The role of consumer market & govenrment & organizations on carbon emissions

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tfdt20

International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education

ISSN: 1754-3266 (Print) 1754-3274 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfdt20

A study of companies’ business responses to fashion e-commerce’s environmental impact

Rose Francoise Bertram & Ting Chi

To cite this article: Rose Francoise Bertram & Ting Chi (2018) A study of companies’ business responses to fashion e-commerce’s environmental impact, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 11:2, 254-264, DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2017.1406541

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2017.1406541

Published online: 24 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3862

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

A study of companies’ business responses to fashion e-commerce’s environmental impact Rose Francoise Bertram and Ting Chi

Department of Apparel, Merchandising, Design & Textiles, Washington State University, Pullman WA, USA

ABSTRACT The emerging e-commerce business mode comes with logistical challenges, especially concerning environmental sustainability. Although the environmental effects of e-commerce have drawn attention in recent years, extant knowledge on this issue and possible solutions is very limited. Using the secondary data, this study analysed and compared prior studies regarding the different environmental effects of apparel e-tailing versus traditional retailing in terms of carbon emissions, waste, and energy usage. The focused four parts of the supply chain are packaging, transportation, return, and disposal. Findings showed that, under most circumstances, online shopping is better for the environment than in-store shopping, but intervening factors, such as excessive packaging, shipping speed and/or apparel returns, add more carbon footprint and waste to the environment. As online shopping is becoming progressively more efficient as technology continues to advance, apparel e-tailers have adapted to further create eco-friendly business models that reduce or even reverse negative environmental effects.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 4 April 2017 Accepted 8 November 2017

KEYWORDS Fashion; company; e-commerce; environmental; impact

1. Introduction

Every day, businesses develop creative and innovative methods to draw more customers to their products. Whether it is a new marketing campaign, added features and services, or new technology, companies spend millions of dollars making it easier and more appealing for their target market to purchase their products. User-friendly retail websites are a convenient way for time-poor consumers to buy what they need without having to make a trip to the mall.

E-commerce, defined as the utilisation of ‘electronic means and technologies to conduct commerce’ (Man- zoor, 2010, p. 2), is an innovation in the retail industry that has grown exponentially since it first began and con- tinues to expand its influence and capabilities globally (Sun & Chi, 2017). Online purchase is expected to increase 57% by the year 2018, according to Forrester Research Inc. (Enright, 2014). In order for businesses to keep up with this increasing demand, companies devote more energy and money towards refining their e-commerce software to stay ahead of the curve.

The ease and accessibility that online shopping offers has dramatically shifted the way in which consu- mers purchase clothing. In the 1980s, there were only two fashion seasons: spring/summer and fall/winter (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010); now with the rise of

mass communication and easy access to information from all over the world, fashion trends are introduced to the public at all times of the year. In the past 20 years, the increased ability to rapidly gather infor- mation on trends, produce them with a short lead time, and sell them to customers online has contribu- ted to the rise of fast fashion companies, which create ‘low cost clothing collections that mimic current luxury fashion trends’ (Joy, Sherry, Venkatesh, Wang, & Chan, 2012, p. 273). The cheaper and easier it is for one to buy clothes, the more clothes one will buy and, in turn, throw away, which results in large environmental impact.

To combat the harmful effects of the apparel industry on the Earth, one trend that is on the rise is sustainable fashion, or the creation of ‘long-lasting social and environmental quality through the design, production, and use of fashion’ (Fletcher, 2008, p. 2). This includes the textiles and processes used to develop clothing, the waste and pollution produced by the packaging and delivery of clothing, and the consumers’ decision on how to dispose the product. Concerned consumers are showing a preference for companies that maintain values of corporate social responsibility by integrating green practices into their business strategies (Mariadoss, Chi, Tansuhaj, & Pomirleanu, 2016).

© The Textile Institute and Informa UK Ltd 2017

CONTACT Ting Chi [email protected] Department of Apparel, Merchandising, Design & Textiles, Washington State University, Johnson Hall Annex C23, PO Box 646406, Pullman, WA 99164-6406, USA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION, 2018 VOL. 11, NO. 2, 254–264 https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2017.1406541

However, the product itself is not the only aspect of the business that a company can change to reduce its impact on the environment. Companies must transport products from one location to another and keep them safe while doing so. Logistics such as packaging and transportation contribute greatly to a product’s carbon footprint, along with consumers’ post-purchase decisions, such as returning an item or disposing of it. Fashion retailers are beginning to address problems within the supply chain by adopting newer technologies and processes to promote the idea of corporate responsi- bility and environmental sustainability.

The effects of e-commerce on the environment are complicated because it reduces emissions in some areas yet increases emissions in other areas. Essentially, the debate is whether e-commerce is a clean technology because it cuts the usage of resources, or whether it causes more waste by creating new and faster demands for resources (Sui & Rejeski, 2002). Tiwari and Singh (2011) divide the environmental effects of e-commerce into three categories: primary, secondary, and tertiary effects, which separate the immediate, tangible effects from the ‘rebound effects’. Primary effects encompass the equipment used to implement information technol- ogy systems, such as phones and computers. Transpor- tation, packaging, and other processes that originate from the primary category are considered secondary effects of e-commerce. Finally, tertiary effects relate to how e-commerce influences consumer behaviour, and how that behaviour impacts the environment. Although the environmental effects of e-commerce have drawn more attention, extant knowledge on this issue is still limited and prior findings are inconclusive. There is a need for more research to fully understand the conse- quences. Therefore, the present study aimed to answer the following questions: (1) Is the overall effect of e-com- merce positive or negative on the environment? and (2) How have companies responded to reduce the negative environmental effects of e-commerce? Since the analysis of the relevant data and information was developed based on an extensive review of extant literature, this paper does not list a literature review as a separate sec- tion but includes it as part of the analysis, results, and discussion section. This arrangement helps streamline the flow of this paper.

