1–8.
Mashaei, M., Lennartson, B., 2013a. Energy reduction in a pallet-constrained flow
shop through on–off control of idle machines. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 10
(1), 45–56.
Mashaei, M., Lennartson, B., 2013b. Sustainable and robust control of cyclic pallet
systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 10 (4), 916–927.
Mazeika Bilbao, A., Carrano, A.L., Hewitt, M., Thorn, B.K., 2011. On the environ-
mental impacts of pallet management operations. Manag. Res. Rev. 34 (11),
1222–1236.
Menesatti, P., Canali, E., Sperandio, G., Burchi, G., Devlin, G., Costa, C., 2012. Cost and
waste comparison of reusable and disposable shipping containers for cut
flowers. Packag. Technol. Sci. 25 (4), 203–215.
Mensendiek, A., 2015. Scheduling with returnable containers. J. Sched. 18 (6),
593–605.
Mollenkopf, D., Closs, D., Twede, D., Lee, S., Burgess, G., 2005. Assessing the viability
of reusable packaging: a relative cost approach. J. Bus. Logist. 26 (1), 169–197.
Ni, L., He, Y., Zhou, L., Deng, L., 2015. Robust control optimization of triple-echelon
closed-loop pallet pool system in multi-uncertain environment. J. Inf. Comput.
Sci. 12 (7), 2635–2645.
Palsson, H., Finnsgard, C., Wänström, C., 2013. Selection of packaging systems in
supply chains from a sustainability perspective: The case of Volvo. Packag.
Technol. Sci. 26 (5), 289–310.
Ray, C.D., Michael, J.H., Scholnick, B.N., 2006. Supply-chain system costs of alter-
native grocery industry pallet systems. For. Prod. J. 56 (10), 52–57.
Rosenau, W.V., Tweede, D., Mazzeo, M.A., Singh, S.P., 1996. Returnable/reusable
logistical packaging: a capital budgeting investment decision framework. J. Bus.
Logist. 17 (2), 139–165.
Thoroe, L., Melski, A., Schumann, M., 2009. The impact of RFID on management of
returnable containers. Electron. Markets 19 (2–3), 115–124.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
J. Manag. 14 (3), 207–222.
Tsiliyannis, C.A., 2005. Parametric analysis of environmental performance of
reused/recycled packaging. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (24), 9770–9777.
Zhang, Q., Segerstedt, A., Tsao, Y.-C., Liu, B., 2015. Returnable packaging manage-
ment in automotive parts logistics: dedicated mode and shared mode. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 168 (10), 234–244.