E-customer preferences on sustainable last mile deliveries in the e-commerce market: A cross-generational perspective

• Authors: Agnieszka Jagoda , Tomasz Kolakowski , Jakub Marcinkowski , Katarzyna Cheba , Monika Hajdas

Abstracts

EN

Research background: In the last few years, e-commerce market has increased in population shares, but the situation has changed dramatically since the Covid-19 pandemic. Electronic marketplaces have changed due to rapid digitalization and shopping. Online services offer the possibility to choose a different delivery method such as home delivery or out-of-home delivery. This aspect of the e-commerce market faces an increased interest among practitioners and academia in the field of sustainable last mile deliveries. Interestingly, the subject literature consists of papers analyzing the e-commerce impact on the last-mile delivery. However, the identification of factors for choosing a delivery method and factors that motivate e-customers to choose an eco-friendly delivery method is still an unrecognized field of research. Purpose of the article: The authors of the paper focused on the e-customer perspective on sustainable deliveries in cities. Thus, the main purpose of the paper is to compare factors among the generations that motivate e-customers for choosing a delivery method. Methods: The research was conducted among 1.110 e-customers in Poland in 2021. The paper aims to answer the following research question: what factors motivate each generation for choosing a delivery method? To answer the above-mentioned question, the correspondence analysis (MCA) is prepared that help to identify and compare factors in each generation. Findings & value added: The original research procedure focused on the use of multivariate statistical methods in the study of e-customers’ preferences. The analysis revealed three clusters of e-customers in terms of pro-sustainable factors: (a) aged 65+ without pro-sustainable tendency, (b) aged 18–64 with pro-sustainable attitudes, and (c) mixed with no identified delivery preferences. As a result of the research, it can be concluded that the parcel price and the possibility of free return are still the most important factors in choosing the delivery method. From a business/practical perspective, the research results can be used by companies that are the main stakeholders in last mile deliveries, including mainly forwarders and transport companies.

Keywords

EN

e-commerce; e-customer; sustainable last mile delivery; generations; correspondence analysis

• Publisher: Instytut Badań Gospodarczych
• Journal: Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 18
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 853-882

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Agnieszka Jagoda

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business

• https://orcid.org/000000018560031X

author

Tomasz Kolakowski

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business

• https://orcid.org/0000000325074850

author

Jakub Marcinkowski

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business

• https://orcid.org/0000000260761552

author

Katarzyna Cheba

• West Pomeranian University of Technology

• https://orcid.org/0000000187537764

author

Monika Hajdas

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business

• https://orcid.org/0000000310062486

References

• Accenture (2021). The sustainable last mile. Sustainable Last Mile Delivery. Retrieved form https://www.accenture.com/gb-en/insights/consulting/sustainable-last-mile-delivery (07.07.2022).
• Agatz, N., Campbell, A. M.., Fleischmann, M., & Savelsbergh, M. (2008). Challenges and opportunities in attended home delivery. In B. Golden, R. Raghavan & E. Wasil (Eds.). The vehicle routing problem: Latest advances and new challenges (pp. 370–396). Springer-Verlag.
• Allen, C., Metternicht, G., & Wiedmann, T. (2018). Initial progress in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A review of evidence from countries, Sustainability Science, 13, 1453–1467.
• Bąk, I, Cheba, K., & Szczecińska B. (2019). The impact of transport on the quality of the environment in cities of Poland – A statistical analysis. Transportation Research Procedia, 39, 24–33.
• Beh, E. J., & Lombardo, R. (2014). Correspondence analysis: theory, practice and new strategies. John Wiley & Sons.
• Belas, J., Gavurova, B., Čepel, M., & Kubák, M. (2020). Evaluation of economic potential of business environment development by comparing sector differences: Perspective of SMEs in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Oeconomia Copernicana. 11(1), 135–159.
• Benson, E. L., & Connell, K. Y. (2014). Fair trade consumption from the perspective of US Baby Boomers. Social Responsibility Journal, 10, 364–382.
• Bezerra, B. S., dos Santos, A. L., & Delmônico, D. V. (2020). Unfolding barriers for urban mobility plan in small and medium municipalities – A case study in Brazil. Transportation Research Part A-policy and Practice, 132, 808–822.
• Boruchowicz, C. (2022). Public policy, the environment, and the use of green nudges. In R. Fike, S. Haeffele & J. Arielle. (Eds.). Nudging public policy. examining the benefits and limitations of paternalistic public policies (pp. 175–202). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Cárdenas, I., Beckers, J., & Vanelslander, T. (2017). E-commerce last-mile in Belgium: Developing an external cost delivery index. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 24, 123–129.
• Caspersen, E., & Navrud, S. (2021). The sharing economy and consumer preferences for environmentally sustainable last mile deliveries. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 95, 102863.
• Castelo A. F. M., Schäfer M., & Silva M. E. (2021). Food practices as part of daily routines: A conceptual framework for analysing networks of practices. Appetite, 157, 104978, 1–12.
• Cheba, K., Kiba-Janiak, M., Baraniecka, A., & Kołakowski, T. (2021). Impact of external factors on the e-commerce market in cities and its implications on the environment. Sustainable Cities and Society, 72, 103032, 1–15.
• Comi, A. (2020). A modelling framework to forecast urban goods flows. Research in Transportation Economics, 80, 100827.
• Cudeck, R. (2000). Exploratory factor analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.). Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 265–296). Academic Press.
• Dabija, D. C., Bejan, B. M., & Dinu, V. (2019). How sustainability-oriented is generation Z in retail? A literature review. Transformations in Business & Economics, 18, 140–55.
• Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465–480.
• Dinner, I., Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G., & Liu, K. (2011). Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 432.
• Ducarme, D. (2019). Sustainable solutions for “last mile” deliveries in the parcel industry: A qualitative analysis using insights from third-party logistics service providers and public mobility experts. Louvain: Louvain School of Management, Universithe catholique de Louvain.
• E-commerce share of total retail sales. (2021). EMarketer
• Evans, D. (2012). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46(1), 41–56.
• Evans, D., McMeekin, A., & Southerton, D. (2012). Sustainable consumption, behaviour change policies and theories of practice. COLLeGIUM: Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences, 12, 113–129.
• Evans, N., Eickers, S., Geene, L., Todorović, M., & Villmow, A. (2017). Green nudging: A discussion and preliminary evaluation of nudging as an environmental policy instrument. Environmental Policy Research Centre, Freie Universität Berlin, Retrieved from https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/ 22047/EansxEickerxGeenexTodorovicxVillmov_FFUxReport_GreenxNudging.pdf?squen-ce=1.
• Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
• Frankowska, M., & Cheba, K. (2022). The relational embeddedness as the differentiator of the cluster supply chain collaboration – A multidimensional comparative analysis. Competitiveness Review, 32(1), 59–84.
• Gawor, T., & Hoberg, K. (2019). Customers’ valuation of time and convenience in e-fulfillment. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49(1), 75–98.
• Gevaers, R., Vanelslander, T., & Van de Voorde, E. (2011). Characteristics and typology of last-mile logistics from an innovation perspective in an urban context, city distribution and urban freight transport: multiple perspectives. In City distribution and urban freight transport: Multiple perspectives (pp. 56–71). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–482.
