Cognitive-Biased Decision on Courier Express Parcel Market and the Effect of Narratives

Abstract

Background: Extensive research highlights the economic benefits of collaboration among parcel delivery service providers, yet mutually advantageous cooperative arrangements remain limited in Hungary’s online shopping sector. Service providers typically prefer to operate independently rather than cooperate with competitors. However, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered industry dynamics, leading to increased collaboration. Methods: Against this backdrop, this study explores two key research questions. First, it examines the role of economic narratives in shaping market dynamics. Second, it investigates the cognitive biases influencing decision-makers during the pandemic, based on an analysis of Hungary’s parcel delivery sector. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key actors in the logistics industry, and the data were analyzed using abductive thematic analysis. Results: The findings reveal that specific economic narratives, such as those emphasizing efficiency and safety, indirectly influenced market mechanisms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, the shift in consumer demand towards contactless parcel lockers created new incentives for collaboration. Additionally, this study demonstrates that decision-makers exhibited cognitive biases such as risk aversion, which affected their willingness to cooperate. Conclusions: The research concludes that strong economic incentives can override these biases, fostering collaboration among service providers.

1. Introduction

Recent years have seen an enormous change in the Courier Express Parcel (CEP) sector, mostly due to the rapid expansion of e-commerce [1]. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated growth by shifting consumer preferences to online shopping, leading to a sharp rise in parcel volumes. This surge in e-commerce has heightened the demand for efficient parcel delivery services while simultaneously amplifying the industry’s environmental impact [2].

Among the various strategies proposed to address these challenges, cooperative logistics has emerged as a promising solution. Ref. [3] highlights that collaboration among service providers can yield considerable economic benefits by optimizing resource utilization and reducing operational costs. However, despite these apparent advantages, the adoption of collaborative models in the CEP sector remains limited [4].

Managers often settle for satisfactory rather than fully rational choices, reflecting deviations from optimal decision-making [5]. The limited collaboration among CEP service providers may stem from hidden factors influencing executives’ decisions. Cognitive biases studied extensively in behavioral science heavily influence managerial decisions [6]. Additionally, decision-making can be swayed by circulating news or rumors that impact both decision-makers and their environments. Rumors from global events, markets, or personal life can spread quickly, influencing behavior in line with these the narratives [7]. Economic narratives can shape behavioral patterns, though their occurrence and effects are often unpredictable.

An intriguing phenomenon pertaining to Hungarian CEP market cooperation was observed by the authors of this article. Prior to 2021, the leading companies in the Hungarian CEP market did not collaborate; however, following 2021, this collaboration was created. The authors made the following assumptions in order to comprehend the phenomenon: (1) Prior to 2021, the decision-maker’s decision was likely biased by non-rational behavior, which led to the rejection of cooperation; (2) following 2021, this behavior was overcome by an event that bolstered the decision-makers’ economic interests, meaning that during the study period, there was likely an economic narrative that persuaded the decision-maker to accept cooperation. This study investigates why CEP providers initially resisted cooperation and what factors later encouraged it. The analysis herein focuses on broader market behavior by examining economic data and cooperation patterns in the Hungarian CEP sector before and after 2020.

To achieve this, this study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: Is there a narrative that can be identified for explaining the behavioral shifts in the Hungarian CEP market?

RQ2: Is there any evidence for the presence of cognitive biases in the decision-makers’ thoughts and behavior regarding cooperation?

Hungarian parcel logistics began to take shape in the 2000s. Leading companies from around the world, including DHL, TNT, GLS, and DPD, first entered the Hungarian market. At this time, Magyar Posta was the only Hungarian company operating in the market. Some players left the market as the years went by as a result of reorganizations and consolidations, while new players were also established. The main characteristic of the Hungarian CEP market is that the participants establish a separate HUB–Depot structure and operation, do not aim to share resources, and the competition amongst them is fierce. Nine companies dominate the majority of the market: GLS, MPL (Magyar Posta), DPD, Express One, Sprinter, Foxpost, Packeta, Delivery Solutions (Sameday), and Home Delivery. The listing order likewise reflects the market ranking. Players in the Hungarian CEP market typically use both their own and subcontracted resources. While some players outsource a greater percentage of their work to courier services, others use a significant percentage of their own staff. Regarding the quantity or data of smaller businesses (couriers) on the Hungarian market, no reliable source is available. It is particularly important to note that until 2021, the dominant players were characterized by individualistic operation. In 2021, however, situations began to change as Express One started working with Packeta and Foxpost, and MPL started working with Packeta. Cooperation amongst the major stakeholders increased in 2022 and continues to this day.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in Hungary, online trade and, as a result, the number of parcels to be delivered increased, and consumer preferences shifted unpredictably, with customers increasingly favoring contactless deliveries [8]. The resulting demand surge heightened the need for parcel lockers which only a few providers could meet. Consequently, service providers in the Hungarian CEP market that did not have a parcel locker network started collaborating with those that did.

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with managers representing 95% of the Hungarian CEP market. Understanding how the players perceive collaboration and the factors that influenced their decision to collaborate negatively prior to 2021 and positively after that year was the goal of the interviews. The collected data were analyzed using the abductive thematic analysis method, which integrates logical reasoning with quantitative evidence to support the explanations provided by interviewees [9].

