The Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic On The German E-Grocery Industry With Respect To Challenges For Retailers and Customer Satisfaction

Journal of Marketing Management and Consumer Behavior, Vol.
3, Issue 3 (2021) 1-31
The Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on the German

E-Grocery Industry with Respect to Challenges for
Retailers and Customer Satisfaction
Christin Lodni a, Mehran Najmaei b,*, Shaheen Mansori
a,b
CBS International Business School - Germany
c
Malaysia University of Science and Technology
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History Online grocery retailers are currently facing challenges due to
COVID-19 pandemic. As previous research suggests, the e-grocery
Submitted 02 Mar 2021
industry in Germany has been confronted with logistical problems
Accepted 10 Mar 2021 and reluctant consumers even before the pandemic. The purpose of
Available online 10 Mar 2021 this paper is to determine new challenges that arise for retailers,
especially the differences in challenges arising for pure online
JEL Classification supermarkets and omnichannel supermarkets. Furthermore, the aim is
L81 to analyse the level of customer satisfaction concerning e-grocery
services provided during the pandemic. The data was collected
through social media research, using comments from customers on
Keywords Facebook. To be able to compare pure online supermarkets with
Omnichannel omnichannel supermarkets, one company from each field was
Online Supermarket chosen. As the omnichannel supermarket, one of the famous delivery
COVID-19 services was selected and for the pure online supermarket, a fast
Retail Industry growing small company was selected. Furthermore, to analyse the
E-Grocery collected data, sentiment analysis was used. The results revealed that
in both cases the delivery and availability of products are the main
challenges for online grocery retailers. Additionally, the overall
customer satisfaction appears to be rather low, as a high percentage of
comments for both companies were of a negative nature. These
results imply that retailers should put more emphasis on improving
the delivery and availability of products since this would increase
customer satisfaction and create more loyal customers, who might
even keep using online grocery shopping services when the
coronavirus pandemic is over.
Journal of Marketing Management and Consumer Behavior
*Corresponding Author:
mnajmaei@gmail.com
Author(s) retain copyright of the submitted paper (Please view the Copyright Notice of JMMCB).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Journal of Marketing Management and Consumer Behavior (ISSN-Canada: 2371-3615)

Lodni C. et al. / Journal of Marketing Management and Consumer Behavior, Vol. 3, Issue 3 (2021) 1-31 2
Introduction
Over the past two decades, e-commerce and omnichannel has experienced immense growth.
While in 1999 the e-commerce revenue in Germany amounted to 1,1 billion euros, it increased
to 57,8 billion euros in 2019 with a rising trend (HDE, 2019). In 2017 the biggest revenue
stream in e-commerce in Germany in the B2C sector came from the fashion sector with 16,1
billion U.S. dollars, followed by electronics and media, toys, furniture and appliances, and
finally, making up the smallest portion of the revenue stream, the e-grocery sector with 6,5
billion U.S. dollars (Statista, 2020).
When looking at the e-grocery industry in Germany in a historical context, there are three
different phases of development which can be detected. The first phase started in 1998 with the
establishment of a number of start-ups in the sector of online supermarkets. At the same time,
traditional grocery retailers also expanded into the online retailing sector. At the time, experts
attributed high chances for success to online grocery retailing, especially due to the target group
of employed people with little time to go grocery shopping (De Figueiredo, 2000).
However, in 2001 the first phase came to an end and many companies had to close their
business, as a result of low profitability. The reasons for this failure were mainly the high costs
for logistical processes, issues with maintaining a continuous cooling chain, and lack of
customer trust and acceptance (Seitz, 2013). The second phase started in 2001 and lasted until
2006. During this time little progress was made in the e-grocery sector, due to the difficult
conditions. However, in 2007 the industry picked up again. The first progress began through
certain niche products, which offered customers the opportunity to customize their goods
online. Later in 2010, traditional grocery retailers once again reinforced their involvement in
the online grocery retailing sector, as customers had become more willing to buy groceries
online and the infrastructure for delivering groceries had improved (Theuvsen & Schütte,
2013).
Nowadays there are four main types of grocery delivery processes. The first two types relate to
the home delivery of products. For these two types, the products were delivered directly to the
customers’ home on the delivery day that was selected when the products were ordered online.
The difference lies in the place where the products are compiled. This can either happen at the
point-of-sale, which is usually the store, or at a separate distribution center. Similarly, the
products for the other two methods are also either compiled at the PoS or the DC, however,
3 Lodni C. et al. / Journal of Marketing Management and Consumer Behavior, Vol. 3, Issue 3 (2021) 1-31
they will not be delivered directly to the customers’ home. For the last two types of grocery
delivery, the groceries were placed at certain pick-up points, from where the customers can pick
them up by themselves (Plasch, Kellermayr-Scheucher, & Lengauer, 2014).
The leading online grocery retailing services in Germany in 2018 were Rewe’s delivery service
with a market share of 31%, followed by Amazon Fresh/Pantry with a market share of 15%,
and Allyouneed Fresh with a market share of 13%. Competitors with smaller market shares
included the delivery services of Edeka, Lidl, and Kaufland, as well as the delivery services
Hellofresh and MyTime (LZ., 2018). Furthermore, there is a distinction between the two types
of companies providing e-grocery services. The first type of grocery delivery service is called
omnichannel-retailers, these retailers operate their online grocery stores besides their traditional
grocery stores. Omnichannel-retailers include Rewe, Edeka, Lidl and Kaufland. On the other
hand, there are also pure online supermarkets, which do not operate traditional grocery stores
and only provide groceries through delivery (Theuvsen & Schütte, 2013).
Products that are frequently bought through online supermarkets are sweets, convenience foods,
and alcohol as well as special products, such as vegan, lactose-free, and gluten-free products,
but also meat, dairy goods, and fruits and vegetables (Bitkom, 2019). Furthermore, the biggest
customer group for online grocery shopping are people between the age of 25 and 34, followed
by people between the age of 45 and 54 (Statista, 2019). For these consumers, the biggest
disadvantages of online grocery shopping would be the inability to look at the products and
choose them, furthermore, having to be at home in time for the delivery, and the delivery itself,
which sometimes takes a long time.
Moreover, the high delivery costs involved in grocery delivery are also a disadvantage, as well
as the lack of the shopping experience (BVDW, 2018a). In contrast, the benefits for consumers
using online grocery shopping are the availability of online supermarkets, meaning the
possibility to order groceries from anywhere at any time. Additionally, online grocery shopping
saves time, as people do not have to go to crowded traditional supermarkets. Moreover, not
having to carry groceries home is also a big advantage for consumers (BVDW, 2018b).
The benefits of online grocery shopping are of even bigger advantage currently, as the
coronavirus is spreading at a fast pace throughout the world and especially Europe. With official
recommendations from the government to avoid big crowds and, generally, contact with other
people as much as possible, consumers seem to become warier of the usual shopping trip to the
supermarket. During the first Covid lockdown, about 15 percent of surveyed EU-5 consumers
have switched into online grocery service (OGS) for the first time. Among them, more than 50
percent confirmed that they would continue to shop online even after the pandemic over.
Moreover, 12 percent of these consumers have also decided on different grocery stores to have
the possibilities of home delivery or click-and-collect services (Günday, Kooij, Moulton,
Karabon, & Omeñaca, 2020). However, this sudden increase in demand for online grocery
supermarkets caused retailers to reach their full capacities. As a result, the waiting periods for
potential delivery slots have increased as the crisis proceeded (Schu, 2020). With this situation
in mind the question of to what extent the supply chains of online grocery retailers are able to
handle such a crisis arises.
Therefore, the first objective of this paper is to explore the satisfaction level of consumers
towards online grocery service provided during the pandemic. In addition, this paper aims to
apply social media research to study the difference in challenges that consumers do encounter
while purchasing via pure online supermarkets and supermarkets with omnichannel. In the other
word, the research would clarify if the smaller market player acted and adapted themself better
during the supply chain crisis.
Literature Review
The coronavirus pandemic has had a direct impact on the retail industry in Germany. While the
revenue for most sectors in the retailing industry decreased, for the textile industry even by 70
percent, the only sectors that were able to increase their revenue were the grocery retailing
sector and even more drastically the online retailing sector with an increase in revenue of 24
percent (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020). This development is even more visible when
comparing the frequency of consumers visiting physical supermarkets this year in comparison
to last year. Especially from the middle of March until the beginning of May the frequency of
consumer visits has decreased by up to 92 percent (Crosscan, 2020).
Furthermore, the number of consumers having done their grocery shopping online increased
from 13 percent in week 12 of this year to 35 percent in week 19 of this year (IfH Köln, 2020b).
However, even though there is such a drastic increase in demand for online retailers, almost 60
percent of them are currently experiencing delays in their deliveries due to the crisis (bevh,
2020).
The situation of online grocery retailers in Germany before the coronavirus pandemic was
already weak, as the German e-grocery sector contained much-untapped potential when
comparing the revenue of the e-grocery sector in Germany to other countries, such as China,
USA, Japan or the UK (Statista, 2018). However, according to a study done by IFH (2020)
before the coronavirus pandemic, the e-grocery sector is expected to increase between 5.2 and
9.1 percent by 2030. How strong this increase will really be, heavily depends on how much the
current market structure was enhanced and the present range of offers was expanded.
Moreover, the study showed that especially a change in the family situation, housing situation
and job situation will lead to a change in buying behavior (IfH Köln, 2020a). Considering this
positive trend, the question of challenges and problems, which lead to the relatively low revenue
of e-grocery in Germany arises. According to a study of the Capgemini research institute
(2019), one major challenge seems to be the last-mile delivery. As stated in this study e-grocery
delivery services in Germany yielded less customer satisfaction than countries like American.
This reflects the consumers' dissatisfaction with the present last-mile delivery processes. The
main concerns of consumers were high delivery prices and lack of same-day, and on-time
delivery (Capgemini, 2019). Regarding that, the delivery of groceries has been an issue in the
German e-grocery industry even before the coronavirus pandemic suggests that this problem
might have increased during the crisis and it is, therefore, important to detect new issues along
with the delivery processes of groceries.
Consumer Behaviour in the E-Grocery Industry

