Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

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

Abstract

Research background: In the last few years, e-commerce market has increased in population shares, but the situation has changed dramatically since the Covid-19 pandemic. Electronic marketplaces have changed due to rapid digitalization and shopping. Online services offer the possibility to choose a different delivery method such as home delivery or out-of-home delivery. This aspect of the e-commerce market faces an increased interest among practitioners and academia in the field of sustainable last mile deliveries. Interestingly, the subject literature consists of papers analyzing the e-commerce impact on the last-mile delivery. However, the identification of factors for choosing a delivery method and factors that motivate e-customers to choose an eco-friendly delivery method is still an unrecognized field of research.

Purpose of the article: The authors of the paper focused on the e-customer perspective on sustainable deliveries in cities. Thus, the main purpose of the paper is to compare factors among the generations that motivate e-customers for choosing a delivery method.

Methods: The research was conducted among 1.110 e-customers in Poland in 2021. The paper aims to answer the following research question: what factors motivate each generation for choosing a delivery method? To answer the above-mentioned question, the correspondence analysis (MCA) is prepared that help to identify and compare factors in each generation.

Findings & value added: The original research procedure focused on the use of multivariate statistical methods in the study of e-customers’ preferences. The analysis revealed three clusters of e-customers in terms of pro-sustainable factors: (a) aged 65+ without pro-sustainable tendency, (b) aged 18–64 with pro-sustainable attitudes, and (c) mixed with no identified delivery preferences. As a result of the research, it can be concluded that the parcel price and the possibility of free return are still the most important factors in choosing the delivery method. From a business/practical perspective, the research results can be used by companies that are the main stakeholders in last mile deliveries, including mainly forwarders and transport companies.