2. Research design and methodology

As the topic focused is emergent and relatively new, this study is descriptive and exploratory in nature. The data were collected from existing publications regarding e-commerce’s influence on consumer shopping behav- iour, and how the change can be measured. This

behavioural change embraces fast fashion and throw- away lifestyle and contributes to adverse environmental impact with excessive packaging, transportation, return, and disposal. Then data related to how online apparel retailing (i.e. apparel e-tailing) affects fashion companies’ degree of impact on the environment were compiled and analysed. Because e-retailing has changed drastically since its advent in the late 1990s, the amount of sources used in this study was limited to those published in the past five years since information prior to 2010 might be no longer applicable or could be misleading by not focusing on the current issues and practices. News articles and trade reports about supply chains in the fashion industry and their performances and environ- mental policies were also used to support the analysis.

The different strategies and practices in which compa- nies have responded to societal pressure or business needs to become more sustainable with regard to e-com- merce environmental impact were reviewed and ana- lysed. The lengths to which companies have gone to conform to the rising concern for the environment and how these actions have reduced their impact on the environment were revealed. The factors preventing fashion e-tailers from adopting more environmentally sustainable supply chains were systematically discussed as well, from which the possible solutions around the barriers that companies could adopt were explored. This study included a wide variety of fashion companies, from small, niche market companies to larger corpor- ations, in order to better ascertain whether the fashion industry can ever become sustainable at all levels of the e-commerce.

3. Analysis, results, and discussion

3.1. Movement towards fast fashion and quick response

Up until the late 1980s, apparel production was focused on basic items, with design elements changing infre- quently except the haute couture segment (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010). Many changes towards the end of the twentieth century led to the decline of traditional apparel production and the rise of fast fashion. Since the 1990s, imports of fashion-oriented women’s apparel, such as clothing in bright colours or with unique textures, have begun to increase. The movement was fuelled by globa- lisation and outsourcing (Kunz & Garner, 2011). Consu- mers in the United States and other developed countries shifted away from mass-produced simple clothing (Chi, Kilduff, & Gargeya, 2009).

To achieve the speed desired in fast fashion, apparel companies must utilise inventory management

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 255

information systems, centralised manufacturing pro- cesses, and advanced transportation systems, which is called quick response (QR) strategy (Christopher, Low- son, & Peck, 2004). The QR strategy is effective in accu- rately matching supply to demand, thereby reducing the amount of clearance sales that a company has to move unwanted inventory (Bruce & Daly, 2006). With the absence of clearance sales, consumers become more will- ing to purchase items at full price (Cachon & Swinney, 2011). Short lead times allow designers and manufac- turers to observe trends closer to when the products will be sold, meaning the products they produce are clo- ser to the current trends. This also has created more fashion seasons in a year in which a store’s products are completely changed as stores purchase merchandise more often (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010).

The QR strategy has significantly contributed to the decrease in apparel prices. Companies seeking to cut labour costs began to outsource production to lower income countries. For instance, paying for the labour of apparel production in the United States costs a com- pany averagely $15 an hour, while the same hour of labour only costs $2 in China, 90 cents in India, 80 cents in Vietnam, and 40 cents in Bangladesh (China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Textile and Apparel, 2015).

At the other end of the production spectrum, the tra- ditional system employs long lead times and creates basic apparel designs (Cachon & Swinney, 2011). It uses his- torical data analysis to plan for seasons at least one year in advance. Oftentimes, these long lead times create inaccurate forecasts, and markdowns in traditional appa- rel companies have increased to more than 30% (Shen, Choi, & Lo, 2016).

3.2. E-commerce supply chain

A supply chain is a system that includes ‘a combination of the companies and the business activities needed to design, make, deliver, and use a product or service’ (Hugos & Thomas, 2006, p. 1). Its purpose is to make a finished good out of raw materials, utilising the services of companies who specialise in various processes required to do so. In the modern era, companies rely on information systems to easily communicate within the company, as well as with other members in the supply chain, allowing for production to be coordinated. These information systems have three main purposes: receiving and sharing data, saving data, and presenting data (Hugos & Thomas, 2006).

One practice that has emerged within the past decade in the supply chains of apparel retailers is to sell products through multiple channels. Multichannel retailers are

growing increasingly popular, as companies find great value in offering products to consumers in several differ- ent ways, the most common of which are generally online and in-store retailing. When shopping online, consumers are able to browse an unlimited selection of product much faster and easier than would be possible in a store, and they are able to gain more information about the product from the descriptions and reviews on the product pages. Shopping online adds an element of convenience, because one can browse and make a pur- chase at home or when travelling, and at any time of the day (Mokhtarian, 2004). This is especially true with the rise in popularity of m-commerce, or shopping online on one’s mobile device, as traffic to an online store via mobile devices has increased from 3% to 37% within the last four years (Schoder, Ding, & Campos, 2016).

3.3. Environmental effects of brick-and-mortar retailers versus e-tailers

The supply chains necessary for online retailing and brick-and-mortar, or in-store, retailing are structured very similarly until the distribution stage. Buyers place orders for products from vendors several weeks in advance, and once these products are manufactured, they are transported to warehouses which are centrally located to be near multiple retailers. Customers must go to the store, purchase their items, and return home with these items (Edwards, McKinnon, & Cullinane, 2010).