• Greenacre, M. (1984). Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London: Academic Press.
• Greenacre, M. (2017). Correspondence analysis in practice. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
• Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practicing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79–99.
• Hedin, B., Katzeff, C., Eriksson, E., & Pargman, D.S. (2019). A systematic review of digital behaviour change interventions for more sustainable food consumption. Sustainability 11(9), 2638.
• Hischier, R. (2018). Car vs. packaging - A first, simple (environmental) sustainability assessment of our changing shopping behaviour. Sustainability, 10, 3061.
• Hursh, D. W., Henderson, J. A., & Greenwood, D. A. (2015). Environmental education in a neoliberal climate. Environmental Education Research, 21, 299–318.
• Ignat, B., & Chankov, S. (2020). Do e-commerce customers change their preferred last-mile delivery based on its sustainability impact? International Journal of Logistics Management, 31(3), 521–548.
• Ivanova, O., Flores‐Zamora, J., Khelladi, I., & Ivanaj, S. (2019). The generational cohort effect in the context of responsible consumption. Management Decision, 57, 1162–1183.
• Iwan, S., Allesch, J., Celebi, D., Kijewska, K., Hoé, M., Klauenberg, J., Zajicek, J., (2019). Electric mobility in European urban freight and logistics – Status and attempts of improvement. Transportation Research Procedia, 39, 112–123.
• Iwan, S., Kijewska, K., & Lemke, J. (2016). Analysis of parcel lockers’ efficiency as the last mile delivery solution – The results of research in Poland. Transportation Research Procedia 12, 644–655.
• Jain, V., Vatsa R., & Jagani K. (2014). Exploring generation Z’s purchase behavior towards luxury apparel: a conceptual framework. Romanian Journal of Marketing 2, 18–29.
• Jara, M., Vyt, D., Mevel, O., Morvan, T., & Morvan, N. (2018). Measuring customers’ benefits of click and collect. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(4), 430–442.
• Jones, P., Comfort D., & Hillier D.(2005). Corporate social responsibility as a means of marketing to and communicating with customers within stores: A case study of UK food retailers. Management Research News, 28, 47–56.
• Kalmus V, Keller M, & Kiisel M. (2009). Emerging consumer types in a transition culture: Consumption patterns of generational and ethnic groups in Estonia. Journal of Baltic Studies, 40(1), 53–74.
• Kawa, A. (2020). Out-of-home delivery as a solution of the last mile problem in e-commerce. In P. Golinska-Dawson, K. M. Tsai & M. Kosacka-Olejnik (Eds.). Smart and sustainable supply chain and logistics – trends, challenges, methods and best practices (pp. 25–40). Cham: Springer.
• Kiba-Janiak, M., Cheba, K., Mucowska, M., & de Oliveira, L. K. (2022). Segmentation of e-customers in terms of sustainable last-mile delivery. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(4), 1117–1142.
• Kiba-Janiak, M., Marcinkowski, J., Jagoda, A., & Skorwońska, A. (2021). Sustainable last mile delivery on the e-commerce market in cities from the perspective of various stakeholders. Literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 71, 102984.
• Kłeczek, R., Pluta-Olearnik, M., & Pukas, A. (2020). Transformation of urban mobility practices. Services and values, routines and innovation. Wrocław: Publishing house of the Wrocław University of Economics and Business.
• Kline, R. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Y. Petscher, C. Schatschneider & D. L. Compton (Eds.). Applied quantitative analysis in education and the social sciences (pp. 171–207). Routledge.
• Kong, H. M., Witmaier, A., & Ko, E. (2021). Sustainability and social media communication: How consumers respond to marketing efforts of luxury and non-luxury fashion brands. Journal of Business Research, 131, 640–651.
• Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Harris, L. C., & Piercy, N. (2013). Principles of marketing. Pearson Education Limited.
• Laghaei, J., Faghri, A., & Li, M. (2016). Impacts of home shopping on vehicle operations and greenhouse gas emissions: Multi-year regional study. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 23, 381–391.
• Liu, G. (2014), Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 611–621.
• Lu, S., Yang, L., Liu, W., & Jia, L. (2020). User preference for electronic commerce overpackaging solutions: Implications for cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120936.
• Mannheim, K. (1952). Historicism. Essays on the sociology of knowledge. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
• McDonald, R. P. (2014). Factor analysis and related methods. Psychology Press.
• McKinsey & Company (2016). Parcel delivery. The future of last mile. Travel, Transport and Logistics, September 2016. Retrieved form https://www.bringg. com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Parcel_deliveryThe_future_of_last_mile-1.pdf (01.07.2022).
• Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science: IS, 6, 42–42.
• Moroz, M., & Polkowski, Z. (2016). The last mile issue and urban logistics: Choosing parcel machines in the context of the ecological attitudes of the Y generation consumers purchasing online. Transportation Research Procedia, 16, 378–393.
• Morrison, P. S., & Beer, B. (2017). Consumption and environmental awareness: Demographics of the European experience. Socioeconomic Environment Policies and Evaluations in Regional Science, 24, 81–102.
• Muñoz-Villamizar A., J. Santos, J. R., Montoya-Torres, J. C., Velázquez-Martínez (2020). Measuring environmental performance of urban freight transport systems: A case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 52, 101844.
• Nagatsu, M. (2015). Social nudges: Their mechanisms and justification. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 481–494.
• Nguyen, D. H., de Leeuw, S., Dullaert, W., & Foubert, B. P. J. (2019). What is the right delivery option for you? Consumer preferences for delivery attributes in online retailing. Journal of Business Logistics, 40(4), 299–321.
• Paddock, J. (2017). Household consumption and environmental change: Rethinking the policy problem through narratives of food practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(1), 122–139.
• Papadopoulou, M., Papasolomou, I., & Thrassou, A. (2021). Exploring the level of sustainability awareness among consumers within the fast-fashion clothing industry: A dual business and consumer perspective. Competitiveness Review, 32(3), 350–375
• Parry, E., & Battista, V. (2019). Generation Z in the UK: More of the same – High standards and demands. In C. Scholz, & A. Rennig (Eds.). Generation Z in Europe (The changing context of managing people) (pp. 89–107). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
• Pellizzoni, L. (2011). Governing through disorder: Neoliberal environmental governance and social theory. Global Environmental Change, 21, 795–803.
• Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 63–73.
• Prandtstetter, M., Seragiotto, C., Braith, J., Eitler, S., Ennser, B., Hauger, G., Hohenecker, N., Schodl, R., & Steinbauer, M. (2021). On the impact of open parcel lockers on traffic. Sustainability, 13(2), 755.
• Rai, H. B., Verlinde, S., & Macharis, C. (2019). The next day, free delivery myth unravelled. Possibilities for sustainable last mile transport in an omnichannel environment. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 47(1), 39–54.
• Ranieri, L., Digiesi, S., Silvestri, B., & Roccotelli, M. (2018). A review of last mile logistics innovations in an externalities cost reduction vision. Sustainability, 10(3), 782.
• Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.
• Rosal, I. D. (2016). Factors influencing the choice of delivery terms used in Spanish seaborne container trade. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 8(3), 318–333.
• Schubert, Ch. (2017). Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical? Ecological Economics, 132, 329–342.
• Severo, E. A, De Guimarães, J. C. F., & Dorion, E. C. H. (2018). Cleaner production, social responsibility and eco-innovation: Generations' perception for a sustainable future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186, 91–103.
• Shove, E., & Pantzar M. (2005). Consumers, producers and practices. Understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. Journal of Consumer Culture 5(1), 43–64.
• Shove, E., & Walker G. (2010). Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life. Research Policy, 39, 471–476.
• Smagacz-Poziemska, M., Bukowski, A, & Martini, N. (2020). Social practice research in practice. Some methodological challenges in applying practice-based approach to the urban research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(1), 65–78.
• Southerton, D., Warde, A., & Hand M. (2004). The limited autonomy of the consumer: Implications for sustainable consumption. In D. Southerton, H. Chappells & B. Van Vliet (Eds.). Sustainable consumption: The implications of changing infrastructures of provision (pp. 32–48). London: Edward Elgar.
• Spotswood, F., Chatterton T., Tapp A., & Williams D. (2015). Analysing cycling as a social practice: An empirical grounding for behaviour change. Transportation Research, Part F:Ttraffic Psychology and Behaviour, 29, 22–33.
• Statista (2020). Last mile logistics worldwide. https://www.statista.com/study/ 49682/last-mile-delivery/.32–48.
• Strambach, S., & Pflitsch, G. (2018). Micro-dynamics in regional transition paths to sustainability – An analysis of organizational and institutional change in Augsburg’s transition topology. Applied Geography, 90, 296–307.
• Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations. New York: William Morrow.
• Tadić, S., & Veljović M. (2021). Home delivery: A framework for structuring. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, 11(1), 30–74.
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge. Penguin.
• Thompson, C. J., & Kumar, A. (2018). Beyond consumer responsibilization: Slow Food’s actually existing neoliberalism. Journal of Consumer Culture, 21, 317–336.
• Turku, V., Ari, J., & Pekka, J. (2022). How do time-bound practices initiate local sustainability pathways? Sustainable Cities and Society, 79. 103697.
• Van Duin, J. H. R., Wiegmans, B. W., Van Arem, B., & Van Amstel, Y. (2020). From home delivery to parcel lockers: A case study in Amsterdam. Transportation Research Procedia, 46, 37–44.
• Virglerova, Z., Ivanova, E., Dvorský, J., Belas, J., & Krulický, T. (2021). Selected factors of internationalisation and their impact on the SME perception of the market risk. Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(4), 1011–1032.
• Visser E. J., & Lanzendorf M. (2004). Mobility and accessibility effects of B2ce‐commerce: A literature review. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, 95(2), 189–205.
• Welch, D. (2017). Behaviour change and theories of practice: Contributions, limitations and developments. Social Business, 7(3-4), 241–261.
• Welch, D., Swaffield, J., & Evans, D. (2021). Who’s responsible for food waste? Consumers, retailers and the food waste discourse coalition in the United Kingdom. Journal of Consumer Culture, 21, 236–256.
• Wey Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.
• Wilhelm, W. (2009). The relationship between student knowledge of sustainability concepts and product choice. In G. H. Brodowsky & R. A. Lupton (Eds). MEA 2009 conference proceedings. Newport Beach: Marketing Educators’ Association.
• Williams, K. C., & Page, R. A. (2011). Marketing to the generations. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 5(1), 1–17.
• Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94.

Identifiers

DOI

10.24136/eq.2023.027

Biblioteka Nauki

22396007