Topic starter
11/07/2026 8:47 pm
TL;DR: Merchants are facing a rising chargeback burden, manual dispute handling, and fragmented operating models that erode profit and slow recovery, according to Riskified’s 2024 research with more than 300 chargeback managers. The operational issue is no longer dispute volume alone; the governance problem is whether chargeback handling can be measured, standardised, and scaled without drowning teams in manual work.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Riskified: “Chargeback challenges and what you can do about them: Global insights 2024”.
By the numbers:
- Riskified’s report is based on interviews with more than 300 chargeback managers worldwide.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when chargeback management is still handled manually?
A: Manual chargeback handling breaks at scale because teams cannot quickly gather the supporting evidence, analyse patterns, or maintain consistent prevention work across channels.
Q: Why does fragmented ownership make chargeback recovery worse?
A: Fragmented ownership creates gaps between fraud, payments, support, and finance, so no one manages the full dispute lifecycle.
Q: How do merchants know whether chargeback operations are improving?
A: Merchants should look for stable or rising win rates, shorter submission cycles, lower exception rates, and fewer manually reworked cases.
Practitioner guidance
- Standardise the dispute workflow Document each stage from case intake to evidence submission and approval so every chargeback follows the same path regardless of merchant segment or analyst.
- Define evidence quality thresholds Specify the minimum transaction, order, and customer context required before a dispute can be submitted, then reject cases that do not meet the bar.
- Measure recovery performance consistently Track win rate, time to submission, cycle time, and exception rates so finance and fraud teams can see where the operating model is failing.
Bottom line: Chargeback management fails when merchants rely on manual dispute handling instead of a repeatable operating model.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
11/07/2026 9:15 pm
Chargeback management is now a governance problem, not just a fraud problem. When disputes are handled manually across disconnected teams, merchants lose the control needed to turn evidence into recoveries. That shifts the conversation from transaction loss containment to operational design, because fragmented handling weakens both efficiency and recoverability. Practitioners should treat chargeback operations as a governed recovery capability.
A question worth separating out:
Q: When should chargeback management be treated as a recovery programme rather than a cost centre?
A: It should be treated as a recovery programme when dispute volume, evidence handling, and analyst workload have grown beyond ad hoc coordination. At that point, the issue is no longer only cost containment. The organisation needs defined ownership, metrics, and standard work so chargebacks are managed as a revenue recovery function.
👉 Read our full editorial: Chargeback management is shifting from cost control to recovery