sustainability

Article
To Green or Not to Green: The E-Commerce-Delivery Question
Rafael Villa * , Marta Serrano, Tomás García and Gema González

School of Technology and Science, Camilo José Cela University, 28692 Madrid, Spain; mserrano@ucjc.edu (M.S.);
tgmartin@ucjc.edu (T.G.); gcarreno@ucjc.edu (G.G.)
* Correspondence: rvilla@ucjc.edu

Abstract: In an era in which e-commerce has become an integral facet of our lives, the delivery process
has evolved into a vital part of online shopping. As the sole tangible interaction in an otherwise
digital undertaking, it forms a decisive aspect of consumers’ e-commerce experience. In the face of
the ever-growing prevalence of e-commerce, the ecological footprint left by delivery practices has
emerged as a pressing concern. This focus is attributed not only to the environmental externalities
resulting from e-commerce delivery but also due to the system’s inherent inefficiencies. As the
primary beneficiaries of e-commerce, consumers form a pivotal force in driving sustainable delivery
initiatives. This study embarks on an exploration of consumers’ attitudes toward environmentally
friendly e-commerce-delivery practices. We aim to investigate whether consumers are willing to bear
additional costs for assured green deliveries and identify which sustainable practices they perceive
as most effective. A survey was conducted among e-commerce users to show their readiness to
incur higher costs for green delivery and accept delayed deliveries if they supported sustainability.
However, our findings reveal a conflicting scenario. While consumers display a readiness to opt for
green deliveries, the price and speed of delivery emerged as more critical considerations. This study
also uncovers significant discrepancies in attitudes towards green delivery based on demographic
factors, such as gender and generation. Utilizing multivariate logistic regression, the study outlines
the main factors that predict a willingness to pay for guaranteed green delivery. This study’s findings
stress the need to balance the drive for speed and cost-effectiveness in e-commerce delivery with the
urgency to adopt sustainable practices. It underscores the necessity for e-commerce platforms and
logistics partners to take the lead in crafting and implementing innovative green delivery solutions
while educating and incentivizing consumers to choose sustainable delivery options.
Citation: Villa, R.; Serrano, M.;
García, T.; González, G. To Green or Keywords: E-commerce delivery; green logistics; E-commerce consumers; sustainable delivery;
Not to Green: The E-Commerce- sustainable e-commerce
Delivery Question. Sustainability
2023, 15, 12161. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su151612161
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Shiu-Li Huang
In recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, e-commerce has become an
Received: 4 July 2023 indispensable part of the global retail market. For months, the internet was the only means
Revised: 31 July 2023
by which many businesses could continue to generate revenue, and it was the only way
Accepted: 6 August 2023
for consumers to access certain goods. Seventy-four per cent of internet users in the EU
Published: 9 August 2023
shopped online in 2021 [1], with very similar percentages in the rest of the world. According
to Statista data, e-commerce in the United States amounted to USD 469.2 billion in 2021, up
from USD 431.6 billion in 2020, and in Spain, approximately 24% of total purchases were
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
made over the internet [2].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Although changes in consumer shopping habits have changed permanently in the
This article is an open access article wake of the pandemic [3], from 2022 onwards, this growth in e-commerce has altered as a
distributed under the terms and result of inflation, slower economic growth, and geopolitical conflicts. This has resulted in
conditions of the Creative Commons slower growth in household online spending because of households saving less and buying
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// fewer unneeded items. Despite these temporary adjustments, many experts agree [4] that
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the future of retail will be omni-channel-based, with retailers and consumers combining
4.0/). multiple channels to market (O2O model: Offline to Online), sell, buy, and deliver goods.

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612161 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 2 of 21

The term ‘phygital’—i.e., physical and digital at the same time—refers to the full integration
of the physical and digital worlds in retail.
This phygital experience is evident in e-commerce and in the importance of delivery
to customers (physical world), where it has become a critical aspect for consumers over
and above the search and online-shopping stages (digital world) [5,6]. However, why do
companies attach such a high level of importance to delivery issues in e-commerce? During
the online-shopping process, consumers tend not to differentiate between the distributor
and the carrier, and mistakes made by the carrier are attributed to the retailer. Product
reviews on Amazon, for example, often include comments about delivery, both positive and
negative. The courier becomes the seller’s representative [7]. The perceived value of good
e-commerce delivery drives customer satisfaction, customer satisfaction drives customer
loyalty, and customer loyalty drives profits and growth for these companies (service–profit
chain [8]). Timely product delivery, quantity, and quality are critical to the development of
e-commerce as they are closely related to customer satisfaction [9].
From a sustainability point of view, several authors [10–13] point to transport planning
and management activities as the most important aspects in addressing the environmental
effects of e-commerce. The last leg in transport—i.e., the last-mile delivery—is the most
inefficient and energy-intensive part of the logistics chain.
Ignat and Chankov [14] highlight the need for more research into the perceived sus-
tainability of current delivery methods from a consumer perspective. There is a difference
between the perceived and the actual cost of a product [15], and there is likely to be a
difference between perceived and objective sustainability. In other words, what consumers
think is sustainable may need to be revised.
Therefore, e-commerce companies need to take consumer perceptions into account
when developing their sourcing strategies. This can be achieved by surveying consumers’
sustainability preferences and providing information on the environmental effects of differ-
ent delivery methods.
Focusing on the place of delivery of goods in e-commerce and the involvement of
different actors in the process (customers, sellers, and/or intermediaries), there are three
supply-chain models for delivery in the distribution of e-commerce orders [15]:
The push delivery system: someone other than the seller, usually a logistics service
provider (LSP), delivers the goods to the address indicated by the customer. From the
starting point—which could be the manufacturer, the retailer, or physical shops—it is the
responsibility of the sellers to conduct the entire delivery process. This system is standard,
for example, in purchasing clothing through a website, where the seller is responsible for
delivery to the customer’s home.
The pull delivery system: in contrast to the push system, customers collect the goods
from the points of sale. The customers have full responsibility for the process—from the
collection to the delivery of the order at the last desired point. For example, a customer
places an order for clothes online, and the same customer picks it up in a shop (BOPIS: buy
online and pick up in the store).
The hybrid delivery system: goods are shipped to an intermediate location, where
customers pick them up. This system requires the involvement of both the customer and the
seller to fulfil the delivery process. For example, consider a clothing order that a customer
places online and picks up at a smart locker. In this case, the seller is responsible for the
transport part, and the customer is responsible for the other part.
This research covers the three delivery systems shown in Figure 1: push delivery, pull
delivery, and hybrid delivery. It also examines how these systems relate to the preferences
expressed by e-commerce customers for different sustainable delivery options.
Sustainability 2023, 15,
Sustainability x FOR
2023, PEER REVIEW
15, 12161 3 of 21
3 of 21

Figure 1. Models for delivery in the distribution of e-commerce orders.

Figure 1. Models for delivery in the distribution of e-commerce orders.
2. Literature Review
ExceptReview
2. Literature for digital goods, all other products sold on e-commerce platforms require
physical delivery [15]. The delivery of goods to end consumers is an important part of
Except for digital goods, all other products sold on e-commerce platforms require
e-commerce, but it is also one of the most polluting and least efficient parts of logistics. The
physical delivery [15]. The delivery of goods to end consumers is an important part of e-
process of delivering goods to consumers can be inefficient due to factors such as urban
commerce,
sprawl and butthe
it growth
is also one of the most
of e-commerce polluting
[16]. and least
Additionally, efficient
consumer parts
habits and of logistics. The
preferences
process of delivering goods to consumers can be inefficient due to factors such
have led to an increase in the distribution of goods over short distances, which requires as urban
sprawl and theand
approaches growth of e-commerce
measures to minimize[16]. Additionally, consumer
the environmental effects. Thishabits andproblem
delivery preferences
(DP)
have ledinto
e-commerce
an increase hasinbeen
the extensively
distributionstudied by researchers,
of goods over shortwho have identified
distances, the
which requires
challenges to be addressed within a sustainable economy [17–23]. As both
approaches and measures to minimize the environmental effects. This delivery problem consumers
and
(DP) inbusinesses
e-commerce are has
increasingly aware of the
been extensively environmental
studied impact of
by researchers, e-commerce,
who a key the
have identified
research question is how to provide a customer-centric and environmentally friendly service.
challenges to be addressed within a sustainable economy [17–23]. As both consumers and
E-retailers need to adapt to the preferences of new online consumers, who increasingly opt
businesses are increasingly aware of the environmental impact of e-commerce, a key re-
for ethical retailers and are willing to pay more for green-branded products [24].
search question is how to provide a customer-centric and environmentally friendly ser-
vice.
2.1.E-retailers need to of
Delivery Preferences adapt to the Customers
E-Commerce preferences
and of new online
Problems consumers,
Associated with Home who increas-
Delivery
ingly opt forhome
The ethical retailers
delivery of and are willing
e-commerce to pay
orders more forhome
(attendance green-branded
delivery or products
AHD) re- [24].
mains the most valued and widely used form of delivery, although its popularity among
2.1.consumers in recent years
Delivery Preferences has declined
of E-Commerce in favor of
Customers andother delivery
Problems alternatives
Associated with[25].
HomeThe
International Post Corporation [26] surveys more than 33,000 consumers annually in over
Delivery
40 countries. Regarding the place of delivery, 45% of the respondents received their parcels
atThe home
home, 16% delivery
had their of e-commerce
deliveries orders
directed to their(attendance
letterboxes, home
and 4%delivery
receivedor AHD)
them at re-
mains the most valued and widely used form of delivery, although its
work. Customers value the security and convenience of deliveries that arrive directly popularity among
consumers in recent[27].
on their doorstep years has declined
Although in favor
the preference forofhome
otherdelivery
delivery alternativesgiven
is undisputed, [25]. The
International
the work andPost Corporation
schedules [26] surveys
of e-commerce more than
customers, 33,000are
deliveries consumers
typically annually
made when in over
customers are
40 countries. not at home
Regarding to receive
the place them. As
of delivery, a result,
45% of thecustomers
respondentsmorereceived
often have to par-
their
celsopt for an alternative
at home, solution
16% had their to home
deliveries delivery.toOutside
directed the home, 9%
their letterboxes, andof4%parcels werethem
received
delivered
at work. to a post value
Customers office, the
6% to convenience
security stores, and 6%
and convenience oftodeliveries
parcel lockers. These are
that arrive directly
average figures, but there is significant variability among countries [26].
on their doorstep [27]. Although the preference for home delivery is undisputed, given
Although home delivery is the majority option, many of the costs associated with this
themethod
work and schedules of e-commerce customers, deliveries are typically made when
affect the main stakeholders involved in urban distribution in e-commerce: con-
customers are not at home operators,
sumers, carriers/logistics to receiveretailers,
them. As anda result, customers[28].
public authorities more often have to opt
Home-delivery
for problems
an alternative solution to home delivery. Outside the home, 9% of parcels
for carriers and consumers are mainly associated with failed services caused were deliv-
ered to a post office, 6% to convenience stores, and 6% to parcel lockers. These are average
figures, but there is significant variability among countries [26].
Although home delivery is the majority option, many of the costs associated with this
method affect the main stakeholders involved in urban distribution in e-commerce: con-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 4 of 21

by the absence of the recipient from their home at the time of delivery. According to
a study conducted in the UK before the pandemic, 50–70% of households were empty
on the day of delivery [29]. This problem is the most critical factor in the success of the
home-delivery formula. The failure of this formula leads to numerous inconveniences and,
ultimately, lower customer satisfaction [30]. From e-commerce customers’ point of view,
the following dysfunctionalities can be considered [31]: (i) the recipient of a failed delivery
has to travel, on average, 5 km (round trip) to pick up the parcel, which takes 30 min;
(ii) at the same time, he/she has to comply with the opening hours of the collection point,
which often coincide with his/her usual working hours; (iii) there may be an additional
cost, depending on the transport used, public or private, and parking; and (iv) after the
collection, the recipient needs to transport the parcel, which may be heavy or difficult to
handle, to his/her home. These factors are the opposite of what consumers expect when
shopping and using home-delivery services. Most customers prefer home deliveries on
weekends and after business hours to ensure their presence at the delivery location, thus
avoiding the exposure of the package to the elements and possible theft [32].
From the point of view of logistics service providers, the costs of home-delivery
transport in e-commerce are closely related to the number of vehicles needed during the
same period. The greater the extent to which the customer can control or select the home-
delivery-time window, the higher the costs. The reason for this is simple: the lower the
load-factor percentage on the vehicles, the greater the distances travelled to operate within
the promised delivery-time windows. This translates into longer working hours for delivery
services and an increasing number of vehicles required, leading to a significant increase
in the total home-delivery costs [33]. For in-home delivery, there are also inefficiencies
from the transport companies’ point of view in the event of failed deliveries [34]: (i) vehicle
downtime; (ii) additional fuel consumption by vehicles; (iii) the costs of further attempts in
the next few days; and (iv) additional storage costs.
For retailers (e-retailers), home delivery is dichotomous. On the one hand, their
primary objective is to satisfy customer needs, with home delivery being the customer’s
preference. Nevertheless, home delivery has become increasingly costly. Last-mile-delivery
costs account for 53% of total shipping costs and up to 41% of total supply-chain costs [35].
In other words, approximately half of shipping and supply-chain costs are spent on the
last mile. On the other hand, consumers are now more interested in how the supply chain
can be made more sustainable and increasingly value green delivery in their e-commerce
orders [36]. As a result, companies are opting for environmentally friendly deliveries that
can give them a competitive advantage and reinforce their brand image on the market [37].
For their part, public administrations are focused on developing attractive and sustain-
able cities for their citizens. From this perspective, the transport derived from e-commerce
delivery is one of the main factors responsible for the environmental degradation and
pollution generated in cities. The administration’s major aspiration is to provide the best
infrastructure to enable e-commerce parcel deliveries with the fewest possible social and
environmental externalities. As physical deliveries derived from e-commerce become
increasingly high and significantly affect the city, their concern for solutions grows. The
main inefficiencies caused by e-commerce parcel delivery in the city, from the point of
view of public administration, are as follows: (i) increased emissions of polluting gases;
(ii) increased transport noise; (iii) increased traffic congestion; (iv) the occupation of public
spaces by delivery companies; and (v) increased accidents on urban roads [38–41].

2.2. Sustainable Delivery in E-Commerce and Success Factors

In recent years, numerous initiatives have been developed to minimize the negative
effects of urban distribution and lay the foundations for the future achievement of a
more robust and circular economy, in which resources are used more sustainably. Several
studies in different countries [42–45] show that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated
with the last mile multiply the volume of all other transport operations. This emissions
problem is complicated by the fact that demographic and socio-economic changes increase
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 5 of 21

the number of orders and deliveries and, thus, the volume of freight vehicles in urban
areas [46]. The EU is working on its Green Deal to become the first carbon-neutral continent
by 2050 and decouple its economic growth from its resource use [47]. Transport is one of
the basic pillars to be considered, and green delivery is one of the priorities. To achieve
ideal sustainable parcel delivery in online e-commerce, the main critical success factors
that customers value and that must be met for them to be satisfied with the delivery must
be considered. Below are listed the main critical factors in e-commerce delivery and the
main sustainable initiatives or solutions led by the increasingly sustainable behavior of
online consumers.
Shipping costs: on all surveys regarding the online shopping experience, this appears
to be the most important factor, next to low product prices, ahead of others such as same-day
delivery and guaranteed delivery time or location [48,49]. Sustainable solutions focus on
customers’ willingness to pay to ensure climate-friendly deliveries and the characteristics
that these options need to be attractive [50–54]. Price increases in e-commerce home
deliveries can have a double effect. On the one hand, it is possible to allocate these extra
revenues to compensate for the additional costs of clean deliveries (electric vehicles, cargo
bikes, urban microhubs, etc.) or to reduce e-commerce orders when the value of the basket
is low and the delivery cost is a relatively high percentage of the order. On the other hand,
the willingness to pay more for sustainable delivery is less clear, as even consumers who
are positively inclined towards sustainable consumption do not change their behavior
when they encounter economic barriers [55].
Packaging: online shopping—and, therefore, the production and use of e-commerce
packaging—has grown steadily in recent years, as has its environmental impact [56]. In
2018, more than 20 billion packages were shipped worldwide [57], and packaging has
directly affected the environment in the form of increased CO2 emissions and energy
use [58,59]. The weight and volume of packaging are also significant because they influence
the energy used for transporting these packages to the final recipient [56]. One of the
most important aspects is over-packaging, which continues to lead to the excessive use of
materials and energy, influencing the impact of production and transport processes [56,60].
This highlights consumers’ willingness to implement the three Rs of recycling (reduce,
reuse, and recycle waste) and to use packaging solutions based on environmentally friendly
materials and favoring the efficient use of energy [61–64]. It is also key to avoid packaging
waste in every online delivery.
Returns: when shopping online is easy, customers expect it to be equally easy to
return their purchases. Many retailers offer free delivery and various ways to return
items, including the return of items sold online to shops. Free returns services have led to
higher-than-expected returns, resulting in high financial costs for companies, which can
lose up to one-third of their revenue from these online returns [65]. However, equally, all
externalities (i.e., the negative side effects of transport on society and the environment)
and waste caused by direct home deliveries are considerably increased by online order
returns [59,66,67]. Therefore, consumers are urging retailers to search for alternatives (e.g.,
augmented reality to test products, limiting the number of returns or extending the number
of days) that allow these returns to be economically sustainable for businesses, consumers,
and the planet [68].
Delivery options: the vast majority of e-commerce consumers consider it necessary to
have several delivery options for their products. They are open to picking up their deliveries
from pick-up points, shops, or delivery lockers and to waiting longer for their purchases [50].
Delivery alternatives in e-commerce translate into convenience for customers as they
simplify the online purchasing process. From the perspective of sustainability, the most
sustainable e-commerce deliveries are those that optimize the loading of delivery vans,
deliver many packages in one stop, take advantage of consumer trips to pick up packages
(stores, another convenience centers, or smart lockers), and deliver through sustainable
means (cargo bikes, electric vehicles, walkers), or through the collaborative economy.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 6 of 21

Fast delivery: along with the increasing volume of e-commerce, consumers are becom-
ing more demanding in terms of critical aspects such as the speed of product delivery, plac-
ing additional pressure on the environmental effects of e-commerce consumption [69,70].
The offer of fast delivery by e-retailers may contribute to increase in GHG emissions, given
the choice to prioritize speed over other factors [71]. However, several studies highlight a
lack of knowledge of how delivery speed and environmental impact are related. Eighty
per cent of e-consumers are unaware that fast delivery has a more negative impact on the
environment than slow delivery, and 32% of this group even believe that slow delivery is
more damaging than fast delivery [72,73]. Solutions can therefore be aimed at ensuring
longer delivery or return times while explaining the social and environmental benefits of
these deliveries, or at ensuring that customers pay (and compensate) for urgent orders.
While initiatives by retailers and logistics operators can make significant strides
towards sustainable e-commerce delivery, consumer engagement is key [73]. Online con-
sumers are inherently concerned about the environment, and their demand for sustainable
products is a driving force towards a circular economy. Some experts point out that con-
sumers are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products, and this percentage
is expected to grow in the coming years [74–76]. On the other hand, other studies point
out that although delivery is increasingly customer-centric and convenience-oriented, this
incurs social and environmental costs, for which consumers are still unwilling to pay [50,77].
The consumer profile is also key, with preferences for sustainable deliveries differing widely
across generations [78,79].
This study contributes to a holistic view of possible sustainable solutions in e-commerce
delivery, taking online customers’ preferences as a starting point. It attempts to move be-
yond customers’ willingness to pay for sustainable measures by quantifying how much
they are willing to pay and by prioritizing the most satisfactory measures for consumers.
The research investigates whether there are differences between generations concerning
their willingness to be eco-friendly in e-commerce deliveries. Based on the literature review,
Table 1 summarizes consumer preferences regarding e-commerce delivery.