Keywords

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

PDF

References

  1. Accenture (2021). The sustainable last mile. Sustainable Last Mile Delivery. Retrieved form https://www.accenture.com/gb-en/insights/consulting/sustainable-last-mile-delivery (07.07.2022).
    View in Google Scholar
  2. Agatz, N., Campbell, A. M.., Fleischmann, M., & Savelsbergh, M. (2008). Challenges and opportunities in attended home delivery. In B. Golden, R. Raghavan & E. Wasil (Eds.). The vehicle routing problem: Latest advances and new challenges (pp. 370–396). Springer-Verlag.
    View in Google Scholar
  3. Allen, C., Metternicht, G., & Wiedmann, T. (2018). Initial progress in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A review of evidence from countries, Sustainability Science, 13, 1453–1467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0572-3
    View in Google Scholar
  4. Bąk, I, Cheba, K., & Szczecińska B. (2019). The impact of transport on the quality of the environment in cities of Poland – A statistical analysis. Transportation Research Procedia, 39, 24–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.06.004
    View in Google Scholar
  5. Beh, E. J., & Lombardo, R. (2014). Correspondence analysis: theory, practice and new strategies. John Wiley & Sons. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118762875
    View in Google Scholar
  6. Belas, J., Gavurova, B., Čepel, M., & Kubák, M. (2020). Evaluation of economic potential of business environment development by comparing sector differences: Perspective of SMEs in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Oeconomia Copernicana. 11(1), 135–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2020.006
    View in Google Scholar
  7. Benson, E. L., & Connell, K. Y. (2014). Fair trade consumption from the perspective of US Baby Boomers. Social Responsibility Journal, 10, 364–382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2012-0094
    View in Google Scholar
  8. Bezerra, B. S., dos Santos, A. L., & Delmônico, D. V. (2020). Unfolding barriers for urban mobility plan in small and medium municipalities – A case study in Brazil. Transportation Research Part A-policy and Practice, 132, 808–822. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.006
    View in Google Scholar
  9. Boruchowicz, C. (2022). Public policy, the environment, and the use of green nudges. In R. Fike, S. Haeffele & J. Arielle. (Eds.). Nudging public policy. examining the benefits and limitations of paternalistic public policies (pp. 175–202). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
    View in Google Scholar
  10. Cárdenas, I., Beckers, J., & Vanelslander, T. (2017). E-commerce last-mile in Belgium: Developing an external cost delivery index. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 24, 123–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.07.006
    View in Google Scholar
  11. Caspersen, E., & Navrud, S. (2021). The sharing economy and consumer preferences for environmentally sustainable last mile deliveries. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 95, 102863. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102863
    View in Google Scholar
  12. Castelo A. F. M., Schäfer M., & Silva M. E. (2021). Food practices as part of daily routines: A conceptual framework for analysing networks of practices. Appetite, 157, 104978, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104978
    View in Google Scholar
  13. Cheba, K., Kiba-Janiak, M., Baraniecka, A., & Kołakowski, T. (2021). Impact of external factors on the e-commerce market in cities and its implications on the environment. Sustainable Cities and Society, 72, 103032, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103032
    View in Google Scholar
  14. Comi, A. (2020). A modelling framework to forecast urban goods flows. Research in Transportation Economics, 80, 100827. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100827
    View in Google Scholar
  15. Cudeck, R. (2000). Exploratory factor analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.). Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 265–296). Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50011-2
    View in Google Scholar
  16. Dabija, D. C., Bejan, B. M., & Dinu, V. (2019). How sustainability-oriented is generation Z in retail? A literature review. Transformations in Business & Economics, 18, 140–55.
    View in Google Scholar
  17. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465–480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7
    View in Google Scholar
  18. Dinner, I., Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G., & Liu, K. (2011). Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026470
    View in Google Scholar
  19. Ducarme, D. (2019). Sustainable solutions for “last mile” deliveries in the parcel industry: A qualitative analysis using insights from third-party logistics service providers and public mobility experts. Louvain: Louvain School of Management, Universithe catholique de Louvain.
    View in Google Scholar
  20. E-commerce share of total retail sales. (2021). EMarketer
    View in Google Scholar
  21. Evans, D. (2012). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46(1), 41–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511416150
    View in Google Scholar
  22. Evans, D., McMeekin, A., & Southerton, D. (2012). Sustainable consumption, behaviour change policies and theories of practice. COLLeGIUM: Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences, 12, 113–129.
    View in Google Scholar
  23. Evans, N., Eickers, S., Geene, L., Todorović, M., & Villmow, A. (2017). Green nudging: A discussion and preliminary evaluation of nudging as an environmental policy instrument. Environmental Policy Research Centre, Freie Universität Berlin, Retrieved from https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/ 22047/EansxEickerxGeenexTodorovicxVillmov_FFUxReport_GreenxNudging.pdf?squen-ce=1.