Online retailers do not need to have a centrally located warehouse, as products will be sent across the globe. Once the distribution centre receives an order electronically, the order is processed and packaged indi- vidually, then sent via mail carrier to the recipient with other individually packaged goods . The transportation and packaging of the products from the warehouses to their final destination, often called the ‘last mile’, varies between e-tailers and retailers greatly, thereby affecting the environment in different ways (Edwards et al., 2010).

All of the factors must be considered to fully under- stand the depth and scope of the role e-commerce plays in the environment (Tiwari, 2011). The following sections have been broken down into three secondary and one tertiary categories: packaging, transportation, returns, and disposal.

3.3.1. Packaging Packaging, including the containers in which online orders are sent, accounts for 29.8% of waste in the United States, or 75 million tons, and many of the materials used to package products are not recyclable (Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). There are two main purposes of packaging, one of which is to lower the risk of damage

256 R. F. BERTRAM AND T. CHI

to a product and to ensure that the product arrives at its proper location. The second purpose is to continue to advertise the product, as well as to maintain brand recog- nition and continuity. In traditional retail settings, com- panies design the packaging of their products to stand out from their competition just as much as to ensure their products’ safety, but because the product goes directly from the fulfilment centre to the customer, appearance is not one of the top priorities in e-commerce (Sarkis, Meade, & Talluri, 2004).

Consumers can gauge the values of a company based on the packaging it uses to ship products in. For instance, 66% of consumers believe that the type of packaging used reflects the company’s attitude towards the customer, because the quality and amount of materials show how much effort the company will put forth to protect the product so it arrives safely at one’s doorstep (Sealed Air Product Care, 2014). While appearance is necessary for a company’s brand image and marketing strategy, the added product packaging some companies employ only adds to the amount of waste that online shopping produces. According to esti- mates from 2011, packaging makes up 22% of total car- bon emissions of an online order (‘Here’s how’, 2013). The use of a 100 g corrugated cardboard box and up to 33 g of insulation material for one package can add up to 181 g CO2 emission. This is much greater of an impact than that of packaging used in brick-and-mortar retailing as a plastic bag emits less than 11 g CO2 and can be used in 9–15 shopping trips (van Loon, Deketele, Dewaele, McKinnon, & Rutherford, 2015).

The need for cardboard boxes for the e-commerce sector is rising faster than in most other segments, according to Fibre Box Association president Dennis Colley. The Fibre Box Association is a non-profit organ- isation that represents companies in North America that produce packaging (Ritchel, 2016). Colley claims that 90% of the organisation’s products were recycled, but simply creating a recyclable box, or recycling a cardboard box, does not undo its environmental impact; in fact, recycling can even add to it. Trade groups such as the Fibre Box Association are the recycling industry’s largest advocates, because consumers can justify their purchase of wasteful products if they can be recycled.

3.3.2. Transportation Physical distribution describes any activities that con- tribute to the transportation of goods from when they are first manufactured to when they are delivered to their last point of sale. These activities include storing and processing inventory, retail, and especially transpor- tation between these stages (Hesse, 2002). With consu- mers demanding products to be delivered faster than

ever, companies must resort to using faster and more expensive means of transportation. Such high-speed transportation systems have led to 78% of consumers demanding that retailers process their online orders within 24 hours. This pressure from customers causes companies to utilise environmentally destructive ways to move product from a warehouse to its final destina- tion (Sealed Air Product Care, 2014).

Transportation of the product directly to the custo- mer in the form of a home delivery also contributes to the environmental impact of e-commerce. In the United Kingdom, miles driven by package carriers increased 40% from 1999 to 2009, which is in part due to the increase in online shopping. These delivery vans often emit high amounts of carbon, due to their size and their constant driving within cities. Last-mile deliveries in e-commerce retailing account for 32% of total energy usage, which is still 30% fewer CO2 emissions than for traditional retailing (Weber et al., 2008).

One study analysed the difference in carbon emis- sions of online clothes retailing versus traditional retailing, factoring the distances from the store to the central warehouse and from the store to the customer’s house (Wiese, Toporowski, & Zielke, 2012). Online retailing required that researchers calculate the carbon emission of a different route, which included transpor- tation from the central warehouse to an outbound- depot nearby, then to the inbound depots, and finally to the customers’ location. Table 1 illustrates the results of the study, which show that if customers have to travel more than 14 km to go to the store, online shopping will reduce their carbon emissions. However, if they have to travel less than 14 km, their most energy-efficient option is to shop at the tra- ditional retailer (Wiese et al., 2012).

Roughly 65% of carbon emissions from traditional retailing originate from customers travelling to and from the store location (Edwards et al., 2010). This is problematic for fashion retailers especially, because cus- tomers are more willing to travel longer distances to go to their favourite clothing stores, and will therefore emit more carbon than customers purchasing other goods in stores (Wiese et al., 2012).

Table 1. CO2 emissions by distance (in km).

Distance in km

CO2 emissions in brick-and- mortar retail (in kg)

CO2 emissions in online retail (in kg)

Per transaction Per article Per transaction Per article

d < 14 0.739 0.430 0.779 0.242 d < 25 1.377 0.801 0.779 0.242 d < 50 2.485 1.445 0.774 0.240 d < 100 3.893 2.263 0.772 0.240 d > 100 4.514 2.624 0.763 0.237

Source: Wiese et al. (2012).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 257

Another factor to consider with e-commerce is failed deliveries, referring to parcel delivery drivers who are unable to drop off a package because the resident was not home. From 1996 to 2006, the number of households where both partners have jobs rose 22%, meaning it is less likely that someone will be home to receive their package; on average, residents miss 12% of deliveries (Fernie, 2010). Depending on the company’s policy, dri- vers often must keep the package and try to delivery it the next business day (Edwards, 2010). When a company requires that the recipient must personally receive and sign for the package, instead of leaving it at the doorstep, the percentage of failed deliveries increases, reaching up to 25% of deliveries in one study (Edwards et al., 2010). This causes the amount of CO2 emissions from transpor- tation to increase from 181 g for successful deliveries to 226 g when one-fourth of every delivery is not successful.