Melis, Campo, Breugelmans, and Lamey (2015) analyzed the factors that influence the choice
of an online grocery store and how this choice will change with an increase in a customers’
experience with online grocery shopping. For this study, they collected purchase data with the
help of a household panel throughout a period of two years. Moreover, the study included every
omnichannel retailer in the UK’s grocery market. The study showed that when consumers first
begin to use online grocery shopping, they are very likely to choose the online store of their
preferred physical grocery store chain. This preference was even higher when the chain is able
to offer a similar selection of products in its online store, as it does in physical stores. However,
the study also found that this effect will decrease over time as the consumers gain more
knowledge about the online grocery shopping environment. Consumers will then start to put
more emphasis on the assortment size as a factor for choosing an online grocery store (Melis,
Campo, Breugelmans, & Lamey, 2015).
In addition, Chu, Arce-Urriza, Cebollada-Calvo, and Chintagunta (2010) analyzed the factors
that influence brand, size and price loyalty for physical and online grocery stores. The data was
collected through an online household panel, consisting of 2,432 households which all have
experience in using online grocery shopping. These households were observed during their
grocery shopping trips in physical stores, as well as online stores for a period of one year. The
results showed that people who use online grocery shopping very frequently are more sensitive
to the price in the online store than people who do not use online grocery shopping as often. At
the same time, people who use online grocery shopping very frequently show a very low brand
and size loyalty in comparison with people who use it less often (Chu, Arce-Urriza, Cebollada-
Calvo & Chintagunta, 2010). Dawes and Nenycz-Thiel (2014) further analyzed how brand and
store loyalty differs between online and physical grocery shopping stores.
The data was collected through a household panel which consisted of 15,000 households. The
study showed that people who use one retailer’s online store are also very likely to shop in the
physical stores of that same retailer. However, consumers tend to cross-purchase more between
different retailers when shopping for groceries online than in physical stores. Moreover, this
cross-purchasing behavior in online stores is shown to increase over time. In terms of brand
loyalty, the study showed that consumers exhibit somewhat more brand loyalty when shopping
for groceries online than in physical stores. Furthermore, the increase of brand loyalty from
physical to online shops seems to be higher for smaller brands, however, large and small brands
both experience that effect. Lastly, the study showed that private labels have a higher market
share in online shops than they have in physical shops (Dawes & Nenycz-Thiel, 2014). Overall,
it is apparent that the frequent use of OGS leads to a decrease in store, brand and size loyalty.
For the purpose of comparing consumers’ shopping behavior in online grocery stores with their
behavior in physical stores, Anesbury, Nenycz‐Thiel, Dawes, and Kennedy (2016) carried out
a study which analyzed the shopping behavior of 40 participants, who had no experience in
online grocery shopping. The results showed that the time it takes customers to choose items in
an online store is similar to the time it would take them in a physical store. However, it also
showed that the overall time spent on one shopping trip is considerably shorter when shopping
for groceries online than physical. At the same time, it appears that consumers are less willing
to compare products of different brands when they are shopping for groceries online, as most
participants chose the brand, they saw on the online store’s web page first (Anesbury, Nenycz‐
Thiel, Dawes & Kennedy, 2016).
Munson, Tiropanis, and Lowe (2017) analyzed socio-technical factors that contributed to a
change in consumers’ behavior related to online grocery shopping. The factors examined in this
study are the willingness of people to buy perishable products online, and the factor of easier
price comparison. This study uses the online transaction data of a grocery retailer in the UK
and compares it with averages of physical and online data. In regard to the consumers’
willingness to purchase perishable goods online, the study found that consumers definitely
behave differently when shopping online in comparison to shopping at physical stores, since
the revenue across different types of goods was distributed differently for both categories.
However, contrary to the common belief that consumers prefer to buy their groceries at physical
stores, the study found that consumers spend more money on perishable products when
shopping online than when shopping at physical stores. Furthermore, the study also found that
consumers do not seem to make use of the easier price comparison online, as they mostly
purchased products without paying much attention to the price (Munson, Tiropanis, and Lowe,
2017). Both studies showed that consumers tend to not use the opportunity to compare prices
and products when shopping for groceries online.
Elms, De Kervenoael, and Hallsworth (2016) further analyzed the correlation between the time
and place consumers use to shop for groceries, such as online or physical stores, and what kind
of products they purchase. For this study, data from two consumers, related to their grocery
shopping behavior, were collected over the span of eighteen months. Both participants had
experienced the use of online grocery shopping, however, they did not fit into the common
profile of an online grocery shopper. The results showed that one participant, a woman in her
mid-fifties, used online grocery shopping for its convenience as she could not go to the
supermarket very often.
However, she only bought non-perishable products online, since she preferred to pick out
perishable products, such as fruits or vegetables, herself in the supermarket. On the other hand,
the second participant, a man in his thirties, used online shopping in order to avoid the stress of
visiting a store. He tried to plan for needed groceries for the coming weeks and buy them online,
but he stated that if the delivery takes too long or items are being substituted, he will visit the
supermarket (Elms, De Kervenoael & Hallsworth, 2016).
Alamelu and Meena (2015) analyzed physical differences that a consumer will experience when
shopping online for groceries or at physical stores. These physical differences include seeing,
touching and smelling products when buying them, and interacting with other customers when
grocery shopping. The data was collected through a survey, which was given to two different
customer groups. One group mainly bought their groceries in physical stores, while the other
group mainly bought its groceries in online stores. The results showed that consumers shopping
in physical stores appreciated the customer service in stores and the assortment of goods the
most, while consumers shopping for groceries online valued the convenience and reliable
service the most. It was also found that the factor of touching products before purchasing them
affected the loyalty of customers using online grocery shopping stores. This leads to the
difficulty of online grocery stores to build a loyal customer base in the short term. However,
the study suggests that this difficulty could be overcome once teenagers at the current time start
to do their own grocery shopping, as they are more familiar and dependent on the internet
(Alamelu & Meena, 2015).
According to Hanus (2016), one of the biggest benefits of online grocery shopping for
consumers is its convenience. This includes that online grocery shops can be accessed from any
location and at any time without having to wait. Furthermore, online grocery shops give
customers the possibility to compare different products easier, which is referred to as search
convenience. Additionally, online grocery shops offer customer review systems, which make
the evaluation of products much easier. On the other hand, consumers also face disadvantages
when it comes to online grocery shopping. One of these disadvantages results from the fact that
customers are not able to physically see the products and have to rely on images. Another
disadvantage would be the waiting time that arises when ordering groceries online. Relating to
this, customers also face the disadvantage of not being able to know the expiry dates of
perishable products. Lastly, the process of returning products that do not meet the expectations
of the customers is also considered a disadvantage (Hanus, 2016). In summary, the biggest
benefit of OGS for consumers is its convenience, whereas the inability to touch products before
purchasing them is a big disadvantage.
In order to analyze the motivations and limitations of consumer behavior in the online grocery
shopping sector, Bauerová and Klepek (2018) used the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
More specifically, they focused on the area of website design as a factor for understanding the
motivations and limitations for customers to buy groceries online. The variables used to
determine to what extent consumers accept the technology of online grocery shopping are the
Perceived Usefulness and the Perceived Ease of Use of the respective website designs. The data
collection was done by a quantitative questionnaire which was completed by 480 participants
through an online respondent panel. The study found that the consumers’ intention to buy
groceries online is not directly influenced by the Perceived Ease of Use, however, the Perceived
Usefulness has a very positive impact on the consumers’ intention to buy groceries online.
Therefore, having a well-working website design is not enough to encourage people to buy
groceries online, but rather consumers should be shown the benefits of using online grocery
shopping (Bauerová & Klepek, 2018).
For the purpose of analyzing the consumer behavior in the online grocery shopping sector for
the German market specifically, Seitz, Pokrivčák, Tóth, and Plevný (2017) established an
online grocery model through Structural Equation modelling. The emphasis of this study was
to establish consumer groups that are more willing to use online grocery shopping and to
determine aspects that influence this willingness. The data was collected through a
questionnaire that was given to 412 people. The results showed that the main target groups for
online grocery shopping in Germany are working mothers and young professionals. However,
the study also showed that consumers in Germany do not necessarily feel the need to use online
grocery shopping. Therefore, the consumers’ awareness of the benefits that online grocery
shopping provides should be increased and the trust of consumers should be earned (Seitz,
Pokrivčák, Tóth, & Plevný, 2017). The summary of the reviewed articles is classified by the
research objectives, methods and key aspects provided in the table 1.
Table 1: Literature Review on Consumer Behaviour in the E-Grocery Industry

