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
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tfdt20
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfdt20
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/17543266.2017.1346714
https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2017.1346714
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tfdt20&show=instructions
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tfdt20&show=instructions
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17543266.2017.1346714&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-07-28
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17543266.2017.1346714&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-07-28
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/17543266.2017.1346714#tabModule
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/17543266.2017.1346714#tabModule
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
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 cosette.armstrong@okstate.edu 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
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17543266.2017.1346714&domain=pdf
mailto:cosette.armstrong@okstate.edu
http://www.tandfonline.com
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.
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
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.
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
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
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
http://d-nb.info/106800214X/34
http://d-nb.info/106800214X/34
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12354
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
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
http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIdentifier/3717/$FILE/dis3717
http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIdentifier/3717/$FILE/dis3717
- Abstract
- 3. Towards the ternary relationship framework
1. Introduction
2. Conceptual development
3.1. Consumer–product relationship
3.2. Consumer–consumer relationship
3.3. Consumer–business relationship
4. Implications and conclusion
Disclosure statement
References
Appendix
O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E
Collaborative apparel consumption in the digital sharing
economy: An agenda for academic inquiry
Hyejune Park | Cosette Marie Joyner Armstrong
Department of Design, Housing and
Merchandising, Oklahoma State University,
442 Human Sciences, Stillwater, Oklahoma,
74078-6142
Correspondence
Hyejune Park, Department of Design,
Housing and Merchandising, Oklahoma
State University, 442 Human Sciences,
Stillwater, OK 74078-6142.
Email: june.park@okstate.edu
Abstract
While apparel businesses leveraging the sharing economy have begun to emerge in recent years,
academic research on “sharing” consumption for apparel is extremely limited. To fill this research
gap, the researchers analyze current literature to present a conceptual framework that offers a
durable theoretical foundation about the concept of collaborative consumption for apparel. Using
a metatheory approach, the researchers develop a framework that explores how two major
Internet-supported collaborative consumption modes (utility-based nonownership and redistrib-
uted ownership) manifest in an apparel context. Next, the researchers explore the implications of
each consumption mode to understand the consumer’s relationship with the product, peers, and
businesses involved in these sharing schemes. A series of research propositions are also developed
to stimulate discussion and future research about collaborative apparel consumption.
K E Y W O R D S
apparel consumption, collaborative consumption, sharing economy, sharing
1 | INTRODUCTION
The sharing economy has emerged via the collaboration of consumers
who “share” otherwise underutilized resources ranging from everyday
goods (e.g., cars, toys, clothes) to nonproduct assets (e.g., space, skills)
for monetary or nonmonetary benefits, mainly through the Internet
(Belk, 2014a). The marketplace has begun to facilitate this consumer
behavior in the sharing economy; many companies flourishing in recent
years in a variety of industries, such as housing (e.g., Airbnb,
Homeaway), transportation (e.g., Lyft, Uber) and consumer goods (e.g.,
Tradesy, Rent the Runway). According to industry reports, US revenues
generated from the sharing economy in 2013 was an estimated $3.5
billion (Geron, 2013), and 23% of US consumers in the same year used
at least one of the “sharing” sites or apps (Owyang, Samuel, &
Grenville, 2014). Some argue that this economy has been partly fueled
by a growing concern over the ecological and social impacts of con-
sumption, because sharing resources is considered more sustainable
than buying and accumulating (Hamari, Sj€oklint, & Ukkonen, 2015).
Apparel business leveraging the sharing economy, such as swap-
ping (e.g.,Listia), renting (e.g., Bag Borrow or Steal, Rent the Runway)
and resale businesses (e.g., Tradesy, Vinted) have begun to emerge in
recent years. However, academic research on “sharing” consumption,
termed collaborative consumption in this study, in the context of appa-
rel is extremely limited. Although several researchers have investigated
these alternative consumption modes, the majority of these studies are
conducted in the context of some other industry sectors, such as auto-
mobiles (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Fishman, Washington, & Haworth,
2013; Schaefers, Lawson, & Kukar-Kinney, 2015), vacation spaces
(Tussyadiah, 2015), and toys (Ozanne & Ballantine, 2010), where the
nature of consumption may be considerably different from that of
apparel goods. For instance, while renting a car or a bicycle may be
mainly driven by consumers’ utilitarian purpose, renting designer bags
and shoes may be more emotional in nature and motivated by consum-
ers’ hedonic purposes, such as expressing one’s individuality. Yet, little
is known about how apparel consumers navigate and experience such
systems, or how these experiences are distinct (or not) from those with
other products and from more traditional forms of apparel consump-
tion. In addition, given the variety of relevant consumption practices
across a wide range of market-facilitated offerings, it is necessary to
develop a domain-specific (e.g., clothes, cars, spaces) definition of such
consumption behavior and to explore these consumption experiences
within this domain.
Guided by the framework of multilevel consumption (FMC) pro-
posed by Chen (2009), a new theoretical framework for understanding
the phenomenon of collaborative apparel consumption is proposed is
this study. FMC suggests that consumers form multilevel relationships
Int J Consum Stud. 2017;41:465–474. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijcs VC 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd | 465
Received: 13 September 2016 | Revised: 27 February 2017 | Accepted: 10 March 2017
DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12354
bs_bs_banner
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1738-7494
with consumed objects; arguing that consumers first form relationships
with products based on their desires (e.g., desires regarding clothing
and fashion) and then consume products either through possession
(e.g., purchasing clothes) or access (e.g., renting clothes). As Chen
(2009) noted, FMC can be applied to the products that can be both
possessed and accessed; thus it is useful in building a framework of col-
laborative apparel consumption where both possession and access
occur in the current marketplace. This framework demonstrates that
possession is not the only way to establish a relationship with an
object, and consumers can decide whether to possess or maintain
access only based on their different desires. Future study of this rela-
tionship will provide important consumer behavior insights. Drawing
upon FMC, the purpose of this study is to present a theoretical frame-
work that offers an account of collaborative consumption of apparel,
providing a durable theoretical foundation for discussion and future
research about these new, alternative consumption modes by propos-
ing a series of testable research propositions. Metatheory provided
conceptual schemes and definitions in understanding the phenomenon
of collaborative apparel consumption.
2 | LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 | Collaborative consumption and sharing
While collaborative consumption is a new phenomenon in the digital
era, sharing has been around since the beginning of mankind (Belk,
2010). In his seminal work on sharing, Belk (2010) examines the nature
of consumer sharing by offering a theoretical review of the construct.
