Answer Questions

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tfdt20

International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education

ISSN: 1754-3266 (Print) 1754-3274 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfdt20

Sustainability and collaborative apparel consumption: putting the digital ‘sharing’ economy under the microscope

C. M. Joyner Armstrong & H. Park

To cite this article: C. M. Joyner Armstrong & H. Park (2017) Sustainability and collaborative apparel consumption: putting the digital ‘sharing’ economy under the microscope, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 10:3, 276-286, DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2017.1346714

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2017.1346714

Published online: 28 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 426

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Sustainability and collaborative apparel consumption: putting the digital ‘sharing’ economy under the microscope C. M. Joyner Armstrong and H. Park

Department of Design, Housing and Merchandising, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

ABSTRACT Digital collaborative consumption (CC) models have been partly buoyed by growing concerns about the ecological and social impacts of consumption, for which the apparel industry abounds. However, a cursory glimpse at current CC platforms for apparel raises many questions about whether a meaningful contraction in the overall pace and scale of apparel production or consumption will actually be realised. Yet, there are little means by which to evaluate these consumptive phenomena. This conceptual paper presents a ternary relationship framework to evaluate the capacity of digital collaborative apparel consumption to align with the aims of sustainable consumption, identifying sustainability indicators and relevant dimensions in the context of three key relationships that are considered distinct in the context of CC: consumer– product, consumer–consumer, and consumer–business. The synthesis of previous research indicates that resource efficiency, community, and the nature of the business are considered key sustainability indicators for the evaluation of these platforms.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 30 December 2016 Accepted 21 June 2017

KEYWORDS Collaborative consumption; apparel; sustainability; sharing economy; renting; swapping

1. Introduction

Belk (2014) has defined collaborative consumption (CC) as: ‘People coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation, which may include, trading, bartering, or swapping activities, where giving and receiving may include non-monetary exchange’ (p. 1597); CC being frequently situated under the umbrella of the ‘sharing economy’. Though some authors have associated the term ‘sharing’ with attributes like joint ownership, pro-social intentions, and the absence of the expectation for direct reciprocity (Belk, 2010), others stretch this prototype to designate a new method of buying, because the concept of sharing still likely shapes the consumer perception of CC as an alternative consumption mode (Hellwig, Morhart, Girar- din, & Hauser, 2015).

Barnes and Mattsson (2016) recently extended Belk’s (2014) definition, placing technology at its centre: ‘The use of online marketplaces and social networking tech- nologies to facilitate peer-peer resource sharing (e.g. space, money, goods, skills, services) between individuals who may be both suppliers and consumers’ (p. 200). Indeed, the advancement of technological tools has dra- matically reduced transaction costs, facilitating ease in ‘sharing’ resources via digital platforms (Barnes & Matts- son, 2016; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015; Tsui,

2016) that uniquely combine e-commerce with elements of social networking and word-of-mouth (Barnes & Mattsson, 2016). This emerging digital economy has been partly fuelled by growing concerns about the eco- logical and social impacts of consumption, because ‘shar- ing’ resources is considered more sustainable than buying and accumulating (Hamari et al., 2015). Undoubtedly, CC represents one of the most potentially disruptive forces to traditional consumption channels (Barnes & Mattsson, 2016).

What makes a digital collaborative apparel consump- tion platform sustainable? The answer is most likely: it depends. The apparel industry has been plagued by sus- tainability concerns due to its detrimental impacts on the ecological environment and social systems, and sharing apparel instead of buying new may address these chal- lenges. However, a cursory glimpse at current digital col- laborative apparel platforms like Listia (swapping), Bag Borrow or Steal (renting), Rent the Runway (renting), or Tradesy (resale) raises suspicion that a meaningful contraction in the overall pace and scale of apparel pro- duction or consumption may not be entirely realised. Further, any product life extension or use intensification that is achieved in these schemes may be rendered benign by packaging and transportation requirements of the system (Leismann, Schmitt, Rohn, & Baedeker,

© The Textile Institute and Informa UK Ltd 2017

CONTACT C. M. Joyner Armstrong [email protected] Department of Design, Housing and Merchandising, Oklahoma State University, 434A Human Sciences, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION, 2017 VOL. 10, NO. 3, 276–286 https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2017.1346714

2013). Barnes and Mattsson (2016) argue that research- ers, entrepreneurs, government, and other organisations that support business development have an interest in understanding these CC platforms and the implications for future economy and society. A component of this interest includes the need to scrutinise the potential gains in factors like environmental consciousness and resource efficiency related to these consumptive phenomena (Barnes and Mattsson, 2016).

Many authors have frequently asserted that engaging in CC is distinct in regards to the consumer’s relation- ship with the product, with the relevant others who are involved in the consumption mode, and with the service provider, where applicable, when contrasted with tra- ditional product ownership (e.g. Belk, 2014; Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister, 2014; Chen, 2009). These relationships have consistently been the focus of empiri- cal investigations about CC. Yet, current understanding about interactions within these contexts and the con- ditions under which sustainable consumption is fostered is disparate across many different disciplines.

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to identify sustainability indicators for these apparel platforms; the conditions under which sustainability may be optimally fostered. This project builds on a previously developed framework for collaborative apparel consumption (Park & Joyner Armstrong, 2017), extending this work for sustainability aims. Previous CC research with regards to sustainability is found across a variety of dis- ciplines, synthesised here within the three aforemen- tioned relationships: consumer–product, consumer– consumer, and consumer–business. A ternary relation- ship framework is outlined, permitting clarity in the evaluation of CC apparel models regarding sustainability and highlighting areas for future research. A broad base of previous research about CC, access-based consump- tion, sharing, and product-service systems is utilised here to provide a comprehensive set of sustainability indicators and related dimensions that exist within each relationship. Then, current digital apparel CC plat- forms are used to validate the framework.