The analysis had two fundamental goals: (1) to prove that the decisions of the leading players in the Hungarian CEP market contain cognitive biases; (2) to prove that an economic narrative was created in 2021 that changed their previous attitude towards cooperation. Five biases were identified by the authors when they analyzed the interview texts (confirmation, overconfidence, loss aversion, anchoring, and superiority). In addition, the interviewees provided comprehensive explanations of how e-commerce expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, how home delivery became more popular, and how the need for parcel locker machines rapidly increased.

Five key cognitive biases were found to influence managerial decisions significantly. The research reveals that managers frequently exhibit cognitive biases in their decision-making. Additionally, economic narratives influence their choices. However, financial shifts can override these biases, prompting managers to adapt their strategies. The authors deduced from the interview texts that a narrative was developed during the COVID pandemic to encourage contactless delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic, the rise in parcels, and shifting consumer preferences sparked a narrative that pushed actors to work collaboratively.

Cooperation in the Hungarian CEP market is not necessarily a unique global phenomenon. Although the number of players in the markets of neighboring countries of similar size is lower, market concentration began in the mid-2000s. DHL and Austrian Post have extended their cooperation to Slovakia and the Czech Republic, which are ahead of Hungary in this regard. However, this article’s limitation is that it can only make inferences about the Hungarian CEP market due to the lack of data.

Based on the above, the research findings are structured as follows: The Literature Review section provides an overview of the scientific background related to the analyzed sector, including economic narratives and cognitive biases. The Methodology section describes the research approach and examines the development of the Hungarian CEP market. The Results section presents the findings of the investigation supplemented with visual representations such as figures. The Discussion and Conclusion sections draw logical conclusions based on the analysis and formulate the answers to the research questions.

2. Literature Review

The logistics CEP market has undergone significant transformations in recent decades [1]. As Ref. [10] states, the constant price competition among the market players has compelled service providers to enhance efficiency, while maintaining high service quality [11]. At the same time, part of the basic operation of the CEP market is the delivery of parcels to recipients, which are supplied by trucks [12]. Consequently, daily traffic, urban traffic congestion, and environmental pollution caused by vehicles all involve parcel delivery trucks [13]. In order to lessen these damages and improve the quality of life in cities, local governments implement strict regulations. Ref. [2] states that the CEP market service providers are negatively impacted by the limitations and rules since they must further improve their operations in the highly competitive pricing environment.

The challenges within the CEP sector have been widely explored in the scientific literature, leading to various approaches to improve productivity while reducing costs [14]. One such approach is collaborations among service providers [3,13]. With regard to collaborations on the CEP market, horizontal and vertical collaborations can be distinguished. Ref. [15] defines horizontal cooperation as the collaboration of service providers who are on the same level and are rivals in this particular market. When there is a subordination relationship between the participants, the cooperation is vertical in nature [16]. The academic literature primarily focuses on horizontal collaboration when analyzing CEP market cooperation opportunities. By sharing resources, companies can lower operational expenses, reduce the number of trucks on the road, and mitigate their environmental impact [14,15]. Several studies have confirmed the effectiveness of cooperation among CEP stakeholders [2,17]. Through the creation of a multi-agent system, the authors of [18] emphasized the advantages of collaboration. According to the approach, every service provider works together to find a unique solution to the last mile delivery issue. Upon conducting the experiment, the agents’ complete cooperation led to a 45% cost reduction in the scenario where cost reduction was the only objective. In another example, in order to assess fuel consumption for a route plan in both cooperative and non-cooperative scenarios, the author of [19] created a mathematical model. In the instance of cooperation, the model produced a 19.02% fuel reduction with fewer vehicles utilized in the service. In a different simulation model of [3], the companies under investigation work together to run a depot and delivery trucks, and they also coordinate the picking-up activity. Two CEP market suppliers collaborated with the authors, contributing their data for the simulation. According to the simulation’s findings, businesses who formed partnerships might save up to 33% on costs and reduce dangerous substance emissions by 29%. Jointly operated depots, hubs, and transport networks decrease the distance traveled and help service providers manage rising operational costs more efficiently [20,21,22]. Research has consistently shown that participants in such cooperative models benefit from these arrangements [23,24,25]. Despite these advantages, cooperation within the CEP market remains rare [4]. Decision-makers may reject collaboration for various reasons, including the influence of cognitive biases [6]. Nevertheless, news reports have the power to influence decision-makers’ choices and result in unforeseen economic occurrences during a specific time frame [7]. This article requires an understanding of narratives and cognitive biases.

2.1. Narratives

According to the theory of narrative economics, individuals’ interpretations and communication of economic events provide valuable insight into economic fluctuations and behavior. As stated by [7], p. 792, the narratives are “stories that offer interpretations of economic events, or morals, of hints of theories about the economy”. These stories have the same infectious quality as viral diseases and have the power to shape collective economic behaviors. Narratives are effective instruments that have the capacity to shape collective behavior and therefore influence economic results [26,27]. Whether rooted in myths, reality, or a blend of both, these narratives resonate with fundamental emotions and psychological tendencies. According to Ref. [7], narratives are crucial as they contribute to the explanation of economic occurrences like financial market recessions. They can influence economic behavior as they circulate via social media and the news. Ref. [28] states that an explanation of the cause of a certain event, incident, or phenomena is supplied by narratives. Ref. [29] argues that narratives hold immense power in shaping economic outcomes. For a narrative to be economically significant, it must be a compelling story that emerges within a social context and motivates a group to act. Economic narratives can drive booms and busts, shape policy decisions, and influence long-term market trends. In addition, a narrative that relates the abstract equations to the real world is necessary for any mathematical model. Furthermore, Ref. [30] emphasizes that there is undoubtedly fictionality in the economy because these representations are not always grounded in objective reality. Fictitious expectations in economic decision-making often take narrative form, appearing as stories and theories that influence behaviors [31]. The effect of COVID-19 narratives on people’s expectancies was examined by [32]. They discovered that narratives have a substantial impact on economic decision-making in addition to altering people’s expectations about how the epidemic will progress. Furthermore, their findings demonstrated that a more negative narrative causes people to have negative emotional responses, such as increased fear. According to [33], people act more impatiently and risk aversely in economic games when the narrative surrounding COVID-19 is more negative.

2.2. Cognitive Biases

The concept of cognitive biases has been developed to explain systematic patterns of judgment that either align with or deviate from rational decision-making norms [34]. According to Ref. [35], cognitive biases have their origins in evolutionary adaptations. They contend that these biases are merely errors but mechanisms evolved to facilitate decision-making decisions under uncertainty. Ref. [36] states that cognitive biases were regarded as significant considerations in strategic planning and decision-making in earlier research. People frequently evaluate company developments based on their own values, perceptions, and prejudices, according to the authors. It is argued that political and boundedly rational processes influence strategic choices. Strategic decision-makers are therefore regarded as cognitively restricted. Ref. [37] argues that individuals frequently seek out and evaluate data in ways that are biased toward their ideas and expectations (confirmation bias) or overestimate the veracity of their conclusions (overconfidence bias). There is proof that a CEO’s overconfidence and risky-choice (loss/gain) effects influence managerial decision-making.

Ref. [38] states that cognitive biases significantly affect how decisions are made in various domains, including the CEP market. Since service provider executives are also prone to cognitive biases, these tendencies may foster anti-competitive behavior within the industry. To better understand the decision-making patterns of market players, this study examines several key biases, including confirmation bias, overconfidence bias, anchoring bias, loss aversion bias, and superiority bias.

According to [39], confirmation bias is the propensity to look for, analyze, and retain information in a way that supports one’s preconceived notions. Ref. [40] states that overconfidence bias refers to an individual’s overconfidence in their own abilities and assessments. An excessive dependence on a preliminary piece of information throughout the decision-making process is known as anchoring bias [41]. A cognitive bias known as loss aversion causes people to favor preventing losses above achieving comparable gains [42]. The propensity to think that one is better than others in a variety of qualities or skills is called superiority bias, or the better-than-average effect. This prejudice may cause one to have a skewed perception of their own abilities [43]. Improving strategic decision-making and encouraging collaboration within the CEP industry require an understanding of these biases.

The novelty of this article is that, to the best of our knowledge, it has not been previously examined whether economic narrative influenced the behavior of CEP market participants during the COVID pandemic. Furthermore, the examination of cognitive bias in the decision-making process has not, to the best of our knowledge, been identified in relation to CEP market decision-makers.

3. Methodology

The authors analyzed the evolution of the Hungarian CEP market over the past five years, revealing that, before 2020, collaboration among the dominant service providers was virtually nonexistent. However, this changed during the first phase of the examined period, when major industry players began forming cooperative arrangements.

This study seeks to understand the factors behind this shift, focusing on how underlying narratives shaped market behavior and whether cognitive biases influenced decision-makers’ resistance to or acceptance of cooperation.

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with top managers from companies representing 95% of the Hungarian CEP market to explore these issues. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, the identities of the interviewees and their companies remain confidential. Interviews, which lasted between 60 and 90 min, focused on decision-making processes related to cooperation, particularly the role of perceptual biases and the influence of prevailing economic narratives.

Several factors may have shaped decision-making, including market position, regulatory environment, contractual relationships, and IT system development. The abductive thematic analysis method was employed to analyze the collected data, allowing for the identification of both expected patterns and previously unrecognized cognitive and narrative-driven influences on cooperative behavior within the Hungarian CEP market.

3.1. Abductive Thematic Analysis

This research aims to identify the most plausible explanation for the observed phenomena using data from interview transcripts. The analysis employs abductive inference, a reasoning approach that involves inferring the premise from the conclusion [44]. Abductive reasoning is commonly used in qualitative research to generate meaningful interpretations in ambiguous situations, as it focuses on identifying the simplest and most plausible explanation based on observations [45].

Abductive thematic analysis aims to identify themes—significant or insightful patterns in the data—and use them to construct a logical argument. A strong abductive thematic analysis does more than summarize findings; it uncovers deeper meanings, including hidden content. According to [9], it is therefore the researchers’ responsibility to condense, synthesize, and reorganize data into relevant information, ensuring readers can clearly understand the theoretical and practical implications of the findings. To conduct this analysis, this study follows the 8-step framework for abductive thematic analysis outlined by Ref. [9], illustrated in Figure 1.

The recorded interviews were first transcribed to produce raw text data. This transcription then served as the foundation for the initial coding process, which was guided by the research questions. Any text or data segment deemed noteworthy or relevant to the research questions was highlighted. The coding followed an open coding approach, meaning no predefined codes were applied. Instead, the codes were created dynamically as the text was read and analyzed. Once coding was complete, the next step was identifying patterns and recurring themes relevant to the study.

Using Microsoft Excel, themes were listed and corresponding quotes from the interview transcripts were documented. This process facilitated the development of sub-themes, which helped refine the interpretation of coded language. The themes and sub-themes were then iteratively reviewed to ensure accuracy, eliminate misinterpretations, and resolve ambiguities where similar terms had different contextual meanings. The final arrangement of themes and sub-themes was structured, linked, and recorded in an Excel table.