    View in Google Scholar
  24. Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199734177.001.0001
    View in Google Scholar
  25. Frankowska, M., & Cheba, K. (2022). The relational embeddedness as the differentiator of the cluster supply chain collaboration – A multidimensional comparative analysis. Competitiveness Review, 32(1), 59–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-11-2019-0114
    View in Google Scholar
  26. Gawor, T., & Hoberg, K. (2019). Customers’ valuation of time and convenience in e-fulfillment. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49(1), 75–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-09-2017-0275
    View in Google Scholar
  27. Gevaers, R., Vanelslander, T., & Van de Voorde, E. (2011). Characteristics and typology of last-mile logistics from an innovation perspective in an urban context, city distribution and urban freight transport: multiple perspectives. In City distribution and urban freight transport: Multiple perspectives (pp. 56–71). Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857932754.00009
    View in Google Scholar
  28. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/586910
    View in Google Scholar
  29. Greenacre, M. (1984). Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London: Academic Press.
    View in Google Scholar
  30. Greenacre, M. (2017). Correspondence analysis in practice. Chapman and Hall/CRC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315369983
    View in Google Scholar
  31. Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practicing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540510390500
    View in Google Scholar
  32. Hedin, B., Katzeff, C., Eriksson, E., & Pargman, D.S. (2019). A systematic review of digital behaviour change interventions for more sustainable food consumption. Sustainability 11(9), 2638. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092638
    View in Google Scholar
  33. Hischier, R. (2018). Car vs. packaging - A first, simple (environmental) sustainability assessment of our changing shopping behaviour. Sustainability, 10, 3061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093061
    View in Google Scholar
  34. Hursh, D. W., Henderson, J. A., & Greenwood, D. A. (2015). Environmental education in a neoliberal climate. Environmental Education Research, 21, 299–318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1018141
    View in Google Scholar
  35. Ignat, B., & Chankov, S. (2020). Do e-commerce customers change their preferred last-mile delivery based on its sustainability impact? International Journal of Logistics Management, 31(3), 521–548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2019-0305
    View in Google Scholar
  36. Ivanova, O., Flores‐Zamora, J., Khelladi, I., & Ivanaj, S. (2019). The generational cohort effect in the context of responsible consumption. Management Decision, 57, 1162–1183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2016-0915
    View in Google Scholar
  37. Iwan, S., Allesch, J., Celebi, D., Kijewska, K., Hoé, M., Klauenberg, J., Zajicek, J., (2019). Electric mobility in European urban freight and logistics – Status and attempts of improvement. Transportation Research Procedia, 39, 112–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.06.013
    View in Google Scholar
  38. Iwan, S., Kijewska, K., & Lemke, J. (2016). Analysis of parcel lockers’ efficiency as the last mile delivery solution – The results of research in Poland. Transportation Research Procedia 12, 644–655. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.02.018
    View in Google Scholar
  39. Jain, V., Vatsa R., & Jagani K. (2014). Exploring generation Z’s purchase behavior towards luxury apparel: a conceptual framework. Romanian Journal of Marketing 2, 18–29.
    View in Google Scholar
  40. Jara, M., Vyt, D., Mevel, O., Morvan, T., & Morvan, N. (2018). Measuring customers’ benefits of click and collect. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(4), 430–442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-05-2017-0158
    View in Google Scholar
  41. Jones, P., Comfort D., & Hillier D.(2005). Corporate social responsibility as a means of marketing to and communicating with customers within stores: A case study of UK food retailers. Management Research News, 28, 47–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170510785011
    View in Google Scholar
  42. Kalmus V, Keller M, & Kiisel M. (2009). Emerging consumer types in a transition culture: Consumption patterns of generational and ethnic groups in Estonia. Journal of Baltic Studies, 40(1), 53–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01629770902722252
    View in Google Scholar
  43. Kawa, A. (2020). Out-of-home delivery as a solution of the last mile problem in e-commerce. In P. Golinska-Dawson, K. M. Tsai & M. Kosacka-Olejnik (Eds.). Smart and sustainable supply chain and logistics – trends, challenges, methods and best practices (pp. 25–40). Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61947-3_2
    View in Google Scholar
  44. Kiba-Janiak, M., Cheba, K., Mucowska, M., & de Oliveira, L. K. (2022). Segmentation of e-customers in terms of sustainable last-mile delivery. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(4), 1117–1142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2022.032
    View in Google Scholar
  45. Kiba-Janiak, M., Marcinkowski, J., Jagoda, A., & Skorwońska, A. (2021). Sustainable last mile delivery on the e-commerce market in cities from the perspective of various stakeholders. Literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 71, 102984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102984
    View in Google Scholar
  46. Kłeczek, R., Pluta-Olearnik, M., & Pukas, A. (2020). Transformation of urban mobility practices. Services and values, routines and innovation. Wrocław: Publishing house of the Wrocław University of Economics and Business.