Defining sharing as “the act and process of distributing what is ours to
others for their use as well as the act and process of receiving some-
thing from others for our use” (ibid, p. 127). Belk provides three main
distinctions for sharing versus gift giving or a commodity exchange:
perception of joint ownership, pro-social intentions, and the absence of
the expectation for direct reciprocity. First, unlike commodity exchange
and gift giving, sharing does not involve transfer of ownership; rather,
shared things are jointly owned. Second, sharing demonstrates pro-
social intention and is characterized as love, caring, and a communal
activity that links people to others, as described in its prototypes,
mothering or the pooling and allocation of household resources. Third,
sharing does not impose any obligation of reciprocity whereas this is
not the case for commodity exchange and gift giving.
As the sharing economy has recently facilitated a variety of new
“sharing” consumption activities, researchers have explored a variety of
related concepts like collaborative consumption (Belk, 2010, Botsman
& Rogers, 2010; Hellwig, Morhart, & Girardin, 2015; Ozanne &
Ballantine, 2010), sharing (Belk, 2014a), or access-based consumption
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Schaefers et al., 2015). With many different
terms and meanings surrounding this alternative consumption mode,
there is a need to accurately define, categorize and evaluate the vari-
ous consumption models. Belk (2014a) delineates the conceptual
boundary of traditional sharing and the new sharing activities that
occur in the digital sharing economy. He notes that many consumption
activities that are currently described as “sharing” are not true sharing
and are better described as pseudo-sharing. According to his early defi-
nition of sharing (Belk, 2014b), for example, short-term rental (e.g., car
rental) is not true sharing, as consumers pay a usage fee. Even in the
absence of fees, he contends that the involvement of a commercial
organization reduces the sense of true sharing among members.
To better delineate the concept of these new sharing activities
mainly facilitated by the Internet, Belk (2014a) uses the term, collabora-
tive consumption, and defines it as “people coordinating the acquisition
and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation”
(p. 1597). By including a fee or other compensation, this definition dis-
tinguishes traditional sharing or gift giving where monetary or nonmon-
etary compensation is involved (Belk, 2010). He also distinguishes this
definition from several other similar terms. For instance, Belk (2010)
argues that Botsman and Rogers’ (2010) definition of collaborative con-
sumption, which includes “traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trad-
ing, renting, gifting, and swapping,” is too broad and potentially
confusing in that it mixes marketplace exchange, gift giving, and sharing
for which the characteristics of each vary. Belk (2014a) also differenti-
ates collaborative consumption from another similar concept, access-
based consumption, as defined by Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012): transac-
tions that may be market mediated in which no transfer of ownership
takes place. Belk indicates that this definition involves no transfer of
ownership and thus excludes consumption modes such as trading and
swapping where transfer of ownership does take place.
2.2 | Collaborative consumption of apparel
Based on the literature, this article is solely focused around collabora-
tive consumption as defined by Belk (2014a): People coordinating the
acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensa-
tion, which may include, trading, bartering, or swapping activities,
where giving and receiving may include nonmonetary exchange. This
definition best explains the consumption activities facilitated by the
current apparel “sharing” businesses, including clothes-swapping, rent-
ing, and resale businesses via online platforms. Under the umbrella of
collaborative consumption as defined by Belk (2014a), two distinct
consumption modes appear highly relevant to the context of apparel.
One involves only the access to or utility of a material good by a cus-
tomer (Reim, Parida, & €Ortqvist, 2014) while the other mode involves
the personal ownership of a redistributed, second-hand good (Botsman
& Rogers, 2010). Notably, neither consumption mode necessarily
involves the production and sale of a new material good. Observations
of the currently available business models of collaborative apparel con-
sumption (discussed later) were compulsory in this case to provide veri-
fication of these two categories of collaborative consumption types.
3 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This study builds on the framework of multilevel consumption (FMC)
that separates the consumption modes (possession and access) from
the consumption object (Chen, 2009). FMC challenges the traditional
presupposition that possession is the only way to establish a relation-
ship with an object and contends that consumers can choose to
466 |
bs_bs_banner
PARK AND ARMSTRONG
possess or “access” depending on their different desires. Chen (2009)
explores this conjecture using the two empirical concepts, consumer
desires and perceived values. Specifically, she finds that, in the context
of art collection and exhibit visits, consumers who desire a long-term,
intimate relationship with the artworks choose possession (i.e., art col-
lection) whereas consumers who desire a circumstantial relationship
choose access (i.e., exhibit visits). Regardless of their chosen consump-
tion mode, both collectors and visitors share some common desire
toward art, such as philanthropy, spirituality, aesthetics, and novelty.
Chen (2009) also finds that, while collectors and visitors perceive some
similar values, such as otherness (e.g., to be in a different world) and
aesthetics, they have different perceived values after their consump-
tion experiences. For example, collectors perceive the value of preser-
vation (i.e., preservation of artworks) whereas exhibit visitors perceive
the value of forgetfulness of time and memory.
While FMC was developed based on the context of art collection
and exhibit visits, Chen (2009) suggests that it can be further developed
within other contexts where consumers can either purchase or rent prod-
ucts. Based on FMC, the two primary collaborative consumption modes
highlighted in this study (i.e., utility-based nonownership, redistributed
ownership) can be compared and contrasted to traditional ownership. In
the current study, rather than limiting the exploration of factors to only
desires and values, the researchers took a more holistic approach to con-
ceptualizing these two consumption modes. Many researchers have fre-
quently asserted that engaging in collaborative consumption may
transform the consumer’s relationship with the product, with the relevant
others who are involved in the sharing scheme (peers), and with the serv-
ice provider (business) when contrasted with traditional personal owner-
ship (e.g., Belk, 2007, 2014a; Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister,
2014; Chen, 2009). Therefore, these relationships are at the center of this
investigation, and the FMC has been adapted to explore a wider range of
factors embodied within these three focal areas: consumer–product, con-
sumer–consumer, and consumer–business relationships. Figure 1 depicts
the extended FMC that guided data analysis in the current study.
