{"id":10904,"date":"2016-11-04T02:26:25","date_gmt":"2016-11-04T06:26:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/digital.hbs.edu\/platform-rctom\/submission\/online-shopping-and-sustainability-how-delivery-service-providers-see-sustainability\/"},"modified":"2016-11-04T17:19:40","modified_gmt":"2016-11-04T21:19:40","slug":"online-shopping-sustainable-shipping","status":"publish","type":"hck-submission","link":"https:\/\/d3.harvard.edu\/platform-rctom\/submission\/online-shopping-sustainable-shipping\/","title":{"rendered":"Online Shopping, Sustainable Shipping"},"content":{"rendered":"

Environmental Impact of Online Retail<\/strong><\/p>\n

With the explosion of online retail, consumers are choosing click and mortar retail over traditional brick and mortar stores. Online retail presents a unique opportunity to have a positive impact on the environment and prevent climate change. Online consumer\u2019s behaviors are more efficient and sustainable than a traditional consumer. Maintaining a website as opposed to a physical store is one obvious way to decrease carbon footprint. However, less evident but still very dramatic benefits in sustainability comes from logistics of delivery.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"exhibit1\"<\/a>
Exhibit 1: Detailed Carbon Footprint of the buying process of a toy in an urban area<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

Greener Delivery<\/strong><\/p>\n

On average, the carbon footprint of a \u201cCybernaut\u201d, defined as a shopper who performs all of the buying process\u2014searches, purchases, and returns\u2014online, is almost half of that of a \u201cTraditional Shopper\u201d, a shopper who shops only in physical stores [1]. This is due to the fact that parcel carriers optimize the delivery process for many customers while a traditional shopper produces a lot of emissions from the customer transporting back and forth from the stores, and often making multiple trips. Even with higher return rates, online shopping has a lower carbon footprint than traditional shopping due to massive savings caused by saving on transportation.<\/p>\n

Carbon emission savings in grocery delivery illustrate this effect even more clearly. Trucks optimized for delivery to be filled to capacity and on routes optimized for delivery will deliver to a clustered network of consumers, can cut carbon emissions by half, compared to individual consumers purchasing groceries at the store [2].<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Exhibit<\/a>
Exhibit 2: Diagram of how a delivery truck can save mileage compared to personal vehicles<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Furthermore, because fuel cost is often the most significant cost, logistics providers are placed in a unique position of being incentivized to be sustainable. Becoming fuel efficient and saving on operating costs will not only cut greenhouse gas emissions but also improve their bottom line. Which begs the question: how are delivery service providers dealing with sustainability?<\/p>\n

USPS and Climate Change<\/strong><\/p>\n

As the federal agency providing delivery services to any address in the entire U.S., USPS is one of the most important delivery service providers in the U.S [3].<\/p>\n

USPS has reported their carbon emission every year since 2008. USPS also created a committee called Climate Change Adaptation Working Group (CCAWG) to address specific issues related to climate adaptation planning. CCAWG meets monthly and sets roadmaps and milestones to make USPS more sustainable and adaptable to climate change [4].<\/p>\n

USPS\u2019 policies are summarized as:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Climate Change Integration and Collaboration\n