RACHEL CAMERON

February 23, 2016

SHOPPING
DOES ONLINE SHOPPING REDUCE YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT?

THE ISSUES
"Last Mile" Delivery
The Problem With
Packaging
Basket Size
Distance Travelled

WHAT YOU
CAN DO
Tips for reducing
your shopping
carbon footprint.

CONCLUSION
Finding the right
method for each
situation

THE COST OF CONVENIENCE

People love the convenience of online shopping, and now
services like Amazon Prime Now or Google Express oer
delivery in as little as an hour. In fact, Amazon just announced
its fastest delivery to date- a four pack of Starbucks
frappaccinos delivered in just 10 minutes (Richtel, 2016).
Recently, more consumers are supplementing their brick-andmortar trips with online purchases. But in an increasingly more
carbon conscious society, how much is the convenience costing
the health of our planet?

THE ISSUES
Last Mile Delivery
When you buy something online or go to a physical store,
the distance travelled by either you or the product is called the
last mile (Edwards, 2010). This is the main focus of most
scientific studies on shopping because it is always the most
carbon intensive part of the goods reaching the consumer
(Brown, 2014).

SHOPPING

RACHEL CAMERON

February 23, 2016

Carbon emissions from traditional shopping, when

the consumer travels to a brick-and-mortar store, has
many factors including the consumers method of
transportation, how many items were purchased, and
what the round trip mileage was (van Loon, 2015).

The Problem With

Packaging
The amount and type of
packaging used in the shipping
of online orders can
significantly increase the
environmental impact of your
online purchases.
van Loon (2015) found that

"100 g of corrugated
cardboard plus limited
amounts (33 g in total) of
filling material, results in 181
g CO2-eq per item."
E-commerce was

responsible for much of the

35.4 million tons of
containerboard produced in
2014 in the United States.
Richtel (2016)

If a consumer walks or bikes to the store, there are no

extra carbon emissions produced on that trip. However,
the majority of shopping trips are taken by car or public
transportation (Wiese 2012). And while utilizing public
transit can help to reduce carbon emissions, it isnt by
much. About 73.5-144 g per kilometer compared to 144 g
per kilometer produced by cars (Wiese 2012). As van
Loon states, A trip to the local store emits on average 62
g CO2-eq per item, assuming a dedicated round-trip
distance of 12.5 km and 30 items in the shopping
basket (2015).
E-commerce, however, has very dierent variables.
Packaging, returns, and missed deliveries are all
contributors to CO2 emissions. Ordering multiple colors
and sizes with the intention of retuning one or more of
them either by mail or in store increases the CO2
released for the initial delivery. 40% of clothing items and
25 % of other small items ordered online are returned
(Wiese 2012). Additionally, 25% of first deliveries that
require a signature are missed and have to be re-delivered
(Edwards, 2010).

Amazon has received over 33

million comments about its

packaging since 2009, and is
working to reduce the overall
amount.
Additionally, recycling
corrugated cardboard has its
own environmental impacts,
using water and energy to
create new products (Richtel
2016).

SHOPPING

Amazon boxes stacked for shipping

RACHEL CAMERON

Browsing is another factor in brick-andmortar and online shopping. One in ten shopping trips
does not end in a purchase either because the item was
not available, or the trip was for research. This method
of making multiple trips to a store to research a
product before actually purchasing it doubles the
carbon emission for each trip made (Edwards, 2010). A
way to avoid this that has become increasingly
common is researching online.

Basket Size
van Loon found that both in store and online
purchases become less carbon intensive when the
basket size increases. She stated, Encouraging
consumers to increase the number of items per
delivery (i.e. to reduce the number of trips/deliveries)
oers a significant opportunity to improve the
environmental impact of business to consumer ecommerce. (2015)
Making a 12.8 mile round trip in a car to
purchase only one item generates 4,274g of CO2
(Edwards, 2010). In this scenario, buying online and
having a successful first delivery is less carbon
intensive. However, by increasing your basket size to
24 items, the 12.8 mile car trip is then less carbon
intensive than home delivery (Edwards, 2010).

February 23, 2016

Tips For Reducing

Your Shopping Carbon
Footprint.
When you are trying to
reduce the carbon impact
of your shopping, a few
things can make a big
difference. Here are a few
things you can do:
1. Dont make trips to a
store to browse, do
your research online
(Edwards, 2010)
2. Buy items in bulk to
avoid packaging, or
only buy items with
recyclable packaging.