The last stage involved assigning definitive meanings and purposes to each theme and sub-theme. To avoid the influence (bias) of the author conducting the analysis, all steps, from iterative verification of coding, creation of themes, and linking the texts spoken by the interviewees to the theme, were checked and discussed by the authors together. The results of the abductive thematic analysis and pattern identification are presented in

Table 1. Abductive thematic analysis—Themes–Sub-themes.

Theme	Subtheme
Market position and power dynamics	Teams up—collaborate	Market position
	Collaboration=NO	Acquisition
Regulatory challenges and contracts	Contract, competition law	Urge (pressure)
	Regulatory decision
Trust and brand image	Personality	Trust
	Business interest	Information, IT
	Brand
Collaboration opportunities	Urge (pressure)	Teams up—collaborate
	Sharing-cost savings
	Personality
Barriers to collaboration	Information, IT	Personality
	Customer theft	Acquisition
	Collaboration=NO
	Lack of interest
Economic background	Business interest
	Information, IT
	Market position

Source: own elaboration.

with the following theme definitions:

The theme Market position and power dynamics includes the interviewees’ perceptions of their roles within the market and the overall power dynamics among participants. The Regulatory challenges and contracts theme encompasses findings related to legal frameworks, contracts, and industry regulations. The Trust and brand image theme includes statements regarding trust, reputation, and their own brand. As the main focus of the interviews, the Collaboration opportunities theme was developed for the perceptions and ideas that encourage cooperation, while the Barriers to collaboration theme was developed for the attitudes that inhibit it. The Economic background theme was developed to contextualize market events between 2020 and 2024, based on the substantial information disclosed about individual companies and the industry.

The application of the abductive thematic analysis method revealed patterns that outline thematic arguments for and against cooperation while offering a detailed examination of the current state of the CEP industry. This analysis highlights key driving forces, opportunities, and limitations shaped by individual market actors’ position.

Following the identifications of patterns in the interview data, the next phase involved analysis and interpretation. This process required evaluating the data about the research questions, considering the interviewees’ perspectives and responses, drawing logical conclusions, and ultimately formulating answers to the research questions.

A clear understanding of the historical development of the Hungarian CEP sector—discussed in the following subsection—is essential for contextualizing the interview findings and accurately interpreting the results.

3.2. Hungarian CEP Market

A clear understanding of the history of the Hungarian CEP sector is essential for accurately interpreting the interview findings and drawing meaningful conclusions. The early 2000s marked the beginning of the Hungarian CEP market developing in parallel with CEP markets across the Visegrád region. According to the 2006 edition of Supply Chain Monitor’s, the Hungarian CEP market was valued at approximately EUR 195 million in 2005 [46]. Like other Central and Eastern European countries, Hungary experienced exceptionally high growth rates in its CEP sector during this period.

By the mid-2000s four multinational corporations (DHL, TNT, GLS, and DPD) were present in every nation in the region, and among them were the revenue leaders of the market (typically TNT and DHL). In Hungary, DHL dominated the market with TNT following closely behind. However, the largest domestic player was undeniably Magyar Posta.

One key distinction between Hungary and its regional counterparts was the lack of market consolidation. While other Central and Eastern European markets saw significant acquisitions by multinational firms, Hungary remained an exception, as key local market participants were not acquired for reasons that remain unclear. This multi-actor structure has remained a defining characteristic of the Hungarian CEP market [46].

Over the past almost-20 years, the Hungarian CEP market has undergone substantial changes, with significant restructuring among integrators and major global corporations. Notably, TNT’s market share has declined significantly, while DHL has almost completely exited the Hungarian Market. Meanwhile, GLS and DPD have expanded considerably, and alongside Magyar Posta, a new Hungarian competitor, Sprinter, has emerged.

Today, CEP market participants in Hungary continue to operate independently, developing their networks and infrastructure. Parcel deliveries are managed through a combination of internal resources and courier subcontractor companies manage parcel deliveries.

Building on the review of the past two decades, this section aims to provide insight into recent developments within the Hungarian CEP sector. The COVID-19 outbreak, which began in 2019, marked a new chapter in the history of online commerce, accelerating significant shifts in parcel delivery methods.

While home delivery remains the most widely used option in Hungary, alternative delivery solutions—such as parcel pick-up points and parcel locker machines—have gained traction in recent years. Despite substantial structural changes over the past 20 years, the Hungarian CEP market remains highly competitive, with numerous players operating during the examined period.

According to annual parcel logistics reports, the market size in 2023 reached approximately EUR 500 million, nearly three times the valuation recorded in 2005 [46,47]. The market is dominated by seven major firms, with several smaller companies behind.

Since 2019, GLS has held the leading market position, followed by Magyar Posta, DPD, and Express One. Figure 2 illustrates the market share distribution and trends from 2020 to 2023.

In 2015, parcel pick-up points and parcel locker networks were introduced to the market; however, Hungarian customers continue to prefer home delivery (Figure 3a,b).

A notable trend in the market share of CEP service providers emerged between 2020 and 2023. During this period, two new companies (Foxpost (Budapest, Hungary) and Packeta (Fót, Hungary)) entered the market, focusing exclusively on parcel locker deliveries in Hungary. Although their initial revenues were modest, their sales grew nearly fourfold between 2020 and 2023.

Customers’ preferences shifted significantly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which triggered a surge in e-commerce activity. This, in turn, led to increased demand for parcel lockers, driven by a growing preference for contactless deliveries and home delivery services.

