Managing Product Returns at the Source:   Associations between SCOR Processes and    Return Performance - Multimethod Evidence from the Gaziantep Carpet Manufacturing   Industry

Dilara Berrak TARHAN; Hasan Aksoy

doi:10.58905/whoosh.v1i2.792

Authors

Dilara Berrak TARHAN Ankara Medipol University, Faculty of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences, Department of International Trade and Finance, Türkiye
Hasan Aksoy Gaziantep University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of International Trade and Logistics, Gaziantep, Türkiye

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58905/whoosh.v1i2.792

Keywords:

SCOR model, supply chain performance, reverse logistics, entropy weighting, carpet manufacturing

Abstract

Product returns are not merely a post-sale reverse-logistics activity; they can also represent the visible outcome of deficiencies in planning, sourcing, production, delivery, and supply chain governance. This study examines associations between the Plan, Source, Make, Deliver, and Enable processes in the SCOR Model 12.0 and a perception-based Return construct and identifies processes that merit managerial attention for return prevention. A multimethod design is employed. A total of 119 valid questionnaires collected from carpet manufacturing firms operating in Gaziantep, Türkiye, were analyzed via exploratory factor analysis, correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression. Evaluations of 28 SCOR metrics obtained from 10 supply chain managers were then weighted via the entropy method, and semistructured interviews with four stakeholders connected to one large carpet manufacturer were used for contextual interpretation. Because the survey is cross-sectional and all the constructs were measured from the same respondents at one measurement occasion, the regression coefficients are interpreted as associations rather than causal effects, and common-method variance cannot be ruled out. The main regression model accounts for 75.7% of the variance in the Return construct (R² = .757; adjusted R² = .747; p < .001). Plan is the strongest predictor (β = -.559; p < .001), followed by Enable (β = -.253; p = .004), Make (β = -.200; p = .017), and Deliver (β = -.170; p = .021); Source is not statistically significant (β = -.091; p = .115). Exploratory item-level regressions identify supply chain data and information management (β = -.668; p < .001) and engineer-to-order production (β = -.546; p < .001) as the strongest nominal associations, but these item-level p values are unadjusted for multiple testing and are treated as hypothesis-generating. Within the 10-manager panel, entropy-derived weights rank Plan first, and an indicator-count-normalized sensitivity check also leaves Plan first, although the ordering of intermediate processes changes. Overall, the findings are consistent with a preventive, upstream approach to returns centered on planning, information governance, customized production, and fulfillment control.

References

APICS: Supply Chain Operations Reference Model: SCOR Version 12.0. APICS (2017).

Shemshadi, A., Shirazi, H., Toreihi, M., Tarokh, M.J.: A fuzzy VIKOR method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 12160–12167 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.027.

Shannon, C.E.: A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379–423 (1948). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x.

Fuller, C.M., Simmering, M.J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., Babin, B.J.: Common methods variance detection in business research. J. Bus. Res. 69, 3192–3198 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P.: Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 879–903 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

Taber, K.S.: The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 48, 1273–1296 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.

Chehbi-Gamoura, S., Derrouiche, R., Damand, D., Barth, M.: Insights from big data analytics in supply chain management: an all-inclusive literature review using the SCOR model. Production Planning & Control 31, 355–382 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1639839.

Dweekat, A.J., Hwang, G., Park, J.: A supply chain performance measurement approach using the internet of things. Industrial Management & Data Systems 117, 267–286 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2016-0096.

Kutluay Tutar, F., Abukalloub, A.: The role of the sports sector in regional economic development. ASES International Journal of Economy 3(1), 163–175 (2025).

Association for Supply Chain Management: SCOR DS/SCOR 12 Crosswalk (2025). https://www.ascm.org/globalassets/ascm_website_assets/docs/scor/scor_crosswalk.pdf, last accessed 2026/08/26.

Association for Supply Chain Management: SCOR Digital Standard: Introduction to Processes (2026). https://scor.ascm.org/processes/introduction, last accessed 2026/08/26.

Wang, C.-N., Huang, Y.-F., Cheng, I.-F., Nguyen, V.T.: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Approach Using Hybrid SCOR Metrics, AHP, and TOPSIS for Supplier Evaluation and Selection in the Gas and Oil Industry. Processes 6, 252 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/pr6120252.

van Engelenhoven, T., Kassahun, A., Tekinerdogan, B.: Systematic Analysis of the Supply Chain Operations Reference Model for Supporting Circular Economy. Circular Economy and Sustainability 3, 811–834 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00221-6.

Purnomo, A., Syafrianita: Supply Chain Performance Measurement: The Green Supply Chain Operation Reference (SCOR) Approach. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental 18, e05718 (2024). https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n6-013.

Çıkmak, S., Kantoğlu, B., Kırbaç, G.: Evaluation of the effects of blockchain technology characteristics on SCOR model supply chain performance measurement attributes using an integrated fuzzy MCDM methodology. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 27, 1015–1045 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2023.2193736.

Lima-Junior, F.R., Carpinetti, L.C.R.: Combining SCOR® model and fuzzy TOPSIS for supplier evaluation and management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 174, 128–141 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.01.023.

Zhou, H., Benton, W.C., Schilling, D.A., Milligan, G.W.: Supply Chain Integration and the SCOR Model. Journal of Business Logistics 32, 332–344 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0000-0000.2011.01029.x.

Li, L., Su, Q., Chen, X.: Ensuring supply chain quality performance through applying the SCOR model. Int. J. Prod. Res. 49, 33–57 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2010.508934.

Lockamy, A., McCormack, K.: Linking SCOR planning practices to supply chain performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24, 1192–1218 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570410569010.

Maestrini, V., Luzzini, D., Maccarrone, P., Caniato, F.: Supply chain performance measurement systems: A systematic review and research agenda. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 183, 299–315 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.11.005.

Arzu Akyuz, G., Erman Erkan, T.: Supply chain performance measurement: a literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 48, 5137–5155 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540903089536.

Georgise, F.B., Thoben, K.-D., Seifert, M.: Adapting the SCOR Model to Suit the Different Scenarios: A Literature Review & Research Agenda. International Journal of Business and Management 7 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n6p2.

Çat, M., Abukalloub, A.: Sürdürülebilirlik Bağlamında Uluslararası Lojistik ve Ekonominin Renkleri. Zenodo (2025).

Yılmaz, C., Atsan, B., Sarı, T.: Tedarik Zinciri Süreçlerinin Ölçüm ve İyileştirilmesinde Bir SCOR Modeli Uygulaması. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi 27, 425–444 (2020). https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.699836.

Nguyen, T.T.H.: Measuring Supply Chain Performance Using the SCOR Model. Operations Research Forum 5, 37 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-024-00314-y.

Dissanayake, C.K., Cross, J.A.: Systematic mechanism for identifying the relative impact of supply chain performance areas on the overall supply chain performance using SCOR model and SEM. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 201, 102–115 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.04.027.

Huan, S.H., Sheoran, S.K., Wang, G.: A review and analysis of supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 9, 23–29 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540410517557.

Sellitto, M.A., Pereira, G.M., Borchardt, M., da Silva, R.I., Viegas, C.V.: A SCOR-based model for supply chain performance measurement: application in the footwear industry. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53, 4917–4926 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1005251.

Sekaran, U.: Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 4th edn. John Wiley & Sons (2003).

Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S.: Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th edn. Pearson (2013).

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C.: Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th edn. Prentice Hall (1998).

Güngör, A., Abukalloub, A.: The Effects of Artificial Intelligence Use in the Logistics Sector on Operational Efficiency and Supply Chain Resilience: A Conceptual Analysis. In: 6th International WriteTec Congress of Social Sciences and Health Sciences in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (2026).