3.3.3. Returns Apparel returns to online retailers account for about 30%, which is significantly higher than the 9.96% of cloth purchases made in store (Shah, 2014). Of the 30% returns made for online clothing orders, 17% are due to fit issues (Dua, 2015). The large difference between the two percentages is a result of many unique factors of e-commerce, perhaps the most important of them being the inability to physically see, feel, and try on the product before purchasing it. Therefore, when the product arrives, customers often discover problems with the product look and fit. Companies understand that online shopping presents these issues for shoppers, so they make returns easy and convenient. In fact, 72% of online retailers pay for either the cost of delivery or the cost to return the item, or sometimes both, increasing the likelihood that customers will return their purchases (Ratcliff, 2014). The concept of reverse logistics is an increasingly critical aspect of e-commerce, as e-tailers must accept high return rates and prepare a system to return items through the supply chain.

The environmental impact of returning an online purchase depends on which return method the consu- mer selects, with the most efficient way being the pack- age carrier altering their normal delivery route to collect packages. This method emits only 362 g CO2, but if the customer goes to the retailer’s physical location to return an item, their carbon emissions skyrocket to 4455 g CO2, based on the average round trip of a custo- mer to go shopping (Edwards, 2009, p. 114). Even if a customer returns an item through the mail, these indi- vidual items cannot be grouped together with other items that are returning to the same location. Package delivery services increase the miles they drive per item, reducing their overall efficiency (Thumm, 2016).

3.3.4. Disposal Fashion satisfies emotional and social needs, allowing people to visually express themselves to their peers. The nature of fashion has changed since the advent of fast fashion, however, meaning that in order to fit in socially, one must stay current with the constantly chan- ging trends. Younger generations are more in tune with the changing trends of fast fashion, and would rather have many cheap clothing items that they plan to dispose within several months; on the other hand, older gener- ations would prefer to have fewer, higher quality clothing items, perceiving fast fashion to be wasteful and unsus- tainable (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010).

Much of this waste is due in part to fast fashion, which combines two elements: speedy production and delivery, and the planned obsolescence of trendy cloth- ing items. Planned obsolescence refers to the concept that products are designed to last only for a certain amount of time before the consumer throws them away and replaces them with newer, better products. Approximately 68 pounds of clothing per person in the United States end up in the garbage annually, which goes straight to the landfills (Claudio, 2007). With more clothing waste comes more methane emis- sions and groundwater pollution (Niinimaki, 2010), and much of this waste is attributed to fast fashion, which makes up 20% of all apparel production. In 2013, Americans created 254 million pounds of munici- pal solid waste and recycled or composted roughly 34.3% of this total amount. Rubber, leather, and textiles, which the Environmental Protection Agency put into one category, account for 9% of America’s waste (Car- bon Dioxide Emissions, 2016).

Researchers classify consumers into two categories based on their attachment to their possessions: purgers or packrats. Purgers do not make deep emotional con- nections to their purchases, instead preferring to dispose of items that they no longer need in order to maintain organisation within their household. Packrats, on the other hand, struggle with tossing or selling their posses- sions, because they have formed a mental and emotional attachment with them, and keep items they no longer need with the belief that one day they might use them again (Marciniak & Gad Mohsen, 2016). With the intro- duction of fast fashion into the apparel industry, the decision to keep or dispose of clothing leans heavily towards the latter. Consumers have less of an emotional attachment to their clothing due to the rise of its avail- ability in the marketplace, meaning they are much more likely to abandon clothes than in previous gener- ations (McGrath, 2012). Online clothing retailers have instilled in customers the idea that their clothes are easily replaceable, so holding on to old, out of style clothes is

258 R. F. BERTRAM AND T. CHI

costlier, at least to one’s reputation, than purchasing new, trendy clothes.

3.4. Modern solutions to mitigate environmental impact

Due to the increase in consumers’ concerns about the environment, companies face more pressure to incorpor- ate sustainable practices into their operations. This pressure also comes from stakeholders, business coalitions, and government policy. One coalition, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), comprises of lead- ing companies in the fashion industry that have come together to share information on sustainable business strategies and to assess their environmental impact using The Higg Index, which the association developed (2016). Companies throughout a supply chain input business data into an online tool, and the retailer’s final Higg Index score is calculated. Other retailers’ scores are available to SAC members and, though they are anonymous, companies can still see where they rank among potential competitors and strive for improvements.

3.4.1. Solutions for packaging Customers are usually not aware of the environmental impact of their favourite clothing brands, from pro- duction to distribution, but they do come in direct contact with the product in its packaging. One study conducted by Sealed Air revealed that 56% of e-com- merce customers take issue with the packaging that their items come in, with their top two concerns being inability to recycle it and the difficulty in dispos- ing of it (Furlong, 2016). Responding to their custo- mers’ frustrations with product packaging, some companies have developed creative solutions to win over their environmentally conscious consumers by reducing waste and increasing reusable products. For instance, Industry of All Nations has implemented The Clean Clothes Project, whereby the e-tailer manu- factures its clothing from 100% organic cotton in India, uses sustainable and environmentally friendly dyeing techniques, and then finally packages all of its clothing items in 100% recycled paper envelope-like bags to eliminate plastics from this step in the supply chain (2016).

