Experimental studies demonstrate that sustainable food delivery reduces guilt, leading to increased unhealthy food ordering.
Purpose Sustainable practices in food delivery are increasingly common, but their psychological effects on consumers remain underexplored. In this research, the authors examine the impact of sustainable food delivery (using electric vehicles) on consumers’ emotions and their decisions to order unhealthy food. Design/methodology/approach The authors use six experimental studies (including two field studies) to test the impacts of sustainable delivery on food ordering across a range of consumption contexts. Findings When food is delivered through sustainable means, consumers experience lower guilt about their consumption. This reduction in guilt, in turn, leads them to choose more indulgent, unhealthy food options than they otherwise might. This effect is moderated by delivery cost, such that the tendency to consume more unhealthy food increases when consumers have to pay for the sustainable delivery. Research limitations/implications While the authors’ study is focused on unhealthy food ordering, future research can study other unintended consequences of sustainable delivery practices (for instance, on restaurant choice or whether consumers choose to order from restaurants that are farther away because of the presence of electric vehicles). Practical implications The authors’ work shows that responsible food delivery platforms, policymakers and public health practitioners need to take steps to mitigate the potential unintended consequences of promoting sustainability in the marketplace. Originality/value The authors’ work contributes to consumer behavior theory by bridging domains of green consumerism and indulgent consumption, and by showing how a service feature of a transaction (delivery) can impact the consumption levels of the main product (food).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pandey et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: