Comparative Greenhouse Gas Footprinting of Online versus Traditional Shopping for Fast-Moving Consumer Goods: A Stochastic Approach

Abstract

Variability in consumer practices and choices is typically not addressed in comparisons of environmental impacts of traditional shopping and e-commerce. Here, we developed a stochastic model to quantify the variability in the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprints of product distribution and purchase of fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs) via three prevalent retail channels in the United Kingdom (U.K.). We found that shopping via bricks and clicks (click and fulfillment via physical store delivery) most likely decreases the GHG footprints when substituting traditional shopping, while FMCGs purchased through pure players with parcel delivery often have higher GHG footprints compared to those purchased via traditional retail. The number of items purchased and the last-mile travel distance are the dominant contributors to the variability in the GHG footprints of all three retail channels. We further showed that substituting delivery vans with electric cargo bikes can lead to a GHG emission reduction of 26% via parcel delivery. Finally, we showed the differences in the "last mile" GHG footprint of traditional shopping in the U.K. compared to three other countries (China, Netherlands, and the United States), which are primarily caused by the different shares of modes of transport (walking and by car, bus, and bike).

Teleworking and Online Shopping: Socio-Economic Factors Affecting Their Impact on Transport Demand

“…Teleworking and e-commerce are two technology-enabled options that can modify individual daily mobility patterns and potentially reduce total transport demand and its associated impacts (energy consumption, CO2, pollutant emissions, congestion, etc.) [4][5][6][7][8]. Understanding the characteristics of people adopting those options provides a reference point to understand the potential impact in terms of transport externalities.…”

Increased inequalities of per capita CO2 emissions in China

“…Simultaneously, since 2000, China has witnessed a significant lifestyle change due to technological progress, and this change has affected CO 2 emissions as well. For example, online shopping supported by physical stores is likely to reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of traditional shopping, while online shopping without physical stores usually has a higher greenhouse gas footprint 31 . Although the action mechanism has not been proven, the new lifestyle has increased CO 2 emissions, and the lifestyle changes contributed 74.9% of the total increase in household consumption and household carbon emissions during 2012–2016 in China 32 .…”

Leveraging Artificial Intelligence in Marketing for Social Good—An Ethical Perspective

“…Even if one assumes that both the relative carbon footprint (due to decarbonization efforts and investments) and sales (due to customers’ return to offline channels and shopping when the Covid-19 pandemic will impose less restrictions) might decrease in 2021, the carbon footprint of the world’s largest e-commerce company amounts to dozens of tons of CO 2 emissions annually. Generally, e-commerce and online retailing can have more detrimental environmental impacts and larger ecological footprints due to packaging, product returns, last mile transportation, and shopping basket sizes as compared to traditional retailing and shopping (e.g., Escursell et al, 2021 ; Pålsson et al, 2015 ; Shahmohammadi et al, 2020 ; van Loon et al, 2015 ). Moreover, AI-enabled personalized mobile marketing (e.g., Tong et al, 2020 ) and in-store communication and technology (e.g., Dekimpe et al, 2020 ; Grewal, Noble, et al, 2020 ; van Esch et al, 2021 ) can prompt unplanned offline purchases and impulsive buying, which, in turn, amplify consumption and its environmental drawbacks.…”