Consumer Corner
Retailers that make it harder to return stuff face backlash from their customers
Huseyn Abdulla, University of Tennessee
In 2018, L.L. Bean ended its century-old “lifetime” return policy, limiting returns to one year after purchase and requiring receipts. The demise of this popular policy sparked backlash, with several customers filing lawsuits.
It also inspired my team of operations management researchers to study how customers respond when retailers make their return policies more strict. Our key finding: Whether they often or rarely return products they’ve purchased, consumers object – unless those retailers explain why.
I work with a group of researchers examining product return policies and how they affect consumers and retailers.
As we explained in an article published in the Journal of Operations Management, we designed experiments to study whether and why return policy restrictions irk customers. We also wanted to understand what retailers can do to minimize backlash after making it harder for customers to return stuff.
We conducted three experiments in which we presented scenarios to 1,500 U.S. consumers who played the role of loyal customers of a fictional retailer. We examined their reactions to the fictional retailer’s return policy restrictions, such as charging a 15% restocking fee and limiting open-ended return windows to 365, 180 and 30 days.
Participants became less willing to buy anything from the fictional retailer after it restricted its long-standing lenient return policy. They also said they would become less willing to recommend the retailer to others.
This occurred because the customers began to distrust the retailer and its ability to offer a high-quality service. The backlash was stronger when the restriction was more severe. Even those consumers who said they usually don’t return any products often reacted negatively.
When the fictional retailer announced its new, harsher return policy using official communication channels and provided a rationale, there was less backlash. Consumers found the changes more justified if the retailer highlighted increased “return abuse,” in which customers return products they’ve already used, or the high cost of processing returns.
You might presume that making it harder and more costly to return stuff could drive some shoppers away. Our research shows that the concern is valid and explains why. It also shows how communicating return policy changes directly with customers can help prevent or reduce backlash against retailers.
Why it matters
Americans returned products worth an estimated US$890 billion to retailers in 2024. Processing a single item typically costs $21 to $46. Most of this merchandise ends up in landfills.
The rise of e-commerce and other technological changes have contributed to this trend. Another factor is the ease with which consumers may return stuff long after making a purchase and get a full refund.
Many other retailers besides L.L. Bean have done away with their long-standing lenient return policies. Over the past decade, for example, Macy’s, a department store chain, and Kohl’s, a big-box clothing store chain, have shortened the time frames for returns.
Macy’s restricted its open-ended return window to one year in 2016, further winnowed it to 180 days in 2017, then to 90 days in 2019. It then stopped accepting returns after 30 days in 2023. Kohl’s didn’t have any time limit on returns it would accept until 2019. Then it imposed a 180-day limit. Others, such as fast-fashion giants Zara and H&M, now charge their customers fees when they return merchandise.
However, research shows that customers value no-questions-asked return policies and see them as a sign of high-quality service. And when these arrangements become the industry standard, customers can get angry if retailers fail to meet it.
Interestingly, most retailers that restricted their policies didn’t tell customers directly. Instead, they quietly updated the new policies on websites, store displays and receipts. Although not drawing attention to bad news might appear prudent – as most customers wouldn’t notice the changes that way – dozens of threads on Reddit about these changes suggest that this isn’t always true.
What still isn’t known
We focused on restrictions on refunds and how long after a purchase customers could return merchandise. Other restrictions, such as retailers making heavily discounted items ineligible for returns, could also be worth investigating.
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
Huseyn Abdulla, Assistant Professor of Supply Chain Management, University of Tennessee
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Welcome to the Consumer Corner section of STM Daily News, your ultimate destination for savvy shopping and informed decision-making! Dive into a treasure trove of insights and reviews covering everything from the hottest toys that spark joy in your little ones to the latest electronic gadgets that simplify your life. Explore our comprehensive guides on stylish home furnishings, discover smart tips for buying a home or enhancing your living space with creative improvement ideas, and get the lowdown on the best cars through our detailed auto reviews. Whether you’re making a major purchase or simply seeking inspiration, the Consumer Corner is here to empower you every step of the way—unlock the keys to becoming a smarter consumer today!
(Feature Impact) Stretches of scorching summer days may leave you and your family feeling like you just can’t quite get (or stay) cool. If you find yourself resigned to cooler rooms or leaving ceiling fans on constantly, it might be time to check your air conditioner.
Extreme heat is no longer rare for many parts of the country. According to recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 13 million households reported being uncomfortably hot for an extended period.
Not all air conditioning systems perform the same when temperatures spike. While most systems can keep up on typical summer days, prolonged heat can expose performance gaps, leading to uneven cooling and higher energy use. The difference often comes down to how the system is designed.
To better understand whether your HVAC system can stand up to summer, consider this information from the experts at Mitsubishi Electric Trane HVAC US (METUS), a world leader in residential air conditioning units with sophisticated, durable systems that deliver quiet operation and energy-efficient performance.