Table 1. Customers’ ecommerce-delivery preferences based on reviewed research.

Preference of E-Commerce Customers Papers

Shipping costs [34,35]
Customers’ willingness to pay more for sustainable delivery [36–41,60–62]
Consumers’ willingness to implement the three Rs (packaging) [47–50]
Sustainable returns [54]
Delivery options [36]
Fast delivery [55,56]
Customers’ desire not to pay more for sustainable delivery [36,63]

3. Research Goal and Research Hypothesis

This research contributes to filling the gaps between different studies and clarifies the
extent to which different types of consumer are willing to pay, as well as the measures
they consider appropriate to reduce the social and environmental impact of e-commerce
deliveries. The main objectives of the research are to assess consumers’ willingness to
pay for green deliveries, to determine whether there are significant differences between
generations and age groups, and to identify the sustainable measures they prioritize.
The following research hypotheses were formulated based on the contributions of the
literature review to the main questions addressed in Section 2.: H1—e-commerce consumers
are willing to pay additional costs if they are guaranteed an environmentally friendly
delivery; H2—there are significant differences between generations and genders in terms of
preferences in relation to environmentally friendly delivery in e-commerce; H3—the three
Rs of recycling are considered the most effective solutions within e-commerce-packaging
recycling; H4—cost is the most valued factor in e-commerce delivery; and H5—socio-
 preferences in relation to environmentally friendly delivery in e-commerce; H3—the th
Rs of recycling are considered the most effective solutions within e-commerce-packagi
recycling; H4—cost is the most valued factor in e-commerce delivery; and H5—socio-d
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 7 of 21
mographic factors (gender and generation) can be considered the best predictors of t
respondents’ willingness to pay for green e-commerce delivery.
The structure
demographic of this
factors paper
(gender andisgeneration)
as follows. canA
bedescription
considered theofbest
thepredictors
researchofmethodolo
the
is followed by the
respondents’ description
willingness to payof
forthe results
green obtained,
e-commerce which are presented in tables a
delivery.
figures. Next, a discussion
The structure of theisresults
of this paper is presented
as follows. in of
A description thethecontext
researchof the literature, alo
methodology
is followed by the description of the results obtained, which are presented
with the conclusions, limitations, and a description of future research. Finally, in tables anda list of
figures. Next, a discussion of the results is presented in the context of the literature, along
studies cited in the manuscript.
with the conclusions, limitations, and a description of future research. Finally, a list of the
studies cited in the manuscript.
4. Methodology
4. Methodology
To prove the research hypotheses, this study is divided into six stages, following
To prove the research hypotheses, this study is divided into six stages, following the
methodology outlined in Figure 2.
methodology outlined in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Research
Figure methodology.
2. Research methodology.

Based on a literature review conducted by the author, both the critical success factors
Based on a literature
of e-commerce delivery and review conducted
the leading potentialby the author,
sustainable bothfrom
solutions thethe
critical success fact
perspective
of e-commerce delivery
of online consumers wereand the leading
defined (step 1). potential
Also based sustainable
on this review,solutions fromwas
a questionnaire the persp
tive of online consumers
developed and pre-tested were
withdefined
a group of (step 1). Also
10 online based (steps
consumers on this review,
2–3). a questionna
This pre-text
questionnaireand
was developed was pre-tested
used to refinewith
the questions
a groupbasedof 10 ononline
the feedback from the(steps
consumers respondents.
2–3). This p
Some aspects of the questionnaire that made it challenging to answer were removed, and
text questionnaire was used to refine the questions based on the feedback from the
other questions were reworded to make them appear more straightforward. The final
spondents. Somewas
questionnaire aspects
launched of through
the questionnaire that made
a snowball-sampling processit(non-probabilistic,
challenging towith answer w
removed, andonly
inference other questions
applied were reworded
to the studied group), whichto make them
produced 706appear
responsesmore straightforwa
(steps 4–5).
The final questionnaire was launched through a snowball-sampling processand
Finally, an analysis of the survey data was carried out to determine the results (step 6) (non-pro
to answer the research questions.
bilistic, with inference only applied to the studied group), which produced 706 respon
To achieve the set objective, the survey was carried out between July and December
(steps2022.
4–5). Finally,
The research antook
analysis
the form ofofthe survey data
a descriptive waswith
survey, carried out to determine
all questions (except one)the resu
(stepclosed-ended,
6) and to answerusing thetheCAWI
research questions. web interviewing) technique. Several
(computer-assisted
To achieve
online the set
consumers from objective, the surveyand
different generations was carried
regions out
were between
invited to shareJulytheand
sur-Decemb
vey and invite their friends, who met the age and e-commerce
2022. The research took the form of a descriptive survey, with all questions (exceptconsumer conditions to on
participate. The study was partial, participation was voluntary and anonymous, and the
closed-ended, using the CAWI (computer-assisted web interviewing) technique. Seve
respondents could refrain from completing the form at any time. Of the 745 questionnaires
online consumers
collected, from completed
706 reliably different questionnaires
generations and wereregions
accepted.were invited
The only change to share
open tothe surv
and invite their friends,
the respondents was the who met the
postcode, andage andine-commerce
surveys consumer
which this field conditions
was not filled in were to par
ipate.accepted
The study(see the
wassurvey sheet in
partial, Figure 3).
participation was voluntary and anonymous, and the
spondents could refrain from completing the form at any time. Of the 745 questionnai
collected, 706 reliably completed questionnaires were accepted. The only change open
the respondents was the postcode, and surveys in which this field was not filled in w
accepted (see the survey sheet in Figure 3).
Sustainability 2023,
Sustainability 2023, 15,
15, 12161
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88of
of 21

Figure 3. Research-survey sheet.

The
The survey
surveywas wasconducted
conductedwith withMicrosoft
Microsoft Forms
Forms (English andand
(English Spanish) and consisted
Spanish) and con-
of three
sisted ofsections. The first
three sections. The part contained
first the respondents’
part contained the respondents’primary data: gender,
primary gener-
data: gender,
ation by agebyatage
generation birth (baby(baby
at birth boomers, generation
boomers, X, millennials,
generation or generation
X, millennials, or generationZ), and the
Z), and
postcode where the respondent lived. In the second part, the respondents
the postcode where the respondent lived. In the second part, the respondents were asked were asked about
his/her willingness
about his/her to pay
willingness tofor
payadditional
for additionalshipping
shippingcostscosts
if the
if company
the company guaranteed
guaranteed an
environmentally friendly delivery (yes or no). If the answer was
an environmentally friendly delivery (yes or no). If the answer was yes, the respondent yes, the respondent was
asked to define
was asked the additional
to define amount
the additional he/she
amount wouldwould
he/she be willing to pay.toFurthermore,
be willing in this
pay. Furthermore,
section, the respondents are asked about the packaging (several sustainable
in this section, the respondents are asked about the packaging (several sustainable alter- alternatives to
reduce
natives the environmental
to reduce impact areimpact
the environmental shown)are and returns
shown) of online
and returnsorders, andorders,
of online they were
and
asked to indicate how long they would be willing to delay
they were asked to indicate how long they would be willing to delay the collection the collection of the return of
of the
an e-commerce order if the company selling the product guaranteed
return of an e-commerce order if the company selling the product guaranteed an environ- an environmentally
friendly return. Finally, in the last section, the respondents rated five critical aspects of
mentally friendly return. Finally, in the last section, the respondents rated five critical as-
e-commerce delivery, from 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum). The created form was subjected
pects of e-commerce delivery, from 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum). The created form was
to a reliability analysis, for which Cronbach’s alpha test was calculated. The test result was
subjected to a reliability analysis, for which Cronbach’s alpha test was calculated. The test
0.72275, which was satisfactory [80]. A statistical analysis was carried out using descriptive
result was 0.72275, which was satisfactory [80]. A statistical analysis was carried out using
and inferential analyses. Descriptive analysis was used to describe the main characteristics
descriptive and inferential analyses. Descriptive analysis was used to describe the main
of the sample, using the mean and standard deviation, and Pearson’s correlation analysis
characteristics of the sample, using the mean and standard deviation, and Pearson’s cor-
was calculated among the respondents’ evaluations of the critical factors in e-commerce de-
relation analysis was calculated among the respondents’ evaluations of the critical factors
livery. Inferential analysis was performed using a multivariate logistic regression model for
in e-commerce delivery. Inferential analysis was performed using a multivariate logistic
the dichotomous outcome, ‘willingness to pay for green e-commerce delivery’—structured
regression model for the dichotomous outcome, ‘willingness to pay for green e-commerce
as 1 = ‘yes, willing to pay’ and 0 = ‘not willing to pay’—as a function of gender, the gen-
delivery’—structured as 1 = ‘yes, willing to pay’ and 0 = ‘not willing to pay’—as a function
eration to which the participants belonged, and the ratings given by these consumers to
of gender,
the the generation
critical factors assessedto inwhich the participants
e-commerce delivery. The belonged,
results ofand
thethe ratings given
regression analysisby
these consumers to the critical factors assessed in e-commerce
were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and standard error (SE) with the corresponding 95% delivery. The results of the
regression analysis
confidence intervals,were and expressed
the level ofasstatistical
odds ratio (OR) and standard
significance set at the error
p-value (SE)
waswith the
≤0.05.
corresponding 95% confidence intervals, and the level of statistical
Statistical analyses of the collected material were performed with the Microsoft Excel 2021 significance set at the
p-value was ≤0.05. Statistical analyses of the collected material were
software (Real statistics 8.0) add-in, ‘Real statistics’, which extends the built-in statisti- performed with the
Microsoft
cal Excelof
capabilities 2021
Excelsoftware (Real astatistics
and allows wide range 8.0) of
add-in, ‘Realanalyses
statistical statistics’,
towhich extends
be performed
the built-in statistical
more efficiently. capabilities of Excel and allows a wide range of statistical analyses
to be performed more efficiently.
5. Results
5. Results
The study targeted four generations, from 16 to 73 years old, but with the condition
The study
that they targeted
were online four generations,
shoppers. Responsesfrom
were16 to 73 years
received fromold,
390 but with
men, 312the condition
women, and
4that they were
of other onlineBy
genders. shoppers.
country, Responses were received
the most significant fromof
number 390 men, 312was
responses women, and
received
4 of other
from genders. By
Spain—90.93%. country,
The the most
remaining significant
responses (9.07%)number of responses
were split was received
between European and
American countries (see
from Spain—90.93%. TheTable 2).
remaining responses (9.07%) were split between European and
American countries (see Table 2).
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21

Table 2. Surveys received by generation and country.

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 9 of 21
Country Baby Boomers Generation X Generation Z Millennials Total
Argentina 2 2 4
Belgium 1
Table 2. Surveys received by generation and country. 1 2
Colombia 2 2 2 6
Country
France Baby Boomers Generation1X Generation Z 2 Millennials 2 Total 5
Germany
Argentina 1 4 2 2 2 3 4 10
Belgium
Greece 1 1 1 2 1
Colombia 2 2 2 6
Hungary
France 1 1 2 2 5 1
Italy
Germany 11 4 2 3 2 10 3
Greece
Mexico 1 1 2 1 3
Hungary 1 1
Panama 1 3 11 4 19
Italy 1 2 3
Portugal
Mexico 1 3 2 1 1 3 5
Spain
Panama 130
1 3 151 11 186 4 175 19 642
Portugal
Not specified 3 2 1 1 1 1 5 4
Spain 130 151 186 175 642
Total
Not specified 136 2 169 1 208 1 193 4 706
Total 136 169 208 193 706
The distribution of responses by generation was relatively balanced. Generation Z
stood out slightly, with 29.5% of the total responses, followed by millennials, with 27.3%.
The distribution of responses by generation was relatively balanced. Generation Z
Generation X accounted for 23.9% of the responses, and in last place was the oldest gen-
stood out slightly, with 29.5% of the total responses, followed by millennials, with 27.3%.
eration,
GenerationtheXbaby boomers,
accounted with 19.3%.
for 23.9% of the responses, and in last place was the oldest genera-
tion, the baby boomers, with 19.3%. and delivery costs, in response to the survey’s main
With regard to green delivery
question—‘Would
With regard toyou be delivery
green willing to
andpay extra for
delivery the delivery
costs, in response costs
to of
thea survey’s
parcel if main
the com-
pany
question—‘Would you be willing to pay extra for the delivery costs of a parcel if the or
selling the product guarantees an environmentally friendly delivery (e.g., climate
CO2 neutral)?’—70.25%
company of the
selling the product respondents
guarantees answered yes.friendly
an environmentally There were notable
delivery (e.g., gender
climate dif-
ferences. While 35.64% of men
or CO2 neutral)?’—70.25% said
of the they would
respondents not be willing
answered to pay
yes. There weremore for guaranteed
notable gender
differences.
green While
delivery, 35.64%
this of men dropped
percentage said they would
by more notthan
be willing to pay
13 points formore for guaranteed
the women, with only
22.12% saying they would not be willing to pay more. For those of other genders, with
green delivery, this percentage dropped by more than 13 points for the women, the split
only50%
was 22.12% saying
in favor they
and 50%would not be
against. willing to pay
Surprisingly, more. of
in terms For those of other
generation, genders,
the respondents
the split
from the was 50% in favor
baby-boomer and 50%(1949–1968)
generation against. Surprisingly,
are the most in terms
willingoftogeneration,
pay for green the e-
respondents from the
commerce-parcel baby-boomer
delivery generation
(see Figure 4). On(1949–1968) are thelater
the other hand mostgenerations
willing to pay had forvery
green e-commerce-parcel delivery (see Figure 4). On the other hand later generations had
similar percentages in favor of guaranteed green delivery (30.18–32.12%) but with a con-
very similar percentages in favor of guaranteed green delivery (30.18–32.12%) but with a
siderable gap from the baby boomers.
considerable gap from the baby boomers.

Willingness to
Figure 4. Willingness
Figure topay
payfor
foreco
ecodeliveries
deliveriesbyby
generation.
generation.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 2

By region, there was no significant difference between those favoring green delivery
in Spain (69.78%) and those in European countries (70.37%). Among the respondents re-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 10 of 21 delivery
sidingBy inregion, there was
the different no significant
countries difference
of the Americas (seebetween
Table 2),those favoring
a higher green
percentage of peo-
in Spain (69.78%) and those
ple favored green delivery (75.76%). in European countries (70.37%). Among the respondents re
siding in the different
For thosetherewhowas countries
answered of the Americas
yes todifference
the previous (see Table 2), a higher percentage
question (n = 496), a new question was of peo
ple By region,green
favored no significant
delivery (75.76%). between those favoring green delivery in
added—‘What
Spain (69.78%) and additional amount countries
those in European (EUR) per package
(70.37%). would
Among the you be willing to pay for a
For those
guaranteed who
green answeredThe
delivery?’. yesmost
to the previous
frequently question
accepted (n respondents
= 496),
options a new
(chosen
residing
question
by more than wa
in the different countries of the Americas (see Table 2), a higher percentage of people
added—‘What
half of the additional
respondents) amount
were (EUR)
(i) paying per package
between EUR 1would
and EUR you2be willingand
(31.05%) to pay for a
(ii) pay-
favored green delivery (75.76%).
guaranteed
ing less
For those green
than EUR delivery?’.
1 (26.61%).
who answered The
yesThe most
least
to the frequently
frequently
previous accepted
selected
question options
option
(n = 496), a newwas(chosen by
payingwas
question more
more than than
half of
added—‘What
EUR the e-commerce
4 for respondents) were (i)(EUR)
additional delivery,
amount paying
withper between
onlypackage EUR
would1 you
37 responses and EUR
be
(7.46%; 2 (31.05%)
willing
see to pay for
Figure and
5).aIt(ii)
is pay
im-
ing less
guaranteed
portant than
to greenEUR 1 (26.61%).
delivery?’.
note that The
The most
the option least frequently
frequently
to ‘pay accepted
according selected
options
to the option
value(chosen was paying
of thebyproduct’
more than more
was sup-than
EUR
half of 4the
ported for
by e-commerce
respondents)
20.16% were
of the delivery,
(i) payingwith
respondents. onlyEUR
between
When 37 responses
1 and EUR 2(7.46%;
analyzing these (31.05%)
payment see
andFigure 5). It
(ii) paying
alternatives byisgen-
im
less than EUR
portant to 1 (26.61%).
note that theThe least frequently
option to ‘pay selected option
according to thewas paying
value of more
the than EURwas sup
product’
der and region of residence, there were no significant differences among the responses
4ported
for e-commerce
by 20.16% delivery, with only 37 responses
of the respondents. (7.46%; seethese
When analyzing Figure 5). It is important
payment alternatives to by gen
received.
note that the option to ‘pay according to the value of the product’ was supported by 20.16%
der and region of residence, there were no significant differences among the response
of the respondents. When analyzing these payment alternatives by gender and region of
received.
residence, there were no significant differences among the responses received.

Figure 5. Number of people willing to pay for additional cost of green delivery.

Figure5.5.Number
Figure Numberof of
people willing
people to pay
willing to for
payadditional cost ofcost
for additional green
ofdelivery.
green delivery.
Regarding the packaging of e-commerce products, the respondents were asked to
rank,Regarding
from 5 points (highest)
the packaging to 1 point products,
of e-commerce (lowest),the
therespondents
alternatives werethey considered
asked to rank, most
Regarding
appropriate
from 5 points (highest)
the
to reduce packaging
to the
of
environmental
1 point
e-commerce products,
impact they
(lowest), the alternatives they
the
produced. respondents
consideredThe
were asked to
mostalternative
appropriatewith the
rank, from
to reduceaverage
highest 5 points
the environmental (highest)
score wasimpact to
(i) using 1 point
theypackaging(lowest),
produced. The
made the alternatives
alternative they considered
with the highest average
from environmentally mos
friendly mate-
appropriate
score
rials, was
followed toby
reduce
(i) using the environmental
packaging
(ii) made plastic
eliminating impact they packaging
from environmentally
from current produced. The alternative
friendly materials,
received followed with th
in e-commerce
highest
by (ii) average
eliminating score
plastic was
from(i) using
current packaging
packaging made
received from
in environmentally
e-commerce
deliveries (see Figure 6). Notably, eliminating plastic was the most frequent first choice deliveriesfriendly
(see mate
Figure 6).
rials, but Notably,
followed eliminating plastic was the most frequent first choice (215), but it was
(215), it wasbyalso(ii)the
eliminating
last optionplastic from current
to be considered bypackaging
many of the received in e-commerc
respondents (129).
also the last (see
deliveries option to be considered
Figure 6). Notably, by eliminating
many of the respondents
plastic was(129). the most frequent first choic
(215), but it was also the last option to be considered by many of the respondents (129).

Figure 6.6.Assessment
Figure Assessment ofof
eco-friendly alternatives
eco-friendly for ecommerce
alternatives packaging.
for ecommerce packaging.

Figure 6. Assessment of eco-friendly alternatives for ecommerce packaging.

 The three Rs of recycling (reduce, reuse, and recycle) were ranked in reverse orde
Among these three options, the recycling of the packaging received was the most com
monly preferred. The re-use of and reduction in packaging had very similar scores, al
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161
hough the option of reusing was the most frequently chosen as the last option (215). Th
11 of 21
main statistics related to the packaging preferences of the sample surveyed are shown i
Table 3.
The three Rs of recycling (reduce, reuse, and recycle) were ranked in reverse order.
Table 3. Main
Among thesestatistics related
three options, torecycling
the the packaging preferences
of the packaging in ecommerce.
received was the most commonly
preferred. The re-use of and reduction in packaging had very similar scores, although
Recycle
theIncoming Reduce
option of reusing wasthe
theSize Eco-Friendly
most frequently chosen as the last option (215).Eliminate
The main Plastic
Reuse Packaging
Packaging
statistics related to of
thePackages Packaging
packaging preferences of the sample surveyed are shownfrom Packaging
in Table 3.
Mean 3.07 2.52 3.57 2.58 3.26
Table 3. Main statistics related to the packaging preferences in ecommerce.
Standard error 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06
Median Recycle3.00
Incoming 2.00Size
Reduce the 4.00
Eco-Friendly Reuse2.00 3.00
Eliminate Plastic
Mode Packaging
3.00 of Packages
1.00 Packaging
4.00 Packaging1.00 from Packaging5.00
Mean
Standard deviation 3.07
1.30 2.52
1.34 3.57
1.25 2.58 1.39 3.26 1.49
Standard error 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06
Sample variance
Median 1.69
3.00 1.79
2.00 1.57
4.00 2.00 1.94 3.00 2.22
Kurtosis
Mode −1.08
3.00 −0.96
1.00 −0.74
4.00 1.00 −1.16 5.00 −1.38
Standard deviation 1.30 1.34 1.25 1.39 1.49
Skewness coefficient
Sample variance
−0.05
1.69
0.47
1.79
−0.54
1.57 1.94
0.38 2.22
−0.22
Range
Kurtosis −4.00
1.08 4.00
−0.96 4.00
−0.74 −1.16 4.00 −1.38 4.00
Skewness
Sum coefficient − 0.05
2168.00 0.47
1781.00 −2521.00
0.54 0.381821.00 −0.22 2299.00
Range 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Confidence level
Sum(95.0%) 0.10
2168.00 0.10
1781.00 0.09
2521.00 1821.000.10 2299.00 0.11
Confidence level
0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11
(95.0%)
The question returns was as follows: ‘How long would you be willing to delay co
lecting an e-commerce order return if the company selling the product guarantees an en
The question
vironmentally returns
friendly was asAs
return?’. follows:
shown‘How long 7,
in Figure would
thereyou
wasbenowilling to delay option
clear preferred
The option to return the e-commerce package between 2 and 5 days was theanpreferre
collecting an e-commerce order return if the company selling the product guarantees
environmentally friendly return?’. As shown in Figure 7, there was no clear preferred
option for 31.30% of the total sample. The second most frequently chosen option was ‘a
option. The option to return the e-commerce package between 2 and 5 days was the
long as necessary
preferred option forto31.30%
guarantee the sample.
of the total ecological The return’ (25.49%).
second most This
frequently was option
chosen followed by
significant percentage (24.22%) who stated that they did not want the return
was ‘as long as necessary to guarantee the ecological return’ (25.49%). This was followed to be env
ronmentally friendly,
by a significant preferring
percentage (24.22%)that
who it stated
be collected
that theyas soon
did as possible.
not want the returnFinally,
to be 18.98%
environmentally friendly, preferring that it be collected
chose to return their order online after between 6 and 10 days. as soon as possible. Finally, 18.98%
chose to return their order online after between 6 and 10 days.

Figure 7. Accepted return time for an e-commerce order by generation.

Figure 7. Accepted return time for an e-commerce order by generation.

Among the generations (see Figure 4), the millennials were the most willing to wa
if the return was sustainable. In total, 80.31% of the millennials did not mind waiting if a
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 12 of 21

Among the generations (see Figure 4), the millennials were the most willing to wait
if the return was sustainable. In total, 80.31% of the millennials did not mind waiting if
an ecological delivery was guaranteed, with the following waiting times noted: between
2 and 5 days (32.12%), between 6 and 10 days (20.21%), or as long as necessary (27.98%).
The rest of the generations had similar percentages, except for generation Z, who were the
least willing to wait when the delivery time was between 6 and 10 days (15.87%) and who,
to a greater extent, expressed their refusal to wait for an ecological return in e-commerce
(27.88%). Between 2 and 5 days was the most frequently preferred option for both men and
women. It is noteworthy that the women showed a significantly higher preference for an
eco-friendly return than the other sexes, irrespective of the waiting time (see Table 4).

Table 4. Accepted return times for e-commerce orders by gender.

Man Woman Other

As long as needed to ensure an
23.85% 27.88%
ecological return
2–5 days 29.49% 33.97%
6–10 days 18.97% 18.91% 25.00%
None (as soon as possible) 27.69% 19.23% 75.00%

To assess the success factors related to e-commerce delivery, the survey asked the con-
sumers to rate from 0 (lowest score) to 10 (highest score) the following aspects:
(i) free delivery, (ii) delivery alternatives (smart lockers, pick-up centers, etc.), (iii) speed of
delivery, (iv) green delivery (CO2 neutral), and (v) free returns.
First, a correlation matrix was constructed to measure the linear association of these
variables (see Table 5), which showed the correlation coefficients among the variables
related to e-commerce delivery for the survey conducted. The correlation coefficient
measures the relationship between two variables and ranges from −1 to +1. These values
should be interpreted in two ways. The modulus of the number informs the strength of
the relationship between the variables, while the ‘+’ sign determines that the direction is
directly proportional and the ‘−’ sign is inversely proportional [80].

Table 5. Correlation matrix between critical delivery factors in e-commerce.

Free Delivery Delivery Options Fast Delivery Eco-Delivery Free Returns

Free delivery 1.000
Delivery options 0.271 1.000
Fast delivery 0.568 0.247 1.000
Eco-delivery 0.149 0.397 0.188 1.000
Free returns 0.607 0.358 0.531 0.219 1.000

The correlations between the variables were positive but weak or very weak for most of
the variables assessed. Only the variables ‘free returns’ and ‘free delivery’ were considered
moderately correlated. At a lower level, the relationships between ‘fast delivery’ and ‘free
delivery’ and ‘fast delivery’ and ‘free returns’ appeared with a correlation higher than 0.5.
As shown in Table 6, the most highly rated factor was fast delivery, with an average
rating of 8.05 from the surveyed e-commerce customers. Next, the highest-rated aspects
were related to cost: free delivery (7.94) and then free returns (7.69). Green e-commerce
delivery reached fourth place, with a score of 7.00; in last place, e-commerce customers
rated the delivery alternatives available to them the lowest (6.66). As these ratings were
obtained on a scale of 0 to 10 and all the options given were positive for the customers,
the highest score was the most frequent value (mode) for all the aspects evaluated. Of the
706 respondents, 49 simultaneously scored the highest on all five factors.
ard error 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.09
dian 8.00 7.00 8.00 7.00
ode 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 13 of 21
d deviation 2.06 2.80 2.07 2.45
variance 4.26 7.86 4.27 5.98
Table 6. Main statistics related to critical delivery factors in e-commerce.
rtosis 0.59 −0.77 1.12 0.08
Free Delivery Delivery Options Fast Delivery Eco-Delivery Free Returns
s coefficient Mean −0.94 7.94
−0.52 6.66 8.05
−1.18 7.00
−0.767.69
ange Standard error 10.00 0.08 10.00 0.11 0.08 10.00 0.09 10.00
0.10
Median 8.00 7.00 8.00 7.00 9.00
um Mode 5603.00 10.00 4701.00 10.00 10.005682.00 10.00 4944.00
10.00
Standard deviation 2.06 2.80 2.07 2.45 2.66
level (95.0%)Sample variance 0.15 4.26 0.217.86 4.27 0.15 5.98 0.187.08
Kurtosis 0.59 −0.77 1.12 0.08 −0.03
Skewness coefficient −0.94 −0.52 −1.18 −0.76 −1.04
Range 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Sum
The groups provided consistent ratings by generation (see Figure 8). T
5603.00 4701.00 5682.00 4944.00 5427.00
ers rated all the e-commerce factors the lowest, except for eco-delivery (7.
Confidence level (95.0%) 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.18 0.20

eration Z rated the lowest (6.78). On the other hand, generation X rated
The groups provided consistent ratings by generation (see Figure 8). The baby boomers
factors the
ratedhighest. Onlyfactors
all the e-commerce delivery options
the lowest, except forwere rated
eco-delivery slightly
(7.07), higher by
which generation
(6.97 vs. 6.94).
Z rated the lowest (6.78). On the other hand, generation X rated four of the five factors the
highest. Only delivery options were rated slightly higher by the millennials (6.97 vs. 6.94).

Figure 8. Rating of return times for e-commerce orders by generation.

Figure 8. Rating of return times for e-commerce orders by generation.
Concerning gender (see Table 7), there were no significant differences between the men
and the women, and the ratings were very similar in all the aspects assessed. Regarding
Concerning gender
the ‘other’ category, very(see Tablewere
few persons 7),surveyed,
there were no significant
which means differenc
that their data were
not significant for comparison. Regarding the region of origin, the Spaniards rated all
men andthethe women, and the ratings were very similar in all the aspects as
critical factors of e-commerce delivery proposed lower than the rest of their European
ing the ‘other’ category,
contemporaries very fewfrom
and the respondents persons
American were
countries.surveyed, which means
were not significant for comparison. Regarding the region of origin, the S
all the critical factors of e-commerce delivery proposed lower than the res
pean contemporaries and the respondents from American countries.

Table 7. Score for critical e-commerce-delivery factors by generation, gender, and

Free Delivery Delivery Options Fast Delivery Eco-Delivery F

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 14 of 21

Table 7. Score for critical e-commerce-delivery factors by generation, gender, and region.