The development of the Hungarian CEP market has also followed a distinct trajectory compared to previous trends. Before 2020, no formal cooperation was recorded among the leading market players. However, starting in 2021, the number of collaborative partnerships has increased annually (

Table 2. Growth of collaboration among CEP service providers (2020–2024).

Company	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
	Collaborative Partners	Collaborative Partners	Collaborative Partners	Collaborative Partners	Collaborative Partners
GLS	No	No	No	No	No
MPL	No	No	Packeta	Express One, Boxy, Packeta	Express One, Boxy, Packeta, DPD
DPD	No	No	Alzabox, Packeta	Alzabox, Boxy, Packeta	Alzabox, Boxy, Packeta, MPL
Express One	No	Foxpost, ViddL	Foxpost, ViddL, Alzabox, Packeta, Eurodis	Foxpost, ViddL, Alzabox, Packeta, Eurodis, MPL	Foxpost, ViddL, Alzabox, Packeta, Eurodis, MPL
Sprinter	No	No	No	No	Sameday acquisition
Foxpost	No	Express One, Gebrüder Weiss	Express One, Gebrüder Weiss	Express One, Gebrüder Weiss, Quehenberger Logistics	Express One, Gebrüder Weiss, Quehenberger Logistics
Packeta	NA	MPL, Express One, DPD, Fáma, Sprinter	MPL, Express One, DPD	MPL, Express One, DPD	MPL, Express One, DPD
Delivery Solutions Zrt. (Sameday Easybox)	No	No	No	No	No

Source: own elaboration based on data of Ref. [47]. Data for 2024 are closed at the end of first semester of 2024.

).

Through a series of interviews with industry professionals, the authors examined market developments from 2020 to 2023 from an insider’s perspective. This investigation explores the potential influence of narrative economics and cognitive biases in shaping market dynamics and decision-making processes.

4. Results

As previously noted, the service providers are identified by using pseudonyms throughout the analysis and are referred to as follows: Company A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I.

The primary focus of the interviews was collaboration within the CEP market. Interviewees were asked to share their perspectives on potential collaboration among service providers, discuss the factors driving collaboration, and identify barriers to cooperation. Additionally, each respondent provided an overview of their company’s market position before and after 2020.

A key aspect of the discussions was trust, particularly its role in fostering cooperation and whether economic interests outweigh the necessity of trust in decision-making. Following transcription and processing, 256 interview quotes formed the basis of the analysis. From these data, six main themes and fifteen sub-themes were identified. While two themes specifically captured arguments for and against collaboration, all six themes impacted collaborative dynamics within the market. Figure 4 presents a bar chart illustrating the frequency of each theme mentioned across the dataset.

In the following paragraphs, answers from the interviewees are presented from different perspectives. In addition to the visualization, the answers assigned to the individual themes and sub-themes are revealed by quoting the interviewees’ texts. Quotations are marked in italics, followed by the quotation’s identifier in parentheses, as well as the line in which the quoted text is found in the quotation list. The final conclusion is drawn based on the quoting of the interviewees’ texts and the themes and sub-themes.

The Market position and power dynamics theme highlighted service providers’ competitive standing and strategic outlook. For the most part, market position does not compel collaboration, or at least does not necessitate it: “We provide a complete portfolio, we don’t need any cooperation” (Line 18, Company F; “We are so strong on the market we may not even need to work with anyone” (Line 37, Company H). Additionally, some companies prioritize acquisitions over partnerships: “The future objective and mission of companies is Acquisitions” (Line 33, Company H). A similar sentiment was expressed regarding market size, with one participant arguing that the Hungarian CEP market is not large enough to justify cooperation: “Because of the size of the country, there is no need to collaborate” (Line 7, Company G).

However, some perspectives on cooperation were more nuanced. Even a respondent who opposed cooperation acknowledged that they would consider it under an exclusive contract. Meanwhile, another interviewee viewed exclusivity as impractical: “in logistics there is practically no such thing as exclusivity “(Line 75, Company E). Internationally, city administrations have mandated cooperation among CEP providers. Reflecting on this, one interviewee observed: “There is no forced situation in the country, and there is no regulation that would prompt to collaborate” (Line 82, Company I). Another respondent viewed the same issue differently, emphasizing that regulatory requirements could compel cooperation: “In case of regulation, you are forced to collaborate” (Line 70, Company G).

Clarifying contractual conditions was an important topic in the interviews. From a strict legal standpoint, cooperation is essentially an assignment—one company commissions another to perform a task. However, a distinction exists between standard subcontracting and partnerships, despite contractual similarities: “We have subcontractors with whom the relationship is impersonal, there is a partnership with, but the contract type is the same” (Line 51, Company A).

With regard to the theme of Trust and brand image, the actors unanimously agreed that collaboration cannot exist without trust: “In collaboration, trust takes everything” (Line 92, Company B). However, those who opposed collaboration from a market position standpoint expressed a lack of trust in potential partners: “We don’t trust them” (Line 109, Company F). Despite these concerns, there was consensus that economic interests can override trust issues: “The sudden economic interest can overrule trust issues” (Line 93, Company B). When discussing the relationship between trust and economic interests, interviewees acknowledged the difficulty in determining which comes first when establishing a cooperation: “What is before, the chicken or egg” (Line 115, Company G). Additionally, four interviewees emphasized personality as equally important as trust in fostering collaboration: “In the background there are interpersonal connections” (Line 124, Company E). Another critical factor for companies and managers is brand protection, which they consider essential to maintaining their market position: “The brand is essential, we also protect our brand” (Line 113, Company G).

A fascinating aspect of the analysis was the balance between supporting and opposing collaboration viewpoints. Both themes —Collaboration opportunities and Barriers to collaboration—were referenced 51 times each out of 256 total interview quotes. The distribution of the responses regarding collaboration opportunities and barriers is illustrated in Figure 5a,b.

The Collaboration opportunities theme allowed interviewees to explain why and under what conditions they collaborate. Some participants indicated that they “buy” the necessary competence when expanding their service portfolio, effectively engaging in collaboration: “Our collaborations are more focused on portfolio expansion” (Line 133, Company A). Several interviewees highlighted opportunities for collaboration in the parcel locker segment: “There is also collaboration on parcel lockers” (Line 139, Company B). Additionally, one respondent emphasized that collaboration could extend beyond last mile process, suggesting joint depot rentals and shared line haul deliveries: “Cooperatives could be considered in the case of expiring lease contracts” (Line 143, Company C). A key argument in favor of collaboration was cost reduction through resource sharing: “Cost savings can occur when collaborating” (Line 154, Company F). Some participant mentioned forced collaborations, where external factors—such as regulations, limited resources, or sudden portfolio expansion—necessitate cooperation: “We were forced for collaboration, we had to expand the portfolio” (Line 81, Company I). The discussion also indicated that collaboration is largely dependent on individual attitudes, with business culture and managerial personalities playing a significant role: “Striving for collaboration is certainly a matter of attitude” (Line 149, Company D). Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of the sub-themes within the Collaboration opportunities category. The majority of responses fall under “Teams up—collaborate,” while a smaller portion refers to collaboration due to external pressure (“Urge/Pressure”), cost-saving measures (“Sharing—cost savings”), and the influence of corporate culture and managerial personality (“Personality”) in establishing partnerships.

In general, a sizable percentage of interviewees believe that cooperation offers prospects for resource sharing, cost reduction, or even portfolio expansion. However, forced collaboration (through regulations) is also mentioned, as well as the personality traits and corporate culture required for collaboration.

The Barriers to collaboration theme allowed interviewees to explain why they are reluctant to collaborate or what obstacles prevent cooperation. According to the respondents, numerous challenges make forming collaborations difficult.

The majority of interviewees expressed a lack of interest in collaboration, either because they perceive it as too difficult or because they see no clear benefit. Some categorically opposed the idea, believing that collaboration is unnecessary: “We’ll never collaborate.” (Line 221, Company F). Others resisted collaboration due to concerns about strengthening competitors. For example, one interviewee opposed partnering with parcel locker companies for home deliveries, fearing it would help competitors expand their networks: “We don’t want to collaborate with a parcel locker company in home delivery, because we are afraid of building their network with it” (Line 188, Company B). Additionally, operational differences were cited as a barrier to cooperation, particularly misaligned schedules among service providers: “Different schedules of service providers limit collaborations” (Line 196, Company C).

Interviewees unexpectedly cited the company culture and the managerial personalities as barriers to collaboration. Notably, while only one interviewee mentioned personal or cultural factors as a reason to collaborate, several interviewees highlighted these aspects as obstacles: “The Hungarian is not integrated” (Line 191, Company B). Additionally, interviewees pointed to personality-related barriers, including individual limitations: “Human personality limits” (Line 192, Company B); pride as an obstacle: “Pride is often an obstacle” (Line 200, Company C); and personal perceptions of partners: “Personal perception of the partner” (Line 205, Company D).

A significant number of interviewees attributed reluctance to collaborate to a lack of interest, asserting that service providers can manage increased parcel volumes independently due to operational improvements in recent years: “Providers can handle the increased parcel volume on their own” (Line 230, Company I). Some interviewees viewed non-collaboration as a defensive strategy to protect their business from competitors: “We don’t want to feed our competitors” (Line 228, Company I). Additionally, concerns over customer loss emerged as a major barrier, with two interviewees citing the risk of customer data exposure as a reason to avoid collaboration: “The partner company will see my customer base, and also the parcel quantity” (Line 182, Company A). Several respondents identified IT systems integration as a major obstacle to collaboration: “It’s hard to align different systems” (Line 195, Company C); “The cost of IT development required for collaboration is high” (Line 202, Company D). In addition, some interviewees expressed concern about cannibalization, fearing that collaboration could negatively impact their market position: “Potential cannibalism” (Line 225, Company H). Figure 7 illustrates the distribution of sub-themes within the Barriers to collaboration category based on interview responses.

Overall, the Barriers to collaboration sub-theme yielded somewhat surprising results, as Collaboration opportunities showed a positive attitude. The barriers to collaboration, although similar in number to the quotes supporting collaboration, are much more diverse. Some are categorically against collaboration or are not interested in collaboration. At the same time, the fear of customer theft, difficulties due to differences in IT systems, the personality of individual managers, or the anti-collaboration of the company culture are also reflected in the responses.

The amount of pro- and anti-collaboration quotes that the interviewees provided throughout the session are broken into detail in Figure 8.

Based on the number of quotes cited, Figure 8 suggests that three corporate representatives support collaboration, while five company representatives are more opposed to it. The figure’s intriguing aspect is that, whilst the head of Company E raised no objections to cooperation at all, the leader of Company F provided the same number of arguments against and in favor of cooperation.