2. Conceptual development

Conceptual papers are typically focused around a specific problem, in this case the evaluation of CC for sustainable apparel consumption aims. These papers often create connections among existing theories from a variety of disciplines to propose a new way to think about some- thing (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015). In this paper, the authors draw upon literature that implicates many different product types in the context of CC, access- based consumption, sharing, and product-service

systems to identify all possible linkages to apparel CC. The responsibility of the authors of conceptual projects is to form logical and well-supported arguments rather than to test relationships empirically (Gilson & Gold- berg, 2015).

Given this direction, a metatheory approach to ana- lyse primary studies for the implications of theoretical orientations was deemed the most appropriate research method to achieve the aims of this conceptual project. Metatheory is a critical exploration of the theoretical fra- meworks or lenses that have provided direction to research as well as the theory that has arisen from research in a particular field of study (Paterson, Thorne, Canam, & Jillings, 2001). Following the meta-theoretical process delineated by Wallis (2010), the authors started the analysis by defining the phenomenon of collaborative apparel consumption. Due to the proliferation of online ‘sharing’ activities, the authors utilised Belk’s (2014) defi- nition of CC but with the digital foci suggested by Barnes and Mattsson (2016), proposing the following definition for conceptual development: People coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation via digital platforms, which may include trading, bartering, or swapping activities where giving and receiving may include non-monetary exchange on websites or apps.

Based on the above definition of CC, the authors next conducted a literature review. Since previous CC research has most frequently been couched within the scope of the consumer’s relationship with the product, with the relevant others who are involved in the con- sumption mode, or with the service provider (e.g. Belk, 2014; Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister, 2014; Chen, 2009), this formed the ternary relationship frame- work for CC (see Figure 1). This relationship framework is also in line with the framework developed by Park and Joyner Armstrong (2017) in their examination of colla- borative apparel consumption. Park and Joyner Arm- strong (2017) identified two primary types of apparel CC modes: utility-based non-ownership (UNO) and redistributed ownership (RO). In UNO, personal owner- ship is absent, and therefore, the product is not fully con- sumed, and the access duration varies (Reim, Parida, & Örtqvist, 2015). Industry examples include Rent the Runway (short-term renting) and Fashion Hire (sub- scription-based renting). In the RO category, on the other hand, goods become owned once again to be com- pletely consumed because the access period is undefined (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Reim et al., 2015). Industry examples include Poshmark (swapping) and Thredup (consigning/resale). These categories also align tightly with previous research related to various product cat- egories (Hamari et al., 2015).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 277

Each CC study was coded to identify its place within this framework: consumer–product, consumer–consu- mer, or consumer–business. The researchers then ana- lysed the literature for emergent sustainability considerations that differentiate CC models, identifying relevant sustainability indicators and related dimensions. While conducting the literature analysis, the researchers also conducted an online search for apparel CC to vali- date the conceptual framework with current industry practice. A series of CC business platforms identified during this online search were continuously used throughout the analysis process in making linkages within the ternary relationship framework between relationship, specific CC activities, and sustainability indicators (see Appendix for more details).

3. Towards the ternary relationship framework

The following process of conceptual development is organised around the three relationships (consumer– product, consumer–consumer, consumer–business) out- lined earlier. Within each relationship the sustainability indicators that emerged from the CC literature are explored relevant to current apparel CC marketplace examples, and dimensions for consideration of sustain- able consumption are identified. Each relationship dis- cussion concludes with a preliminary evaluation of the present opportunity for current apparel CC platforms to support sustainable consumption, including a list of unknowns that will invariably aid in clarifying the real impact of apparel CC. Table 1 illustrates the developed

framework, including a list of sustainability indicators and related dimensions, a preliminary evaluation of UNO and RO models, and worthy research initiatives that deserve attention within each of the three key relationships.

3.1. Consumer–product relationship

Mont (2004) argues that in the case of business models that may stimulate sustainable consumption, environ- mental considerations must be central, including value propositions that emphasise use and constrain the over- all volume of goods (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Leismann et al., 2013). Leismann et al. (2013) posit that CC is more resource efficient by way of increased material utilis- ation, economies of scale, and product life extension, but that these resource-conserving aspects must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Notably, the use phase of apparel is notorious for the largest environ- mental impact because of the energy and water required to care for apparel over the life of the item, so resource efficiency gains must be realised in other aspects of the product’s life (Leismann et al., 2013).

Within a consumer–product relationship with appa- rel, resource efficiency can be yielded by (a) product life extension fostered via an individual’s attachment to an item, known as emotional product attachment (Mugge, Schifferstein, & Schoormans, 2006), or (b) increasing the material utilisation of products by enga- ging multiple consumers in the ownership of that item over the long term, known as product use intensity (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). In theory, both methods may prevent the need for new production and prevent premature product disposal that often typifies traditional apparel consumption.