Free Delivery Delivery Options Fast Delivery Eco-Delivery Free Returns

Baby boomers 7.46 5.72 7.79 7.07 6.78
Generation X 8.15 6.94 8.22 7.36 8.09
Generation Z 8.04 6.75 8.19 6.78 7.82
Millennials 7.97 6.98 7.92 6.89 7.82
Man 7.94 6.65 8.13 6.83 7.65
Woman 7.93 6.69 7.94 7.25 7.71
Other 8.00 5.25 8.75 4.25 9.00
Spain 7.87 6.47 7.95 6.89 7.59
Europe 8.59 8.41 9.52 8.33 8.96
America 8.42 8.48 8.61 7.79 8.30

To determine the best predictors of the willingness to pay for eco-friendly e-commerce
delivery, a logistic regression was performed, as it is a statistical method that allows the
modeling of the probability of a binary qualitative variable (two possible values) as a
function of one or more independent variables [81,82]. In the logistic regression model
in our research, the values of the probabilities to be predicted corresponded with the
dependent variable: ‘willingness to pay extra for an ecological e-commerce delivery.’ This
had two possible values (1 = willingness to pay and 0 = unwillingness to pay), and the
following independent variables or features were presented: gender (qualitative binary
variable), generation (qualitative ordinal variable), and the quantitative variables related to
the critical success factors in e-commerce deliveries analyzed in Table 5.
The multiple logistic regression model (Table 8) showed that sex (p = 0.0016), free
delivery (p = 0.0001), delivery options (p = 0.0256), and eco-delivery (p ≤ 0.05) contribute to
the model and are related to the willingness to pay the additional cost for eco-delivery in e-
commerce (statistically significant p-values are highlighted in bold). In contrast, generation,
fast delivery, and free returns (p > 0.05) do not contribute to the model and should not be
used as predictor variables.

Table 8. Results of multivariate logistic regression analysis for the explained feature and predictors.

Explained Feature:
ES (Standard CI (Confidence
Willingness to Pay for OR (Odds Ratio) p Coeff b
Error) Interval) 95%
Ecological Delivery
Sex 0.558 0.185 0.388–0.801 0.0016 −0.584
Generation 0.967 0.088 0.813–1.149 0.6996 −0.034
Free delivery 0.769 0.068 0.673–0.878 0.0001 −0.263
Delivery options 0.917 0.039 0.850–0.990 0.0256 −0.086
Fast delivery 0.887 0.062 0.786–1.002 0.0530 −0.120
Eco-delivery 1.441 0.046 1.317–1.577 0.0000 0.365
Free-returns 0.956 0.050 0.867–1.053 0.3615 −0.045

The logistic regression model was significant overall, with a p-value < 0.05 and a
χ2 value = 136.98 (7 df), with an alpha = 0.05. The model’s accuracy was 74.08%, indicating
that it correctly classified 74.08% of the observations. Below is the receiver operator
characteristic (ROC) curve, which shows the diagnostic capability of binary classifiers [83].
The graph shows the true positive rate (TPR) versus the false positive rate (FPR). The TPR
is the proportion of observations that were correctly predicted as positive out of all the
positive observations (TP/(TP + FN)). The proximity of the curve to the upper left corner
indicates a better model performance (see Figure 9).
 value = 136.98 (7 df), with an alpha = 0.05. The model’s accuracy was 74.08%, indicating
that it correctly classified 74.08% of the observations. Below is the receiver operator char-
acteristic (ROC) curve, which shows the diagnostic capability of binary classifiers [83]. The
graph shows the true positive rate (TPR) versus the false positive rate (FPR). The TPR is
the proportion of observations that were correctly predicted as positive out of all the pos-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 15 of 21
itive observations (TP/(TP + FN)). The proximity of the curve to the upper left corner in-
dicates a better model performance (see Figure 9).

0.8

True Positive Rate

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
False Positive Rate

Figure 9. Receiver-operator-characteristic curve.

6. Discussion
Our research confirmed the two hypotheses presented in this study: H1 and H2. Re-
garding H1, most of the respondents (70.25%) expressed their willingness to pay additional
costs for guaranteed green e-commerce delivery. The results align with those of previous
studies [6,74–76,84]. However, it is important to note that in the face of a generic question,
there is a greater risk of response bias (respondents may feel pressured to give socially
acceptable answers [85]). To mitigate this potential for generality in the responses, the
respondents were asked to specify the amount of money they would be willing to pay,
as those who favored lower prices may have been more price-sensitive and may have
changed their opinions. The majority result was that the consumers surveyed would pay
between EUR 1 and EUR 2 per shipment (31.05%), and less than EUR 1 (26.61%) for an
organic online order. The remaining 42.34% would be willing to pay more than EUR 2 or a
percentage of the value of a product. With online returns, a large majority (three out of four
of the respondents) would be willing to delay the return of an e-commerce package if an
environmentally friendly return was guaranteed, albeit with different deadlines. Notably,
one in four of the respondents said they were unwilling to wait for an environmentally
friendly return. These results can help guide e-retailers and other stakeholders to explore
new sustainable practices related to delivering e-commerce.
Regarding H2, there were significant differences between the generations and genders
in terms of their willingness to pay additional costs for green deliveries. Contrary to
expectations, the older generation (baby boomers) showed a higher willingness to pay
for green deliveries than the more modern generations (generation X, millennials, and
generation Z). These results differ from those in previous research, in which more modern
generations showed more environmentally friendly behavior, in that they were more eco-
friendly and more technology- and sustainability-oriented [51,79,86]. This could have been
because, although later generations are more socially conscious, or greener, the need to pay
to be green was higher in this research. In this context, baby boomers may have greater
purchasing power, allowing them to afford this extra cost, but no data are available to
corroborate this hypothesis. Regarding gender, women (77.88%) are more willing to pay
additional costs for eco-deliveries (more than 13 percentage points than men). In this case,
the results align with the those in the literature review [54,77].
The study rejected H3 as, among the five best sustainable practices for recycling
proposed, the respondents preferred the use of environmentally friendly materials in
packaging. This solution is closely related to the second-highest-rated alternative, ‘eliminate
plastic from the packaging we receive in e-commerce’, as both alternatives are designed to
avoid generating waste that cannot be reused. When an online order arrives at consumers’
homes, consumers throw the packaging straight into the bin, which highlights the problem
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 16 of 21

of packaging waste in e-commerce: most e-commerce packaging is not designed with

sustainability in mind [49,50]. This is an example of a linear economy, in which items
move through a unidirectional production, use, and disposal process. The alternative is
moving towards a circular packaging economy, in which resources are continually reused
or renewed to provide ongoing value. In our research, the three Rs of recycling (reduce,
reuse, and recycle) were rated next, although the alternative of recycling packaging was
rated higher than reusing and reducing.
Free delivery was the most highly rated critical aspect of e-commerce delivery in our
research. This fact rejects H4, but it should be noted that the ratings were very similar
between the two aspects (8.05 vs. 7.94). The difference between this result and those
of previous consumer studies is that the consumers were given a choice between the
alternatives (only one choice), with cost being the preferred option in these cases [48,49].
The cost of returns ranked below the cost of deliveries, in third place. Green deliveries were
rated lower than the cost aspects, indicating that the surveyed customers, on the one hand,
were willing to pay for green delivery but, on the other hand, that they valued free delivery
and returns more highly. This assessment may indicate that consumers prefer and value
green deliveries but still want deliveries to be free of charge, i.e., consumers are positively
inclined towards sustainable consumption but do not change their behavior when they
encounter economic barriers [54]. Delivery alternatives (parcel lockers, delivery points,
etc.) were rated the lowest of all the aspects of e-commerce delivery, highlighting that the
convenience and security of home delivery outweigh any possible alternatives [27].
Finally, H5 was rejected as the logistic regression indicated that the best predictors
of the willingness to pay for green delivery in e-commerce were the following variables
(in this order): green delivery, free delivery, gender, and delivery options. According to
the results, socio-demographic factors (sex and generation) are not the best predictors in
the regression model. Generation does not serve as a predictor of willingness to pay, free
return, or fast delivery. There was no strong correlation among the explanatory variables
that made up the logistic regression model. As expected, there was only a positive (albeit
moderate) correlation between the ‘free returns’ and ‘free delivery’ variables. Again, it is
important to highlight the differences between environmental awareness and willingness
to pay for environmental issues. Environmental awareness may be a distinctive trait among
the younger generation, but it is separate from price-to-pay issues [55].

7. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research

According to the data collected, this research shows that consumers are initially aware
of or willing to adopt sustainable measures in e-commerce delivery. There is a willingness
to pay additional costs if green delivery is guaranteed and sustainable delivery aspects
are valued. However, when analyzing the most important factors in e-commerce parcel
delivery, speed and free pick-up are aspects that e-consumers place ahead of green delivery.
This study’s findings stress the need to balance the drive for speed and cost-effectiveness
in e-commerce delivery with the urgency to adopt sustainable practices. This underscores
the necessity for e-commerce platforms and logistics partners to take the lead in crafting
and implementing innovative green delivery solutions while educating and consumers
and incentivizing them to choose sustainable delivery options. This dichotomy highlights
that these consumers are inclined towards sustainable delivery until economic barriers
are encountered. As companies try to differentiate themselves further in e-commerce
through their sustainability policies, it would be interesting to explore, in future research,
the best alternative to passing on the associated additional charges so that customers can
be assured of green delivery and still believe that they are receiving free and fast deliveries.
One alternative could be to increase product prices or make customers pay an annual
subscription while offering deliveries that are environmentally friendly.
This study also shows significant differences in terms of the willingness to pay be-
tween generations and genders. In theory, more modern generations are more aware of
sustainability, but regarding payment, they are more reluctant than older generations. One
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 17 of 21