Research Data Collection
Author Key aspects
objective methods
Melis, Campo, Choice of an
Experience in OGS
Breugelmans, & online grocery Household panel
decreases loyalty
Lamey, 2015 store
Chu, Arce-Urriza, Frequent use of OGS
Brand, size and
Cebollada-Calvo & Household panel leads to low brand
price loyalty
Chintagunta, 2010 and size loyalty
Cross-purchasing
Dawes & Nenycz- Brand and store behavior in online
Household panel
Thiel, 2014 loyalty stores is shown to
increase over time
Consumers’ OGS trips take less
Anesbury, Nenycz‐ The shopping
shopping behavior time; less willingness
Thiel, Dawes & behavior of 40
online and to compare products
Kennedy, 2016 participants
physical stores and prices online
Consumers spend
The willingness of
more money on
people to buy
perishable products
perishable Online transaction
Munson, Tiropanis, and when shopping
products online, data of a grocery
Lowe, 2017 online; no use of the
and the factor of retailer
easier price
easier price
comparison online
comparison
Correlation
OGS is used for
between the time
Elms, De Kervenoael & Data from two convenience and to
and place
Hallsworth, 2016 consumers avoid visiting the
consumers use to
store
shop for groceries
OGS is used for
Physical convenience; lack of
Alamelu & Meena, differences online touching products
Survey
2015 and physical before purchasing
stores them is a
disadvantage
Benefits:
Benefits and convenience,
disadvantages of evaluation
Hanus, 2016 Secondary data
online grocery Disadvantages: long
shopping delivery, not seeing
products first
Intention to buy
groceries online is
not directly
Motivations and influenced by the
limitations of Perceived Ease of
Bauerová & Klepek, Quantitative
website design for Use; Perceived
2018 questionnaire
customers to buy Usefulness has a
groceries online very positive impact
on the consumers’
intention to buy
groceries online
Working mothers
Seitz, Pokrivčák, Tóth, Establish target and young
Questionnaire
& Plevný, 2017 groups professionals are the
main target groups
Supply Chain Management in the E-Grocery Industry

Understanding the barriers and enablers in the e-grocery supply chain is an important step in
managing the supply chain. Grant, Fernie, and Schulz (2014) analyzed certain barriers and
enablers in terms of the supply chains in the German online grocery retailing market. The data
was collected through interviews with companies that operate as food retailers, logistic service
providers and an online marketing agency. The findings showed that important enablers for the
German online grocery sector are a well-established customer base and a broad assortment of
products. Firstly, the customer base is needed in order to cover costs arising from the fulfilment
processes for the delivery, since German customers do not want to pay for extra services.
Similarly, a broad product line in the online store is also important, as it will help increase the
number of products that are bought and therefore, helps cover extra costs. Furthermore,
customers value high quality on the website, service, and delivery process. On the other hand,
barriers to the German online grocery sector are its small margins and logistical challenges.
One of the major logistical challenges for online grocery shopping is to provide a continuous
cooling chain.
This includes the need for certain warehouses, delivery vans, and more efficient supply chain
processes. Another logistical challenge is the coverage of the entire market demand in the
country, as there are only local logistic service providers who provide service for refrigerated
goods (Grant, Fernie & Schulz, 2014). Seidel, Mareï, and Blanquart (2016) compared the
development of online grocery shopping in France and in Germany, considering the effects of
certain innovative concepts in the e-grocery sector on the respective logistics processes. The
data was collected through the analysis of annual reports of online grocery retailers, as well as
their web sites and press releases. Furthermore, interviews with certain online grocery retailers
from Germany and France were carried out. The study showed that one of the major differences
in terms of the development of online grocery retailing between France and Germany is the
accessibility of the service outside of big cities.
While in France the majority of people have the ability to access e-grocery services, this access
is mainly limited to cities in Germany. This can be attributed to the preferred last-mile delivery
processes in the respective country. In France, a method called “Drive” is more prevalent,
whereas in Germany the method of home deliveries is mostly used. The use of home deliveries
generally causes additional costs, as companies have to make investments for the vehicles and
employ more personnel. This leads to the fact that oftentimes online grocery retailing through
home delivery is not profitable. This can be avoided through the use of logistics service
providers, however, these LSP also have to be equipped to handle food items in obedience to
certain food laws. On the other hand, using the “Drive” method can help reduce the costs, since
it does not incur the costs for the delivery.
The “Drive” method is a form of “click-and-collect” where the customer orders groceries online
and then pick them up, either in the store or in a warehouse (Seidel, Mareï, and Blanquart,
2016). Plasch, Kellermayr-Scheucher, and Lengauer (2014) further analyzed the challenges but
also the potentials of logistical processes in online grocery retailing. For the purpose of this
study, workshops with experts and practitioners from the grocery retail industry were
conducted. Customers’ main demands from grocery deliveries are fresh products, good lead
times, low delivery costs, and the overall convenience of the purchasing process. On the other
hand, the retailers put the main emphasis on costs for investments and the processes. The study
determined several options for the delivery of groceries. The first option would be the home or
direct delivery of the groceries, where the products that the customer ordered are compiled in
the store, which is the point of sale, and from there they were delivered directly to the customer.
The second option also refers to direct deliveries, however, for this alternative the retailer will
compile the goods in a distribution centre, from where they were delivered to the customer. For
this option a delivery through a parcel service is also possible, since there might be some
distance between the DC and the recipient.
The third option involves a “click & collect” approach, as products, which are compiled at the
PoS, can be picked up at a certain pick-up point by the consumer. Similarly, the last option also
refers to the “click & collect” process, however, here the goods are compiled in the distribution
center and can then be picked up from a pick-up point by the customer. Overall, the “click &
collects” methods can be handled easier, which makes them good entry-level models for the
retailers, whereas the “direct delivery” methods are regarded as more difficult (Plasch,
Kellermayr-Scheucher, & Lengauer, 2014). In conclusion, when analyzing the different types
of last-mile delivery concepts and their costs and required resources, it becomes apparent why
some of the biggest barriers for the e-grocery industry in Germany are the logistical challenges,
since the preferred method of delivery in Germany is also the more costly one. The summary
of the reviewed articles on supply chain management in the e-grocery industry is classified by
the research objectives, methods and key aspects in the table 2.
Table 2: Literature Review on Supply Chain Management in the E-Grocery Industry
Data collection
Author Research objective Key aspects
methods
Enablers: customer
base and a broad
Analyzed barriers
assortment of
and enablers of
Grant, Fernie & products
supply chains in the Interviews
Schulz, 2014
German e-grocery Barriers: small
industry margins and
logistical challenges
France uses the