4 | METHODS
4.1 | Metatheory approach
To develop a conceptual framework for collaborative apparel consump-
tion, existing theories and their use were examined from various rele-
vant bodies of literature that have been implicated in collaborative
consumption and other related topics. A metatheory approach was
used to analyze primary studies for the implications of their theoretical
orientations and to create a series of research propositions. Meta-
theory is a critical exploration of the theoretical frameworks 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). Specifically, the researchers followed six steps
delineated in Reflexive Dimensional Analysis (RDA), one of the meth-
odologies developed specifically for metatheory (Wallis, 2010). Wallis
(2010) asserts that RDA allows researchers to take a more complex
and rigorous approach in identifying related propositions and determin-
ing the link between the theoretical perspectives that frame each pri-
mary study. The six steps of RDA include: (a) define a body of theory,
(b) investigate the literature to identify the concepts that define it, (c)
code the concepts to identify relevant components, (d) clump the com-
ponents into mutually exclusive categories, (e) define each category as
a dimension, and (f) investigate those dimensions through the literature,
looking for robust relationships.
Guided by this metatheoretical process, first, a phenomenon of
collaborative apparel consumption was defined with the two primary
collaborative consumption modes based on the literature [Step a].
Next, three aforementioned relationships (i.e., consumer–product, con-
sumer–consumer, consumer–company relationships) extended the
FMC, and the literature was investigated within these three focal areas
[Step b]. The researchers then coded the data and collected a number
of constructs along with various collaborative consumption modes that
can be differentiated [Step c and d]. A total of six constructs were
explored within a relevant relationship to compare and contrast collab-
orative apparel consumption to traditional ownership [Step e and f]. A
systematic content analysis was conducted in the area of collaborative
consumption and other related concepts including collaborative con-
sumption, sharing, access-based consumption, product-service systems,
and social innovation.
Though some areas of this literature, such as access-based consump-
tion and social innovation, are still relatively thin, especially in regards to
apparel, these studies nevertheless provide foundational knowledge on
which to build stronger, more durable theory for the future. The pro-
posed collaborative consumption modes are continuously compared and
contrasted to the traditional ownership mode to provide clarity and dis-
tinction. Throughout the process, the researchers monitored the work to
be sure that the research was conducted systematically and comprehen-
sively and that multiple perspectives were identified.
4.2 | Consumption mode verification
Actual collaborative apparel consumption businesses were examined
to verify the typology of collaborative apparel consumption pro-
posed in the literature review. Businesses for collaborative apparel
consumption were selected as follows: first, a pool of current busi-
nesses that could be broadly classified as collaborative consumption
companies for apparel were researched online. Given the lack of a
clear definition of collaborative consumption, the researchers used
Collaborative apparel consumption
• Utility-based non ownership
• Redistributed ownership
Traditional ownership-based
apparel consumption
Consumer-Product
relationship
Consumer-Consumer
relationship
Consumer-Business
relationship
FIGURE 1 Research framework: extended framework of multilevel
consumption (FMC)
PARK AND ARMSTRONG
bs_bs_banner
| 467
the following multiple search keywords: collaborative consumption,
sharing economy, and collaborative economy, with a coordinating
descriptor, apparel, clothing, and fashion. Multiple sources ranging
from news articles to industry reports were compiled. The research-
ers then visited each website and finally selected 10 business web-
sites as a representative platform of collaborative apparel
consumption currently available in the marketplace to consumers
(for more details, see Appendix). Throughout the literature analysis
procedure, these sites were examined for the purpose of verifying
the proposed collaborative consumption modes.
5 | FINDINGS
This section begins with the typology of collaborative consumption for
apparel proposed in the literature review and verified by an examina-
tion of business models. Following, the three key relationships (con-
sumer–product, consumer–consumer, consumer–business) that may be
transformed via collaborative apparel consumption experiences when
contrasted with traditional ownership are explored. Within these find-
ings, propositions as well as the major gaps in research for each area
are identified. The primary factors that emerged from the literature
along with relevant theoretical concepts are summarized in Table 1.
5.1 | Collaborative apparel consumption: typology
The two distinct collaborative consumption modes were initially pro-
posed in the literature review: One involving only the utility of a mate-
rial good by a customer and the other mode involving the personal
ownership of a redistributed good. In this study, each of the consump-
tion modes was labeled as utility-based nonownership and redistrib-
uted ownership respectively. Utility-based nonownership consumption
mode include online apparel renting schemes where personal owner-
ship is absent, and therefore, the product is not fully consumed, and
though the duration of access may vary but is defined (Reim et al.,
2014). The redistributed ownership consumption mode includes online
apparel consignment, auctions, resale, or swapping in which used goods
become owned once again to be completely consumed, and the access
period is undefined (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). The investigation of ten
businesses selected in this study revealed that the consumption modes
currently available in the marketplace to consumers indeed fall into
these two consumption modes.
Specifically, the verification procedure revealed four different
types of collaborative apparel consumption businesses: short-term
renting, subscription-based renting, swapping, and consigning. The
researchers noticed that the first two types of businesses (i.e., short-
term and subscription-based renting) represent utility-based nonow-
nership while the latter two types of businesses (i.e., swapping and
online consignment) represent redistributed ownership (see Table 2).
Upon this industry practice-based verification of the taxonomy of col-
laborative consumption for apparel, these two types of apparel collabo-
rative consumption (i.e., utility-based nonownership and redistributed
ownership) were then used for further analysis in the current study.
To date, previous researchers have not yet fully examined or con-
firmed whether personal ownership is justifiably the penultimate
TABLE 1 Framework for differentiating collaborative consumption models
Factor Related dimensions Relevant literature
Consumer–product relationship
Time Attachment constrained by. . .
One-time or reoccurring transactions
Duration with product
Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister, 2014; Lovelock and
Gummesson, 2004
Product type
Price
Quality
Symbolism
Visibility of consumption (public/private)
Armstrong et al., 2015; Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeis-
ter, 2014; Binninger et al., 2015; Durgee and O’Connor,
1995; Leismann, Schimitt, Rohn, and Baedeker, 2015;
Mylan, 2015; Reim et al., 2014; Schrader, 1999; Tukker and
Tischner, 2006; Weinert, 2010
Consumer–consumer relationship
Sociality Anonymity vs. communality
Public/private consumption
Spatial distance between consumer and object
Albinsson and Perera, 2012; Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Belk,
2010; Binninger et al., 2015; Botsman and Rogers, 2010;
Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015
Consumer–business relationship
Formality/institutionalization Business–Consumer or Peer-Peer
For-profit/nonprofit
Perceived risk
Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister, 2014; Jaeger-Erben
et al., 2015; Mont, 2002
Position Political consumerism; low cost,
premium, sustainable, etc. value propositions
Sense of sharing: joint ownership,
pro-social intentions, absence of direct reciprocity
Innovativeness
Albinsson and Perera, 2012; Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012;
Baumeister, 2014; Belk, 2010; Philip et al., 2015; Hellwig
et al., 2015; Philip et al., 2015
Convenience Required time, effort, responsibility
Convenience
Accessibility of the product
Price model flexibility
Time and cost savings
Delayed acquisition
Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Catulli, 2012; Chou et al., 2015;
Baumeister, 2014; Rexfelt and Ornas, 2009; Tukker 2004;
Tukker and Tischner, 2006
468 |
bs_bs_banner
PARK AND ARMSTRONG
consumption mode in the context of apparel, nor have researchers
adequately investigated distinctions between how the consumer expe-
riences utility-based apparel consumption versus cases where the item
is redistributed for another cycle of ownership. In the next section, the
researchers attempt to illuminate the many areas of research that
should be scrutinized to fully understand these emerging consumptive
phenomena in the context of apparel and to recommend research
propositions for future investigations.
