IN Brief:
- The September 2026 study questioned 1,001 UK consumers within a five-country sample exceeding 5,000 people.
- Eighty-nine percent said they would shop less or stop at a retailer restricting returns because they returned too frequently; 35% reported already leaving one with stricter rules.
- Fifty-eight percent had been told to keep a product they wanted to return, and 59% said they would not pay a returns fee.
Blue Yonder has found that 89% of UK consumers surveyed would shop less often or stop using a retailer if it restricted their ability to return goods because they returned too frequently. The finding comes from its 2026 Consumer Retail Returns Survey, fielded in September among more than 5,000 people across five countries, including 1,001 in the UK. The responses describe consumers’ intentions under a specified policy rather than a measured fall in revenue after a retailer changed its rules.
Actual switching behaviour provides a separate measure. Thirty-five percent of UK respondents said they had stopped shopping with a retailer that introduced stricter returns terms during the preceding year, while 52% had selected one retailer over another because its returns policy was better. The study does not establish how often these decisions occurred, the value of sales affected or whether the restrictions were identical. Those distinctions prevent a survey response about a hypothetical restriction from being treated as a forecast of sales losses.
Returns generate physical work across parcel collection, transport, receiving, inspection, sorting, repackaging, inventory updates and, where possible, resale. An item arriving back at a distribution centre is not automatically ready to re-enter saleable stock. Its packaging and condition may need to be checked, while electronics, cosmetics, clothing and other categories can require different handling. Where items cannot be resold through the normal channel, additional processing or onward movements can reduce the amount recovered from the original transaction.
UK respondents reported less frequent returns than consumers in the two continental European markets included in the survey. A quarter said they returned a purchase at least once a month, compared with 48% in France and 46% in Germany. Fourteen percent said a return had been rejected during the preceding year, against 32% in France and 30% in Germany. These are self-reported responses, not parcel counts collected from retailer systems, and differences in product mix or policy were not isolated by the published figures.
Cost recovery through a direct fee presents another constraint. Fifty-nine percent of UK consumers surveyed said they would not pay to return a product, rising to 69% among Generation X respondents and 70% among Baby Boomers. Free returns shipping was identified by 43% as the most important element of the experience, while 29% prioritised fast or instant refunds. Retailers therefore have to consider both the expense of a return shipment and the possible effect of changing the service offered at checkout.
Retailers are also deciding when the reverse journey is economically worthwhile. Fifty-eight percent of UK respondents said they had been told to keep an item they wanted to return in the previous year, up from 50% in the company’s 2025 survey. Among those who received that instruction, 67% said it made them more likely to shop with the retailer again. Refunding without retrieval can avoid return postage, processing and disposal when recoverable stock value is low, provided order records and exception rules can identify repeated claims or unsuitable products.
Alternative offers attracted mixed responses. Discounts or partial refunds were acceptable to 31% of respondents, store credit to 30%, and a discount on a future purchase to 27%; another 31% would not accept an incentive instead of completing the return. The company also found that 56% worried about returned products reaching landfill. These preferences create several possible routes for returns handling, but the suitable option depends on item condition, resale demand, collection expense and the retailer’s obligations to the customer.
AI-assisted shopping adds another source of mismatched expectations to the returns process. Twenty-three percent of UK respondents had bought a product after a recommendation from an AI tool; among that subgroup, 41% said they had returned such a purchase within the preceding year. Of respondents who returned an AI-recommended item, 37% cited a difference from its description and 26% cited size or fit. The survey does not measure the proportion of individual AI-recommended orders returned, nor does it establish that AI recommendations cause a higher overall return rate.
Product descriptions, available sizes, stock records and fulfilment information affect whether a recommendation turns into an order that meets expectations. The survey found that only 17% of UK respondents trusted AI tools to recommend the right size or fit, while 37% did not trust them at all. More accurate product information could reduce some avoidable mismatches, but the research does not quantify a possible reduction in parcel volumes or processing costs.
Returns disposition requires the retailer to match each request to the item’s expected recovery value and its available routes for inspection, resale, repair, recycling or disposal. The survey offers customer-attitude evidence but no audited warehouse savings, transport-cost reduction or return-volume forecast. It also found that 56% of UK respondents were concerned about returns reaching landfill, adding an environmental consideration to the financial comparison between sending goods back and issuing a refund without collection.