Emotional attachment has been promoted as an ave- nue to reduce the overall production, consumption, and disposal of consumer goods by fostering a long-term bond between product and consumer (Mugge et al., 2006). To explore this dimension in the context of CC, let us first assume that an RO platform functions simi- larly to traditional product ownership: one acquires the object through monetary or non-monetary exchange, accepts full property rights for an undefined period of time, and experiences a close relationship with the item, or at least one they fully control. By contrast, a UNO model provides time with a product, usage rights for a restricted time period, and theoretically may yield a more distant consumer–object relationship due to seeming barriers to history- and meaning-making (Bau- meister, 2014; Kleine & Baker, 2004). One may then pre- sume that RO CC platforms may be more poised to support sustainable consumption, for it has similar

Figure 1. Ternary relationship framework for research.

278 C. M. J. ARMSTRONG AND H. PARK

capacity for product longevity via emotional attachment as any other product. Yet, this simplistic comparison between these two consumption modes deserves more examination in regards to the specific apparel type and how one interacts with it within CC schemes.

The product attachment argument follows that indi- viduals devote psychic energy to an object, thereby increasing the object’s perceived irreplaceability (Ball & Tasaki, 1992; Belk, 1988). This consumer–product relationship, in theory, is propelled by a long history of frequent and satisfying use (Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996; Kleine & Baker, 2004; Mugge et al., 2006), and has been predominantly inves- tigated in the context of traditional ownership and not CC. Armstrong, Niinimäki, and Lang (2016) recently articulated that when it comes to a consumer’s attach- ment to apparel, this relationship is highly fickle

depending on the apparel type. For example, these authors found that items like t-shirts or sweatshirts and dress apparel were most frequently cited as yielding product longevity via a strong emotional attachment while items such as active apparel and jeans were cited less frequently, though these items were used much more frequently over a shorter owning time. This varia- bility in attachment experiences demystifies the funda- mentals of product attachment theory in the context of apparel while raising questions about the consumer–pro- duct relationship within certain modes of CC, such as UNO models where possession of the object is con- strained. For instance, among current apparel industry businesses, UNO CC models most commonly offer accessories (e.g. handbags) and/or dress apparel for women, the latter of which is a category of goods that has been shown in previous research to yield product

Table 1. Evaluation of collaborative apparel consumption for sustainable consumption aims. Indicator Dimension Related considerations UNO RO Topics for future research

Consumer–product relationship

Resource efficiency

Product life extension via attachment (by individual)

Highly symbolic clothing types

Symbolism Time with the item Short term Long term

−

− − − +

+

+ + − +

. Product types poised for R-O

. Symbolism as deterrent to clothing CC within UNO models

. Access itself as symbolic; other potential types of consumer– product relationships within UNO

. Time as mediator of attachment with CC-acquired goods in UNO vs. R-O

Material utilisation via use intensity (by collective)

Infrequently used clothing types

User carelessness; repair/ maintenance

Transportation requirements

Reduced demand for new product

Avoidance of premature disposal

Product quality Style obsolescence

+

−

−

+

+

− −

−

−

−

+

+

− −

. Product types poised for UNO

. User carelessness and repair/maintenance required for product, transport costs/impact, disposal prevention strategies, stock turn due to style obsolescence, and product quality as mediator of resource efficiency gains

Consumer–consumer relationship

Community Sociality Anonymity/communality Public/private access Spatial distance

− − −

− − −

. Interaction (communality, public access, reduced perceived spatial distance) as conduit of social meaning and values to influence sustainable apparel behavioural change

. Influence of social media features of digital apparel CC platforms that buoy sociality

Consumer–organisation relationship

Nature of Business

Formal/informal Business–-consumer/ peer–peer transactions

For-/non-profit

−

−

−

−

. RO capacity to foster normative factors supporting sustainability via less formal apparel exchanges

Position Market niche (e.g. economic, functional, etc.)

Politics Innovation

−

− −

−

− −

. Political motivations of consumers to adopt apparel CC

. Virtual currency as perceived risk factor for consumers adopting apparel CC

Social capital Knowledge, skills Empowerment

− −

− −

. Association between increasing personal style via style education on CC platforms and sustainable consumption behaviours

UNO: utility-based non-ownership; RO: redistributed ownership. Note: ‘−’ implies less opportunity to support sustainable consumption and ‘+’ implies more opportunity to support sustainable consumption with current apparel CC schemes.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 279

longevity via emotional attachment but low use fre- quency (Armstrong et al., 2016). Therefore, this con- sumption mode may very well address potential resource inefficiency by renting rather than owning dress apparel, increasing resource efficiency through material utilisation rather than product longevity.

Another important dimension in the exploration of attachment theory is the symbolic value of possessions (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981). The meaning one assigns to objects assuredly fuels attach- ment. Symbolism is inherent in apparel, one of the most common objects used to portray the self (Hirsch- man & LaBarbera, 1990). Many have argued that the more important a possession is to self-expression, the more difficult to transition the consumer–product relationship to some alternative mode, such as UNO (Möeller & Wittkowski, 2010; Mylan, 2015; Schrader, 1999; Weinert, 2010). In fact, Möeller and Wittkowski (2010) found that the choice of UNO is negatively influ- enced by the importance of an object to an individual, though Belk (2014) has argued that one can certainly be what is accessed rather than only what is owned. Nevertheless, it may follow that RO schemes may be bet- ter poised to support resource efficiency through product longevity because true possession will facilitate the expression of self, though this may hold only for certain apparel types most used for self-expression, for which research has not yet identified.

Others have argued that access to a product, such as in UNO CC, can be symbolic itself (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Similarly, Chen (2009) argues that access could permit consumers to establish other kinds of relation- ships with objects, thereby mediating or reducing the need to possess. Jenkins, Molesworth, and Scullion (2014) recently found in the case of borrowing that indi- viduals are actually capable of perceiving borrowed objects in dual states: owned and not owned. Rent the Runway’s claim to alter ‘the meaning of ownership’ cer- tainly suggests the plausibility of these arguments. This is a unique aspect of CC, and these nuances have only begun to be explored empirically.

