家具零售業長期依賴線性「取用—製造—棄置」模式，在全球規模估計達 7，660 億美元的產業中持續產生大量物料廢棄與碳排放（Statista， 2024）。隨著歐盟永續產品生態設計規範（ESPR， 2024）、延伸製造者責任（EPR）及企業永續報告指令（CSRD）等政策壓力升高，IKEA 等大型零售商面臨設計有效且具商業可行性逆向物流系統的迫切需求。然而現有文獻對大型家具零售情境下的逆向物流策略選擇研究仍相當有限，現有 AHP 研究多仰賴一手問卷，難以跨情境應用與獨立驗證。本研究採用次級資料驅動之 AHP 架構，系統性評估三種逆向物流策略構型：S1 內部循環倉儲模式、S2 第三方物流外包、S3 混合去中心化模式。評估準則依文獻建立四項：運營能力（OP， 0.4824）、經濟效益（EC， 0.2718）、環境績效（ENV， 0.1575）及顧客體驗（CU， 0.0883），所有一致性比率均低於 Saaty（2008）之 0.10 門檻。AHP 加權結果顯示 S3 獲最高綜合得分（42.3%），次為 S1（35.5%），S2 最低（22.2%）。S3 的優勢源自其經濟準則得分（42.8%），對應 Hingley et al.（2011）記錄之協同物流模式可降低 20–35% 成本，以及顧客準則的絕對領先（73.1%），並由 IKEA 澳洲 Buy Back Friday 活動數據所驗證（單週回收逾 10，000 件、85% 再販率、178 噸廢棄物轉移；PSCoE， 2021）。情境敏感性分析確認 S3 在碳規管強化、退貨量成長及成本通膨三種情境下均維持最優排名。研究結果轉化為三階段實施路徑圖，提供 IKEA 台灣及同類零售商具體行動指引。;The furniture retail industry...in a sector estimated at approximately USD 700–760 billion globally (SkyQuest， 2025; Grand View Research， 2025)， generating substantial material waste and carbon emissions. As regulatory pressure intensifies through the EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR， 2024)， Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks， and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)， large-format retailers such as IKEA face growing imperatives to design effective and commercially viable reverse logistics (RL) systems. Yet the literature on RL strategy selection for large-scale furniture retailers remains limited， with existing AHP studies relying predominantly on primary expert surveys that restrict cross-contextual applicability and independent verification of weights. This study addresses that gap through a fully transparent， secondary data-driven AHP framework evaluating three RL strategy configurations: S1 (In-house Circular Hub)， S2 (3PL Outsourcing)， and S3 (Hybrid Decentralized). Four criteria derived from systematic literature synthesis are applied: Operational capability (OP， 0.4824)， Economic performance (EC， 0.2718)， Environmental impact (ENV， 0.1575)， and Customer experience (CU， 0.0883). All five consistency ratios fall below Saaty′s (2008) 0.10 threshold. AHP composite scoring ranks S3 first (42.3%)， followed by S1 (35.5%) and S2 (22.2%). S3′s advantage is driven by its Economic criterion score (42.8%)， grounded in Hingley et al.′s (2011) documented 20–35% cost reduction from collaborative logistics， and its dominant Customer score (73.1%)， validated by the IKEA Australia Buy Back Friday campaign (10，000 returns/week， 85% resale rate， 178 tons diverted from landfill; PSCoE， 2021). Sensitivity analysis confirms S3 as optimal across carbon regulation， return volume growth， and cost inflation scenarios. Findings are translated into a three-phase implementation roadmap for IKEA Taiwan and comparable retailers.