“click & collect”
Development of
method
Seidel, Mareï, and supply chain in OGS Interviews,
Blanquart, 2016 in France and secondary data
Germany uses the
Germany HD method more
frequently
“click & collect” is

Plasch, Kellermayr- Challenges but also easier and less
Workshops with
Scheucher, & potentials of costly;
experts
Lengauer, 2014 logistical processes
HD is more difficult
Theoretical Support
The TAM establishes two factors that are significant for the adaption of users to technological
changes. These two factors are Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (Davis,
1989). The factor Perceived Usefulness is defined by Davis (1989) as “the degree to which a
person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance”
(p.320). Furthermore, the factor Perceived Ease of Use is defined as “the degree to which a
person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort” (Davis, 1989, p.320). In
relation to the e-grocery industry, Bauerová and Klepek (2018) found that the consumers’
intention to buy groceries online is not directly influenced by the Perceived Ease of Use,
however, the Perceived Usefulness has a very positive impact on the consumers’ intention to
buy groceries online.
Furthermore, Sreeram, Kesharwani, and Desai (2017) expanded the TAM in order to establish
variables that have an influence on customer’s satisfaction and loyalty in the e-grocery industry.
These added variables are product assortment, social influence, entertainment value, design
aesthetics, economic value, physical effort, time pressure, behavioural intention, and finally
satisfaction and e-loyalty. The study found that the product assortment has the highest effect on
a consumer’s intention to buy groceries online, even in comparison to the PU and PEOU.
Therefore, it can be assumed that the product range available to e-grocery consumers during
the coronavirus pandemic will have a great impact on customer satisfaction.
Moreover, social influence also positively affects PU and BI. The variable entertainment value
directly influences satisfaction positively. Furthermore, the factor design aesthetics has an
influence on the PEU. The variable price perception positively influences entertainment value
and Perceived Usefulness. While physical effort positively influences PEU, time pressure
positively impacts PU. Furthermore, brand image positively influences loyalty and satisfaction
(Sreeram, Kesharwani, & Desai, 2017). Moreover, Bienstock and Royne (2010) analyzed
linkages between consumer satisfaction, especially with regards to logistical services, perceived
quality and the use and acceptance of technology. The results showed that customer satisfaction
was not directly influenced by the PU or the PEU of the technological factor.
However, both of these factors affect customer satisfaction through perceived LSQ. Moreover,
the study related logistics service quality to customer satisfaction as an essential factor and
determined LSQ to be an important influence on future purchase intention (Bienstock & Royne,
2010). This leads to the assumption that the logistical processes which are offered to consumers
during the coronavirus pandemic will greatly influence customer satisfaction.
Research Methodology
For the purpose of this study, social media research was conducted. According to Malhotra,
Nunan, and Birks (2017), the advantages of conducting social media research are the possibility
to access real conversations between consumers concerning certain topics. These real
conversations allow for a better understanding of the customer’s mindset towards an issue as
they are using a more natural language. Furthermore, their responses will also be more heartfelt
and emotional, as social media platforms on the internet offer a certain sense of anonymity.
Moreover, using social media research helps to find customers who are really interested in
voicing their opinions and experiences with certain services, companies and goods.
Additionally, the feedback given on social media platforms will mostly appear in real-time,
which makes social media research a good tool for analyzing topics as current as of the
coronavirus pandemic. Since there are already a number of comments on social media platforms
regarding the issue of online grocery delivery during the coronavirus pandemic, a passive social
media research approach was used. This will help understand the problems customers have
experienced in terms of online grocery shopping, as well as their feelings towards the service
and what they liked and disliked about it (Malhotra et al., 2017).
For the purpose of comparing pure online supermarkets with omnichannel-retailers, one
company of each kind was picked for the analysis of social media comments. For the category
of omnichannel-retailers, one of the grocery delivery services in Germany was picked since the
group had the biggest market share in the e-grocery industry in 2018. The company is one of
the major grocery retailers in Germany. The company offers its delivery service in 75 cities in
Germany by March 2014 via different types of last-mile delivery options. Customers can choose
from having the products delivered to their home address through a vehicle or a parcel, or they
can order the products online and then pick them up in the grocery store.
A smaller company chosen for the category of pure online supermarkets. The company was
established in the Netherlands and expanded its services to Germany in 2018. Since the
company is a pure online supermarket, they only offer the service of delivering the groceries to
the customers’ home address through a vehicle. The comments for both companies were
collected through their official Facebook pages, through comments which were left on posts of
the respective companies directly, or through posts that were left on the companies’ Facebook
pages by consumers. In order to be able to assess the companies’ performances during the
coronavirus pandemic, the comments were picked from a certain time span. For the analysis of
comments during the crisis, comments between mid-March to the end of April 2020 were
analyzed, as this was the period during the coronavirus pandemic when the frequency of
consumers visiting physical supermarkets this year in comparison to last year decreased
drastically by up to even 92 percent (Crosscan, 2020).
For the purpose of data analysis, the concept of sentiment analysis was used. Sentiment analysis
evaluates comments based on the emotion that was supposed to be delivered with it. Comments
can be categorized in being positive, negative, or neutral with regard to a certain company,
product, or service (Malhotra et al., 2017). In order to analyze different aspects of the online
grocery order and delivery process, five categories have been established. Each category has
different sub-categories, as well as corresponding keywords that were used in order to allocate
the comments to the right category. After all the comments have been allocated to the right
category, they will either be assigned towards negative or positive sentiment within this
category, so that the comments of customers can be quantified. This way the main issues or
benefits customers are experiencing in terms of online grocery delivery can be determined. The
corresponding framework can be seen in table 3.
Category 1 is the order process, which can be defined as the “process of fulfilling customer
orders from the time the customer places the order until the supplier receives payment of the
service fee” (Voigt & Krieger, 2018, own translation). However, in this context only processes
taking place until the order is made were considered. Therefore, the corresponding sub-
categories are the website or app and payment methods. Keywords for this category are: “card”,
“cash”, “website”, “app”.
The second category is about the products. In this context, products are the goods that are being
sold on the online grocery retailers’ platform. The sub-categories are the range of products and
the availability of products in stock. The corresponding keywords for this category are
“storage”, “not available”, “assortment”, “sold out”.
Category 3 is called the Quality of the Products. The quality of a product can be defined as:
“the consistency of performance with requirements made by the buyer” (Markgraf, 2018, own
translation). The sub-categories of this category are the product freshness, adequate cooling
during the delivery, and damage due to delivery. The keywords for this category are “products”,
“fresh”, “broken”, “melted”.
The fourth category refers to the delivery service. Delivery service can be defined as: “the
efficiency of a logistics system, characterized by the quality of delivery time, delivery
reliability, delivery condition and delivery flexibility perceived by the recipient” (Kenning &
Krieger, 2018, own translation). The subcategories of category 4 are delivery area, available
delivery dates and lead time. The corresponding keywords for this category are “delivery area”,
“waiting list”, “delivery date”, “punctual”.
The last category refers to customer service. Customer service can be defined as “services
provided by a manufacturer or dealer to his customers before purchase (pre-sales service),
during the purchase (episode-related services) or after purchase (after-sales service)”
(Kirchgeorg, 2018, own translation). The subcategories of the category of customer service are
the overall service and the return policy. For this category, the keywords were “refund”,
“return” and “service”.
Table 3: Framework for Social Media Research