Distance Travelled

3. Bring your reusable

bags!

It was determined that if a store is less than

14km from the consumer, that it is less carbon
intensive to drive there. Even less so to take public
transit, walk or bike (Wiese, 2012).

4. Take public transit,

walk, or bike to the
store (Wiese, 2012).

Some scientists, like Al-Mulali (2015) have

proposed a smart tax to incentivize shoppers to
purchase from a store near them instead of ordering
online. (10)

SHOPPING

5. Increase the size of

your basket to reduce
trips or deliveries (van
Loon, 2015).

RACHEL CAMERON

CONCLUSION
Finding the Right Method for
Each Situation
While many factors contribute to
whether or not online shopping produces
more CO2 than traditional methods, it is
important for
people to
understand
the impact of
their
preferred
method.

February 23, 2016

online. Boxes inside of boxes will never be a

smart idea for the environment, and
recycling them is energy intensive on its own.
As a society we need to start consuming less
(Richtel, 2016).

If you are serious about reducing your

carbon footprint it is important to know the
best method of
getting your
items. If the
store is less than
14km from your
home, it will be
better to travel
there (Wiese,
If it is
2012), but if an
possible to
item from a store
take public
farther away is
transit during
needed, consider
peak hours,
ordering it
or walk or
online.
ride a bicycle
Incorporating
Fedex loading trucks with online purchases
to the store,
your shopping into
that should be
your daily commute will emit less CO2 than
encouraged.
making a dedicated shopping trip (Edwards,
Consumption is, and always will be,
2010).
the driving force behind shopping, online or
Making fewer trips or orders,
otherwise. Products that are unnecessary, but
increasing basket size, and making informed
well advertised, are being bought and tossed
choices to limit returns, will make the most
away shortly after they are purchased. As a
impact in reducing your carbon footprint.
spokesperson for a recycling center in San
Francisco said, Slow down consumption, he
said. Slow down (Richtel, 2016). We need
to determine what are needs and what are
frivolities.
Additionally, something needs to be
done about our mountain of cardboard and
packaging materials produced from shopping
SHOPPING

RACHEL CAMERON

February 23, 2016

References
Al-Mulali, U., Sheau-Ting, L., & Ozturk, I. (2015). The global move toward Internet shopping
and its influence on pollution: an empirical analysis. Environmental Science And
Pollution Research, 22(13), 9717-9727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4142-2
Brown, J., Guirida, A. (2014) Carbon emissions comparison of last mile delivery versus
customer pickup. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 17(6), pp.
503-521
Edwards, J., McKinnon, A., Cullinane, S. (2010). Comparative analysis of the carbon footprints
of conventional and online retailing. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 40(1/2), pp. 103 - 123
Farag, S., Schwanen, T., Dijst, M., & Faber, J. (2007). Shopping online and/or in-store? A
structural equation model of the relationships between e-shopping and in-store
shopping. Transportation Research Part A: Policy And Practice, 41(2), 125-141.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.02.003
Richtel, M. (2016). E-Commerce: Convenience Built on a Mountain of Cardboard. Nytimes.com.
Retrieved 23 February 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/science/recyclingcardboard-online-shopping-environment.html?
hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=minimoth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=1

SHOPPING

RACHEL CAMERON

February 23, 2016

van Loon, P., Deketele, L., Dewaele, J., McKinnon, A., & Rutherford, C. (2015). A comparative
analysis of carbon emissions from online retailing of fast moving consumer goods.
Journal Of Cleaner Production, 106, 478-486.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.060
Wiese, A., Toporowski, W., & Zielke, S. (2012). Transport-related CO2 eects of online and
brick-and-mortar shopping: A comparison and sensitivity analysis of clothing retailing.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport And Environment, 17(6), pp. 473-477
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.05.007

SHOPPING

RACHEL CAMERON

February 23, 2016

Revision
For the final version of my research brief, I changed many things based on feedback from
my draft. I reduced the size and number of images, to make more room for analysis. I also added
headings for my subsections, and I made a list of things that can reduce your shopping carbon
footprint. I moved around a few paragraphs to make the paper flow better and be more cohesive.
I also changed my conclusion to oer more concrete recommendations.

SHOPPING