3.4.2. Solutions for transportation German package delivery company Deutsche Post DHL is leading the way reducing its carbon emissions, even with the rise of online shopping. In 2013, DHL delivered more than one billion packages for the first time and its revenues rose by 3%, but even with this growth, chief

executive of the company Frank Appel believes its ser- vices are still more sustainable than traditional retailing. Over 10,000 vehicles that DHL owns have electric, hybrid, or biogas engines, reducing the carbon footprint it produces through transportation. This is in line with its initiative to reduce its total carbon emissions 30% by 2020 (Braw, 2014).

Approaching sustainability in a similar matter is Uni- ted Parcel Service (UPS) in America and Canada. In America, UPS increased the amount of vehicles that use alternative fuel by 61% in 2013, and by 2014 the com- pany recorded 154 million miles driven in vehicles using alternative fuel. By switching to energy sources such as ‘natural gas, propane, ethanol, biomethane, renewable diesel, and electricity’, UPS plans to reduce its gas and diesel usage by 12% by 2018 (‘UPS accelerates progress’, 2015). UPS has also redesigned the way in which its employees conduct business by adopting a route plan- ning software that provides drivers with the most effi- cient route, which reduces time spent driving as well as saves money (Lin & Ho, 2008, p.18).

E-commerce giant Amazon, until recently, has been criticised for remaining silent on its environmental impacts and whether it is making any efforts to reduce them. Its development of a drone delivery programme is a step in the direction of efficiency, because drones eliminate the need for delivery trucks driving to and from customers’ homes. Drones also run on batteries, meaning they do not cause nearly as much pollution as trucks (Walsh, 2013), and with same day delivery, Ama- zon will remain competitive in the e-commerce industry. Current United States law prohibits the use of drones farther from where the user can see it, but Amazon Vice President of Global Public Policy Paul Misener has said that they could begin implementing drone deliv- ery in other countries if regulations continue to block the company (Mansell, 2016).

3.4.3. Solutions for returns Online retailers are quick to adopt technology that will enhance the shopping experience for their customers as well increase the efficiency of the company. For example, fast fashion company ASOS has implemented Virtusize, a fitting technology that allows customers to compare the measurements of an item they currently own with that of an item they are looking to purchase on the website. They can then see a virtual comparison of their item with the item online and then decide which size would best fit them. By providing customers with a better understanding of how the clothes will fit them, ASOS reduced returns by roughly 50%. Returns are not entirely avoidable, but companies can integrate green technology to increase the efficiency with which they are managed.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 259

TrueShop offers online retailers a software called Ready- Returns™, which allows customers to print their own return label and return their product in the original box it came in. By implementing this technology, compa- nies reduce the amount of pre-printed shipping labels they produce, and customers no longer have to purchase another box or shipping package to return their item (‘E- tailers going “green”’, 2016).

3.4.4. Solutions for disposal Only 15% of used clothing is recycled or donated in America (Cline, 2014), but almost 100% of textiles can be recycled or in some way repurposed and thus avoid being sent to the landfill. For every one pound of clothing that is recycled or reused instead of thrown away, roughly 3 to 4 pounds of CO2 that would have been emitted are not (Recycling textiles, 2016). Consumer- to-consumer retailing is on the rise as a solution to reduce clothing waste. It brings brands that are normally priced at designer rates down to more affordable price points for the average consumer, especially Millennials. One of the most popular online consignment shops is Poshmark. This website also has an app from which users can easily upload clothes they would like to sell, with the value of items uploaded each day equalling more than $2 million. Other users can like and comment on these items as well as live-chat with one another to get more information about the products (‘Online consign- ment selling’, 2015).

Target and second-hand clothing online retailer ThredUp have partnered together to allow people to sell ‘high-quality, children’s or women’s clothing, bags, and shoes’, and receive Target store credit in return. Cus- tomers can either drop their apparel off at participating Target stores, or they can send them in via FedEx or UPS at the retailer’s expense. They will receive an email that confirms their donation, as well as an email gift card for the value of their donation. If Target decides not to resell the clothes they receive, it will recycle them (Peterson, 2015). While these websites mainly appeal and cater to young, middle, and upper-middle class women who have expensive clothes to sell, this target market is also more likely to purchase clothes online (Sealed Air Product Care, 2014).

One company goes one step further and sends each of their customers a return box and a shipping label, but not for returning their order. Reformation is an online eco- conscious clothing brand that encourages their custo- mers to send in their old clothing once they receive their shipment of new clothes. This RefRecycling initiat- ive is in partnership with Community Recycling, an organisation that takes used clothes and sells them to low-income countries at affordable prices, and it appeals

to those who want to recycle and help the environment but without going out of their way. Reformation sends each customer a manual with the title, ‘The lazy person’s guide to recycling’, which is poignant and gets to the crux of why many Americans do not recycle when they could. To solve this problem, the company decided to make it as easy to recycle as possible (Lutero, 2015).

3.4.5. Barriers to sustainable solutions E-tailers face unique challenges from their traditional retailer counterparts, and much of this is due to the increasing demands of consumers for more products and services. For instance, members of the supply chain responsible for transportation and inventory must enhance the amount of goods they can carry and store as inventory, since the availability of these products has increased. As technology advances and companies can process orders at faster rates, consumers are also beginning to expect rapid delivery rates for little or no extra cost (Fernie, Sparks, & McKinnon, 2010). This places more pressure on e-commerce companies to forgo environmentally sustainable practices in favour of cheaper, faster practices that will meet consumer demand.

Consumers tend to believe that the more items they order at once, the less harmful the packaging and deliv- ery will be on the environment, but oftentimes the oppo- site is true. If a customer orders multiple items at the same time, there is a greater likelihood that their items will be divided into separate shipments, which increases the packaging as well as delivery courier trips. Compa- nies in the United Kingdom that sell fast-moving consu- mer goods, such as packaged food and beverages, employ the use of local delivery vans to bring the orders directly to the customer from a retailer’s fulfilment centre (van Loon et al., 2015). While this system may be efficient and successful within cities in England, adopting this delivery strategy in the United States presents many challenges, largely due to the extreme differences in the size of the two countries. In-house delivery services that stretch across large geographic areas, only making a few deliveries at a time, would use more energy than outsourcing package delivery to various courier services (van Loon et al., 2015).

Because much of the apparel supply chain comes from energy usage, companies involved have the opportunity to convert their operations to using renewable energy sources. However, a company’s direct carbon emissions account for only 14% of the entire supply chain, with the rest of the emissions coming from outsourced com- panies, so their control over total emissions is limited (Plambeck, 2012). Tesco, a large grocery chain, attempted to track its products carbon emissions from

260 R. F. BERTRAM AND T. CHI

extraction activities, to material processing, parts’ manu- facturing, subassembly, assembly, distribution, con- sumption, and disposal and to place this number on the product, but this proved to be too challenging of a feat to accomplish as it required cooperation from all supply chain members as well as high costs to complete the calculations (Blanco & Sheffi, 2015).

E-tailers who provide customers with numerous ven- dors from which to buy products, such as Amazon and eBay, struggle to maintain a set of standards for these suppliers and their business practices. Individuals and small businesses are easily able to put items up for sale on these websites, but because they might be relatively unknown, this lack of transparency for suppliers leads to an unawareness among customers of what they are supporting. Amazon itself hosts roughly two million third-party suppliers on its site, so maintaining records of each supplier’s packaging and distribution methods would be an enormous task to oversee. These e-com- merce websites face difficulty in supporting environmen- tally and socially ethical vendors due to this rise in ‘grey marketing’ (Sapru, 2016).

Another barrier that online retailers face regarding the process of greening their supply chain is the rules and regulations of manufacturers. Generally, manufacturers specify that all items they produce must be wrapped inside a polyethylene bag, so companies that aim to employ a sustainable supply chain are unable to do so to the degree that they would like to. Refleece, an acces- sories retailer, decided to remove plastic bags from its online packaging, but found that its manufacturer was not willing at first to comply with their requests. Even- tually they agreed not to put the accessories in the typical plastic bags, but the difficulty in greening the packaging is enough to discourage retailers from making changes to their supply chain at all (‘Here’s how’, 2013).

Deliveries and reverse logistics remain challenges for online retailers, oftentimes because this final segment of the supply chain relies on the consumers’ actions and decision. If a customer is not at home when a courier service is to deliver their package, and the service requires the customer’s signature before completing the delivery, time and resources go to waste in taking the item back to the service’s central receiving location and attempting a second delivery the next day. Once they receive the item, customers also decide whether or not to return it, based on a multitude of factors such as qual- ity, colour, and fit issues. Companies have implemented fitting technology on their websites to reduce the chances that customers will return clothing items due to impro- per fit, but problems still arise surrounding this software. Less than 3% of online shoppers adopt this technology, even if it is advertised as easy and exciting, so only the

most dedicated shoppers benefit while the majority of shoppers may still suffer from fit issues. In addition, costs associated with developing the algorithms and photographing each product on various mannequin sizes cause companies to decide whether it would be worth it for their customers (Wang, 2014).

4. Conclusions and implications

Based on the current studies that have evaluated matters of e-commerce and sustainability, this newly emerging field of research is still breaking ground. These studies argue that the results are contingent on many factors within the supply chain and on many factors of consumer behaviour. For these reasons, the consensus of whether e-commerce or traditional retailing stores are more sus- tainable is that e-commerce emits less carbon, but this can easily change with the mode of transportation and speed of delivery selected to complete the transaction.

Consumer demand for near-instant delivery of online orders drives e-tailers to decide whether to offer custo- mers the services they want, or to be energy efficient, retailers often select the former because it increases sales and satisfies customers. Attracting and maintaining customers usually causes companies to forgo efforts to create a green supply chain, but in a few situations, com- panies may be able to achieve a win-win outcome. The implications of this paper suggest that, while online shopping may already be more environmentally friendly than traditional retailing in many aspects, there are still ways that companies can continue to improve their sustainability.

Over half of online shopping customers take issue with the amount of packaging that companies use, which provides an opportunity for e-tailers to adapt their packaging design to better fit the needs of their tar- get market. Shoppers do not want to feel guilty for pur- chasing an item that comes with excessive or non- recyclable packaging, so ensuring that products are shipped in appropriately sized boxes and that all plastic bags are recyclable will improve the customer’s shopping experience because they will feel they are helping the environment.

Companies often must divide items from one order and send them individually instead of together to pro- vide customers with a speedy delivery, adding to the packaging and transportation costs and carbon emis- sions (Weideli, 2015). To incentivise the use of a slower, yet more efficient shipping method, e-tailers can give shoppers store credit if they select a longer expected delivery time opposed to a shorter one. Advertising that waiting 7–10 days for a product is environmentally friendly may encourage some to use this service, but

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 261

most will prefer the convenience to environmental benefits; therefore, companies should reward customers for their contribution to sustainability via store credit or other type of compensation. Amazon has begun to implement a similar reward programme for Prime users who select No-Rush shipping and in return receive credits on future purchases.

Retailers and parcel couriers continue to struggle with a rise in failed deliveries, requiring them to attempt a second delivery to get a package to the customer. UPS allows users to sign up for UPS My Choice, where they can set up an account and indicate their preferences for when packages are delivered and whether or not to sign for packages online (UPS, 2016). FedEx uses a similar system through Delivery Manager (2016), but people who shop online frequently will likely have to have accounts with all package delivery services and manage each account separately. Online shoppers demand convenience and are likely not sign up for a service if they do not see how the benefits outweigh the costs. A solution to elimin- ate the complexity of managing multiple delivery accounts is to have the customers’ delivery preferences saved with each online retailer account they have. This information can then be sent on to the package delivery company that the retailer uses, which would remove this task from the customers’ end of the transaction as well as give the retailer more control over the amount of time and energy they will spend completing the delivery.

5. Limitations and further research

This paper presents a systematic analysis of prior relevant studies, but primary data regarding environmental effects of the e-commerce supply chain were not collected. There- fore, the analysis is limited in its depth regarding technical aspects of carbon emissions and energy usage. Future studies could collect primary data throughout apparel e-commerce supply chains in order to achieve more com- plete and comprehensive results. Though some companies are transparent about the environmental effects that their companies have, many businesses are unwilling to release a full statement of their environmental impact. This would require researchers to conduct interviews with company executives or perform their own test to determine statistics to analyse. Such a study would be intensive and time con- suming, but at the rate e-commerce is growing, it is imperative to fully understand the relationship between e-commerce and the environment.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Bhardwaj, V., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). Fast fashion: Response to changes in the fashion industry. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20(1), 165–173.

Blanco, E., & Sheffi, Y. (2015). Eco-growth: A framework for sustainable growth (pp. 1–28). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering Systems Division. https://dspace. mit.edu/handle/1721.1/97643

Braw, E. (2014). Can parcel delivery ever be a force for sustain- ability? Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/ sustainable-business/parcel-delivery-sustainability-frank- appel-deutsche-post

Bruce, M., & Daly, L. (2006). Buyer behaviour for fast fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 10(3), 329–344.

Cachon, G., & Swinney, R. (2011). The value of fast fashion: Quick response, enhanced design, and strategic consumer behavior. Management Science, 57(4), 778–795.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions. (2016). Retrieved from http:// www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

Chi, T., Kilduff, P. P., & Gargeya, V. B. (2009). Alignment between business environment characteristics, competitive priorities, supply chain structures, and firm business per- formance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(7), 645–669.

China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Textile and Apparel. (2015). The minimum wages in the Asian major apparel manufacturing countries. Retrieved from http://www.ccct.org.cn/Pub/S/1505/223973.shtml

Christopher, M., Lowson, R., & Peck, H. (2004). Creating agile supply chains in the fashion industry. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 32(8), 367–376.

Claudio, L. (2007). Waste couture: Environmental impact of the clothing industry. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(9), A449–A454.

Cline, E. (2014). Where does discarded clothing go? The Atlantic. Retrieved http://www.theatlantic.com/business/ archive/2014/07/where-does-discarded-clothing-go/374613

Dua, T. (2015). How retailers are combatting e-commerce returns this holiday season. Digiday. Retrieved from http://digiday.com/brands/retailers-combatting-ecommerce- returns-holiday-season/

Edwards, J., McKinnon, A., & Cullinane, S. (2010). Comparative analysis of the carbon footprints of conven- tional and online retailing: A “last mile” perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(1/2), 103–123.

Edwards, J. B, McKinnon, A. C, & Cullinane, S. L. (2009). Carbon auditing the ‘lastmile’: modelling the environmental impacts of conventional and online non-food shopping. Green Logistics Report, Heriot–Watt.

Edwards, J. B, McKinnon, A. C, & Cullinane, S. L. (2010). Comparative analysis of the carbon footprints of conven- tional and online retailing: A “last mile” perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(1/2), 103–123.

Enright, A. (2014). U.S. online retail sales will grow 57% by 2018; projected growth. Retrieved from https://www. internetretailer.com/2014/05/12/us-online-retail-sales-will- grow-57-2018

262 R. F. BERTRAM AND T. CHI

Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Advancing sustain- able materials management: 2013 fact sheet (EPA Publication No. 530-R-15-003). Rockville, MD: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from http:// www3.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2013_ advncng_smm_rpt.pdf

E-tailers going ‘green’ with product returns with eco-friendly ReadyReturns™. (2016, March 12). Retrieved from http:// www.marketwired.com/press-release/e-tailers-going-green- with-product-returns-with-eco-friendly-readyreturns-210 5346.htm

FedEx. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.fedex.com/us/delivery/ Fernie, J, Sparks, L, & McKinnon, A. C. (2010). Retail logistics

in the UK: past, present and future. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 38(11/12), 894–914.

Fernie, J., Sparks, L., & McKinnon, A. (2010). Retail logistics in the UK: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 38 (11/12), 894–914.

Fletcher, K. (2008). Sustainable fashion and textiles: Design journeys. London: Routledge.

Furlong, H. (2016). Customers love e-commerce’s convenience, but not its cardboard. Retrieved from http://www.sustain ablebrands.com/news_and_views/packaging/hannah_furlong/ consumers_love_e-commerceE280%99s_convenience_not_ its_cardboard

Here’s how online retailers can increase profits by reducing their packaging. (2013). Retrieved from http://www. businessinsider.com/sc/how-online-retailers-can-reduce- packaging-2013-10

Hesse, M. (2002). Shipping news: The implications of elec- tronic commerce for logistics and freight transport. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 36, 211–240.

Hugos, M., & Thomas, C. (2006). Supply chain management in the retail industry. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Industry of All Nations. (2016). Retrieved from http://www. industryofallnations.com/Clean-Clothes-INDUSTRY-OF- ccid_103.aspx

Joy, A., Sherry, J. F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (2012). Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory, 16(3), 273–295.

Kunz, G. I., & Garner, M. B. (2011). Going global: The textile and apparel industry. New York: Fairchild.