Category 1: Category 2: Category 3: Category 4: Category 5:
Order Products Quality of Delivery Customer
process the products service service
Definitio “Process of Products in “the “the “services
n fulfilling this context consistency efficiency of provided by a
customer are the goods of a logistics manufacturer
orders from that are being performance system, or dealer to
the time the sold on the with characterized his customers
customer online requirements by the before
places the grocery made by the quality of purchase (pre-
order until the retailers’ buyer” delivery sales service),
supplier platform. (Markgraf, time, during the
receives 2018). delivery purchase
payment of reliability, (episode-
the service delivery related
fee” (Voigt & condition services) or
Krieger, and delivery after purchase
2018). flexibility (after-sales
perceived by service)”
the recipient” (Kirchgeorg,
(Kenning & 2018).
Krieger,
2018).
Sub- 1. 1. Range of 1. Product 1. Delivery 1. Overall
categorie Website/App products freshness Area service
s 2. Payment 2. 2. Adequate 2. Available 2. Return
method Availability cooling delivery policy
of products in during the dates
stock delivery 3. Lead time
3. Damage
due to
delivery
Keyword “card”, “storage”, “products”, “delivery “refund”,
s “cash”, “not “fresh”, area”, “return” and
“website”, available”, “broken”, “waiting “service”
“app” “assortment”, “melted” list”,
“sold out” “delivery
date”,
“punctual”
Result and Discussion
Omnichannel’s Delivery Service

During the time period from March 15th until April 30th, 314 comments related to the
performance of Omnichannel’s grocery delivery service were found on the company’s official
Facebook page. These 314 comments were analyzed using sentiment analysis. As a result of
that, each of these comments was analyzed in terms of its intent being positive or negative.
Furthermore, the comments were allocated to the different sub-categories of the framework by
using keywords. Overall, from the total 314 comments collected, 286 were allocated to be of
negative sentiment and 28 comments were allocated to be of positive sentiment. Therefore,
approximately 91 percent of the comments were negative, and 9 percent were positive. The
results are shown in table 4.
The category with the most comments collected is category 4, which deals with the delivery.
For this category, 223 comments were analyzed, which makes up approximately 71 percent of
the total number of comments collected. Within category 4, the subcategory that received the
most feedback from customers on Facebook is “available delivery dates”. For this sub-category,
208 comments were collected, this makes about 66 percent of all comments collected across all
categories and 93 percent of comments that were collected for category 4. In this sub-category,
198 comments were allocated towards negative sentiment and 10 comments were allocated
towards positive sentiment. This means that five percent of the comments in the sub-category
“available delivery dates'' were positive and 95 percent of them were negative. Another sub-
category within the delivery category is the “delivery area”. This sub-category received eight
comments, which makes up four percent of all comments collected for category 4. All of these
eight comments were allocated towards negative sentiment. Therefore, 100 percent of the
comments for the “delivery area” were negative. The last sub-category of category 3 is “lead
time”. In this sub-category, seven comments were collected, making up 3 percent of all the
comments collected in category 3. Furthermore, one of these comments was allocated towards
positive sentiment and the remaining six comments were allocated towards negative sentiment.
Therefore, 14 percent of the comments relating to the sub-category “lead time” are positive,
and 86 percent are negative.
The category that received the second most comments is category 2, which refers to the
products, with 43 comments, making up 14 percent of all the comments collected. The
subcategory that received the most comments within category 2 is “availability of products in
stock”. This sub-category received 41 comments, making up for 95 percent of the comments in
category 2. In the sub-category “availability of products in stock”, 39 comments were assigned
to negative sentiment and two comments were assigned to positive sentiment. Therefore, 95
percent of the comments related to “availability of products in stock” was negative and 5
percent were positive. The second sub-category in the products category is “range of products”.
This sub-category received two comments, which makes up five percent of all the comments
received in category 2. The two comments were equally allocated between positive and negative
sentiment, which means that 50 percent of the comments for “range of products” were positive
and 50 percent were negative.
The third category is category 5, which is related to customer service. This category received
31 comments, making up for about 10 percent of the total number of comments. The sub-
category with the majority of allocated comments in this category is “overall service”. This sub-
category received 30 comments, which makes up about 97 percent of the total comments in
category 5. Within this sub-category, 12 comments were allocated towards positive sentiment
and 18 comments were allocated towards negative sentiment. Therefore, 40 percent of the
comments for “overall service” were positive and 60 percent were negative. The other
subcategory making up for three percent of the comments in category 5 is “return policy”. There
was only one comment collected for this subcategory, which was allocated towards negative
sentiment. Therefore, the comments collected for “return policy” were 100 percent negative.
The next category is category 1, which is related to the order process, with 13 comments,
making up four percent of all the comments collected. The sub-category “website/app”,
received 12 comments, making up for 92 percent of the comments in category 1. All of these
comments were allocated to negative sentiment. As a result, 100 percent of the comments
collected for “website/app” is negative. The second subcategory “payment methods” received
one comment, which was assigned as a negative sentiment. Therefore, 100 percent of the
comments analyzed for the sub-category “payment methods” are negative.
Figure 1: Share of comments each category received: Omnichannels
Figure 2: Share of comments each category received: Pure online
The last category, which received the least number of comments, is category 3, which refers to
the quality of the products. This category received four comments, which makes up about one
percent of the total number of comments analyzed. The sub-category “product freshness”
received three comments, which amounts to 75 percent of the comments received for category
3. For “product freshness”, two comments were allocated towards positive sentiment and one
comment was allocated towards negative sentiment. Resulting from this, 67 percent of the
comments were positive and 33 percent of the comments for “product freshness” were negative.
The remaining comment was allocated to the sub-category “damage due to delivery”, where it
was assigned towards negative sentiment. Therefore, 100 percent of the comments for “damage
due to delivery” were negative. The last sub-category called “adequate cooling during the
delivery” did not receive any comments.
Table 4: Results of Analysis of Omnichannel Comments
Positive Negative Total
Category 1: 1. - 12 12
Order Website/App
Process 13
2. Payment - 1 1
Methods
Category 2: 1. Range of 1 1 2
Products Products
2. 2 39 41 43
Availability
of Products
in Stock
Category 3: 1. Product 2 1 3
Quality of Freshness
the
Products 2. Adequate - - -
Cooling
during the 4
Delivery
3. Damage - 1 1
due to
Delivery
Category 4: 1. Delivery - 8 8
Delivery Area
2. Available 10 198 208