Further, a cornerstone of product attachment theory is time. The time one has with an object may be experi- enced differently within CC, particularly UNO platforms (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister, 2014; Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). In renting schemes, access terms vary, from one-time transactions to reoccurring trans- actions within a subscription membership. Usage time may also be long or short. Durgee and O’Connor (1995) have argued that the consumer–product relation- ship is augmented when an object is rented, finding that attachment is lower to rented goods. It may follow that in the case of RO CC, in which the owning time of a

second-hand good is not defined and is more akin to tra- ditional ownership, the consumer may be more likely to behave in a similar fashion. On the other hand, it is less likely that consumers who continue to frequently swap or consign/resell, owning the second-hand good for only a short period, will relate to those products the same way. Importantly, it has been hypothesised that the longer the access or usage period, the more owner- ship-like tendencies may evolve in the consumer–pro- duct relationship (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). For example, when one rents an evening dress or a designer handbag long term, these items may be more likely to become included in the extended self (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012).

The resource efficiency of CC could also be supported by intensifying material utilisation via use intensity through ‘sharing’ resources, as long as user carelessness is mitigated (Reim et al., 2015), which holds true for goods implicated in RO as much as for UNO. A com- pany that provides a rental service retains ownership of the product, and therefore, may be able to care for the product optimally through repair and maintenance, extending the product’s natural life (Leismann et al., 2013; Reim et al., 2015). Yet, these resource efficiency gains may also be eclipsed by resource costs associated with exchange and transportation requirements (Leis- mann et al., 2013). Most current digital CC platforms for apparel require fees as well as shipping costs for the user, the latter of which embodies a significant carbon footprint. Thus, the major resource efficiency gains are the reduction of production demand for a new product and the delayed disposal of apparel (Leismann et al., 2013). Reim et al. (2015) argue that for use-oriented businesses, the key sustainability tactic is to increase the utilisation of products and reduce potential rebound effects. The RO concepts like Listia or Poshmark clearly extend the lives of apparel items by increasing the num- ber of owners who utilise them over time.

However, product use intensity is also only as effective to the extent that a product’s durability is concomitant to high utilisation (Leismann et al., 2013), which is requisite to facilitate ‘sharing’ (Jaeger-Erben, Rückert-John, & Schafer, 2015). Moreover, Tukker and Tischner (2006) have argued that products designed for durability and poised for increased use intensity may be less desirable for the fashion-oriented consumer, which may impede satisfaction. Armstrong, Niinimäki, Kujala, Karell, and Lang (2015) argued that the quality of goods in the fast fashion system would have to be addressed fundamen- tally in the implementation of alternative models of apparel business, especially UNO models like renting and swapping. For instance, among current apparel ren- tal offerings, the predominant aspiration is to allow

280 C. M. J. ARMSTRONG AND H. PARK

consumers greater ease in accessing luxury fashion goods (e.g. Bag, Borrow or Steal, Rent the Runway), which may indeed evidence a higher quality, remaining in the supply chain longer.

Another potential rebound effect occurs when the rental scheme continues to fuel overall higher levels of consumption responsive to changing fashion trends and/or inventory is frequently removed from circulation due to style obsolescence. For rental businesses like Fashion Hire, the clear emphasis is on accessing relevant fashion, and thus frequent stock turn due to style obso- lescence may negate resource efficiency gains.

In sum, when using the sustainability indicator, resource efficiency, to evaluate the potential for current apparel CC models to promote product longevity or material utilisation within the consumer–product relationship, one must conclude that there are tradeoffs and caveats to just how UNO and RO models buoy sus- tainable consumption. First, previous research seems to support the assertion that RO CC models may be better poised to foster product longevity by allowing the consu- mer more time with the object to become emotionally attached and to utilise an item for symbolic purposes, akin to traditional product ownership. In the case of cur- rent UNO apparel businesses such as Gwynnie Bee, where the emphasis is on short-term use, attachment may be limited, though the access itself could become symbolic (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Belk, 2014). Though models such as Rent the Runway or Letote appear to work against the attachment path to product longevity, long-term rental arrangements may evidence exception. The type of apparel in question within these schemes also appears to complicate a clear evaluation of which resource efficiency dimension may best support sustain- able consumption. For instance, previous research indi- cates that dress apparel experiences a long life in the wardrobe and is frequently cited as an item yielding emotional attachment; however, this product category is also the most common focus of current apparel UNO CC schemes, which support increased material utilisation within a product category that does not ordi- narily experience frequent use during traditional owner- ship (Armstrong et al., 2016). Here, both strategies could yield similar resource efficiency gains.

Second, there is little denying that both UNO and RO models yield some reduction in production demand and premature disposal (Leismann et al., 2013); however, potential rebound effects (Reim et al., 2015) are also easily identified. The central aim of most apparel CC platforms is to permit the experience of quantity in fashion consumption, and this type of demand counters sustainable consumption aims. Specifically, when Bag Borrow or Steal must turn its handbag rental assortment

frequently due to style obsolescence or when Rent the Runway must replace its designer dresses frequently because their quality cannot withstand long-term, intense use or when Thredup requires the frequent trans- port of goods between customer and company to resell items, resource efficiency gains can be rendered benign. The implications of these rebound effects are cross-cut- ting for both UNO as well as RO CC modes, and these deserve much attention in future research.