5.2 | The consumer–product relationship and
collaborative apparel consumption
According to Baumeister (2014), in personal ownership one exchanges
money for the object, accepts full property rights for an infinite period
of time, and largely experiences a close consumer–object relationship
with the item. In contrast, access-based consumption, which is akin to
utility-based nonownership in the current study, provides time with an
object only for monetary or nonmonetary exchange, provides only
usage rights for a restricted time period, and consequently yields a dis-
tant consumer–object relationship due to these seeming barriers to his-
tory- and meaning-making (Baumeister, 2014). However, this simplistic
approach to contrasting these two consumption modes is complicated
by the idea of redistributed ownership introduced in the current study,
where ownership occurs but the goods are passed along from another
user for a second life. Previous researchers have proposed a number of
potential implications for the consumer–product relationship in the col-
laborative consumption context. For instance, Durgee and O’Connor
(1995) have argued that the person-object relationship is augmented
when an object is rented with regard to factors such maintenance
effort, social development, the usage experience in time, and material-
ism. Likewise, Mӧeller and Wittkowski (2010) found that the impor-
tance of an object negatively influences nonownership but that this
lack of ownership was most positively influenced by a consumer orien-
tation to trends and convenience. These studies are hardly conclusive,
which is why this relationship deserves much more attention in future
research. Two factors emerged from the literature as relevant to the
consumer–product relationship for exploration: time and product type.
5.2.1 | Time
The time one has to utilize a good can be a point of distinction in col-
laborative consumption modes, particularly for modes that provide
only access or utility without personal ownership (Bardhi & Eckhardt,
2012; Baumeister, 2014; Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). It has been
hypothesized that the longer the access or usage period, the more
ownership-like tendencies may evolve (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). For
example, when one rents a dress or handbag for several months or lon-
ger, these items are likely to become included in the extended self
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Generally, Durgee and O’Connor (1995)
have found that product attachment is lower to rented goods, though
experiencing variety via renting may permit more self-exploration. This
would be the case in utility-based nonownership apparel offerings such
as short-term and subscription rentals but also in cases of redistributed
TABLE 2 Framework for differentiating collaborative consumption modes for apparel
Utility-based nonownership Redistributed ownership
Factors Short-term renting Subscription-based renting Swapping Consignment
Consumer–product relationship
Time One-time transaction Poten-
tial for attachment lower
Reoccurring transactions
Potential for attachment
higher
One-time or reoccurring
transactions
Potential for product attach-
ment higher
One-time or reoccurring
transactions
Potential for product attach-
ment higher
Product characteristics Price: variable
Quality/durability: variable
Public, symbolic,
Price: low
Quality/durability: variable
Public, symbolic,
Price: variable
Quality/durability: variable
Public, symbolic
Price: variable
Quality/durability: variable
Public, symbolic
Consumer–consumer relationship
Sociality
High anonymity/low commu-
nality: Private
consumption
High spatial distance
High anonymity/low commu-
nality: Private
consumption
High spatial distance
Lower anonymity/higher
communality: Public
consumption
Lower spatial distance
Lower anonymity/higher
communality: Public
consumption
Lower spatial distance
Consumer–business relationship
Formality-
institutionalization
Business–Consumer
For profit
Highly formalized
Less perceived risk
Business–Consumer
For profit
Highly formalized
Less perceived risk
Business–Consumer
For profit
High-moderate formality
More perceived risk
Business–Consumer
For profit
High-moderate formality
More perceived risk
Position
Economic, functional, political
Low sense of sharing
Low innovation
Economic, functional, political
Low sense of sharing
Low innovation
Economic, functional, political
Higher sense of sharing
Moderate innovation
Economic, functional, political
Higher sense of sharing
Low innovation
Convenience
Low time, effort, responsibil-
ity requirements
Limited product accessibility
Delayed acquisition
Flexible price model
Cost savings
Low time, effort, responsibil-
ity requirements
Convenience
Limited accessibility
Less flexible price model
Time and cost savings
Delayed acquisition
Higher time, effort, responsi-
bility requirements
Convenience
Limited accessibility
Flexible price model
Time and cost savings
Delayed acquisition
Higher time, effort, responsi-
bility requirements
Convenience
Limited accessibility
Flexible price model
Time and cost savings
Delayed acquisition
PARK AND ARMSTRONG
bs_bs_banner
| 469
ownership where the consumer may continually “share” redistributed
goods via swapping or consignment schemes, owning the second-hand
good for only a short period. It may also follow that redistributed own-
ership, in which the owning time of the second-hand good is not
defined after the swap or consignment, is more akin to traditional own-
ership, allowing the consumer to foster deeper product attachment.
These factors support the following proposition:
Proposition 1: Product attachment is lower for collaborative
apparel consumption than traditional
apparel ownership.
5.2.2 | Product characteristics
As evidenced by the many fields that are implicated in the sharing
economy, the characteristics of the products involved in the consump-
tion mode are also likely the most important aspects of differentiation.
Some emerging modes can be experienced materially while others only
involve a digital outcome (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister, 2014),
though apparel is arguably an exception. Three product characteristics
are the focus here: price, quality, and symbolism.
Price
Price could influence the perceived prestige value associated with a cat-
egory of goods, thereby influencing the consumer–object relationship
(Baumeister, 2014). Some researchers have found price consciousness
to be among the key motivations for access-based offerings (Durgee &
O’Connor, 1995), while others have found it to not be as influential
(Mӧeller & Wittkowski, 2010). When observing utility-based nonowner-
ship apparel models, a key selling point for some is the affordability of
previously inaccessible goods (e.g., “Make fashion affordable to every-
one”: Tradesy.com, n.d.). This is also the case for redistributed ownership
where price is an influential factor, especially in cases where the pur-
chase of a secondhand good costs less. Across all five businesses for
redistributed ownership in this study, affordability and low cost were
emphasized. These factors support the following propositions:
Proposition 2: Price consciousness is positively associated with
consumers’ motivations for collaborative apparel consumption.