Why Some Homes Stay More Comfortable Than Others
Not every home experiences summer heat the same way. Factors such as home layout, sun exposure, insulation, and HVAC system design can all influence how effectively a home maintains comfort during prolonged periods of high temperatures.
For example, upstairs bedrooms, rooms with large windows, and spaces exposed to direct afternoon sun often have different cooling demands than other areas of the home. Systems that provide more precise temperature control and flexibility can help address these differences and deliver more consistent comfort throughout the house.
Signs Your System May Be Struggling
As summer temperatures rise, there are often clear signs that an HVAC system may be struggling to keep up with demand. One of the most common indicators is a system that seems to run constantly during the hottest parts of the day, yet fails to deliver the level of comfort homeowners expect.
Homeowners may also notice persistent warm spots in certain rooms, increased indoor humidity, or weaker airflow from vents. In some cases, increased noise from vents or equipment may signal the system is working harder than usual to maintain airflow and cooling performance.
Another warning sign often appears on monthly utility statements. A noticeable increase in energy use during peak summer months can indicate the system is consuming more power to maintain comfort under challenging conditions.
What Makes the Difference in Extreme Heat
Not all HVAC systems are built the same. Modern system design plays a critical role in how well a home stays comfortable during prolonged high temperatures. Zoned Comfort Solutions from Mitsubishi Electric include ducted and ductless options designed to deliver reliable comfort, efficiency, and control in demanding conditions like summer heat surges, along with important features like:
- Cooling performance designed to maintain comfort even during extreme outdoor temperatures
- Precise temperature control that helps deliver more consistent comfort throughout the home
- Quiet, efficient operation that delivers strong performance with less noise and energy use
- Flexible installation options for homes with existing ductwork and homes without ducts, plus room additions, garages, sunrooms, and other hard-to-cool spaces
Evaluating whether your current system is designed to handle sustained high temperatures can help prevent discomfort and avoid rushed decisions during the hottest days of the year. To learn more, visit MitsubishiComfort.com.
SOURCE:
Mitsubishi Electric Trane HVAC US
Thanks for reading STM Daily News – your source for News You Can Use This Moment!
Consumer Corner
Behind the Product: What Sustainability Looks Like in Beauty Development
Beauty Development: Shoppers want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
s
(Feature Impact) Shoppers are paying closer attention to the products they bring into their homes. They want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
Responsible product lines rarely come from sweeping change. They are built through smaller, connected choices made throughout development. Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning influence how a product performs, how much waste it creates and how sustainably products can be produced.
Consider this beauty sustainability information from Laura Badcock, Chief Operating Officer of NourishUs Naturals.
Why packaging matters beyond appearance
“Packaging is often the first thing shoppers notice,” Badcock said. “It can shape how someone feels about a product before they ever try what’s inside.”
A package should look appealing, though appearance is only part of the equation. It also needs to protect the product, travel safely, store well and hold up through regular use. Once the product is finished, the packaging should allow easy recycling, refilling or responsible disposal.
There is no single packaging option that works best for every beauty product. A lightweight container may reduce shipping weight. A refillable option may stay in use longer. A recyclable material may work well in one area but create challenges in another if local recycling systems cannot process it. Even packaging that appears sustainable can create problems in practice if it leaks, breaks or requires excess shipping materials.
Why ingredient sourcing matters
“Ingredient lists have become an important part of how people evaluate beauty products,” Badcock said. “Shoppers often look for familiar oils, butters, botanical extracts and information about how ingredients were sourced, which plays a major role in the environmental impact.”
A product’s environmental footprint is influenced by many factors, including shipping distance, processing methods, storage conditions and supplier practices.
These factors can also affect product consistency and ingredient availability over time. Beauty brands working with wholesale skin care suppliers or private label manufacturers often need to balance ingredient goals with sourcing reliability and production needs.
How better planning can lead to less waste
“Packaging and ingredients are usually the first things people associate with sustainability, but how much product gets made, stored and discarded matters, too,” Badcock said.
Overproduction is one of the biggest hidden sources of waste in beauty and personal care. Products that sit too long in storage may eventually expire or remain unsold. Excess inventory can also create additional packaging waste, warehousing needs and disposal costs.
Smaller batch sizes give producers more room to adjust as trends or demand shift, and producing closer to expected sales windows helps reduce long storage periods and unnecessary waste. Testing new products in smaller volumes and restocking based on actual demand makes overproduction less likely.
How sustainable beauty choices are connected
Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning are closely connected throughout development.
“A packaging choice can affect shipping weight, storage needs and whether a package can be refilled,” Badcock said. “Ingredient choices can influence sourcing timelines and how products need to be stored. Production planning affects how much material gets used and how much product could eventually go unsold.”
Beauty shoppers want more transparency around sustainability claims
Sustainability claims carry less weight when those claims aren’t explained in practice.
This shift is pushing many beauty brands to focus more heavily on traceability, supplier relationships and clearer product information. Transparency is becoming part of the customer experience itself.