    View in Google Scholar
  47. Kline, R. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Y. Petscher, C. Schatschneider & D. L. Compton (Eds.). Applied quantitative analysis in education and the social sciences (pp. 171–207). Routledge.
    View in Google Scholar
  48. Kong, H. M., Witmaier, A., & Ko, E. (2021). Sustainability and social media communication: How consumers respond to marketing efforts of luxury and non-luxury fashion brands. Journal of Business Research, 131, 640–651. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.021
    View in Google Scholar
  49. Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Harris, L. C., & Piercy, N. (2013). Principles of marketing. Pearson Education Limited.
    View in Google Scholar
  50. Laghaei, J., Faghri, A., & Li, M. (2016). Impacts of home shopping on vehicle operations and greenhouse gas emissions: Multi-year regional study. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 23, 381–391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1124471
    View in Google Scholar
  51. Liu, G. (2014), Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 611–621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.038
    View in Google Scholar
  52. Lu, S., Yang, L., Liu, W., & Jia, L. (2020). User preference for electronic commerce overpackaging solutions: Implications for cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120936. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120936
    View in Google Scholar
  53. Mannheim, K. (1952). Historicism. Essays on the sociology of knowledge. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
    View in Google Scholar
  54. McDonald, R. P. (2014). Factor analysis and related methods. Psychology Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315802510
    View in Google Scholar
  55. McKinsey & Company (2016). Parcel delivery. The future of last mile. Travel, Transport and Logistics, September 2016. Retrieved form https://www.bringg. com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Parcel_deliveryThe_future_of_last_mile-1.pdf (01.07.2022).
    View in Google Scholar
  56. Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science: IS, 6, 42–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
    View in Google Scholar
  57. Moroz, M., & Polkowski, Z. (2016). The last mile issue and urban logistics: Choosing parcel machines in the context of the ecological attitudes of the Y generation consumers purchasing online. Transportation Research Procedia, 16, 378–393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.036
    View in Google Scholar
  58. Morrison, P. S., & Beer, B. (2017). Consumption and environmental awareness: Demographics of the European experience. Socioeconomic Environment Policies and Evaluations in Regional Science, 24, 81–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0099-7_5
    View in Google Scholar
  59. Muñoz-Villamizar A., J. Santos, J. R., Montoya-Torres, J. C., Velázquez-Martínez (2020). Measuring environmental performance of urban freight transport systems: A case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 52, 101844. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101844
    View in Google Scholar
  60. Nagatsu, M. (2015). Social nudges: Their mechanisms and justification. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 481–494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0245-4
    View in Google Scholar
  61. Nguyen, D. H., de Leeuw, S., Dullaert, W., & Foubert, B. P. J. (2019). What is the right delivery option for you? Consumer preferences for delivery attributes in online retailing. Journal of Business Logistics, 40(4), 299–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12210
    View in Google Scholar
  62. Paddock, J. (2017). Household consumption and environmental change: Rethinking the policy problem through narratives of food practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(1), 122–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540515586869
    View in Google Scholar
  63. Papadopoulou, M., Papasolomou, I., & Thrassou, A. (2021). Exploring the level of sustainability awareness among consumers within the fast-fashion clothing industry: A dual business and consumer perspective. Competitiveness Review, 32(3), 350–375 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-04-2021-0061
    View in Google Scholar
  64. Parry, E., & Battista, V. (2019). Generation Z in the UK: More of the same – High standards and demands. In C. Scholz, & A. Rennig (Eds.). Generation Z in Europe (The changing context of managing people) (pp. 89–107). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-491-120191013
    View in Google Scholar
  65. Pellizzoni, L. (2011). Governing through disorder: Neoliberal environmental governance and social theory. Global Environmental Change, 21, 795–803. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.014
    View in Google Scholar
  66. Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 63–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.004
    View in Google Scholar
  67. Prandtstetter, M., Seragiotto, C., Braith, J., Eitler, S., Ennser, B., Hauger, G., Hohenecker, N., Schodl, R., & Steinbauer, M. (2021). On the impact of open parcel lockers on traffic. Sustainability, 13(2), 755. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020755
    View in Google Scholar
  68. Rai, H. B., Verlinde, S., & Macharis, C. (2019). The next day, free delivery myth unravelled. Possibilities for sustainable last mile transport in an omnichannel environment. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 47(1), 39–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-06-2018-0104
    View in Google Scholar
  69. Ranieri, L., Digiesi, S., Silvestri, B., & Roccotelli, M. (2018). A review of last mile logistics innovations in an externalities cost reduction vision. Sustainability, 10(3), 782. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030782