Lin, C., & Ho, Y. (2008). An empirical study on logistics service providers’ intention to adopt green innovations. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 3(1), 17–26.

Lutero, L. (2015). Recycling yesterday’s outfits in today’s ship- ping box. Retrieved from http://www.psfk.com/2015/08/ refrecycling-eco-friendly-shopping-reformation-recycle- clothes.html

Mansell, W. (2016). Drones in 2016: Where do unmanned aircraft go from here? Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/ drones-2016-where-do-unmanned-aircraft-go-here-438630

Manzoor, A. (2010). E-commerce: An introduction. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.

Marciniak, R., & Gad Mohsen, M. (2016). Post-purchase con- sumer behaviour, sustainability and its influence on fashion identity. Fashion: Tyranny and revelation. Oxford: Interdisciplinary Press.

Mariadoss, B. J., Chi, T., Tansuhaj, P., & Pomirleanu, N. (2016). Influences of firm orientations on sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3406–3414.

McGrath, A. (2012). Fashioning sustainability: How the clothes we wear can support environmental and human well-being. Retrieved from https://nature.berkeley.edu/ classes/es196/projects/2012final/McGrathA_2012.pdf

Mokhtarian, P. (2004). A conceptual analysis of the transpor- tation impacts of B2B e-commerce. Transportation, 31, 257–284.

Niinimaki, K. (2010). Eco-clothing, consumer identity and ideology. Sustainable Development, 18(3), 150–162.

Online consignment selling: How to use your phone for cash. (2015). Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/ Business/online-consignment-selling-phone-cash/story?id= 33437160

Peterson, H. (2015). Target will now give you store credit for used clothes. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider. com/target-will-give-store-credit-for-used-clothes-2015-10

Plambeck, E. (2012). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through operations and supply chain management. Energy Economics, 34, S64–S74.

Ratcliff, C. (2014). How fashion commerce retailers can reduce online returns. Retrieved from https://econsultancy.com/ blog/65026-how-fashion-ecommerce-retailers-can-reduce- online-returns/

Recycling textiles. (2016). Retrieved from http://www. planetaid.org/what-we-do/for-the-environment/recycling- textiles

Ritchel, M. (2016). E-commerce: Convenience built on a mountain of cardboard. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/science/recycl ing-cardboard-online-shopping-environment.html?_r=0

Sapru, R. (2016). One vision for Amazon’s sustainability ambi- tions. Retrieved from https://www.greenbiz.com/article/ amazons-new-sustainability-ambitions

Sarkis, J., Meade, L., & Talluri, S. (2004). E-logistics and the natural environment. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 303–312.

Schoder, D., Ding, F., & Campos, J. (2016). The impact of e- commerce development on urban logistics sustainability. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 1–6.

Sealed Air Product Care. (2014). 2014 sealed air e-commerce survey: Packaging for e-commerce success. Retrieved from https://sealedair.com/sites/default/files/Sealed20Air20e- commerce20survey_executive20summary_FINAL_digital_ 0.pdf

Shah, R. (2014). Fixing how clothes fit you can reshape online retail logistics. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ rawnshah/2014/04/11/fixing-how-clothes-fit-you-can-reshape- online-retail-logistics/#3b0aa6226338

Shen, B., Choi, T. M., & Lo, C. K. Y. (2016). Enhancing econ- omic sustainability by markdown money supply contracts in the fashion industry: China vs USA. Sustainability, 8 (1), 31.

Sui, D. Z., & Rejeski, D. W. (2002). Environmental impacts of the emerging digital economy: The e-for-environment e-commerce. Environmental Management, 29(2), 155– 163.

Sun, J., & Chi, T. (2017). Key factors influencing the adoption of apparel mobile commerce: An empirical study of Chinese consumers. The Journal of The Textile Institute, 1–13. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2017. 1371828

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 263

Sustainable Apparel Coalition. (2016). Retrieved from http:// apparelcoalition.org/

Thumm, J. (2016). The sustainability of e-commerce delivery. Retrieved from http://www.powerretail.com.au/opinion/ sustainability-e-commerce-delivery/

Tiwari, S. (2011). Environmental impacts of e-commerce. International Conference on Environmental Science and Engineering, 8, 202–209.

Tiwari, S, & Singh, P. (2011). E-commerce: prospect or threat for environment. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 2(3), 211–217.

UPS accelerates progress toward sustainability goals. (2015). Retrieved from http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ups- accelerates-progress-toward-sustainability-110000397.html

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.

Walsh, B. (2013). Shopping by drone could be good for the environment. Time. Retrieved from http://science.time.

com/2013/12/03/shopping-by-drone-could-be-good-for- the-environment/

Wang, L. (2014). Can technology solve the fit problem in fashion e-commerce? Retrieved from http://www.business offashion.com/articles/fashion-tech/can-technology-solve- fit-problem-fashion-e-commerce

Weber, C., Hendrickson, C., Jaramillo, P., Matthews, S., Nagengast, A., & Nealer, R. (2008). Life cycle comparison of traditional retail and e-commerce logistics for electronic products: A case study of buy.com. Green Design Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

Weideli,D.(2015).EnvironmentalanalysisofUSonlineshopping (pp. 1–7). Center for Transportation and Logistics. https://ctl. mit.edu/sites/ctl.mit.edu/files/library/public/Dimitri-Weideli- Environmental-Analysis-of-US-Online-Shopping_0.pdf

Wiese, A., Toporowski, W., & Zielke, S. (2012). Transport- related CO2 effects of online and brick-and-mortar shop- ping: A comparison and sensitivity analysis of clothing retailing. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17, 473–477.

264 R. F. BERTRAM AND T. CHI