possible explanation may be that younger generations have, in general, fewer financial
resources than older generations. The former may consider it an obligation for companies
to be sustainable and may need to understand that they must pay for products or services
that should be compulsory in society. Regarding gender, women are more environmentally
conscious, which can help retailers to personalize deliveries according to product type and
target customer.
Regarding packaging, although many studies focus on the three Rs in e-commerce,
the respondents favored using environmentally friendly packaging in and eliminating
plastic from e-commerce deliveries. The shipping of products is part of the online shopping
experience, and the packaging used plays a key role in adding value for customers. Several
sustainable alternatives to traditional plastic-packaging systems exist, such as biodegrad-
able, compostable products or products made from 100% natural materials. The problems
arise when plastic is used for disposability purposes, which causes large quantities of
plastic to accumulate. However, if plastic packaging is reused and recycled, it can be a
valuable and durable material.
Based on the research results, different stakeholders can take actions that are beneficial
to them and, at the same time, ensure the sustainability of e-commerce deliveries. Informa-
tion regarding the willingness of consumers to become more sustainable must be visible
and known to all stakeholders because when this information is made available to different
actors, they can make more responsible and environmentally friendly decisions.
Finally, according to the survey data, gender may be a good predictor of willingness
to pay, but generation is not. The research shows, unsurprisingly, how variables related to
environmental awareness (eco-delivery and delivery options) can also be used as predictors
of willingness to pay.
Within the theoretical implications of the study, the results of our research provide
valuable insights for future researchers seeking to understand how different alternatives can
be implemented to improve the sustainability of e-commerce delivery from the perspective
of customers. Our research specifically focuses on determining the willingness to pay
for green deliveries and assessing various green alternatives while also analyzing the
differences between the generations. Therefore, our methodology may also pave the way
for further research to gather detailed information on how to materialize and implement
measures that reflect the greener attitudes of e-commerce customers.
Among the limitations of the results of our study, we acknowledge that this is a rapidly
evolving field and that the references used in this research may need to be updated in the
future. In order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the topic, future revisions of
this paper will aim to incorporate the latest research in the field of e-commerce and green
practices. Within this research, although the respondents’ postcodes are known, information
regarding the income of the participants would be relevant. It would be interesting to
have this information available and to determine whether there is a relationship between
income level and willingness to pay for green e-commerce deliveries. On the other hand,
the sampling was non-probabilistic, using the snowball-sample selection method (in which
the subjects choose the next one to be surveyed because they meet the requested criteria),
which implies that the results cannot be generalized. However, probabilistic sampling
could provide more reliable information, and the distribution of respondents by country of
origin would be more evenly distributed and less biased.
This research highlights the interest of consumers in the different options that can
be presented in the packaging of e-commerce orders. In this sense, future research re-
lated to sustainable e-commerce could address packaging and its different alternatives
within online orders in greater depth, as it is one of the polluting activities studied the
least in the literature. Similarly, it would be desirable to carry out a study with a more
balanced sample, according to country of origin, and to be able to compare the differences
between them.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 18 of 21

Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the data preparation and the analysis and
to the interpretation of results. All authors made major contributions to writing the manuscript. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data are accessible from the corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Eurostat. E-Commerce Statistics for Individuals3. 2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/
index.php?title=E-commerce_statistics_for_individuals3 (accessed on 2 October 2022).
2. Statista. Comercio Electrónico en El Mundo. 2022. Available online: https://es.statista.com/temas/9072/comercio-electronico-
en-el-mundo/ (accessed on 14 November 2022).
3. Dionysiou, G.; Fouskas, K.; Karamitros, D. The impact of COVID-19 in e-commerce Effects on consumer purchase behavior.
In Strategic Innovative Marketing and Tourism in the COVID-19 Era; Kavoura, A., Havlovic, S.J., Totskaya, N., Eds.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 199–210. [CrossRef]
4. McKinsey. The Future of Retail: Omnichannel Shopping in 2030. 2021. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-
functions/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/omnichannel-shopping-in-2030 (accessed on 12 November 2022).
5. Muñoz-Villamizar, A.; Velázquez-Martínez, J.C.; Haro, P.; Ferrer, A.; Mariño, R. The environmental impact of fast shipping
ecommerce in inbound logistics operations: A case study in Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 283, 125400. [CrossRef]
6. Nogueira, G.P.M.; de Assis Rangel, J.J.; Shimoda, E. Sustainable last-mile distribution in B2C e-commerce: Do consumers really
care? Clean. Responsible Consum. 2021, 3, 100021. [CrossRef]
7. Vakulenko, Y.; Shams, P.; Hellström, D.; Hjort, K. Service innovation in e-commerce last mile delivery: Mapping the e-customer
journey. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 461–468. [CrossRef]
8. Heskett, J.L.; Jones, T.O.; Loveman, G.W.; Sasser, W.E., Jr.; Schlesinger, L.A. Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harv. Bus.
Rev. 2008, 72, 164–174.
9. Pham, T.S.H.; Ahammad, M.F. Antecedents and consequences of online customer satisfaction: A holistic process perspective.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 124, 332–342. [CrossRef]
10. Mangiaracina, R.; Marchet, G.; Perotti, S.; Tumino, A. A review of the environmental implications of B2C E-commerce: A logistics
perspective. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2015, 45, 565–591. [CrossRef]
11. Gevaers, R.; Van De Voorde, E.; Vanelslander, T. Cost modelling and simulation of last-mile characteristics in an innovative B2C
supply chain environment with implications on urban areas and cities. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 125, 398–411. [CrossRef]
12. Halldórsson, Á.; Wehner, J. Last-mile logistics fulfilment: A framework for energy efficiency. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2020,
37, 100481. [CrossRef]
13. Sallnäs, U.; Björklund, M. Green e-commerce distribution alternatives—A mission impossible for retailers? Int. J. Logist. Manag.
2023, 34, 50–74. [CrossRef]
14. Ignat, B.; Chankov, S. Do e-commerce customers change their preferred last-mile delivery based on its sustainability impact? Int.
J. Logist. Manag. 2020, 31, 521–548. [CrossRef]
15. Kandula, S.; Krishnamoorthy, S.; Roy, D. A prescriptive analytics framework for efficient E-commerce order delivery. Decis.
Support Syst. 2021, 147, 113584. [CrossRef]
16. E-Commerce Statistics for Individuals. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=E-
commerce_statistics_for_individuals (accessed on 14 November 2022).
17. Russo, F.; Comi, A. A classification of city logistics measures and connected impacts. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 6355–6365.
[CrossRef]
18. Taniguchi, E. Concepts of city logistics for sustainable and liveable cities. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 151, 310–317. [CrossRef]
19. Kafle, N.; Zou, B.; Lin, J. Design and modeling of a crowdsource-enabled system for urban parcel relay and delivery. Transp. Res.
Part B Methodol. 2017, 99, 62–82. [CrossRef]
20. Lim, S.F.W.T.; Jin, X.; Srai, J.S. Consumer-driven e-commerce: A literature review, design framework, and research agenda on
last-mile logistics models. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2018, 48, 308–332. [CrossRef]
21. Taniguchi, E.; Thompson, R.G.; Qureshi, A.G. Recent Developments Prospects for Modeling City Logistics; Taniguchi, E., Thompson,
R.G., Eds.; City Logistics 1; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–27. [CrossRef]
22. Florio, A.M.; Feillet, D.; Hartl, R.F. The delivery problem: Optimizing hit rates in e-commerce deliveries. Transp. Res. Part B
Methodol. 2018, 117, 455–472. [CrossRef]
23. Di Gangi, M.; Polimeni, A.; Belcore, O.M. Freight distribution in small islands: Integration between naval services and parcel
lockers. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7535. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 19 of 21

24. Johnson Jorgensen, J.; Sorensen, K. Negative e-wom resulting from political posts on social media: A case study of a small
retailer’s struggle over time. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 318. [CrossRef]
25. Schroten, A.; Schep, E.; De Graaff, L.; Bijleveld, M.; Vergeer, R. Environ-Mental Prices Handbook EU28 Version. CE Delft. 2018.
Available online: https://www.cedelft.eu/en/publications/2191/environmental-prices-handbook-eu28-version (accessed on 5
December 2022).
26. International Post Corporation. Cross-Border E-Commerce Shopper Survey 2021. 2022. Available online: https://www.ipc.be/
services/markets-and-regulations/cross-border-shopper-survey (accessed on 8 December 2022).
27. Joerss, M.; Schröder, J.; Neuhaus, F.; Klink, C.; Mann, F. Parcel Delivery. In The Future of Last Mile; McKinsey: Seoul, Republic of
Korea, 2016; Available online: https://cutt.ly/YbQQR5j (accessed on 20 December 2022).
28. Kiba-Janiak, M.; Marcinkowski, J.; Jagoda, A.; Skowrońska, A. Sustainable last mile delivery on e-commerce market in cities from
the perspective of various stakeholders. Literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 71, 102984. [CrossRef]
29. Lowe, R.; Rigby, M. The Last Mile. Exploring the Online Purchasing and Delivery Journey; Barclays: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
30. UPS. UPS Pulse of the Online ShopperTM Study. 2019. Available online: https://www.ups.com/assets/resources/media/
knowledge-center/ups-pulse-of-the-online-shopper.PDF (accessed on 10 December 2022).
31. IMRG. Imrg UK Consumer Home. Delivery Review 2015. 2015. Available online: https://www.imrg.org/res/files/D079A1FD5
68.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2022).
32. Lee, H.L.; Chen, Y.; Gillai, B.; Rammohan, S. Technological Disruption and Innovation in Last-Mile Delivery. Stanford Gradu-
ate School of Business. 2016. Available online: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/technological-
disruption-innovation-last-mile-delivery (accessed on 2 February 2023).
33. Calabrò, G.; Pira, M.L.; Giuffrida, N.; Fazio, M.; Inturri, G.; Ignaccolo, M. Modelling the dynamics of fragmented vs. Consolidated
last-mile e-commerce deliveries via an agent-based model. Transp. Res. Procedia 2022, 62, 155–162. [CrossRef]
34. Hepp, S.B. Innovation in Last Mile Delivery: Meeting Evolving Customer De-mands—The Case of In-Car Delivery [Trabajo
de Fin de Master, Universidade Católica Portuguesa]. Repositório Institucional Da Universidade Católica Portuguesa. 2018.
Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/25359 (accessed on 15 February 2023).
35. World Economic Forum. The Future of the Last-Mile Ecosystem. Transition Roadmaps for Public- and Private-Sector Play-
ers. 2020. Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_the_last_mile_ecosystem.pdf (accessed on 15
December 2022).
36. Khare, A.; Pandey, S. Role of green self-identity and peer influence in fostering trust towards organic food retailers. Int. J. Retail.
Distrib. Manag. 2017, 45, 969–990. [CrossRef]
37. Grima, S.; Sirkeci, O.; Elbeyoglu, K. (Eds.) Global Street Economy and Micro Entrepreneurship, 1st ed.; Emerald Publishing: Bingley,
UK, 2020.
38. Cárdenas, I.D.; Dewulf, W.; Beckers, J.; Smet, C.; Vanelslander, T. The e-commerce parcel delivery market and the implications of
home B2C deliveries vs. pick-up points. Int. J. Transp. Econ. 2017, 44, 235–256. [CrossRef]
39. Kin, B.; Verlinde, S.; Macharis, C. Sustainable urban freight transport in megacities in emerging markets. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017,
32, 31–41. [CrossRef]
40. Yang, C.; Chen, M.; Yuan, Q. The geography of freight-related accidents in the era of E-commerce: Evidence from the Los Angeles
metropolitan area. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 92, 102989. [CrossRef]
41. Seghezzi, A.; Siragusa, C.; Mangiaracina, R. Parcel lockers vs. home delivery: A model to compare last-mile delivery cost in
urban and rural areas. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2022, 52, 213–237. [CrossRef]
42. Cárdenas, I.; Beckers, J.; Vanelslander, T. E-commerce last-mile in Belgium: Developing an external cost delivery index. Res.
Transp. Bus. Manag. 2017, 24, 123–129. [CrossRef]
43. Mclaughlin, K. The Emissions Implications of Modern Retailing: Omnichannel vs. Stores and Online Pure-Plays, Bentonville,
Arkansas. 2017. Available online: https://cdn.corporate.walmart.com/00/5a/3c20743a4f0db2d00c452aebea95/omni-channel-
emissions-modeling-whitepaperfinal04182017.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2023).
44. Melacini, M.; Tappia, E. A critical comparison of alternative distribution configurations in omni-channel retailing in terms of cost
and greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainability 2018, 10, 307. [CrossRef]
45. Jaller, M.; Pahwa, A. Evaluating the environmental impacts of online shop-ping: A behavioral and transportation approach.
Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 80, 102223. [CrossRef]
46. Comi, A.; Nuzzolo, A. Exploring the relationships between e-shopping attitudes and urban freight transport. Transp. Res. Procedia
2016, 12, 399–412. [CrossRef]
47. European Commission. A European Green Deal—Striving to Be the First Climate-Neutral Continent. European Union.
2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_ (accessed on 15
December 2022).
48. Lukic, V.; Souza, R.; Wolfgang, M. Same-Day Delivery. Not Ready for Prime Time; The Boston Consulting Group: Boston, MA,
USA, 2013.
49. Merkert, R.; Bliemer, M.C.J.; Fayyaz, M. Consumer preferences for innovative and traditional last-mile parcel delivery. Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2022, 52, 261–284. [CrossRef]
50. Buldeo Rai, H.; Verlinde, S.; Macharis, C. The “next day, free delivery” myth unravelled: Possibilities for sustainable last mile
transport in an omnichannel environment. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2019, 47, 39–54. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 20 of 21

