Advertisement

Smarte Konsumwende? Chancen und Grenzen der Digitalisierung für den nachhaltigen Konsum

  • Vivian FrickEmail author
  • Tilman Santarius
Chapter
Part of the Kritische Verbraucherforschung book series (KV)

Zusammenfassung

Der individuelle Konsum wird zunehmend digitalisiert, von der digitalen Suche nach Konsumoptionen über den Produkterwerb via Online-Shopping bis zur Nutzung digitaler Dienstleistungen wie Sharing-Plattformen. Zugleich besteht die Herausforderung, dass sich der Konsum insbesondere in den Industrieländern reduzieren und transformieren sollte, damit globale Nachhaltigkeitsziele erreicht werden können. In diesem Kapitel stellen wir aus umweltpsychologischer Perspektive die Frage, welche Aspekte der Digitalisierung sich förderlich oder hinderlich für nachhaltigen individuellen Konsum auswirken und welche Evidenz zur Beantwortung dieser Frage sowohl in empirischer wie auch in theoretischer Hinsicht vorliegt. Zunächst systematisieren wir Chancen und Risiken der Digitalisierung für einen nachhaltigen Konsum. Dann zeigen wir auf, wie sich durch Digitalisierung kontextuelle und motivationale Faktoren verändern können. Wir legen dar, inwiefern sich bestehende umweltpsychologische Ansätze dazu anbieten, die spezifischen Wirkweisen eines digitalisierten Konsums zu verstehen. Abschließend zeigen wir Forschungsbedarf auf und ziehen Schlussfolgerungen bezüglich der Chancen und Risiken der Digitalisierung für eine Transformation des Konsumverhaltens und des Konsumbedarfs in Richtung Nachhaltigkeit.

Schlüsselwörter

Nachhaltiger Konsum Digitalisierung Konsumbedarf Online-Shopping Umweltpsychologie 

Literatur

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amaro, S., & Duarte, P. (2015). An integrative model of consumers’ intentions to purchase travel online. Tourism Management, 46, 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amos, C., Holmes, G. R., & Keneson, W. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of consumer impulse buying. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21, 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, K. C., Knight, D. K., Pookulangara, S., & Josiam, B. (2014). Influence of hedonic and utilitarian motivations on retailer loyalty and purchase intention: A facebook perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21, 773–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrae, A. S. G., & Edler, T. (2015). On global electricity usage of communication technology: Trends to 2030. Challenges, 6, 117–157.  https://doi.org/10.3390/challe6010117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asdecker, B. (2015). Returning mail-order goods: Analyzing the relationship between the rate of returns and the associated costs. Logistics Research, 8, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atkins, K., & Kim, Y. (2012). Smart shopping: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40, 360–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atkinson, L. (2013). Smart shoppers? Using QR codes and ‚green‘ smartphone apps to mobilize sustainable consumption in the retail environment: Smart shoppers? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37, 387–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Balderjahn, I., Buerke, A., Kirchgeorg, M., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B., & Wiedmann, K.-P. (2013). Consciousness for sustainable consumption: Scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability. AMS Review, 3, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ballew, M. T., Omoto, A. M., & Winter, P. L. (2015). Using web 2.0 and social media technologies to foster proenvironmental action. Sustainability, 7, 10620–10648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barbopoulos, I., & Johansson, L.-O. (2017). The consumer motivation scale: Development of a multi-dimensional and context-sensitive measure of consumption goals. Journal of Business Research, 76, 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bauman, Z., & Barth, R. (2017). Leben als Konsum. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.Google Scholar
  13. Benton, R. (2015). Reduce, reuse, recycle … and refuse. Journal of Macromarketing, 35, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bigné, E., Hernández, B., Ruiz, C., & Andreu, L. (2010). How motivation, opportunity and ability can drive online airline ticket purchases. Journal of Air Transport Management, 16, 346–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Blättel-Mink, B., & Hellmann, K.-U. (Hrsg.). (2010). Prosumer Revisited. Zur Aktualität einer Debatte. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Bleier, A., & Eisenbeiss, M. (2015). The importance of trust for personalized online advertising. Journal of Retailing, 91, 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bocken, N., & Short, S. W. (2016). Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: Experiences and opportunities. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489, 295–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Börjesson Rivera, M., Håkansson, C., Svenfelt, Å., & Finnveden, G. (2014). Including second order effects in environmental assessments of ICT. Environmental Modelling and Software, 56, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bourdieu, P., & Russer, A. (1982). Die feinen Unterschiede: Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  21. Brauer, B., Ebermann, C., Hildebrandt, B., Remané, G., & Kolbe, L. M. (2016). Green by app: The contribution of mobile applications to environmental sustainability. In: ECIS 2016 Proceedings (S. 1–16).Google Scholar