3.2. Consumer–consumer relationship

Chou, Chen, and Conley (2015) recently argued that environmental impacts should no longer be the chief approach to evaluating the sustainability of alternative consumption modes like CC. Rather, the examination of social innovation in these approaches must be held in similar critique (Chou et al., 2015; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). Indeed, the consumer–consumer relation- ship is by far the most unique aspect of CC. Though con- structs like social shopping that implicate the role of peers in modes of traditional consumption do exist, CC presents a new scenario where, in many respects, consumers are relying on each other to create and/or contribute to the maintenance of the product supply chain. In fact, Binninger, Ourahmoune, and Robert (2015) found recently that though ecological criteria such as reducing one’s eco-footprint, combatting planned obsolescence of products, and reducing waste are often highlighted on CC websites, most organisations do not lead with these features, or they may couple this pitch with financial or social arguments. The central issue that emerges from the current literature in regards to the consumer–consumer relationship is how the soci- ality of a CC scheme encourages community (or not); an important force for behavioural change, like sustainable consumption, via the influence of relevant others (Albinsson & Perera, 2012).

There are several interrelated considerations that define sociality and impact the potential for community among CC modes that serve as important levers for the evaluation of sustainable consumption: anonymity, priv- acy, and spatial distance. Communality is the degree to which the consumption mode is truly shared or collec- tive, as this plays a role in shaping social meaning (Jae- ger-Erben et al., 2015). The anonymity versus communality consumers may experience in the ‘sharing’ of goods, the latter being particularly relevant in peer– peer exchanges, are currently widely varied in regards to the level of privacy (Albinsson & Perera, 2012; Bots- man & Rogers, 2010). Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) argue that in UNO modes, the interpersonal relationship between consumers is different depending on how public

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 281

or private the access usage. Privacy conjures a ‘society of strangers’ while public usage is more social (e.g. library, gym) and may be more analogous to sharing, as it is more pro-social (Belk, 2010). Baumeister (2014) argues that the visibility of consumption, whether public or pri- vate, can determine if the individual or a larger group of people will influence consumer behaviour. Likewise, the spatial distance between the consumer and product, owned or accessed, also contributes to the level of per- ceived anonymity and privacy on a platform, which can shape how intimate the consumption mode can become. For instance, if the product is not always in one’s possession, as with UNO, this increases the anon- ymity one may feel in the consumption of the product (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012).

Chiefly, Binninger et al. (2015) argue that when access to a good is based on anonymity, both personal and spatial, the sociality aspect loses visibility. If consumers are not required to connect with each other in the con- sumption activity, anonymity is increased. Most UNO schemes like Rent the Runway or Fashion Hire evidence a high level of anonymity, where the various users of a good may never know the identity of previous users, the level of communality is low primarily due to the lack of cooperation required (Albinsson & Perera, 2012). In the case of RO, such as Listia or Poshmark, the landscape is much murkier and largely depends on the level of networking required by the consumption mode. In regards to RO models such as swapping and consigning/resale, consumption communities are cre- ated, and cooperation is required to share goods even though the digital platform may increase privacy. Impor- tantly, the higher the degree of communality in the con- sumption practice, the greater the opportunity to generate shared meanings and values that contribute to personal identity (Albinsson & Perera, 2012). In the industrialised world, the concepts of reciprocity, redistri- bution, and communal obligations are on decline in step with similar declines in social engagement, collective decision-making, and the collective management of resources, punctuating the critical challenge of social awareness in instigating sustainable consumption (Bri- ceno & Stagl, 2006).

It is worthy to note that social media’s contribution to sociality on these platforms is largely unexplored in research. For instance, the focus of Thredup’s blog is most frequently about boosting thriftiness, though the website occasionally focuses more conspicuously on a sustainability message. Gwynnie Bee encourages its members to use a hashtag (#ShareMeGB) to share images of stylish looks they assemble with their rented goods. Most apparel digital CC platforms allow the user to log in via Facebook or Google+, which may

also evidence potential for sociality. Some platforms, such as Letote, only display content for members who have signed up, creating a more exclusive environment. At present, it is unclear how these digital mechanisms may promote perceived sociality and reduce perceived spatial distance by providing users with additional ways to interact.

In sum, when using the sustainability indicator, com- munity, to evaluate the potential for current apparel CC models to promote sociality within the consumer–con- sumer relationship, one can conclude that it is not the current aim of UNO or RO models to promote sustain- able consumption by creating shared meaning and values among its users. Arguably, current online UNO CC models for apparel exhibit a high level of privacy and require no interaction among participants to rent goods on platforms such as Rent the Runway or Fashion Hire, whether it is short-term or subscription-based usage. Likewise, sociality is highly variable among RO models such as Rehash Clothes (e.g. the swapper needs to find another swapper who listed an item he or she wants to trade with) or the Facebook Marketplace (e.g. buyer and seller meet in person for exchange) that do require some interaction to facilitate consumption. Other models of consigning/resale like Thredup (con- signing mediated by website) or Listia (swapping using virtual currency) require far less interaction. The centra- lisation of these networks may also fuel perceived spatial distance, reducing the potential for sociality that would support community in local areas.

