Towards more sustainable online consumption: The impact of default and informational nudging on consumers’ choice of delivery mode

IF 3.7 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Sari R.R. Nijssen , Martijn Pijs , Alicja van Ewijk , Barbara C.N. Müller
{"title":"Towards more sustainable online consumption: The impact of default and informational nudging on consumers’ choice of delivery mode","authors":"Sari R.R. Nijssen ,&nbsp;Martijn Pijs ,&nbsp;Alicja van Ewijk ,&nbsp;Barbara C.N. Müller","doi":"10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The increasing CO2 emissions from e-commerce deliveries present a pressing environmental concern. If half of all consumers decided to have their online order delivered to a pick-up point instead of at home, this could vastly reduce CO2 emissions of e-commerce. This study investigated (a) whether nudging could help consumers shift towards pick-up point delivery as a more sustainable choice, and (b) which type of nudging would be most effective. An RCT was conducted with a representative sample of the Dutch population (<em>N</em> = 1213). In an online store setting, participants selected a product and completed the check-out process – selecting between more and less sustainable delivery options. Their selection had real consequences as the gift would be delivered with the selected delivery method. Four different nudging conditions were contrasted: a default nudge, in which the most sustainable option (i.e., delivery to pick-up point) was selected automatically, and three decision-information nudges, in which CO2 emissions for the delivery options was displayed. The decision-information nudges varied in complexity, from high complexity (emissions in grams of CO2 for each delivery option) to medium (percentage of CO2 reduction for the most sustainable option) and low complexity (a green leaf next to the most sustainable option). Relative to control, the default nudge was the most effective at steering participants towards the most sustainable delivery choice, followed by the medium- and low-informational nudging conditions. In addition, instead of steering them towards the most sustainable delivery option, the high-informational nudge appeared to steer participants away from the two most polluting delivery options – thereby potentially saving more greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) than the other conditions. In sum, this study provides substantial evidence for the use of behavioral strategies in quest towards more sustainable online consumption.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34617,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner and Responsible Consumption","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100135"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner and Responsible Consumption","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666784323000360","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The increasing CO2 emissions from e-commerce deliveries present a pressing environmental concern. If half of all consumers decided to have their online order delivered to a pick-up point instead of at home, this could vastly reduce CO2 emissions of e-commerce. This study investigated (a) whether nudging could help consumers shift towards pick-up point delivery as a more sustainable choice, and (b) which type of nudging would be most effective. An RCT was conducted with a representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 1213). In an online store setting, participants selected a product and completed the check-out process – selecting between more and less sustainable delivery options. Their selection had real consequences as the gift would be delivered with the selected delivery method. Four different nudging conditions were contrasted: a default nudge, in which the most sustainable option (i.e., delivery to pick-up point) was selected automatically, and three decision-information nudges, in which CO2 emissions for the delivery options was displayed. The decision-information nudges varied in complexity, from high complexity (emissions in grams of CO2 for each delivery option) to medium (percentage of CO2 reduction for the most sustainable option) and low complexity (a green leaf next to the most sustainable option). Relative to control, the default nudge was the most effective at steering participants towards the most sustainable delivery choice, followed by the medium- and low-informational nudging conditions. In addition, instead of steering them towards the most sustainable delivery option, the high-informational nudge appeared to steer participants away from the two most polluting delivery options – thereby potentially saving more greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) than the other conditions. In sum, this study provides substantial evidence for the use of behavioral strategies in quest towards more sustainable online consumption.

走向更可持续的在线消费:违约和信息推送对消费者交付模式选择的影响
电子商务配送的二氧化碳排放量不断增加,这是一个紧迫的环境问题。如果一半的消费者决定将他们的在线订单送到取货点,而不是在家里,这将大大减少电子商务的二氧化碳排放。这项研究调查了(a)推送是否有助于消费者将取货点送货作为一种更可持续的选择,以及(b)哪种推送方式最有效。对荷兰人口(N=1213)的代表性样本进行随机对照试验。在网上商店环境中,参与者选择了一种产品并完成了结账过程——在更多和更少可持续的送货选项之间进行选择。他们的选择产生了实际的影响,因为礼物将以选定的交付方式交付。对比了四种不同的推送条件:默认推送,其中自动选择最可持续的选项(即交付到提货点),以及三种决策信息推送,在其中显示交付选项的二氧化碳排放量。决策信息的复杂性各不相同,从高复杂性(每个交付选项的二氧化碳排放量以克为单位)到中等复杂性(最可持续选项的二氧化碳减排百分比)和低复杂性(最具可持续性选项旁边的绿叶)。相对于控制,默认的推动在引导参与者选择最可持续的交付方面最有效,其次是中等和低信息的推动条件。此外,高信息量的推动似乎没有引导参与者选择最可持续的交付方案,而是引导参与者远离两种污染最严重的交付方案——从而可能比其他条件节省更多的温室气体排放。总之,这项研究为使用行为策略寻求更可持续的在线消费提供了大量证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
99 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信