  22. Brown, L. G. (1990). Convenience in services marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 4, 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Campbell, C. (1995). The sociology of consumption. In D. Miller (Hrsg.), Acknowledging consumption: A review of new studies (S. 95–124). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  24. Carbone, E., & Duffy, J. (2014). Lifecycle consumption plans, social learning and external habits: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 106(Supplement C), 413–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chan, T. K. H., Cheung, C. M. K., & Lee, Z. W. Y. (2016). The state of online impulse-buying research: A literature analysis. Information & Management, 54(2), 204–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chih, W.-H., Wu, C. H.-J., & Li, H.-J. (2012). The antecedents of consumer online buying impulsiveness on a travel website: Individual internal factor perspectives. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29, 430–443.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2012.691393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Daunorienė, A., Drakšaitė, A., Snieška, V., & Valodkienė, G. (2015). Evaluating sustainability of sharing economy business models. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 836–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dawson, S., & Kim, M. (2010). Cues on apparel web sites that trigger impulse purchases. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 14, 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Demarque, C., Charalambides, L., Hilton, D. J., & Waroquier, L. (2015). Nudging sustainable consumption: The use of descriptive norms to promote a minority behavior in a realistic online shopping environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 166–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Denegri-Knott, J., & Molesworth, M. (2013). Redistributed consumer desire in digital virtual worlds of consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, 29, 1561–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Di Giulio, A., & Fuchs, D. (2014). Sustainable consumption corridors: Concept, objections, and responses. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 23(S1), 184–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dinner, I. M., Van Heerde, H. J., & Neslin, S. A. (2014). Driving online and offline sales: The cross-channel effects of traditional, online display, and paid search advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dittmar, H., Long, K., & Bond, R. (2007). When a better self is only a button click away: Associations between materialistic values, emotional and identity-related buying motives, and compulsive buying tendency online. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 334–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Foster, D., Lawson, S., Blythe, M., & Cairns, P. (2010). Wattsup?: Motivating reductions in domestic energy consumption using social networks. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Extending boundaries (S. 178–187). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  35. Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gährs, S., Aretz, A., Flaute, M., Oberst, C. A., Großmann, A., Lutz, C., Bargende, D., Hirschl, B., & Madlener, R. (2016). Prosumer-Haushalte: Handlungsempfehlungen für eine sozial-ökologische und systemdienliche Förderpolitik. Aachen/Berlin/Osnabrück. http://www.prosumer-haushalte.de/data/prohaus/user_upload/Dateien/Prosumer-Haushalte__Handlungsempfehlungen.pdf. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018.
  37. Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The affluent society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  38. Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 541–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goh, K.-Y., Heng, C.-S., & Lin, Z. (2013). Social media brand community and consumer behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user- and marketer-generated content. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 88–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gosling, S. D., & Mason, W. (2015). Internet research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 877–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gossen, M., Ludmann, S., & Scholl, G. (2017). Sharing is caring – For the environment. Results of life cycle assessments for peer-to-peer sharing. Gehalten auf der 4. IWSE, Lund. www.peer-sharing.de/data/peersharing/user_upload/Dateien/Gossen_Sharing_is_caring_%E2%80%93_for_the_environment.pdf. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018.
  42. Handelsverband Deutschland. (2018). Handel digital. Online-Monitor 2018. https://www.einzelhandel.de/online-monitor. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018.