3.3. Consumer–business relationship

Finally, another critical relationship that is interrelated with the consumer–consumer relationship and arguably distinct in the context of CC is between the consumer and the businesses or other organisations that facilitate the ‘sharing’ of resources. In the case of traditional modes of ownership, a business–consumer transaction is straightforward in that a new good or service is offered at a set price to individuals, requiring little collaboration. In CC models, the roles to be played by an organisation and consumer are less clear. Notably, it has been argued that the more self-organisation that is permitted within the CC mode, organised by involved and engaged consu- mers, the more viable an alternative consumption prac- tice can become (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). Therefore, the nature of the business is a key indicator that deserves evaluation regarding the capacity of CC to bolster sus- tainable consumption in meaningful ways.

One aspect of CC that contributes to the nature of the business is how formal or informal the exchange. CC may manifest within informal settings as well as formal

282 C. M. J. ARMSTRONG AND H. PARK

organisations, associations, or enterprises that embody an alternative consumption practice, providing a plat- form for consumers to relate to one another (Jaeger- Erben et al., 2015). Market mediation contributes to for- mality, determined by whether the contracting partners conduct business–consumer or peer–peer transactions (Baumeister, 2014) and whether the organisations that facilitate such ‘sharing’ are for- or non-profit (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Currently, all digital apparel CC models identified during this project are commercial, for-profit platforms that embody relatively low levels of peer–peer interaction. UNO platforms, such as Bag Bor- row or Steal, are considered especially formalised, mostly due to how well-established rental models are in the market. Some authors argue that when formality is high in CC, consumers intuit stability in the consump- tion practice (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015), which could advance the development of normative factors con- sidered critical to advancing sustainable consumption (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015; Mont, 2004). It is highly deba- table, however, if this applies to current apparel CC. RO models, such as swapping or consigning/resale, are con- sidered moderately formal, as the consumer–consumer relationship in these modes is not entirely formalised. For instance, community-based consigning/resale businesses like Offerup and the Facebook Marketplace require buyers and sellers to interact directly; the business taking a backseat in the exchange. This latter example may support the earlier contention regarding self-organisation.

Another dimension regarding the nature of the business is positioning. Baumeister (2014) argues that CC offerings embody many different types of value prop- ositions such as low-cost, premium, sustainable, or some other distinct market niche. Current apparel CC businesses largely position their offerings to emphasise the economic benefits and subsequent satisfaction associated with accessing new fashion while purging the old; common messages being ‘sell your old stuff … Get new stuff for free’ (Listia.com) or ‘make money sell- ing what you don’t need’ (Letgo.com). Consumers may also utilise CC modes as a political tool, the consumer making a consumption choice based on their personal ideology, such as environmental or social credos (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Philip, Ozanne, & Ballantine, 2015). Previous studies, for example, have found that CC schemes like renting and swapping are characterised by political consumerism (Albinsson & Perera, 2012; Binninger et al., 2015; Philip et al., 2015). In a review of the positioning among current apparel CC offerings by way of the site’s motto, some businesses such as Bag Borrow or Steal and Rehash Clothes mention pro- social aims like ‘sharing’ or ‘make new friends’ and

only the latter suggests, ‘ … help the environment.’ Nevertheless, the extent to which consumers utilise these platforms for political reasons on their own is not transparent and deserves research inquiry.

A related consideration is the business’s level of inno- vativeness, which refers to the degree of change prompted by the alternative consumption mode when contrasted with traditional modes of consumption. Inno- vativeness is presumed as a conduit for the establishment of a truly new alternative consumption practice distinct from traditional consumption (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). But, when perceived innovativeness is high, these modes may be perceived as unusual, and the adop- tion of such more difficult. Jaeger-Erben et al. (2015) argue that UNO schemes like renting have been market mainstays for a long time, and thus represent a lower level of innovation than RO modes like swapping or con- signing/resale. On the other hand, the recent dissolution of platforms such as Yerdle and Swap Style, both of which utilised virtual currency, might indicate an inno- vative position that was challenging for consumers. However, research has not confirmed this as a factor of perceived risk. Generally, current apparel CC schemes promote access to fashion, and the exchange of these goods is very similar to other online retail platforms.

Finally and most recently, the consideration of how organisations that facilitate sharing may contribute to the expansion of knowledge, skills, and general empow- erment of users undoubtedly serves to alter the consu- mer–business relationship (Chou et al., 2015; Jaeger- Erben et al., 2015). This area of research is by far the most deplete, but it deserves attention. To be sure, the development of social capital (e.g. knowledge, skills) is critical to the transformation of communities and the transition of human behaviour to more sustainable plat- forms, for which environmental health should be a natu- ral byproduct (Briceno & Stagl, 2006; Chou et al., 2015). CC concepts like sewing studios not only reduce resource consumption but address social aspects like skill devel- opment (Chou et al., 2015). Though several apparel CC platforms appear to offer some education about styling, empowering the customer to utilise accessed or second-hand goods to create a fashionable look indepen- dently (e.g. Gwynnie Bee, Thredup), the vast majority of these schemes simply focus on the exchange of goods. It is worth noting that recently personal style has begun to be associated with sustainable consumption aims (Bly, Gwozdz, & Reisch, 2015; Fletcher & Grose, 2012), creat- ing another fruitful area of future research in regards to how this type of educational information may encourage more sustainable consumption habits within CC.