    View in Google Scholar
  70. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432
    View in Google Scholar
  71. Rosal, I. D. (2016). Factors influencing the choice of delivery terms used in Spanish seaborne container trade. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 8(3), 318–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2016.076261
    View in Google Scholar
  72. Schubert, Ch. (2017). Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical? Ecological Economics, 132, 329–342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.009
    View in Google Scholar
  73. Severo, E. A, De Guimarães, J. C. F., & Dorion, E. C. H. (2018). Cleaner production, social responsibility and eco-innovation: Generations' perception for a sustainable future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186, 91–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.129
    View in Google Scholar
  74. Shove, E., & Pantzar M. (2005). Consumers, producers and practices. Understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. Journal of Consumer Culture 5(1), 43–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505049846
    View in Google Scholar
  75. Shove, E., & Walker G. (2010). Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life. Research Policy, 39, 471–476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.019
    View in Google Scholar
  76. Smagacz-Poziemska, M., Bukowski, A, & Martini, N. (2020). Social practice research in practice. Some methodological challenges in applying practice-based approach to the urban research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(1), 65–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1760577
    View in Google Scholar
  77. Southerton, D., Warde, A., & Hand M. (2004). The limited autonomy of the consumer: Implications for sustainable consumption. In D. Southerton, H. Chappells & B. Van Vliet (Eds.). Sustainable consumption: The implications of changing infrastructures of provision (pp. 32–48). London: Edward Elgar.
    View in Google Scholar
  78. Spotswood, F., Chatterton T., Tapp A., & Williams D. (2015). Analysing cycling as a social practice: An empirical grounding for behaviour change. Transportation Research, Part F:Ttraffic Psychology and Behaviour, 29, 22–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.12.001
    View in Google Scholar
  79. Statista (2020). Last mile logistics worldwide. https://www.statista.com/study/ 49682/last-mile-delivery/.32–48.
    View in Google Scholar
  80. Strambach, S., & Pflitsch, G. (2018). Micro-dynamics in regional transition paths to sustainability – An analysis of organizational and institutional change in Augsburg’s transition topology. Applied Geography, 90, 296–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.04.012
    View in Google Scholar
  81. Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations. New York: William Morrow.
    View in Google Scholar
  82. Tadić, S., & Veljović M. (2021). Home delivery: A framework for structuring. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, 11(1), 30–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7708/ijtte.2021.11(1).03
    View in Google Scholar
  83. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge. Penguin.
    View in Google Scholar
  84. Thompson, C. J., & Kumar, A. (2018). Beyond consumer responsibilization: Slow Food’s actually existing neoliberalism. Journal of Consumer Culture, 21, 317–336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540518818632
    View in Google Scholar
  85. Turku, V., Ari, J., & Pekka, J. (2022). How do time-bound practices initiate local sustainability pathways? Sustainable Cities and Society, 79. 103697. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103697
    View in Google Scholar
  86. Van Duin, J. H. R., Wiegmans, B. W., Van Arem, B., & Van Amstel, Y. (2020). From home delivery to parcel lockers: A case study in Amsterdam. Transportation Research Procedia, 46, 37–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.03.161
    View in Google Scholar
  87. Virglerova, Z., Ivanova, E., Dvorský, J., Belas, J., & Krulický, T. (2021). Selected factors of internationalisation and their impact on the SME perception of the market risk. Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(4), 1011–1032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2021.033
    View in Google Scholar
  88. Visser E. J., & Lanzendorf M. (2004). Mobility and accessibility effects of B2ce‐commerce: A literature review. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, 95(2), 189–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0040-747X.2004.00300.x
    View in Google Scholar
  89. Welch, D. (2017). Behaviour change and theories of practice: Contributions, limitations and developments. Social Business, 7(3-4), 241–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1362/204440817X15108539431488
    View in Google Scholar
  90. Welch, D., Swaffield, J., & Evans, D. (2021). Who’s responsible for food waste? Consumers, retailers and the food waste discourse coalition in the United Kingdom. Journal of Consumer Culture, 21, 236–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540518773801
    View in Google Scholar
  91. Wey Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.147
    View in Google Scholar
  92. Wilhelm, W. (2009). The relationship between student knowledge of sustainability concepts and product choice. In G. H. Brodowsky & R. A. Lupton (Eds). MEA 2009 conference proceedings. Newport Beach: Marketing Educators’ Association.
    View in Google Scholar
  93. Williams, K. C., & Page, R. A. (2011). Marketing to the generations. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 5(1), 1–17.
    View in Google Scholar
  94. Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079
    View in Google Scholar

Similar Articles

101-110 of 344

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.