  43. Henseling, C., Blättl-Mink, B., Clausen, J., & Behrendt, S. (2009). Wiederverkaufskultur im Internet: Chancen für nachhaltigen Konsum. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 32–33, 32–38.Google Scholar
  44. Hermsen, S., Frost, J., Renes, R. J., & Kerkhof, P. (2016). Using feedback through digital technology to disrupt and change habitual behavior: A critical review of current literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hilty, L. M., & Aebischer, B. (2015). ICT Innovations for sustainability. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. HNA. (2015). Deutsche sind so viele Stunden online wie sie arbeiten. https://www.hna.de/netzwelt/studie-umfrage-deutsche-so-viele-stunden-online-wie-sie-arbeiten-40-stunden-zr-5329957.html. (von Abgerufen 8. Mai 2017).
  47. Initiative D21. (2018). Der D21-Digital-Index 2017/2018. https://initiatived21.de/publikationen/d21-digital-index-2017-2018/. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018.
  48. Jaeger-Erben, M., Rückert-John, J., & Schäfer, M. (Hrsg.). (2017). Soziale Innovationen für nachhaltigen Konsum. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.Google Scholar
  49. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  50. Jenny, A. (2016). Die Entwicklung eines Masses der Suffizienz. Das subjektiv genügende Mass (SGM). Universität Zürich, Zürich.Google Scholar
  51. Jentzsch, N. (2017). Wohlfahrts- und Verteilungseffekte personalisierter Preise und Produkte. (WISO-Diskurs No. 06/2017). Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.Google Scholar
  52. Jiang, L. ( Alice), Yang, Z., & Jun, M. (2013). Measuring consumer perceptions of online shopping convenience. Journal of Service Management, 24, 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Karlsson, N., Dellgran, P., Klingander, B., & Gärling, T. (2004). Household consumption: Influences of aspiration level, social comparison, and money management. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 753–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kasser, T. (2016). Materialistic values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kim, J., & LaRose, R. (2004). Interactive e-commerce: Promoting consumer efficiency or impulsivity? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, JCMC10112.Google Scholar
  56. Klöckner, C. A., & Blöbaum, A. (2010). A comprehensive action determination model: Toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 574–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lange, S., & Santarius, T. (2018). Smarte grüne Welt? Digitalisierung zwischen Überwachung, Konsum und Nachhaltigkeit. München: oekom.Google Scholar
  59. Lee, K., Lee, B., & Oh, W. (2015). Thumbs up, sales up? The contingent effect of facebook likes on sales performance in social commerce. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32, 109–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Linz, M., Bartelmus, P., Hennicke, P., Jungkeit, R., Sachs, W., Scherhorn, G., et al. (2002). Von nichts zu viel – Suffizienz gehört zur Zukunftsfähigkeit (Working Paper No. 125). Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie.Google Scholar
  62. Liu, Y., Li, H., & Hu, F. (2013). Website attributes in urging online impulse purchase: An empirical investigation on consumer perceptions. Decision Support Systems, 55, 829–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lohmann, S. (2015). Information technologies and subjective well-being: Does the Internet raise material aspirations? Oxford Economic Papers, 67, 740–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lorek, S., & Vadovics, E. (2016). Sustainable consumption and social justice in a constrained world. In: SCORAI Europe workshop proceedings (Bd. 6). Sustainable Consumption Transitions Series.Google Scholar
  65. Loske, R. (2015). Sharing Economy: Gutes Teilen, schlechtes Teilen? Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, 2015, 89–98.Google Scholar
  66. Luck, E., & Ginanti, A. (2013). Online environmental citizenship: Blogs, green marketing and consumer sentiment in the 21st Century. Electronic Green Journal, 1, 1–26.Google Scholar
  67. Marx, K. (1980). In F. E. Schrader (Hrsg.), Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Bd. Erster). Hildesheim: Gerstenberg (Erstveröffentlichung 1867, Nachdruck der Erstausgabe).Google Scholar
  68. Midden, C. J. H., Kaiser, F. G., & Teddy McCalley, L. (2007). Technology’s four roles in understanding individuals’ conservation of natural resources. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Midden, C., Mccalley, T., Ham, J., & Zaalberg, R. (2008). Using persuasive technology to encourage sustainable behavior. Sustainability WS Pervasive, 113, 83–86.Google Scholar
  70. Mokhtarian, P. L., Ory, D. T., & Cao, X. (2009). Shopping-related attitudes: A factor and cluster analysis of Northern California shoppers. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36, 204–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Morozov, E. (2015). Ich habe doch nichts zu verbergen. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 11–12. http://www.bpb.de/apuz/202238/ich-habe-doch-nichts-zu-verbergen?p=all. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018.