Quality
Some authors have found quality to have less of an impact on consumer
satisfaction in utility-based nonownership offerings versus traditional
ownership (Lawson, 2011) while other authors have found high quality
products to be correlated with consumer satisfaction in renting schemes
(Scholl, 2006). In the current case of apparel renting schemes, the pre-
dominant aim is to allow consumers greater ease in accessing designer
goods. In some cases, these goods may very well evidence higher qual-
ity, permitting increased sharing. From a consumer’s perspective, in
either case, the quality of products may be less of a concern to the con-
sumer than in traditional ownership because their use of collaborative
consumption businesses can be mainly driven by status-seeking (e.g.,
renting designer bags) or fashion trends (e.g., redistributed ownership of
fashion goods). This supports the following proposition:
Proposition 3: Quality of products is less of a concern to the con-
sumer in collaborative apparel consumption than in traditional
apparel ownership.
Symbolism
Mylan (2015) recently argued that modifying traditional acquisition
modes would prove most difficult when the meaning of consumptive
elements are dramatically altered. In other words, when objects are
laden in symbolic meaning and associated with a traditional consump-
tion mode, for which many fashion goods could be categorized, it
would be challenging to change consumption practices in this context.
The more important a possession is to self-expression, the more diffi-
cult to transition the consumer–product relationship to some alterna-
tive mode (Mӧeller & Wittkowski, 2010; Schrader, 1999; Weinert,
2010). This factor is akin to a consideration that is especially critical to
apparel: the social visibility of consumption (Baumeister, 2014). Bau-
meister (2014) argues that the social visibility of consumption, whether
public or private, determines if the individual or a larger group of peo-
ple will influence the consumer’s behavior in the collaborative con-
sumption context, for which apparel largely falls in the former
category. If social visibility of a good is low, the product is consumed
privately. This supports the following proposition:
Proposition 4: Consumers’ intention to adopt collaborative con-
sumption is more difficult for apparel products than for other
products that are less symbolic in nature.
5.3 | The consumer–consumer relationship and
collaborative apparel consumption
One of the most important distinctions between collaborative con-
sumption and traditional ownership is the interdependence between
various stakeholders to source goods. Many authors have recently sug-
gested that research efforts should more specifically investigate collab-
orative consumption as a social innovation (Chou, Chen, & Conley,
2015; Jaeger-Erben, R€uckert-John, & Schafer, 2015). Certainly, the
extent to which consumers are invested in existing solutions and socio-
cultural regimes constrains the implementation of more radical con-
cepts, especially those requiring the reduction or relinquishment of per-
sonal ownership (Verganti, 2009), especially in regards to apparel. An
important aspect in this regard is how consumers relate or connect
with other consumers in the collaborative consumption context.
The relative embodied sociality of a consumption mode is chiefly
related to dimensions such as the anonymity or communality consum-
ers may experience in the “sharing” of goods; the latter being particu-
larly relevant in peer-to-peer exchanges (Albinsson & Perera, 2012;
Botsman & Rogers, 2010), which are notably absent in apparel industry
business models. Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) argue that in access-
based consumption, the interpersonal relationship between consumers
is different depending on how public or private the access usage. Pri-
vacy conjures a “society of strangers,” an anonymous transaction, while
470 |
bs_bs_banner
PARK AND ARMSTRONG
public usage is more social (library, gym, etc.) and may be more analo-
gous to sharing, as it may be more pro-social (Belk, 2010). Communal-
ity is the degree to which the consumption mode is truly shared or
collective. The degree of communality plays a role in shaping social
meaning and contributing to the perceived stability of the consumption
mode (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015).
The spatial distance between the consumer and object also con-
tributes to the level of perceived anonymity, which can prohibit how
intimate the consumption mode becomes. For instance, if the product
is not personally owned and within one’s possession, this increases the
anonymity one may feel in the consumption of the good (Bardhi & Eck-
hardt, 2012). Binninger, Ourahmoune, and Robert (2015) argue that
when access to the good is based on anonymity, both personal and
spatial, the community aspect loses its visibility. In sum, if consumers
are not required to connect with each other personally in the consump-
tion activity, anonymity is increased.
In the collaborative apparel consumption context, most utility-based
nonownership schemes (e.g., renting) evidence a high level of anonymity,
limiting communality due to the lack of cooperation required; a situation
where the various users of a good may never know the identity of previ-
ous users because the rental is facilitated by a business (Albinsson &
Perera, 2012). In the case of redistributed ownership, the scenario is
murkier and depends on the level of networking required to consume.
Although one may argue that swapping or consigning an item can only
be achieved via the cooperation of other swappers and consigners, the
potential for increased communality is debatable contingent on the inter-
vention of online mechanisms that may increase the anonymity of the
transaction. Armstrong, Niinimӓki, Kujala, Karell, and Lang, (2015)
recently found that apparel swapping business models were positively
perceived by consumers for the potential peer-to-peer camaraderie and
community that may be fostered, especially among young
consumers.
This is an important area of research that begs further inquiry. Impor-
tantly, the higher the degree of communality of the alternative consump-
tion practice, the greater the opportunity to generate shared meanings
and values that contribute to personal identity (Albinsson & Perera,
2012). Therefore, previous findings support the following propositions:
Proposition 5: Anonymity is higher in collaborative consumption
for apparel than in traditional ownership.
Proposition 6: There is more potential for communality in redis-
tributed apparel ownership than utility-based
nonownership.
5.4 | The consumer–business relationship and
collaborative apparel consumption
Finally, another critical relationship that could arguably be transformed
in light of collaborative consumption modes is between the consumer
and the organizations that may facilitate collaborative consumption.
Some relevant factors that emerged from the literature review as influ-
ential in determining the nature of this relationship include how formal
or institutionalized the arrangement is, how the scheme is positioned,
and the convenience for the consumer.
