Why your holiday gift returns might go to a landfill and what you can do about it

The holiday season is winding down, but for retailers across the nation, the annual return rush is just getting started. According to National Retail Federation estimates, approximately 17% of all holiday purchases will find their way back to stores and warehouses in the coming weeks, creating significant logistical challenges for the retail industry.

To accommodate this influx, many retailers have implemented extended return windows and bolstered their seasonal staffing. The phenomenon has become an expected post-holiday tradition, with both environmental and economic implications that extend far beyond consumer convenience.

“When we buy for other people, finding what they want is a bit of a guessing game,” explains Saskia van Gendt, chief sustainability officer at supply chain software company Blue Yonder. “Clothing and footwear, as you can imagine, because fit is such an important criteria, they have higher rates of returns.”

The uncertainty factor is particularly pronounced in e-commerce, where consumers cannot physically interact with products before purchasing. This disconnect has created return rates significantly higher for online purchases compared to traditional brick-and-mortar transactions.

The environmental toll of this retail roundtrip is substantial. Products typically arrive in plastic packaging derived from petroleum, whose production contributes to climate-warming emissions. Add to this the carbon footprint of transportation—planes, trains, and trucks burning fossil fuels to deliver items—and the impact multiplies with each return.

Joseph Sarkis, a supply chain management professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, estimates that returning an item increases its environmental impact by 25% to 30%. Once returned, products face several possible fates: refurbishment, liquidation, recycling, or landfill disposal. Each pathway requires additional resources, energy, and transportation.

Perhaps most concerning is that approximately one-third of returned items never make it back to consumers. The economics often don’t support resale, particularly for lower-value items. While expensive electronics might enter secondary markets, inexpensive household items frequently end up discarded.

“It can be quite expensive,” Sarkis notes about the return process. “And if you send it out to a new customer and the phone is bad, imagine the reputational hit you’ll get. You’ll get another return and you’ll lose a customer who’s unhappy with the product or material. So the companies are hesitant to take that chance.”

Certain categories pose specific challenges. Intimate apparel and swimwear, for instance, face consumer resistance to resale, making these items particularly problematic when returned.

Despite retailer marketing of “free returns,” these costs are inevitably passed to consumers. Christopher Faires, assistant professor of logistics and supply chain management at Georgia Southern University, explains: “Refurbishment, inspection, repackaging, all of these things get factored into the retail price.”

For environmentally conscious consumers, several strategies can minimize the impact of necessary returns. Cardiff University logistics expert Danni Zhang recommends careful handling of items and reusing original packaging. Timing also matters—returning items quickly significantly increases their chances of resale rather than disposal.

“If you have to return something, do it quickly,” Zhang advises. “That ugly Christmas sweater you got at the white elephant office party has a much better chance of selling on Dec. 20 than it does on Jan. 5.”

In-person returns offer another advantage, as they tend to result in higher resale rates and reduced emissions. Items returned to physical stores can immediately reenter inventory, avoiding additional shipping and processing.

Experts unanimously agree that the best approach is preventing returns altogether. The practice of “bracketing”—purchasing multiple sizes or colors with the intention of returning unwanted variants—has become increasingly common but environmentally problematic.

“This behavior of bringing the dressing room to our homes is not sustainable,” Faires emphasizes.

For gift-givers struggling with sizing and preference uncertainty, gift cards represent an environmentally superior alternative. While less personal, they eliminate the guesswork that often leads to returns.

On the business side, solutions are emerging. Some retailers are beginning to implement return fees in certain situations. Meanwhile, technology companies like Blue Yonder are developing sophisticated systems to streamline the assessment of returned items and optimize their redistribution.

“Having that process be more digitized, you can quickly assess the condition and put it back into inventory,” says van Gendt. “So that’s a big way to just avoid landfill and also all of the carbon emissions that are associated with that.”

The apparel industry, with its inconsistent sizing systems, presents particular opportunities for improvement. More standardized measurements could significantly reduce clothing returns. Additionally, emerging technologies like 3D imaging and virtual reality hold promise for helping consumers make more accurate purchasing decisions from the outset.

As the post-holiday return season intensifies, both consumers and retailers are increasingly recognizing that the true cost of returns extends well beyond convenience and economics—with environmental impacts that deserve greater attention in retail strategy and consumer behavior.