223
Delivery
Dates
3. Lead Time 1 6 7
Category 5: 1. Overall 12 18 30
Customer service
Service 31
2. Return - 1 1
Policy
28 286 314
Pure Online Supermarket

During the time period from March 15th until April 30th, 506 comments related to the
performance of Pure online’s grocery delivery service were found on the company’s official
Facebook page. These 506 comments were analyzed using sentiment analysis. As a result of
that, each of these comments was analyzed in terms of its intent being positive or negative.
Furthermore, the comments were allocated to the different sub-categories of the framework by
using keywords. Overall, from the total 506 comments collected, 371 were allocated to be of
negative sentiment and 135 comments were allocated to be of positive sentiment. Therefore,
approximately 73 percent of the comments were negative, and 27 percent were positive. The
results are shown in table 5.
First, the category that received the most feedback from customers on Facebook was Category
4 about the delivery. Category 4 received 349 comments, making up approximately 69 percent
of all the comments. Within category 4 the sub-category “available delivery dates” was
commented on the most. Having accumulated 262 comments, the sub-category “available
delivery dates” makes up about 75 percent of the comments from category 4 and approximately
52 percent of the total number of comments collected. However, 241 comments from the
“available delivery dates” sub-category were allocated towards negative sentiment, making up
92 percent of all comments collected for “available delivery dates”, which leaves eight percent
of the comments to positive sentiment about “available delivery dates”. Another sub-category
of category 4 is the “delivery area”. With 75 comments, it makes up about 21 percent of the
comments from Category 4. Furthermore, 71 of the comments selected for this sub-category
were of negative sentiment. This means that for the sub-category “delivery area”, 95 percent of
the collected comments were negative, and five percent of the comments were positive. The
last sub-category of Category 4 was “lead time”. This sub-category collected 12 comments in
total, which takes approximately three percent of all the comments collected for Category 4.
Within the sub-category “lead time”, 10 of the collected comments were allocated to positive
sentiment and two comments were allocated to negative sentiment. Therefore, about 83 percent
of the comments for “lead time” were positive and approximately 17 percent were negative.
The category containing the most comments after “delivery” is category 5 for customer service.
With 96 comments, category 5 makes up 19 percent of all comments collected. These comments
mainly come from the sub-category “overall service”, which contains 95 comments, making up
about 99 percent of the comments collected for category 5. Within the sub-category “overall
service”, 91 comments were assigned towards positive sentiment and 4 comments were
assigned towards negative sentiment. This means that 96 percent of the comments for “overall
service” were positive, whereas four percent of the comments were negative. The remaining
one percent of the comments from category 5 belong to the sub-category “return policy”, where
one comment was allocated towards negative sentiment.
The third most commented on category was category 2 about the products. This category
received 43 comments, making up eight percent of all the comments collected. The subcategory
of category 2 receiving the most comments was “availability of products in stock”. This sub-
category received 40 comments, which makes up 93 percent of all comments received for
category 2. Within the sub-category “availability of products in stock”, 38 comments were
allocated towards negative sentiment and 2 comments were allocated towards positive
sentiment. Therefore, 95 percent of the comments collected for “availability of products in
stock” were negative and five percent of them were positive. The other subcategory making up
seven percent of all the comments collected for category 2 was called “range of products”. This
sub-category received one positive and two negative comments, which means that
approximately 33 percent of the comments were positive and about 67 percent of the comments
were negative.
The next category was category 1 for the order process. This category received 11 comments
in total, making up approximately two percent of all the comments collected. The distribution
of comments in this category was relatively equal, with five comments being collected for the
sub-category “website/app” making up 45 percent, and six comments being collected for the
sub-category “payment methods” making up 55 percent of all comments in the category 1. For
both sub-categories, all the comments that were collected were attributed to negative sentiment.
Therefore, 100 percent of the comments for category 1 were negative.
The category with the least number of comments allocated is category 3, which refers to the
quality of the products. Overall, category 3 received seven comments. The majority of these
comments were allocated to the sub-category “product freshness”. The sub-category “product
freshness” received six comments, making up 86 percent of the comments in category 3. From
these six comments, 100 percent were allocated towards positive sentiment. The sub-category
making up for 14 percent of the comments received in category 3 is “adequate cooling during
the delivery”. This sub-category received one comment, which was allocated towards negative
sentiment. Therefore, 100 percent of the comments for “adequate cooling during the delivery”
were negative. The third subcategory of category 3 called “damage due to delivery” did not
receive any comments.
Table 5: Results of Analysis of Pure online’s Comments
Positive Negative Total
1. Website/App - 5 5
Category 1:
11
Order Process 2. Payment
- 6 6
Methods
1. Range of
1 2 3
Products
Category 2:
43
Products 2. Availability
of Products in 2 38 40
Stock
1. Product
6 - 6
Freshness
Category 3: 2. Adequate
Quality of the Cooling during - 1 1 7
Products the Delivery
3. Damage due
- - -
to Delivery
1. Delivery Area 4 71 75
Category 4: 2. Available
21 241 262 349
Delivery Delivery Dates
3. Lead Time 10 2 12
1. Overall
91 4 95
Category 5: service
Customer 96
Service 2. Return
- 1 1
Policy
135 371 506