  72. Pappas, I. O., Kourouthanassis, P. E., Giannakos, M. N., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (2014). Shiny happy people buying: the role of emotions on personalized e-shopping. Electronic Markets, 24, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pappas, I. O., Kourouthanassis, P. E., Giannakos, M. N., & Lekakos, G. (2017). The interplay of online shopping motivations and experiential factors on personalized e-commerce: A complexity theory approach. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 730–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Parguel, B., Lunardo, R., & Benoit-Moreau, F. (2017). Sustainability of the sharing economy in question: When second-hand peer-to-peer platforms stimulate indulgent consumption. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. What the internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  76. Peuckert, J., & Pentzien, J. (2018). Kompromisse des Teilens. Nachhaltige Governance von Peer-to-Peer Sharing Praktiken. (Peer – Sharing Arbeitsbericht 7, S. 61). Berlin: Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung.Google Scholar
  77. Princen, T. (2005). The logic of sufficiency. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  78. Reisch, L. (2001). The internet and sustainable consumption: Perspectives on a janus face. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(3–4), 251–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Reisch, L. A., Cohen, M. J., Thøgersen, J. B., & Tukker, A. (2016a). Frontiers in sustainable consumption research. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25, 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Reisch, L., Büchel, D., Joost, G., & Zander-Hayat, H. (2016b). Digitale Welt und Handel. Verbraucher im personalisierten Online-Handel (Veröffentlichungen des Sachverständigenrats für Verbraucherfragen).Google Scholar
  81. Røpke, I. (2012). The unsustainable directionality of innovation – The example of the broadband transition. Research Policy, 41, 1631–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Røpke, I., & Christensen, T. H. (2013). Transitions in the wrong direction? Digital technologies and daily life. In E. Shove & N. Spurling (Hrsg.), Sustainable practices social theory and climate change (S. 49–68). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Rückert-John, J., Jaeger-Erben, M., Schäfer, M., & John, R. (2013). Soziale Innovationen für nachhaltigen Konsum – Kriterien zur Analyse und Systematisierung (Beiträge zur Sozialinnovation No. 11). Berlin: Institut für Sozialinnovation.Google Scholar
  84. Santarius, T. (2015). Der Rebound-Effekt: ökonomische, psychische und soziale Herausforderungen für die Entkopplung von Wirtschaftswachstum und Energieverbrauch. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  85. Santarius, T., & Soland, M. (2016). Towards a psychological theory and comprehensive rebound typology. In T. Santarius, H. J. Walnum, & C. Aall (Hrsg.), Rethinking climate and energy policies (S. 107–119). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schieder, C., & Lorenz, K. (2012). Pricing-Intelligence-Studie 2012. State-of-the-Art der dynamschen Preisbildung im E-Commerce. Chemnitz: TU Chemnitz. https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/wirtschaft/wi2/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Pricing-Studie-State-of-the-Art-im-E-Commerce_v1.5.pdf. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018.
  87. Scholl, G., Behrendt, S., Flick, C., Gossen, M., Henseling, C., & Richter, L. (2015). Peer-to-Peer Sharing: Definition und Bestandsaufnahme (PeerSharing Arbeitsbericht No. 1). Berlin: Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Siegfried_Behrendt/publication/313638437_Peer-to-Peer_Sharing_Definition_und_Bestandsaufnahme_IOW_Berlin/links/58a0df61a6fdccf5e96e8aa4/Peer-to-Peer-Sharing-Definition-und-Bestandsaufnahme-IOeW-Berlin.pdf. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018.