5.4.1 | Formality or institutionalization
Collaborative consumption scenarios may manifest via informal settings
or formal organizations, associations, or enterprises that embody the
alternative consumption practice, and the degree of formality often
determines how consumers will relate to one another as well as the
extent to which the new practice is seen as stable, reducing perceived
risk (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). Aspects of market mediation and
whether the contracting partners are business-to-consumer or peer-to-
peer transactions (Baumeister, 2014) as well as whether the organiza-
tion that facilitates the “sharing” are for- or nonprofit (Bardhi &
Eckhardt, 2012) are important attributes that contribute to the formality
or the institutionalization of the consumption mode. At present, emerg-
ing collaborative consumption models in the apparel industry are for the
most part market-mediated and for-profit, and therefore highly formal-
ized. Utility-based nonownership modes are considered highly formal-
ized, mostly due to the well-established rental models available in the
market. In redistributed ownership, on the other hand, the formality is
considered only moderate, as the relation between consumers in this
mode is not entirely formalized (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). Reinhart
(2014) indicates that the distinction between these two cases can be
related to who owns and controls inventory. For instance, redistributed
ownership businesses do not hold inventory and focus only on connect-
ing buyers and sellers and reducing friction between the two parties;
while utility-based nonownership businesses take ownership over
goods to better control quality and the customer experience (Reinhart,
2014). When formality is high, the alternative consumption practice has
moved beyond informal settings and is made formal by way of enter-
prises, cooperatives, and associations that provide consumers with
these alternatives. This supports the following propositions:
Proposition 7: Formality/institutionalization is higher for utility-
based apparel nonownership than in redistributed apparel ownership.
Proposition 8: The more formal/institutionalized collaborative
apparel consumption modes, the lower the perceived risk for
consumers.
5.4.2 | Position
Collaborative consumption modes are positioned in the marketplace
from many different value propositions that invariably bolster or con-
strain the consumer–organization relationship (Baumeister, 2014).
Political consumerism
Consumers may certainly access the utility of a good for purely eco-
nomic or functional reasons but also as a political tool; the consumer
making a consumption choice based on their personal ideology (Bardhi
& Eckhardt, 2012; Philip, Ozanne, & Ballantine, 2015). Previous
researchers, for example, have found that peer-to-peer renting and
swapping are characterized by political consumerism (Albinsson &
Perera, 2012; Binninger et al., 2015; Philip et al., 2015). In the case of
PARK AND ARMSTRONG
bs_bs_banner
| 471
utility-based apparel nonownership, one may rent a Louis Vuitton
handbag because he or she cannot afford to own one while yet
another may rent an evening dress for a special occasion because he or
she believes that it would be wasteful to own a garment that may
never be worn again. Businesses for redistributed ownership may also
signify political consumerism by empowering consumers for their con-
sumption choice, as described in the company’s business value: “Corpo-
rations and ad campaigns shouldn’t control our perception of beauty.
Instead, we celebrate each other’s unique style by sharing the things
we love and empowering others to look great. Together, we can have
it all” (Tradesy.com, n.d.). This supports the following proposition
Proposition 9: Political consumerism is an associated motive that
encourages engagement
in collaborative apparel consumption.
Sense of sharing
Hellwig et al. (2015) argue that though some business models may not
exactly fit prototypical examples of traditional sharing, the concept of
sharing still likely shapes the consumer perception as an alternative
consumption mode. It is reasonable to assume that some consumers
may gravitate to some collaborative consumption models because they
are positioned to at least portray the embodiment of sharing. In the
case of apparel collaborative consumption modes, users may have
more peer-to-peer contact in redistributed ownership modes of swap-
ping and consigning while utility-based nonownership may involve a
greater level of market meditation, and therefore, less peer-peer
engagement. Indeed, the very idea of consigning and swapping is
closely connected to the sense of sharing. Poshmark.com, one of the
redistributed ownership businesses in this study, for example, pro-
motes sharing with a message, “Join us and be part of this awesome
community where we thrive on trust, respect, and of course, a shared
affinity for new discoveries in fashion” (Poshmark.com, n.d.). However,
these types of claims were rarely found in utility-based nonownership
businesses. These findings support the following proposition:
Proposition 10: Consumers may perceive a stronger sense of
sharing with redistributed ownership than with utility-based
nonownership.
Innovativeness
Another dimension associated with positioning that may impact the
consumer–organization relationship is the mode’s level of innovative-
ness, which refers to the degree of change prompted by the alternative
consumption mode when contrasted with traditional modes of con-
sumption (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). When innovativeness is high,
these modes are perceived by consumers as unusual and the adoption
of these modes will be more difficult. Jaeger-Erben et al. (2015) argue
that some forms of redistributed ownership, such as swapping, are
already closely related to some traditional consumption modes, and
therefore, represent only a moderate level of innovation. The level of
innovation for utility-based nonownership offerings, on the other hand,
is relatively low primarily because rental schemes have been market
mainstays for some time (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). However, the
online context may complicate this assertion, particularly for redistrib-
uted ownership. Though online consignment is relatively straightfor-
ward and has been in the marketplace for some time, online clothes
swapping using virtual currency (e.g., Listia) is much more complex and
in the earliest stages of emergence. In fact, the vast majority of these
businesses, such as Yerdle, Swapstyle, or 99Dresses, that have entered
and withdrawn from the market quickly, could indicate challenges with
innovativeness. These findings support the following proposition:
Proposition 11: Innovativeness serves as a barrier to engagement
in collaborative apparel consumption.
5.4.3 | Convenience
It is evident that some consumption modes are so closely akin to shopping
for first-off goods, that there is little change in how much time and effort
one must expend to “share” goods while other modes reflect a distinct
shift in consumer habits. Jaeger-Erben et al. (2015) argue that the higher
the level of personal engagement required by the consumption mode,
commanding the consumer to adopt certain behaviors in everyday life, the
more difficult to stimulate consumer engagement. A related dimension is
the level of accessibility of a product. In cases of utility-based nonowner-
ship, the product is less accessible but the provider retains the burdens of
product ownership, which can serve as a greater convenience for the con-
sumer. In redistributed ownership, the product is less accessible by way of
the high variability in product assortment, which is dependent on the rele-
vant others who participate in the scheme. Currently, renting, swapping,
and consigning schemes all evidence accessibility challenges, and conse-
quently, limited market demand (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015).
Another dimension impacting convenience are the price models
utilized by the organization, and specifically, billing mechanisms. One
offer may simply be more expensive than another, but there may also
be more or less flexibility in the arrangement, such as whether a service
fee or a usage minimum is imposed or not, and whether one is paying
per use, opting for a longer term subscription, or some hybrid is offered
(Baumeister, 2014; Tukker, 2004). Reim et al. (2014) recently punctu-
ated the importance of contractual clarity to outline the rights and
liabilities involved in service implementation and barring against risk.
