Tüketicilerin Ödeme İstekliliğini Şekillendirmede Sürdürülebilir Ambalaj ve Çevre Dostu Teslimatın Rolü: Türkiye ve Kazakistan'ın Karşılaştırmalı Çalışması

Öz

E-ticaretin hızlı büyümesi, ambalaj atıkları ve son kilometre teslimat kaynaklı emisyonlara ilişkin çevresel kaygıları artırmış ve sürdürülebilir lojistik uygulamalarını tüketici karar süreçlerinin merkezine yerleştirmiştir. Bu çalışma, tüketicilerin sürdürülebilir ambalaj ve yeşil teslimat uygulamalarına ilişkin algılarının, çevre dostu e-ticaret teslimatına daha fazla ödeme yapma istekliliklerini nasıl etkilediğini ve bu ilişkilerin Türkiye ile Kazakistan arasında farklılık gösterip göstermediğini incelemektedir. Planlı Davranış Teorisi ile Değerİnanç–Norm kuramına dayanan araştırma, Türkiye’den 243 ve Kazakistan’dan 251 olmak üzere toplam 494 aktif e-ticaret kullanıcısından elde edilen anket verileriyle yürütülmüştür. Veriler keşfedici faktör analizi, korelasyon analizi ve ülke bazlı lojistik regresyon modelleri ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, sürdürülebilir ambalaj algısının Türkiye’de ödeme istekliliği üzerinde güçlü ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etki yarattığını; Kazakistan’da ise bu etkinin daha zayıf ve sınırda anlamlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Buna karşılık, yeşil teslimat algısının her iki ülkede de anlamlı bir etkisi bulunmamıştır. Ayrıca ülkeler arasında temel ödeme istekliliği açısından anlamlı bir fark tespit edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, görünür ve sembolik anlam taşıyan sürdürülebilirlik unsurlarının, soyut altyapısal unsurlara kıyasla tüketici davranışı üzerinde daha belirleyici olduğunu ve kültürel bağlamın kritik bir rol oynadığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilir Ambalaj
• Yeşil Teslimat
• Ödeme İstekliliği
• E-Ticaret Lojistiği
• Sürdürülebilir Tüketim
• Tüketici Davranışı.

THE ROLE OF SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING AND GREEN DELIVERY IN SHAPING CONSUMERS’ WILLINGNESS TO PAY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TÜRKİYE AND KAZAKHSTAN

Öz

The rapid expansion of e-commerce has intensified environmental concerns related to packaging waste and last-mile delivery emissions, making sustainable logistics practices increasingly salient in consumer decision-making. This study examines how consumers’ perceptions of sustainable packaging and green delivery practices influence their willingness to pay extra for environmentally friendly e-commerce delivery services, while also exploring cross-country differences between Türkiye and Kazakhstan. Grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Value–Belief–Norm framework, the study adopts a quantitative, cross-sectional research design based on survey data collected from 494 active e-commerce users in Türkiye and Kazakhstan. Exploratory factor analysis, correlation analysis, and country-specific logistic regression models were employed. The findings reveal that perceptions of sustainable packaging exert a strong and statistically significant effect on willingness to pay in Türkiye, whereas this effect is weaker and only marginally significant in Kazakhstan. In contrast, perceptions of green delivery practices do not display a significant influence on willingness to pay in either country. Moreover, a significant crosscountry difference is observed in baseline willingness to pay. Overall, the results highlight the dominant behavioral role of visible and symbolically salient sustainability cues over abstract infrastructural elements and emphasize the importance of cultural context in shaping environmentally responsible payment behavior.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainable Packaging
• Green Delivery
• Willingness to Pay
• ECommerce Logistics
• Sustainable Consumption
• Consumer Behavior

Kaynakça

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
2. Bjørgen, A., Bjerkan, K. Y., & Hjelkrem, O. A. (2021). E-groceries: Sustainable last mile distribution in city planning. Research in Transportation Economics, 87, 100805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100805
3. Browne, M., Allen, J., & Leonardi, J. (2012). Evaluating the use of urban consolidation centres and electric vehicles in urban freight. Transport Reviews, 32(4), 473–490.
4. Buldeo Rai, H., Verlinde, S., Macharis, C., & Schoutteet, P. (2019). Logistics outsourcing in omnichannel retail: The role of consumer perception. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49(5), 543–565. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2019-0026
5. Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.
6. Edwards, J. B., McKinnon, A. C., & Cullinane, S. L. (2010). Comparative analysis of the carbon footprint of conventional and online retailing. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(1/2), 103–123.
7. Farooq, Q., Asif, M., Ahmed, W., & Hussain, A. (2023). Impact of green packaging on consumer satisfaction and environmental consciousness: Evidence from emerging markets. Journal of Cleaner Production, 397, 136875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136875
8. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

9. Gevaers, R., Van de Voorde, E., & Vanelslander, T. (2014). Cost modelling and simulation of last-mile characteristics in B2C distribution. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 125, 398–411.
10. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.
11. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Sage.
12. Hübner, A., Holzapfel, A., & Kuhn, H. (2016). Operations management in multichannel retailing. European Journal of Operational Research, 269(1), 1–14.
13. Igbomor, O. O. (2024). Consumer perceptions and adoption of eco-friendly packaging in Nigeria: An exploratory study. Sustainable Development Research, 32(2), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2654
14. Ignat, B., & Chankov, S. (2020). Do e-commerce customers change their preferred last-mile delivery based on sustainability efforts? International Journal of Logistics Management, 31(3), 521–548. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2019-0305
15. Iwan, S., Kijewska, K., & Lemke, J. (2016). Analysis of parcel lockers as the last mile delivery solution. Transportation Research Procedia, 12, 644–655.
16. Klein, V., & Popp, B. (2022). Sustainability in last-mile logistics: How perceived environmental friendliness influences consumers’ delivery preferences. Sustainability, 14(24), 16437. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416437
17. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.
18. Kumar, S., & Dhir, S. (2021). Green logistics and sustainable supply chain management: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 148, 102234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102234
19. Magnier, L., & Schoormans, J. (2015). Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.005
20. Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings affect greenwashing perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(3), 15–28.
21. Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J. (2016). Predicting green product consumption. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, 123–134.
22. Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-032609094328
23. Steenis, N. D., et al. (2017). Consumer response to packaging design. Sustainability, 9(7), 1–20.
24. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.
25. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
26. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value–belief–norm theory. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.
27. Testa, F., Pretner, G., Iovino, R., Bianchi, G., Tessitore, S., & Iraldo, F. (2021). Drivers of consumer behaviour toward green products: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 290, 125806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125806
28. Thøgersen, J. (2014a). Shopping for a better world. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(2), 115–138.
29. Thøgersen, J. (2014b). Unsustainable consumption: Basic causes and implications for policy. European Psychologist, 19(2), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000176
30. Van Loon, P., Dewaele, J., & De Baets, B. (2015). Sustainability indicators for lastmile logistics: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 7(10), 12980–13001. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71012980
31. White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49.
32. Yadav, R., & Pathak, G. (2017). Determinants of green purchase behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 732–739.
33. Young, W., et al. (2010). Sustainable consumption: The consumer behaviour gap. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(1), 20–30.
34. Zhou, J., Liu, X., & Chen, X. (2022). Visual cues and environmental labelling: How consumers interpret sustainable packaging. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 21(3), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2003
35. Zhuo, F., & Ren, S. (2023). A comprehensive review of the attitude–behavior gap in green consumption: Theoretical foundations, influencing factors and future research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 397, 137681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137681