Price of Convenience — The Hidden Costs of 15-Minute Delivery Apps.

In 2024, India’s quick commerce market was estimated at over $3 billion, with projections to reach approximately $9 billion by 2028. As someone in my late 20s living in a tier 1 city in India, I’ve witnessed the explosive growth of quick commerce apps like BlinkIt, Zepto, Instamart, and others. The market is becoming increasingly competitive, with new entrants like M-Now and SNAC launching this quarter, alongside major players such as Flipkart and Amazon making their entry into the space.

Initially, these apps were great for essential items. I remember using BlinkIt for something as simple as a toothbrush when I forgot to bring it on a trip. But now, opening the app offers access to thousands of products — from blenders, cameras, daily planners to party decorations. The convenience of 15-minute delivery is undeniably tempting.

When you look at these apps, it’s easy to think you’re saving both time and money. Take, for example, a ₹680 makeup product on a Q-commerce app, currently discounted by ₹130 compared to the same item in a general store. At first glance, the deal seems like a no-brainer. But when you factor in the full scope of the hidden costs, the picture changes.

Yes, you’re saving time by not going to the store, and perhaps a little on petrol. But what you’re not accounting for is the energy and carbon footprint required to fulfil your order. The product has to be picked up from a company warehouse or wholesaler, transported to a dark store (a small warehouse designed specifically for fast deliveries), and then delivered to your door — often by a delivery person on a petrol-powered bike. Add to that the packaging, often made from single-use plastics, and the carbon emissions involved in each step of this process.

When we buy products via Q-commerce platforms, we don’t just pay for the item in the cart. The app itself — pushing notifications, processing orders, managing data — requires energy too. From the servers running 24/7 to the constant demand on the delivery system, this tech-driven convenience is powered by an invisible carbon footprint. And all of this is being driven by consumer demand for instant gratification.

Now multiply this by the millions of orders placed every day. And factor in that more people are ordering items they may not necessarily need at the moment — impulse buys triggered by a sale or the irresistible promise of speed. This is where the hidden environmental cost starts to add up.

This shift in consumer behaviour is concerning. Products that once moved from a wholesaler to a retailer and then to you now, move through more channels, increasing the carbon emissions associated with each purchase. We’re also paying for the carbon emissions embedded in the entire supply chain — what’s known as Scope 3 emissions in the world of sustainability. To put it simply, these emissions are not directly within the company’s control, but they are a byproduct of its business model.

That said, quick commerce is an excellent solution for getting essentials quickly, especially in emergencies or for daily needs. Q-commerce solves a very real problem in our busy lives. But fast-forward to 2024 — it’s not just essentials- it’s everything. From fashion to electronics, everything available at a lightning speed. Do we really need that blue dress within 15 minutes or the latest model of the iPhone in 20 minutes? The desire for instant gratification is an important cultural shift that companies are capitalizing on. But at what point do we stop and ask: Do I really need this product now? This trend fuels overconsumption, particularly in fast fashion, and that’s where the real environmental cost emerges.

Take fast fashion as an example: once, you would have gone to the store, tried on a few outfits, and maybe walked away empty-handed, or purchased something that would last for a season or two. Now, with the click of a button, you can get that trendy blue dress delivered in 15 minutes. What this does is create a culture of “buy now, regret later,” where consumers are buying cheap, disposable goods at an unsustainable rate. The environmental impact of fast fashion — the water consumption, carbon emissions, and waste — is well-documented. Quick commerce only amplifies it.

While it’s clear that the quick commerce boom has a considerable environmental footprint, there are efforts underway to mitigate these effects. Some companies are making strides toward sustainability by introducing eco-friendly packaging, using electric bikes and vehicles for delivery, optimizing routes, and consolidating orders. But even with these efforts, the underlying issue remains: our instant need for non essentials products is driving a broader environmental challenge. There is a trade-off between convenience and the environment. The reality is, when given a choice between convenience and the environment, convenience often wins. And that’s the unfortunate truth.

It’s crucial to ask ourselves if we really need that new outfit in 30 minutes, or if waiting a few hours — or even a day — would do. When we opt for speed, we may save time, but at what cost to the environment? As consumers, it’s up to us to push for more sustainable solutions, to hold companies accountable, and to choose carefully what we truly need. The convenience of 15-minute deliveries should not come at the expense of the planet’s future.