Convenience is also embodied by the extent to which the consumption
mode offers time and cost savings, which is constrained by the accessi-
bility of products (Chou et al., 2015). These aspects are relevant to
utility-based nonownership schemes as well as redistributed owner-
ship. Some examples of accessibility challenges in the context of appa-
rel include the case of swapping where consumers may experience the
most limited selection of goods (Rexfelt & Ornas, 2009), or when the
consumer exchanges an item for virtual currency only, or in the case of
consignment where the consumer experiences a delay between selling
and receiving monetary gain. In sum, virtually any factor that increases
convenience in consumption facilitates collaborative apparel consump-
tion. This supports the following proposition:
472 |
bs_bs_banner
PARK AND ARMSTRONG
Proposition 12: Convenience in consumption facilitates collabora-
tive apparel consumption and positively influences consumer–busi-
ness relationship.
6 | CONCLUSION
Since TIME nominated the sharing economy as one of the “10 ideas
that will change the world” in 2011 (Walsh, 2011), this new economy
has significantly changed the way we consume goods over the last five
years. The apparel industry is not exempt from this disruptive change
within this post-ownership economy. Given the dearth of research on
this topic, this study has clarified a definition that is most relevant to col-
laborative apparel consumption in the digital sharing economy that
includes two primary modes of consumption: utility-based nonowner-
ship and redistributed ownership. Further, this study has proposed a
multilevel consumption framework, extending the work of Chen (2009),
to include three key relationships that most likely hold important con-
sumer behavior insights about these emerging consumptive phenomena:
consumer–product, consumer–consumer, and consumer–organization.
Taking a metatheory approach, the authors employed Reflexive
Dimensional Analysis to analyze theories across various schools of
thought and literature. Important research propositions have been put
forth. This study has made a durable link between theoretical perspec-
tives and key areas for future research inquiry that could increase
understanding about collaborative consumption’s distinction from tra-
ditional ownership. Importantly, many broad and often theoretically
conflicting definitions have evolved recently around collaborative con-
sumption and the sharing economy, especially in the digital arena,
which has muddied the water for scholarly inquiry. The contribution of
this work is the supplied clarity for consumer behavior scholars to
move forward with pointed areas of investigation.
REFERENCES
Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, B. Y. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the
21st century: Building community through sharing events. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 11, 303–315.
Armstrong, C. M., Niinimӓki, 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.
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The
case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 881–898.
Baumeister, C. K. (2014). Access versus ownership: Consumers’ reactions
to an alternative consumption mode (Doctoral dissertation, Techni-
sche Universität M€unchen. Munich, Germany). URL http://d-nb.info/
106800214X/34
(accessed on
September 12th, 2016).
Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own?. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 611, 126–140.
Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 715–734.
Belk, R. (2014a). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative
consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595–1600.
Belk, R. (2014b). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. Anthropolo-
gist, 18, 7–23.
Binninger, A.-S., Ourahmoune, N., & Robert, I. (2015). Collaborative con-
sumption and sustainability: A discursive analysis of consumer repre-
sentations and collaborative website narratives. Journal of Applied
Business Research (Jabr), 31, 969–986.
Botsman, E., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collabo-
rative consumption. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Catulli, M. (2012). What uncertainty? further insight into why consumers
might be distrustful of product service systems. Journal of Manufac-
turing Technology Management, 23(6), 780–793.
Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and access: Consumer desires and value per-
ceptions 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.
Durgee, J. F., & O’connor, G. C. (1995). An exploration into
renting as consumption behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 12, 89–104.
Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2013). Bike share: A synthe-
sis of the literature. Transport Reviews, 33, 148–165.
Geron, T. (2013). Airbnb and the unstoppable rise of the sharing econ-
omy. URL http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/
airbnb-and-the-unstoppable-rise-of-the-share-economy/#73fcea386790
(accessed on September 12th, 2016).
Hamari, J., Sj€oklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy:
Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 1–13.
Hellwig, K., Morhart, F., & Girardin, F. (2015). Exploring different types
of sharing: A proposed segmentation of the market for “sharing”
businesses. Psychology and Marketing, 32, 891–906.
Jaeger-Erben, M., R€uckert-John, J., & Schafer, M. (2015). Sustainable con-
sumption through social innovation: A typology of innovations for sustain-
able consumption practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 784–798.
Lawson, S. (2011). Transumers: Motivation of nonownership consump-
tion. Advances in Consumer Research, 37, 842–843.
Leismann, K., Schimitt, M., Rohn, H., & Baedeker, C. (2015). Collaborative
consumption: Towards a resource-saving consumption culture.
Resources, 2, 184–203.
Lovelock, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Whither services marketing? In
search of a new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service
Research, 7, 20–41.
Mӧeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: Reasons
for preferring renting. Managing Service Quality, 20, 176–191.
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.
Mont, O. K. (2002). Clarifying the concept of product-service system.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3), 237–245.
Owyang, J., Samuel, A., & Grenville, A. (2014). Sharing is the new
buying. URL https://www.visioncritical.com/sharing-is-the-new-buying/
(accessed on September 12th, 2016).
Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti-con-
sumption? An examination of toy library users. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 9, 485–498.
Park, H., & Kincade, D. H. (2010). Historical analysis of an apparel mar-
keter’s strategies: Evidence from a Nike case. Journal of Global
Fashion Marketing, 1, 182–193.
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, UK: Sage.
PARK AND ARMSTRONG
bs_bs_banner
| 473
http://d-nb.info/106800214X/34
http://d-nb.info/106800214X/34
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/airbnb-and-the-unstoppable-rise-of-the-share-economy/#73fcea386790
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/airbnb-and-the-unstoppable-rise-of-the-share-economy/#73fcea386790
https://www.visioncritical.com/sharing-is-the-new-buying
Philip, H. E., Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2015). Examining tempo-
rary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting. Journal of
Marketing Management, 31, 1310–1332.
Poshmark.com (n.d.). What is Poshmark? URL https://poshmark.com/
what_is_poshmark (accessed on September 12th, 2016).
Reim, W., Parida, V., & €Ortqvist, D. (2014). Product–service systems
(PSS) business models and tactics – a systematic literature review.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 61–75.
Reinhart, J. (2014). Why the success of “Sharing Economy” startups
hinges on who owns the inventory. URL http://www.businessinsider.
com/the-success-of-the-sharing-economy-2014-2 (accessed on
September 12th, 2016).
Rexfelt, O., & Ornas, V. F. (2009). Consumer acceptance of product-service
systems. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20, 674–699.
Schaefers, T., Lawson, S., & Kukar-Kinney, M. (2015). How the burdens
of ownership promote consumer usage of access-based services.