51. Polinori, P.; Marcucci, E.; Bollino, C.A.; Bigerna, S.; Gatta, V. Eco-labeling and sustainable urban freight transport: How much are
people willing to pay for green logistics? Int. J. Transp. Econ. 2018, 631–658. [CrossRef]
52. White, K.; Habib, R.; Hardisty, D.J. How to shift consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding
framework. J. Mark. 2019, 83, 22–49. [CrossRef]
53. Klein, P.; Popp, B. Last-mile delivery methods in e-commerce: Does perceived sustainability matter for consumer acceptance and
usage? Sustainability 2022, 14, 16437. [CrossRef]
54. Caspersen, E.; Navrud, S.; Bengtsson, J. Act locally? Are female online shoppers willing to pay to reduce the carbon footprint of
last mile deliveries? Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2021, 16, 1144–1158. [CrossRef]
55. Lehmann, J.; Sheffi, Y. Consumers’ (Not So) Green Purchase Behavior. J. Mark. Dev. Compet. 2020, 14, 76–90. Available online:
https://sheffi.mit.edu/sites/sheffi.mit.edu/files/2019-08/Consumers’%20(not%20so)%20Green%20Purchase%20Behavior.
pdf (accessed on 20 February 2023).
56. Escursell, S.; Llorach-Massana, P.; Roncero, M.B. Sustainability in e-commerce packaging: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,
280, 124314. [CrossRef]
57. Eurostat. SDG 12—Responsible Consumption and Production. 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
statistics-explained/index.php?title=SDG_12_-_Responsible_consumption_and_production#Responsible_consumption_and_
production_in_the_EU:_overview_and_key_trends (accessed on 22 December 2022).
58. Pålsson, H.; Pettersson, F.; Winslott Hiselius, L. Energy consumption in e-commerce versus conventional trade channels—Insights
into packaging, the last mile, unsold products and product returns. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 765–778. [CrossRef]
59. Tokar, T.; Jensen, R.; Williams, B.D. A guide to the seen costs and unseen benefits of e-commerce. Bus. Horiz. 2021, 64, 323–332.
[CrossRef]
60. Meherishi, L.; Narayana, S.A.; Ranjani, K.S. Sustainable packaging for supply chain management in the circular economy: A
review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117582. [CrossRef]
61. Monnot, E.; Reniou, F.; Parguel, B.; Elgaaied-Gambier, L. “Thinking outside the packaging box”: Should brands consider store
shelf context when eliminating over-packaging? J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 154, 355–370. [CrossRef]
62. Lu, S.; Yang, L.; Liu, W.; Jia, L. User preference for electronic commerce overpackaging solutions: Implications for cleaner
production. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120936. [CrossRef]
63. Li, Y.; Feng, C.; Liu, H. Package-free returns: A trend in green ecommerce. In Advances in Digital Marketing and Ecommerce;
Martínez-López, F.J., López, D., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 330–334. [CrossRef]
64. Xie, G.; Huang, L.; Apostolidis, C.; Huang, Z.; Cai, W.; Li, G. Assessing Consumer Preference for Overpackaging Solutions in
E-Commerce. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7951. [CrossRef]
65. Packaging Europe. The Cost of E-Commerce Returns for Retailers. 2022. Available online: https://packagingeurope.com/
comment/the-cost-of-e-commerce-returns-for-retailers/8094.article (accessed on 12 February 2023).
66. Frei, R.; Jack, L.; Krzyzaniak, S.-A. Mapping product returns processes in multichannel retailing: Challenges and opportunities.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1382. [CrossRef]
67. Zhang, Y.; Voorhees, C.M.; Lin, C.; Chiang, J.; Hult, G.T.M.; Calantone, R.J. Information search and product returns across mobile
and traditional online channels. J. Retail. 2022, 98, 260–276. [CrossRef]
68. Frei, R.; Jack, L.; Brown, S. Product returns: A growing problem for business, society and environment. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.
2020, 40, 1613–1621. [CrossRef]
69. Manerba, D.; Mansini, R.; Zanotti, R. Attended Home Delivery: Reducing last-mile environmental impact by changing customer
habits. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2018, 51, 55–60. [CrossRef]
70. Guo, X.; Lujan Jaramillo, Y.J.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.; Claassen, G.D.H. On integrating crowdsourced delivery in last-mile logistics:
A simulation study to quantify its feasibility. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118365. [CrossRef]
71. Ding, Y.; Jin, M. Service and pricing strategies in online retailing under car-bon emission regulation. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217,
85–94. [CrossRef]
72. B2C Europe. Green & Social Delivery Report. The Future of Ecommerce Lies in Its Sustainability and Sociality; B2C Europe: Brussels,
Switzerland, 2018.
73. Buldeo Rai, H.; Broekaert, C.; Verlinde, S.; Macharis, C. Sharing is caring: How non-financial incentives drive sustainable
e-commerce delivery. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 93, 102794. [CrossRef]
74. Accenture. Accenture Chemicals Global Consumer Sustainability Survey 2019. 2019. Available online: https://www.slideshare.
net/accenture/accenture-chemicals-global-consumer-sustainability-survey-2019 (accessed on 12 February 2023).
75. Rausch, T.M.; Baier, D.; Wening, S. Does sustainability really matter to consumers? Assessing the importance of online shop and
apparel product attributes. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102681. [CrossRef]
76. Direct Link. E-Commerce in Europe. 2022. Available online: https://www.directlink.com/e-commerce-in-europe/ (accessed on
2 February 2023).
77. Nguyen, D.H.; de Leeuw, S.; Dullaert, W.; Foubert, B.P.J. What is the right delivery option for you? Consumer preferences for
delivery attributes in online retailing. J. Bus. Logist. 2019, 40, 299–321. [CrossRef]
78. Falke, A.; Schröder, N.; Hofmann, C. The influence of values in sustainable consumption among millennials. J. Bus. Econ. 2021,
92, 899–928. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12161 21 of 21

79. Brand, B.M.; Rausch, T.M.; Brandel, J. The importance of sustainability aspects when purchasing online: Comparing generation x
and generation z. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5689. [CrossRef]
80. Charter, R.A. Statistical approaches to achieving sufficiently high test score re-liabilities for research purposes. J. Gen. Psychol.
2008, 135, 241–251. [CrossRef]
81. Freedman, D.; Pisani, R.; Purves, R. Statistics (International Student Edition), 4th ed.; Pisani, R., Purves, R., Eds.; W.W. Norton &
Company: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
82. Hilbe, J.M. Logistic Regression Models; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009.
83. Pepe, M.S. An interpretation for the roc curve and inference using glm procedures. Biometrics 2000, 56, 352–359. [CrossRef]
84. Nielsen. A ‘Natural’ Rise in Sustainability around the World. NielsenIQ. 2019. Available online: https://nielseniq.com/global/
en/insights/analysis/2019/a-natural-rise-in-sustainability-around-the-world/ (accessed on 25 February 2023).
85. Randall, D.M.; Fernandes, M.F. The social desirability response bias in ethics research. J. Bus. Ethics 1991, 10, 805–817. [CrossRef]
86. Dabija, D.C.; Bejan, B.M.; Dinu, V. How sustainability oriented is Generation Z in retail? A literature review. Transform. Bus. Econ.
2019, 18, 140–155.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.