Discussion and Recommendations

The analysis of consumers’ comments on social media for the purpose of this thesis helped
understand what kind of challenges different online grocery retailers are facing due to the
current coronavirus pandemic and how these challenges affect customer satisfaction. Overall,
the results showed that consumers were mostly not satisfied with the service that online grocery
retailers were providing during this crisis. This applies to both, the omnichannel retailer and the
pure internet supermarket, since the percentages of negative comments were relatively high in
both cases, with 73 percent for the pure online supermarket and 91 percent for the omnichannel
retailer. When further comparing the results of the omnichannel retailer and the pure internet
supermarket, it becomes apparent that they were facing similar challenges in the same
categories.
The biggest challenge for both online grocery retailers during the coronavirus pandemic seems
to be the delivery since both companies received the most comments under that category. More
specifically, providing delivery dates for customers, seems to be the main challenge, as this
sub-category received the most comments, which were predominantly of negative nature in
both cases. The second challenge that both companies were facing was related to the products.
More precisely, the availability of products in stock appeared to be the main problem within
the category of products. For this category, both companies received similar numbers of
comments, which were mostly negative as well. Another similarity between both companies
lies within the category for the quality of the product. In both cases, this category received the
least number of comments and, furthermore, the most comments within this category were
received by the sub-category “product freshness” for both companies.
However, there were also differences in some categories between the omnichannel-retailer and
the pure internet supermarket. One of these differences appeared within the category of
delivery. There, the pure internet supermarket faced a challenge that the omnichannel retailer
did not experience. This challenge was related to the delivery area, which accumulated the
second-highest number of negative comments for the pure online supermarket in the category
of delivery. This difference could be attributed to the different business models of the two
companies, since the omnichannel retailer has access to a large network of traditional
supermarkets all over Germany, whereas the pure online supermarket started business in one
region and is currently in the midst of expanding its business. Another noticeable difference
can be found in the category for customer service, within the sub-category “overall service”.
While the pure online supermarket received mostly positive intended comments for this
category, the omnichannel retailer received more negative than positive comments and also
fewer comments in total. Furthermore, the results for the category of the order process
differentiated between the two companies as well. The pure online supermarket experienced
almost an equal amount of feedback for both of the sub-categories “website/app” and “payment
methods”, whereas the omnichannel-retailer received most of the comments for the sub-
category “website/app”.
Considering how customers commented on the topic of delivery, more specifically available
delivery dates, with the negative sentiment the most, it appears that the issues related to
logistical processes are their main cause of dissatisfaction with grocery delivery services during
the coronavirus pandemic. This result fits with Bienstock and Royne (2010) theory that logistic
service quality is an important factor influencing customer satisfaction in the online retail
context. Moreover, the results also showed that the category related to products received the
second most negative comments, making it an important factor for the dissatisfaction with
deliveries of groceries during the crisis. This result can be associated with results from the study
of Sreeram, Kesharwani, and Desai (2017), where it was found that the factor of product
assortment very positively influences a customers’ intention to buy groceries online, and
furthermore, the brand image then positively influences customers satisfaction.
As established before, the e-grocery industry in Germany was lacking behind other countries,
such as China, the USA, Japan, or the UK in terms of the revenue it generates, even before the
pandemic spread (Statista, 2018). However, the current crisis, with its related increase in
demand for online grocery shopping alternatives, could also be a chance for online grocery
retailers to establish a broader customer base, including people that would not have tried online
grocery service before this crisis. However, considering the positive relationship between brand
image and customer loyalty, the two most important factors influencing brand image have to
be improved. These two factors are logistics service quality and product assortment (Bienstock
& Royne, 2010) (Sreeram, Kesharwani, & Desai, 2017). Therefore, online grocery retailers
have to improve their ability to provide customers with delivery dates and increase their range
of products in stock, in order to be able to win over a broader base of loyal and satisfied
customers.
In conclusion, it was found that customer satisfaction with grocery delivery services during the
coronavirus pandemic was rather low for both types of online grocery retailers that were
analyzed. In regard to differences in challenges faced by the different types of online grocery
retailers, it was found that the major challenges, which are influencing customer satisfaction,
were encountered by both types of online grocery retailers respectively. The omnichannel
retailer, as well as the pure online supermarket, faced issues regarding the ability to provide
delivery dates to customers since the demand for online grocery service increased heavily
during the coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, both online grocery retailers faced the problem of
not having enough products in stock. However, small differences between the two types of
online grocery retailers, such as the pure online supermarket not being able to provide enough
delivery areas with goods and the differences in customer service, are also identifiable. Overall,
it appears that the categories for products and delivery have the biggest influence on customer
satisfaction. Therefore, the online grocery retailers should put more emphasis on these
categories in order to improve them, since this might increase customer satisfaction and create
more loyal customers, who might even keep using online grocery shopping services when the
coronavirus pandemic is over.
Limitations and Further Study Recommendations

One of the limitations concerning the sentiment analysis is the use of humour or sarcasm in
comments. Since it is not possible to hear the person say the comment out loud, with regards to
the intonation, it might be difficult to detect humour or sarcasm in a comment. Especially since
this way of communicating is very common on social media. Additionally, social media
comments might lack context, which might make it difficult to determine the purpose of the
comment. Furthermore, people tend to have more spelling errors or use unconventional words
on social media platforms, which also increases the difficulty of analyzing the comment
correctly. The reliability of the data could also be questioned, as it is not definite that the
comments which are posted on social media contain the real sentiment of a person. Overall,
only separating sentiment into positive and negative also limits the research, as there are usually
several levels between these two (Malhotra et al., 2017).
In addition, the focus of this study was put on the current effects of the coronavirus pandemic
on the customer satisfaction in the online grocery retail industry in Germany and how
companies from the two different types of online grocery retailers are affected by the crisis.
Future studies could analyze if the increased demand in online grocery service during the
coronavirus pandemic in combination with the perceived customer satisfaction led to an

increased and more loyal customer base within the online grocery retail industry in Germany
or if the perceived dissatisfaction among consumers decreased the overall customer base.
Acknowledgement
This article is based on the summery of the first author thesis, which was submitted to CBS
International Business School.
References
Alamelu, R., & Meena, L. (2015). Store and Online Grocery Shopping-A Customer Value
Perspective. TSM Business Review, 3(1), 54-68.
Anesbury, Z., Nenycz‐Thiel, M., Dawes, J., & Kennedy, R. (2016). How do shoppers behave
online? An observational study of online grocery shopping. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 15(3), 261-270. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1566
Aygün, T., & Ziemßen, F. (2018). E-Food. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. Retrieved from
https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/e-food-54212/version-277262
Bauerová, R., & Klepek, M. (2018). Technology acceptance as a determinant of online
grocery shopping adoption. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae
Mendelianae Brunensis, 66(3), 737-746.
https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201866030737
bevh. (March 15, 2020). Welche konkreten Auswirkungen hat die Epidemie aktuell auf Ihr
Unternehmen? [What concrete effects does the epidemic currently have on your
company?] [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved June 6, 2020, from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1104142/umfrage/auswirkungen-der-
corona-epidemie-im-e-commerce/
Bienstock, C.C. & Royne, M.B. (2010). Technology acceptance and satisfaction with logistics
services. The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, 271-
292. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574091011071951
Bitkom. (January 24, 2019). Welche der folgenden Lebensmittel oder Getränke haben Sie
schon mal online gekauft? [Which of the following foods or beverages have you ever
purchased online?] [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/960580/umfrage/online-gekaufte-
lebensmittel-und-getraenke-in-deutschland/
BVDW. (March 8, 2018a). Egal, ob Sie bereits Lebensmittel online gekauft haben oder nicht:
Was sind aus Ihrer Sicht die Nachteile, Lebensmittel online zu kaufen? [Whether or
not you have already bought food online, what do you think are the disadvantages of
buying food online?] [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/816274/umfrage/nachteile-des-online-
lebensmittelkaufs-in-deutschland/
BVDW. (March 8, 2018b). Egal, ob Sie bereits Lebensmittel online gekauft haben oder nicht:
Was sind aus Ihrer Sicht die Vorteile, Lebensmittel online zu kaufen? [Whether or not
you have already bought food online, what do you think are the advantages of buying
food online?] [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/816209/umfrage/vorteile-des-online-
lebensmittelkaufs-in-deutschland/
Capgemini. (January 10, 2019). The Last-Mile Delivery Challenge: Giving retail and
consumer product customers a superior delivery experience without hurting
profitability. Retrieved March 14, 2020, from https://www.capgemini.com/wp-

content/uploads/2019/01/Report-Digital-%E2%80%93-Last-Mile-Delivery-
Challenge1.pdf
Chu, J., Arce-Urriza, M., Cebollada-Calvo, J. J., & Chintagunta, P. K. (2010). An empirical
analysis of shopping behavior across online and offline channels for grocery products:
the moderating effects of household and product characteristics. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 24(4), 251-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2010.07.004
Crosscan. (June 4, 2020). Veränderung der Besucherfrequenz im Einzelhandel in Deutschland
von KW 42/2019 bis KW 22/2020 (gegenüber dem Vorjahr) [Change in visitor
frequency in the retail trade in Germany from week 42/2019 to week 22/2020
(compared to the previous year)]. [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved June 6, 2020, from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/291581/umfrage/besucherfrequenz-im-
einzelhandel-in-deutschland-ggue-dem-vorjahr/
Dannenberg, P., Fuchs, M., Riedler, T., & Wiedemann, C. (2020). Digital transition by
COVID‐19 pandemic? The German food online retail. Tijdschrift voor economische
en sociale geografie, 111(3), 543-560.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dawes, J., & Nenycz-Thiel, M. (2014). Comparing retailer purchase patterns and brand
metrics for in-store and online grocery purchasing. Journal of Marketing
Management, 30(3-4), 364-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.813576
De Figueiredo, J.M. (2000): Finding Sustainable Profitability in Electronic Commerce. Sloan
Management Review, 41(4), S. 41-52.
Elms, J., De Kervenoael, R., & Hallsworth, A. (2016). Internet or store? An ethnographic
study of consumers' internet and store-based grocery shopping practices. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 32, 234-243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.07.002
Grant, D. B., Fernie, J., & Schulz, B. (2014). Enablers and barriers in German online food
retailing. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3, 4-11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2014.11517346
Günday, G., Kooij, S., Moulton, J., Karabon, M., & Omeñaca, J. (2020, December 02). How
European shoppers will buy groceries in the next normal. Retrieved February 19,
2021, from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/how-european-
shoppers-will-buy-groceries-in-the-next-normal
Hanus, G. (2016). Consumer Behaviour During Online Grocery Shopping. In CBU
International Conference Proceedings, Vol. 4, 10-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12955/cbup.v4.737
HDE. (May 20, 2019). B2C-e-commerce revenue in Germany from 1999 to 2019 (in billion
euros) [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved March 14, 2020, from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/454371/e-commerce-revenue-germany/
IfH Köln. (January 29, 2020a). Lebensmittel online – heute und 2030 [Food online - today
and 2030]. Retrieved March 14, 2020, from
https://www.ifhkoeln.de/pressemitteilungen/details/ifh-prognose-
onlinelebensmittelhandel-steigt-bis-2030-auf-bis-zu-9-prozent/
IfH Köln. (May 19, 2020b). Anteil der Befragten, die ihre Einkäufe online getätigt haben statt
im Geschäft [Share of respondents who made their purchases online instead of in-
store] [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved June 6, 2020, from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1113346/umfrage/aenderung-des-
einkaufsverhaltens-waehrend-der-corona-krise/
Kenning, P., & Krieger W. (2018). Lieferservice. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. Retrieved from
https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/lieferservice-38290/version-261714
Kirchgeorg, M. (2018). Kundendienst. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. Retrieved from
https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/kundendienst-40742/version-264120
LZ. (September 14, 2018). Marktanteile von Lebensmittel-Lieferservices in Deutschland im
Jahr 2018 [Market shares of food delivery services in Germany in 2018] [Graph].
In Statista. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/349407/umfrage/marktanteile-von-
lebensmittel-lieferservices-in-deutschland/
Malhotra, N., Nunan, D., & Birks, D. (2017). Marketing Research: An Applied Approach. (5
ed.) Pearson.
Markgraf, D. (2018). Qualität. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. Retrieved from
https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/qualitaet-45908/version-269195
Melis, K., Campo, K., Breugelmans, E., & Lamey, L. (2015). The impact of the multi-channel
retail mix on online store choice: does online experience matter? Journal of
Retailing, 91(2), 272-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.12.004
Munson, J., Tiropanis, T., & Lowe, M. (2017). Online grocery shopping: Identifying change
in consumption practices. In International Conference on Internet Science, 192-211.
Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_16
Plasch, M., Kellermayr-Scheucher M., & Lengauer E. (2014). Logistical Challenges and
Potentials in Multi-Channel Food Retailing and Distribution. In Proceedings of the
14th International Scientific Conference on Business Logistics in Modern
Management, 23–29. Osijek.
Schu, M. (2020, March 25). Corona-Krise - So kämpfen die E-Food-Händler. [Corona crisis -
How e-food retailers are fighting]. E-tailment. Retrieved May 8, 2020 from
https://etailment.de/news/stories/Coronakrise-ecommerce-Food-LEH-22902
Seidel, S., Mareï, N., & Blanquart, C. (2016). Innovations in e-grocery and logistics solutions
for cities. Transportation Research Procedia, 12, 825-835.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.02.035
Seitz, C. (2013). E-grocery as new innovative distribution channel in the German food
retailing. In Proceedings of the MakeLearn International Conference (pp. 125-133).
Seitz, C., Pokrivčák, J., Tóth, M., & Plevný, M. (2017). Online grocery retailing in Germany:
An explorative analysis. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(6),
1243-1263. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2017.1410218
Sreeram, A., Kesharwani, A. & Desai, S. (2017). Factors affecting satisfaction and loyalty in
online grocery shopping: an integrated model. Journal of Indian Business Research,
Vol. 9 No. 2, 107-132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-01-2016-0001
Statista. (January 10, 2020). E-commerce revenue forecast in Germany from 2017 to 2024, by
segment (in billion U.S. dollars) [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved March 14, 2020, from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/480260/e-commerce-revenue-in-germany-fashion-
by-segments/
Statista. (Oktober 15, 2019). Verteilung der Nutzer im E-Commerce-Markt für Lebensmittel
und Getränke nach Altersgruppen in Deutschland im Jahr 2019 [Distribution of users
in the e-commerce market for food and beverages by age group in Germany in 2019]
[Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/490456/umfrage/e-commerce-nutzer-im-
segment-nahrungsmittel-und-getraenke-nach-alter-und-geschlecht-in-deutschland/
Statista. (June 29, 2018). Erwartete Umsätze im E-Commerce-Segment Lebensmittel &
Getränke in ausgewählten Ländern weltweit 2018 (in Millionen Euro) [Expected
revenues in the E-Commerce segment Food & Beverages in selected countries
worldwide 2018 (in million Euro)] [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved March 14, 2020,
from https://de.statista.com/prognosen/490371/umsaetze-im-e-commerce-markt-
lebensmittel-und-getraenke-nach-laendern-weltweit
Statistisches Bundesamt. (May 29, 2020). Monatliche Entwicklung des
Einzelhandelsumsatzes in Deutschland nach Wirtschaftsbereichen im April 2020
(gegenüber dem Vorjahresmonat) [Monthly development of retail trade turnover in
Germany by economic sector in April 2020 (compared to the same month last year)].
[Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved June 6, 2020, from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1108716/umfrage/monatlicher-umsatz-im-
einzelhandel-nach-wirtschaftsbereichen/
Theuvsen, L., & Schütte, R. (2013). Lebensmittel im Electronic Commerce: Historische
Entwicklung und aktuelle Trends. [Food in electronic commerce: historical
development and current trends]. Massendatenmanagement in der Agrar-und
Ernährungswirtschaft–Erhebung–Verarbeitung–Nutzung, 339-342.
https://dl.gi.de/bitstream/handle/20.500.12116/17648/339.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed
=y
Voigt, K.I., & Krieger, W. (2018). Auftragsabwicklung. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. Retrieved
from.https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/auftragsabwicklung-
29192/version-252805

The Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic On The German E-Grocery Industry With Respect To Challenges For Retailers and Customer Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic On The German E-Grocery Industry With Respect To Challenges For Retailers and Customer Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Marketing Management and Consumer Behavior, Vol.

3, Issue 3 (2021) 1-31

The Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on the German

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Journal of Marketing Management and Consumer Behavior

Journal of Marketing Management and Consumer Behavior (ISSN-Canada: 2371-3615)

Consumer Behaviour in the E-Grocery Industry

Table 1: Literature Review on Consumer Behaviour in the E-Grocery Industry

Supply Chain Management in the E-Grocery Industry

Table 2: Literature Review on Supply Chain Management in the E-Grocery Industry

France uses the

“click & collect” is

Table 3: Framework for Social Media Research

Result and Discussion

Omnichannel’s Delivery Service

Figure 1: Share of comments each category received: Omnichannels

Figure 2: Share of comments each category received: Pure online

Table 4: Results of Analysis of Omnichannel Comments

Positive Negative Total

2. Available 10 198 208

Pure Online Supermarket

Table 5: Results of Analysis of Pure online’s Comments

Positive Negative Total

135 371 506

Discussion and Recommendations

Limitations and Further Study Recommendations

coronavirus pandemic in combination with the perceived customer satisfaction led to an

profitability. Retrieved March 14, 2020, from https://www.capgemini.com/wp-

You might also like