Marketing Letters, 27, 569–577.
Scholl, G. (2006). Product service systems. In Perspectives on Radical Changes
to Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP). Proceedings of Sustain-
able Consumption Research Exchange Network, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Schrader, U. (1999). Consumer acceptance of eco-efficient services: A
German perspective. Greener Management International, 25, 105–121.
Tradesy.com (n.d.). About us. URL https://www.tradesy.com/about/
(accessed on September 12th, 2016).
Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product-service system: Eight ways to
sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 13, 246–260.
Tukker, A., & Tischner, U. (2006). Product-services as a research field:
Past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production, 14(17), 1552–1556.
Tussyadiah, I. P. (2015). An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents
of collaborative consumption in travel. In T. Lis & I. Alessandro (Eds.),
Information and communication technologies in tourism (pp. 817–830).
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules of compe-
tition by radically innovating what things mean. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Press.
Wallis, S. E. (2010). Toward a science of metatheory. Integral Review, 6,
73–120.
Walsh, B. (2011). Today’s smart choice: Don’t own. Share. URL http://con-
tent.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0 (2880). 4,2059521_
2059717_2059710,00.html (accessed on September 12th, 2016).
Weinert, R. (2010). Property as a determinant of consumer behavior: The
example second home (Doctoral dissertation, Universität St. Gallen,
Switzerland). URL http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIden-
tifier/3717/$FILE/dis3717 (accessed on September 12th, 2016).
How to cite this article: Park H, Armstrong CMJ. Collaborative
apparel consumption in the digital sharing economy: An agenda
for academic inquiry. Int J Consum Stud. 2017;41:465–474.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12354
APPENDIX : BUSINESS CASES FOR APPAREL COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION
Consumption mode Consumption example Website Product
Utility-based
nonownership
Short-term
renting
Customers rent Vera Wang’s dress
for four days for $150
BagBorroworSteal.com Designer bags
Renttherunway.com Women’s clothes and accessories
Subscription-
based renting
Customers rent unlimited clothing
and accessories for 1 month with
a monthly subscription fee of $50
Fashionhire.com Designer bags
Gwynniebee.com Plus size women’s clothes and ac-
cessories
Letote.com Women’s clothes and accessories
Redistributed
ownership
Swapping Customers sell clothes via a mobile
app in exchange for credits (i.e.,
virtual currency) which can be
paid to buy other items; a service
fee is charged in each transaction
by a company
Listia.com Clothing and other consumer goods
Consigning Customers list their unwanted
clothes on the company’s website
and get it consigned for free; a
service fee is charged in each
transaction by a company
Tradesy.com Women’s clothes and accessories
Poshmark.com Women’s clothes and accessories
Vinted.com Women’s clothes and accessories
Thredup.com Women’s, maternity, plus size, chil-
dren’s clothes and accessories
Note. During the search, those companies that were too small in size (e.g., operating at a regional level), did not offer apparel, and those that were not
online-based (e.g., off-line swap meets) were eliminated. The final 10 companies were considered suitable cases for our investigation given the availabil-
ity of data (e.g., media coverage) and the leadership that these companies have shown in the collaborative consumption industry for the apparel sector.
Selecting firms showing industry leadership is a good method to begin qualitative work in a field (Park & Kincade, 2010).
474 |
bs_bs_banner
PARK AND ARMSTRONG
https://poshmark.com/what_is_poshmark
https://poshmark.com/what_is_poshmark
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-success-of-the-sharing-economy-2014-2
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-success-of-the-sharing-economy-2014-2
https://www.tradesy.com/about/
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0
http://4,2059521_2059717_2059710,00.html
http://4,2059521_2059717_2059710,00.html
http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIdentifier/3717//dis3717
http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIdentifier/3717//dis3717
http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIdentifier/3717//dis3717
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12354
DHM 4151: Sustainable Consumption
Week 3: Reading Report
* Do NOT change the format of this template. Keep the table, type fonts, spacing, and a page margin as they are.
** Unless permitted to directly quote, provide the answers
with your own words
. In other words, a simple copy and paste of the article text will result in the
deduction of points
.
|
Park & Armstrong (2017) |
|
What are the two types of collaborative consumption (CC) according to the taxonomy developed by the authors? Identify each type of CC and briefly explain it with a few examples. |
|
One of the propositions developed by the authors is that product attachment is lower for collaborative apparel consumption than traditional apparel ownership. Explain this proposition in layman’s terms. Do you agree or disagree with this proposition? |
|
Armstrong & Park (2017) |
|
The authors identified three sustainability indicators as pivotal to the evaluation of CC platforms. What are these three indicators? (Hint: See Table 1). Identify each indicator, and explain how each concept supports sustainability. List relevant dimensions to each indicator in your answer. |
|
In their discussion about consumer-product relationship, the authors tackled the issue of product attachment further. According to their claim, renting apparel products (e.g., Rent the Runway) or using a fashion subscription service (e.g., Letote) does not really support sustainable consumption. What are the reasons for this claim? |
|
To the question “what makes a digital collaborative apparel consumption platform sustainable?” the authors answered that “it depends” (p. 276, p. 284). What does this mean? Discuss their points. |
The Case for Collaborative Consumption (Links to an external site.)
Still not sure about what collaborative consumption is? Or not clear how it could contribute to sustainable consumption? Over the years, there have been lots of pop culture resources about collaborative consumption and mixed messages about its implications for sustainability. For example, many fashion renting and subscription services have advertised themselves by promoting the message that they can help consumers become more environmentally sustainable (e.g., buying/throwing less clothes), socially sustainable (e.g., being connected to the community of other renters), and economically sustainable (e.g., saving money on buying clothes). Indeed, I’ve seen that many students do perceive subscription-based businesses as one of the “sustainable” business models.
Yet no one really clearly defined what collaborative consumption is (especially for apparel and fashion products), and whether it can actually make an impact on sustainability. So I did. 🙂 My colleague and I started this research on collaborative apparel consumption in 2017 and have been publishing many research papers since then. Among those research articles, let me share two articles with you so you can have some solid understanding of what collaborative consumption really is, and more importantly, how it might (or might not) contribute to sustainability.
Park and Armstrong 2017 Download Park and Armstrong 2017 Preview the document
Armstrong and Park 2017 Download Armstrong and Park 2017 Preview the document
The first article will provide a good overview of collaborative ‘apparel’ consumption while the second article will specifically examine how it can be related to sustainability. Read both articles and complete the reading report.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