As previously noted, the interview responses provided insights into market dynamics, particularly regarding pre- and post-COVID circumstances, rather than serving as explicit defenses or criticisms of collaboration. Using this information, the authors developed the Economic background theme, to help assess market conditions.

Regarding the companies’ economic environment and market position, nearly all interviewees raised the issue of parcel lockers. During the COVID-19 crisis, demand for parcel lockers surged: “It was not only Covid that caused market changes, but the expansion of parcel lockers” (Line 238, Company D). Additionally, some statements about collaboration opportunities did not fit neatly into the Collaboration opportunities or the Barriers to collaboration theme, as they were more general in nature: “I think that there is no fruitful partnership without mutual economic benefits” (Line 254, Company E). Interviewees also confirmed that COVID-19 had a clear impact on the market, exposing weaknesses in some companies: “COVID has shown where a player has a weak leg” (Line 250, Company H). Moreover, some respondents highlighted general concerns about market uncertainty: “The market is not predictable.” (Line 224, Company G).

The Economic background theme made it possible to examine and understand the factors that affected the CEP market during the COVID pandemic. The drastic increase in demand for parcel locker machines highlighted the weaknesses as well as the strengths of market players. For CEP market participants, the entire market became unpredictable due to the abrupt shift in customer behavior. Comprehending and interpreting the events of the COVID pandemic in context is crucial for understanding the shifts that took place in the Hungarian CEP market in 2021.

5. Discussion

The semi-structured interviews provided valuable insights into the Hungarian CEP market from the perspective of key industry players, offering a deeper understanding of its inner workings. The authors aimed to explore why decision-makers choose to collaborate—or refrain from doing so—given that some companies had initiated partnerships at specific points in time.

The open-ended nature of the interviews allowed for a clearer perception of how economic narratives and cognitive biases influence decision-makers, and a deeper understanding of the driving forces and obstacles shaping market dynamics.

Beyond these findings, this study revealed another notable insight—the rise in consumer demand for parcel lockers between 2020 and 2021, which unexpectedly impacted the Hungarian CEP market.

5.1. To Collaborate or Not Collaborate

Interviewees presented an equal number of arguments both for and against collaboration. However, all respondents acknowledged that, from an economic standpoint, collaboration and resource sharing benefit both parties.

Most industry players viewed collaboration as a means of compensating for gaps in competencies. A prime example is the surge in demand for parcel lockers, which prompted service providers lacking their own parcel locker infrastructure to seek partners to expand their service offerings.

The prevailing sentiment among service providers is that smaller companies, which may struggle to offer comprehensive services, should consider collaborating with other providers to meet growing demand and increase parcel capacity. Rather than developing new services independently, many find it more practical to partner with established providers, particularly in niche service areas.

In the post-COVID landscape, several service providers expressed that collaborating with competitors to adapt to shifting market demands is preferable to making large-scale investments. However, from the responses of some respondents, it could be felt that the justification for cooperation often sounds too theoretical or idealized. Despite strong arguments in favor of collaboration, the interviews revealed that larger market players primarily view the collaboration issue through the lens of their dominant market position. Companies with a greater market share can provide more advanced services and have sufficient financial resources to develop their own portfolios rather than acquiring services from other providers.

The dominant players perceive their market strength as so substantial that they see little reason to collaborate and elevate competitors. They question why they should contribute to other actors’ success when they can expand their portfolio through acquisitions rather than partnerships, leveraging their strong financial position.

Interviewees also cited operational challenges as barriers to collaboration. Coordinating multiple IT systems and processes with differing functionalities was described as both costly and complex. Beyond IT concerns, service providers expressed worries about customer theft, fearing partnerships could expose valuable client data to competitors.

Additionally, smaller businesses were noted to be hesitant about collaborating with larger companies, fearing that such partnership could ultimately lead to unwanted acquisitions.

While there were genuine efforts to advocate for collaboration, some interviewees voiced concerns that collaboration is inherently risky, with only one party truly benefiting. They noted the difficulty in balancing contributions and gains, as companies struggle to control how much effort they invest in a partnership versus how much they extract from it. One participant described such partnerships as short-term, forced marriages.

Other obstacles to collaboration include company policies, anti-collaboration corporate culture, and perceptions and personalities of potential partners. Additionally, the broader lack of social integration within Hungarian society, characterized by limited networks and weak interpersonal trust, further complicates efforts to foster meaningful partnerships. These factors collectively create an environment where collaboration is often seen as risky or impractical, hindering the development of cooperative relationships across organizations and sectors.

In essence, most interviewees stated that they are not interested in forming collaboration in most situations within the Hungarian CEP market. While certain market conditions may compel them to collaborate, they do so only when financial interests require it and when they cannot resolve the issue independently.

5.2. Impact of Narrative Economics

The factors that drive the global spread of certain economic narratives while others remain obscure are difficult to define or quantify. In the long run, a negative experience between participants can become widely known within the local industry, often reinforced by media coverage. This can lead to a viral narrative that shapes perceptions of a given partner, influencing future collaboration decisions.

Conversely, positive events and beneficial actions can also gain traction, gradually reshaping perceptions and mitigating past reputational damage.

Narratives can trigger unforeseen market changes, spreading rapidly like wildfire. Between 2020 and 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting shift in consumer preferences were the drivers of unexpected developments in the Hungarian CEP market. Online sales expanded at an unprecedented rate, yet service providers were able to manage the increased parcel volume by adjusting their operations and maximizing their existing capacity.

At the onset of the pandemic, media reports circulated that COVID-19 could spread through direct contact and droplet transmission. These reports contributed to heightened public concerns as consumers sought to make their purchases contactless. As a result, demand for parcel lockers surged unexpectedly, yet only a few CEP service providers had a sufficient supply to meet this growing need.

To remain competitive, companies without parcel locker infrastructure began collaborating with service providers who had existing networks. The sudden shift in consumer expectations pressured CEP providers to abandon pre-2020 standards and form partnerships. Two interviewed companies decided to develop their parcel locker network, while the remaining providers relied on collaborative agreements

While parcel lockers existed in Hungary from 2017 to 2018, demand surged in 2021–2022. Media-driven anxieties about disease transmission during COVID-19 pushed consumers toward the parcel lockers. This narrative-driven demand boom created service-related challenges for CEP providers.

The above findings answer RQ1: A prevailing narrative during the examined period significantly influenced market behavior.

5.3. Impact of Cognitive Biases

In addition to economic narratives, distorting influences also affect the decision-making processes of top executives. However, most decision-makers remain unaware of these influences. While the previous section examined the role of narratives in the Hungarian CEP market, another key objective of this study is to demonstrate the presence of cognitive biases in decision-making within the industry.

During the interview preparation phase, the following cognitive biases were presumed to be present among decision-makers: confirmation bias, overconfidence bias, anchoring bias, loss aversion bias, and superiority bias.

5.3.1. Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias, which leads decision-makers to favor information reinforcing their beliefs, was evident in several interviewees’ responses. One participant stated that they do not collaborate with other service providers because they do not need to. Another interviewee expressed a preconceived notion about a particular market partner, based on past experiences. A respondent explained that they avoid collaborating with parcel service providers out of fear that competitors would use the partnership to build their own network. Others simply stated that their company does not consider cooperation at all.

5.3.2. Overconfidence Bias

Overconfidence bias was also frequently observed, particularly among two respondents. Companies with strong capital and a significant market share asserted that they do not need collaboration due to their dominant market position. Three interviewees indicated that the sole basis for collaboration is economic benefit. This statement may indicate overconfidence bias if the respondent assumes that economic factors alone dictate successful collaboration. One market participant claimed that they had no reason to fear competitors. Another interviewee stated that their company’s market position was so strong that they faced no significant threats.

5.3.3. Loss Aversion Bias

Analysis of the semi-structured interview transcripts revealed the presence of loss aversion bias in two companies. Both decision-makers primarily expressed concerns about losing customer data, viewing it as a significant risk. Additionally, one respondent cited a past negative experience as a reason for their reluctance to collaborate, demonstrating both loss aversion and confirmation bias. Some interviewees feared that collaboration could lead to market share loss, reinforcing this bias.

5.3.4. Anchoring Bias

The presence of anchoring bias was identified in only two minor instances, leading the authors to conclude that anchoring bias is not a significant factor in the decision-making processes of Hungarian CEP market participants.

5.3.5. Superiority Bias

Superiority bias was more readily detectable across several interviewees, with statements such as the following:

“As a dominant market player, we do not need any collaboration”.

“Everyone knows us; we are not afraid of losing our brand”.

“We are financially strong, and have many more opportunities, than others”.

These all exemplify the better-than-average-effect bias (a form of superiority bias).

One of the research objectives was to identify cognitive biases within the interview texts. The findings indicate four of the five pre-established cognitive biases were present in the interview transcripts.

Regarding RQ2, the analysis confirms that cognitive biases influence the opinions and decisions of CEP market leaders, shaping their approach to collaboration and competition.

6. Conclusions

Collaboration within a structured and well-organized framework can create a win–win scenario for all involved parties, particularly in the logistics parcel delivery market. This industry is characterized by constant price competition, the need for exceptional flexibility, intense customer acquisition efforts, and growing competition among providers. Although examples of collaboration between competing CEP market players exist in the literature, the industry as a whole is more commonly marked by a reluctance to engage in partnership.

This study aimed to examine why collaboration was largely absent in the Hungarian CEP market before 2020, and to identify the factors that influenced the emergence of partnership after 2021.

Key findings of the study:

• During the pandemic, media coverage heightened consumer demand for contactless delivery, increasing demand for parcel lockers
• Despite their initial reluctance, CEP market participants were ultimately compelled to collaborate due to the unforeseen consequences of shifting market conditions.
• Interviewees who had previously opposed collaboration recognized that potential market losses could outweigh their personal experiences and cognitive biases.
• As a result, economic necessity overrode previous resistance, leading market players to form partnerships they would not have considered under normal circumstances.

Business executives must remain aware of the narratives circulating within the market, as these stories can shape consumer preferences and influence overall market behavior. In addition, they must recognize the cognitive constraints that may prevent them from engaging in potentially beneficial but seemingly risky activities, ultimately limiting their strategic options.

The primary limitation of this study is its focus on the Hungarian CEP market. Further research is needed to establish broader conclusions applicable to the global CEP industry. A valuable direction for future studies would be a comparative analysis of CEP market mechanisms and collaboration of Western European countries, such as the Netherlands and the Visegrád countries, with particular emphasis on the COVID-19 pandemic years. Such research could provide deeper insights into cross-market collaboration dynamics, helping to bridge gaps in understanding and inform strategic decision-making in the industry.

Along with the aforementioned, the qualitative nature of the research should be combined with the use of economic models and the events that occurred during the period under study, including the narrative, should be supported by the use of economic modelling.