  88. Scholl, G., Gossen, M., & Holzhauer, B. (2017). Praxisbroschüre: Teilen digital – Verbreitung, Zielgruppen und Potenziale des Peer-to-Peer Sharing in Deutschland. http://www.peer-sharing.de/data/peersharing/user_upload/PeerSharing_Brosch%C3%BCre_Teilen_digital.pdf. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018.
  89. Schor, J. B. (1991). The overworked American. The unexpected decline of leisure. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  90. Schulze, G. (2004). Die beste aller Welten: Wohin bewegt sich die Gesellschaft im 21. Jahrhundert?. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer Taschenbuch.Google Scholar
  91. Schwartz, S. (1975). The justice of need and the activation of humanitarian norms. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Shankar, V., Venkatesh, A., Hofacker, C., & Naik, P. (2010). Mobile Marketing in the Retailing Environment: Current Insights and Future Research Avenues. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24(2), 111–120.Google Scholar
  93. Shiller, B. R. (2016). First-Degree Price Discrimination Using Big Data (Working Paper) (S. 36). http://benjaminshiller.com. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018.
  94. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice everyday life and how it changes. Los Angeles: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347, 1259855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T. D., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human ecology review, 6, 81–97.Google Scholar
  98. Sui, D. Z., & Rejeski, D. W. (2002). Environmental impacts of the emerging digital economy: The e-for-environment e-commerce? Environmental Management, 29, 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Taylor, D. G., & Strutton, D. (2016). Does Facebook usage lead to conspicuous consumption? The role of envy, narcissism and self-promotion. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 10, 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Ternes, A., Towers, I., & Jerusel, M. (2015). Konsumentenverhalten im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  102. United Problem Solvers (UPC). (2016). Pulse of the Online Shopper. https://solvers.ups.com/assets/2016_UPS_Pulse_of_the_Online_Shopper.pdf. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018.
  103. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Veblen, T. (2005). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. New Delhi: Aakar Books.Google Scholar
  105. Verhagen, T., & van Dolen, W. (2011). The influence of online store beliefs on consumer online impulse buying: A model and empirical application. Information & Management, 48(8), 320–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Voropanova, E. (2015). Conceptualizing smart shopping with a smartphone: Implications of the use of mobile devices for shopping productivity and value. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 25, 529–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wahnbaeck, C., & Roloff, L. Y. (2017). After the binge, the hangover. Insights into the minds of clothing consumers. Hamburg: Greenpeace.Google Scholar
  108. Wang, R. J.-H., Malthouse, E. C., & Krishnamurthi, L. (2015). On the go: How mobile shopping affects customer purchase behavior. Retail Journal of Retailing, 91, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wiese, A., Toporowski, W., & Zielke, S. (2012). Transport-related CO2 effects of online and brick-and-mortar shopping: A comparison and sensitivity analysis of clothing retailing. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17, 473–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Institut, Wuppertal. (1997). Zukunftsfähiges Deutschland. Basel: Birkhäuser (BUND & Misereor, Hrsg.).Google Scholar
  111. Zander-Hayat, H., Domurath, I., & Groß, C. (2016). Personalisierte Preise (Working Paper). Berlin: Sachverständigenrat für Verbraucherfragen. http://www.svr-verbraucherfragen.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SVRV_WP01_Personalisierte-Preise.pdf. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018.
  112. Zapico, J. L., Brandt, N., & Turpeinen, M. (2010). Environmental metrics: The main opportunity from ICT for industrial ecology. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14, 703–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Zhang, K. Z. K., & Benyoucef, M. (2016). Consumer behavior in social commerce: A literature review. Decision Support Systems, 86, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum Technik und GesellschaftTU BerlinBerlinDeutschland
  2. 2.FG Sozial-ökologische Transformation, Institut für Berufliche Bildung und ArbeitslehreTU BerlinBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations