92 Supply Chain Forum An International Journal Vol. 12 - N°2 - 2011 www.supplychain-forum.com Reverse Logistics and Push-Pull Manufacturing Systems: The Case of Electronic Products Shumail Mazahir HEC Paris, France mazahirms@hec.fr Marc Lassagne Arts et Métiers ParisTech, France GRID, Arts et Métiers ParisTech / ESTP / IAE de Paris marc.lassagne@ensam.eu Laoucine Kerbache HEC Paris, GREGHEC, France kerbache@hec.fr Research on the determinants of reverse logistics has so far largely been focussed on product characteristics. We argue in this exploratory article that these explanations are not sufficient as various reverse logistics strategies can be observed for similar products. We suggest to complement them by suggesting a more general model which takes into account push-pull manufacturing strategies. We illustrate the model with three case studies and suggest future avenues for empirical research based on our framework. Key words: reverse logistics, manufacturing strategy, push-pull manufacturing, reverse supply chain, remanufacturing, case study Introduction Push-pull manufacturing systems have long been a subject of research and discussion among practitioners and academics (Spearman & Zazanis, 1992). A “push” manufacturing system is characterized by an approach in which production and inventory decisions are based on long-term forecasts (Bonney et al., 1999). Although this type of strategy can gain the benefits of economies of scale, its success may be jeopardized by demand uncertainty and it may also suffer from the possible necessity of maintaining an excessive inventory. Moreover, variability in production does not necessarily make a push strategy an obvious choice (Hayes & Pisano, 1994) because it cannot incorporate demand mismatches. Production can also be managed by using a “Pull” manufacturing system driven by the orders of customers, which ensures reduced lead times, high service levels, reduced inventory levels, and enables companies to cope with a fluctuating market. However, it causes higher costs as economies of scale cannot be taken advantage of. The primary goal for supply chain management is to improve the service and reduce costs (Lee & Amaral, 2002). To that end, Hull (2005) showed that companies tend to seek high responsiveness and low cost. Bonney et al. (1999) argued that companies tend to combine the benefits of economies of scale of push systems with the high responsiveness and low inventory of pull systems. The resulting production system is known as a push-pull system. Quite often, the initial portion of the supply chain is replenished on the basis of long-term forecasts (push system) and the final stages of the manufacturing process are delayed until customer orders are received (pull system). The principle that governs the transition from a push to a pull system is called the principle of postponement (Alderson, 1950; Van Hoek 1998, 2001), which corresponds to the determination of the boundary between the push and the pull ways of managing the manufacturing process. The setting of this boundary is derived from the trade- off between achieving economies of scale and coping with demand uncertainty. In other words, it © Copyright BEM ISSN print 1625-8312 ISSN online1624-6039 An International Journal Supply Chain Forum