In sum, when using the sustainability indicator, nature of the business, to evaluate the potential for

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 283

current apparel CC models to promote sustainable con- sumption within the consumer–business relationship, one must conclude that neither UNO nor RO models embody aspects of formality or informality that promote sustainability, neither is necessarily positioned to pro- mote environmental or social aims, and neither intends to enhance social capital in a way that might empower consumers to alter their consumption habits. At present, all digital apparel CC models identified in this project are commercial, for-profit platforms that embody relatively low levels of peer–peer interaction, with the exception of Offerup and the Facebook Marketplace that require the direct interaction between buyers and sellers. Though formality may be important to perceived stability in the practice in the formation of normative factors that buoy sustainable consumption (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015; Mont, 2004), it is debatable the extent to which any of the UNO or RO apparel CC schemes may truly be con- sidered an alternative consumption practice, as most position as avenues to save money acquiring fashion through relatively similar means as other online outline outlets. Alternatively, CC modes that permit a higher degree of self-organisation may encourage engaged users to strengthen the viability of alternative consump- tion modes that are more innovative (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). For instance, RO platforms like Offerup and Facebook Marketplace, in which the business is only facilitating the interaction, may be better poised to fos- ter sustainable consumption values long term. An important caveat in this evaluation is the extent to which consumers may utilise these platforms to advance their own political consumption for environmental or social reasons, another unknown that begs for future research.

4. Implications and conclusion

This conceptual paper presents a ternary relationship framework that has been used to provide some pre- liminary evaluation in regards to the potential for cur- rent CC industry models to support sustainable consumption. Three sustainability indicators were identified as pivotal to the evaluation of these digital platforms within three key relationships that have most often been the focus of CC research: Resource efficiency (consumer–product relationship), commu- nity (consumer–consumer relationship), and the nature of the business (consumer–business relation- ship). This project has also highlighted a variety of research topics that beg future research inquiry (sum- marised in the far right column of Table 1), narrowing the scope of work for fashion researchers to explore the real impact of industry practice in this area. For

industry leaders who wish to develop such concepts and integrate sustainable consumption values into rel- evant business models, this framework can also be used as an evaluative tool.

What makes a digital collaborative apparel con- sumption platform sustainable? It depends. Though it is still too early to fully evaluate the capacity of apparel CC to foster sustainable consumption at this point, it has been asserted throughout the preceding discussion that current apparel CC platforms do not appear to support sustainable consumption, though some aspects within specific platforms could certainly be utilised to enhance sustainability indicators. In fact, some of the most fruitful opportunities to strengthen sustainable consumption are found within the consumer–product relationship. For instance, both UNO and RO schemes contribute to reducing the demand for new products and extending the time-to-disposal for apparel. RO models and long-term UNO rental models are well poised to foster emotional product attachment compar- able to traditional ownership because the time with these products is not as limited, which may enhance resource efficiency via product longevity. Further, UNO models appear to have the potential to increase resource efficiency via material utilisation by renting types of apparel that are traditionally used less fre- quently like dress clothing, as long as rebound effects can be mitigated (Reim et al., 2015). The consumer– consumer and consumer–business relationships, on the other hand, appear to evidence the greatest areas in need of research as well as investment by the fashion sector. These are areas where the least is known about the types of interactions that will promote sustainable apparel consumption. For instance, within the consu- mer–consumer relationship, the relevant interrelated dimensions (e.g. anonymity, privacy, and spatial dis- tance) among the CC models deserve scrutiny, as these aspects may serve as barriers to community develop- ment, which can be influential in shifting behaviour to more sustainable means (Albinsson & Perera, 2012; Bin- ninger et al., 2015). Also, within the consumer–business relationship, several relevant dimensions, including for- mality, positioning, and social capital, deserve further research to better understand the influence of the organ- isation on sustainable consumption behaviour.

Theory development about digital CC for apparel has only recently emerged. Thus, some areas of the literature used in this conceptual project remain rela- tively thin and this will require further research. We now invite the inception of pointed work in these areas, so we may more confidently understand what the real ecological and social gains of these consumptive phenomena are.

284 C. M. J. ARMSTRONG AND H. PARK

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, B. Y. (2012). Alternative market- places in the 21st century: Building community through sharing events. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11, 303– 315.

Armstrong, C. M., Niinimäki, K., Kujala, S., Karell, E., & Lang, C. (2015). Sustainable product-service systems for clothing: Exploring consumer perceptions of consumption alternatives in Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 30–39.

Armstrong, C. M., Niinimäki, K., & Lang, C. (2016). Towards design recipes to curb the clothing carbohydrate binge. The Design Journal, 19(1), 159–181.

Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh- Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 94– 109.

Ball, A. D., & Tasaki, L. H. (1992). The role and measurement of attachment in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(2), 155–172.

Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consump- tion: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 881–898.

Barnes, S. J., & Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A four-stage Delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 200–211.

Baumeister, C. K. (2014). Access versus ownership: Consumers’ reactions to an alternative consumption mode (Doctoral dissertation). Technische Universität München. Munich, Germany. Retrieved from http://d-nb.info/ 106800214X/34

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168.

Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 715–734.

Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and col- laborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595–1600.

Binninger, A.-S., Ourahmoune, N., & Robert, I. (2015). Collaborative consumption and sustainability: A discursive analysis of consumer representations and collaborative web- site narratives. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 31, 969–986.

Bly, S., Gwozdz, W., & Reisch, A. (2015). Exit from the high street: An exploratory study of sustainable fashion con- sumption pioneers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(2), 125–135.

Botsman, E., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Briceno, T., & Stagl, S. (2006). The role of social processes for sustainable consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (17), 1541–1551.

Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and access: Consumer desires and value perceptions regarding contemporary art collection

and exhibit visits. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 925– 940.

Chou, C.-J., Chen, C.-W., & Conley, C. (2015). An approach to assessing sustainable product-service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 277–284.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Durgee, J. F., & O’Connor, G. C. (1995). An exploration into renting as consumption behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 12, 89–104.