More responsible product lines are built over time
Responsible beauty products come together through ongoing choices around packaging, sourcing, production and inventory planning. For shoppers, those choices influence the products they bring into their homes.
“The brands that build sustainability into early decisions tend to have the easiest time maintaining it later,” Badcock said. “Once supplier relationships, packaging formats and production routines are in place, small adjustments are far easier than major changes. Treating sustainability as part of product development from the beginning, rather than something to fix later, is what makes it work in practice.”
To find more information on the intersection of beauty and sustainability, visitNourishUsNaturals.com.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
SOURCE:
Protect yourself from the latest online scams with STM Daily News. From AI-powered fraud schemes to consumer safety tips, our Consumer Corner delivers practical information to help you make informed decisions. Visit STM Daily News for more news you can use this moment, and don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter for updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Automotive
EPA removal of vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles, but will make it harder, slower and more expensive
The EPA’s move to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding” and roll back vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles—but it will slow adoption, raise costs, and increase climate and public health harms.
Alan Jenn, University of California, Davis
The U.S. government is in full retreat from its efforts to make vehicles more fuel-efficient, which it had been prioritizing, along with state governments, since the 1970s.
The latest move came on Feb. 12, 2026, when President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule rescinding the landmark “endangerment finding,” and reversing various emissions limits on cars and trucks. The 2009 finding stated that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. If the new rule stands up in court and is not overruled by Congress, it would undo a key part of the long-standing effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
As a scholar of how vehicle emissions contribute to climate change, I know that the science behind the endangerment finding hasn’t changed. If anything, the evidence has grown that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and threatening people’s health and safety. Heat waves, flooding, sea-level rise and wildfires have only worsened in the decade and a half since the EPA’s ruling.
Regulations over the years have cut emissions from power generation, leaving transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
The scientific community agrees that vehicle emissions are harmful and should be regulated. The public also agrees, and has indicated strong preferences for cars that pollute less, including both more efficient gas-burning vehicles and electric-powered ones. Consumers have also been drawn to electric vehicles thanks to other benefits such as performance, operation cost and innovative technologies.
That is why I believe the EPA’s move will not stop the public and commercial transition to electric vehicles, but it will make that shift harder, slower and more expensive for everyone.
Putting carmakers in a bind
The most recent EPA rule about vehicle emissions was finalized in 2024. It set emissions limits that can realistically only be met by a large-scale shift to electric vehicles.
Over the past decade and a half, automakers have been building up their capability to produce electric vehicles to meet these fleet requirements, and a combination of regulations such as California’s zero-emission-vehicle requirements have worked together to ensure customers can get their hands on EVs. The zero-emission-vehicle rules require automakers to produce EVs for the California market, which in turn make it easier for the companies to meet their efficiency and emissions targets from the federal government. These collectively pressure automakers to provide a steady supply of electric vehicles to consumers.
The new EPA move would undo the 2024 EPA vehicle-emissions rule and other federal regulations that also limit emissions from vehicles, such as the heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule.
The possibility of a regulatory reversal puts automakers into a state of uncertainty. Legal challenges to the EPA’s shift are all but guaranteed, and the court process could take years.
For companies making decade-long investment decisions, regulatory stability matters more than short-term politics. Disrupting that stability undermines business planning, erodes investor confidence and sends conflicting signals to consumers and suppliers alike.
A slower roll
The Trump administration has taken other steps to make electric vehicles less attractive to carmakers and consumers.
The White House has already suspended key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that provided tax credits for purchasing EVs and halted a US$5 billion investment in a nationwide network of charging stations. And Congress has retracted the federal waiver that allowed California to set its own, stricter emissions limits. In combination, these policies make it hard to buy and drive electric vehicles: Fewer, or no, financial incentives for consumers make the purchases more expensive, and fewer charging stations make travel planning more challenging.
Overturning the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding would remove the legal basis for regulating climate pollution from vehicles altogether.
But U.S. consumer interest in electric vehicles has been growing, and automakers have already made massive investments to produce electric vehicles and their associated components in the U.S. – such as Hyundai’s EV factory in Georgia and Volkswagen’s Battery Engineering Lab in Tennessee.
Global markets, especially in Europe and China, are also moving decisively toward electrifying large proportions of the vehicles on the road. This move is helped in no small part due to aggressive regulation by their respective governments. The results speak for themselves: Sales of EVs in both the European Union and China have been growing rapidly.
But the pace of change matters. A slower rollout of clean vehicles means more cumulative emissions, more climate damage and more harm to public health.
The EPA’s move seeks to slow the shift to electric vehicles, removing incentives and raising costs – even though the market has shown that cleaner vehicles are viable, the public has shown interest, and the science has never been clearer. But even such a major policy change can’t stop the momentum of those trends.
This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 5, 2025.
Alan Jenn, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Stay ahead of the curve with STM Daily News’ Tech section, featuring the latest on innovation, consumer technology, digital trends, startups, AI, and the stories shaping how we live and work.