Fletcher, K., & Grose, L. (2012). Fashion and sustainability: Design for change. London: Laurence King.

Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editor’s comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group and Organizational Management, 40(2), 127–130.

Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative con- sumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 1–13.

Hellwig, K., Morhart, F., Girardin, F., & Hauser, M. (2015). Exploring different types of sharing: A proposed segmenta- tion of the market for ‘sharing’ businesses. Psychology and Marketing, 32, 891–906.

Hirschman, E. C., & LaBarbera, P. A. (1990). Dimensions of pos- session importance. Psychology and Marketing, 7(3), 215–233.

Jaeger-Erben, M., Rückert-John, J., & Schafer, M. (2015). Sustainable consumption through social innovation: A typology of innovations for sustainable consumption prac- tices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 784–798.

Jenkins, R., Molesworth, M., & Scullion, R. (2014). The messy social lives of objects: Inter-personal borrowing and the ambiguity of possession and ownership. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13, 131–139.

Kleine, S. S., & Baker, S. M. (2004). An integrative review of material possession attachment. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 1–35.

Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., & Baedeker, C. (2013). Collaborative consumption: Towards a resource-saving consumption culture. Resources, 2, 184–203.

Lovelock, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Whither services mar- keting? In search of a new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 7, 20–41.

Möeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of owner- ship: Reasons for preferring renting. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 20, 176–191.

Mont, O. (2004). Institutionalisation of sustainable consump- tion patterns based on shared use. Ecological Economics, 50, 135–153.

Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2006). Tackling today’s consumption pattern: The role of product attachment for extending product lifetime. In K. F. Mulder (Ed.), Sustainability made in Delft (pp. 69–74). Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers.

Mylan, J. (2015). Understanding the diffusion of sustainable product–service systems: Insights from the sociology of consumption and practice theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 13–20.

Park, H., & Joyner Armstrong, C. M. (2017). Collaborative apparel consumption in the digital sharing economy: An agenda for academic inquiry. International Journal of Consumer Studies. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12354

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 285

Paterson, B., Thorne, S., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001). Meta- study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. London: Sage.

Philip, H. E., Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2015). Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer- to-peer renting. Journal of Marketing Management, 31 (11–12), 1310–1332.

Reim, W., Parida, V., & Örtqvist, D. (2015). Product–service systems (PSS) business models and tactics – a systematic lit- erature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 61–75.

Schrader, U. (1999). Consumer acceptance of eco-efficient ser- vices: A German perspective. Greener Management International, 25, 105–121.

Tsui, K. K. (2016). Economic explanation: From sharecropping to the sharing economy. Man and the Economy, 3(1), 77–96.

Tukker, A., & Tischner, U. (2006). Product-services as a research field: Past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(17), 1552–1556.

Wallis, S. E. (2010). Toward a science of metatheory. Integral Review, 6, 73–120.

Weinert, R. (2010). Property as a determinant of consumer behavior: The example second home (Doctoral

dissertation). Universität St. Gallen, Switzerland). Retrieved from http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/ SysLkpByIdentifier/3717/$FILE/dis3717.pdf

Appendix

Apparel CC platforms were examined to validate the concep- tual framework that includes the two primary types of apparel CC modes (UNO, RO). The researchers conducted the online search using the keywords including CC, sharing economy, and collaborative economy, with a coordinating descriptor, apparel, clothing, and fashion. Multiple sources ranging from news articles to industry reports that cover the current market- places for CC were compiled. The researchers then visited each website identified in these reports and carefully examined the messages communicated in each site. During this search, those sites that did not offer clothing as a primary category, and those that were not online- or app-based (e.g. off-line swap meets) were eliminated. Though non-profit and/or peer–peer CC sites that do not have commercial aims may exist, no such site was found during this investigation. The table below summarises the findings.

Current digital collaborative clothing consumption models.

Model Website Product Site motto Utility-based non- ownership (UNO)

BagBorroworSteal.com Designer bags Borrow, collect, and share luxury Renttherunway.com Women’s clothes and accessories By giving access to remarkable luxury

experiences, we’re changing the meaning of ownership

Fashionhire.com Designer bags Why buy when you can hire Gwynniebee.com Plus size women’s clothes and

accessories Never wear the same thing twice

Letote.com Women’s clothes and accessories Always have something new to wear Redistributed ownership (RO) Redistribute

Listia.coma Clothing and other consumer goods

Sell your old stuff. Get new stuff for free.

Rehashclothes.com Clothing and other consumer goods

Swap your clothes, make new friends, and help the environment.

Tradesy.com Women’s clothes and accessories Make fashion affordable and accessible to everyone

Poshmark.com Women’s clothes and accessories The new way to buy and sell fashion Vinted.com Women’s clothes and accessories To make second-hand the 1st choice worldwide

Today mine, tomorrow yours Thredup.com Women’s, maternity, plus size,

children’s clothes and accessories

Second-hand clothes, first-hand fun

Ebay Valeta Clothing and other consumer goods

Valets do the selling. You get paid.

Offerup.coma Clothing and other consumer goods

The simpler way to buy and sell locally

Letgo.coma Clothing and other consumer goods

Make money selling what you don’t need and find great deals nearby

Facebook Marketplacea

Clothing and other consumer goods

Buy and sell with your local community

aThese sites are not specialised in clothing only but cover a wide variety of consumer goods including electronics, furniture, books, and clothing.

286 C. M. J. ARMSTRONG AND H. PARK