Part B: Collaborative consumption practices

The second part of the interview examined the interviewees’ accounts of collaborative consumption practices (Section 4.2.3) in order to address research objective 4 (Section 3.3). Breaking down Botsman and Rogers’ (2010) definition of collaborative consumption, ‘lending’ and ‘borrowing’ (Section 6.3.1), ‘bartering’ and

‘swapping’ (6.3.2), ‘sharing’ and ‘trading’ (Section 6.3.3), ‘renting/hiring’ and ‘gifting’

(Section 6.3.4) products, skills or spaces (Appendix IV) were explored through the lens of social practice theory. Adopting the conceptualisation of ‘practice’ provided by Shove et al. (2012), the scope of the investigation was the ‘meaning’ element of Shove’s Material-Competence-Meaning model (Figure 2.11). Cultural conventions, expectations and socially shared meanings associated with collaborative consumption practices were explored through the personal accounts of the interviewees (Appendix III).

6.3.1 Lending and Borrowing

Interviewees described lending as offering a possession to somebody else for a period of time, with the implied assumption that they will get it back in good condition at some later point in time. In most cases the transaction is intended to be free and there may be an expectation of future reciprocation. Lending products, skills, or spaces was associated with ideas and images of usefulness, availability, openness, caring, pleasure, feeling part of a local community, duty, respect, trust, security and dependability in relationships. Also, lending out goods not regularly used and sitting around “gathering dust” for most of the time was associated with efficiency and a sense of satisfaction, a “feel good factor”.

Martha: “[Lending] is a good thing to do. It’s about fairness, not being greedy, helping other people out.”

On the other hand, privacy, diffidence, discomfort and awkwardness were mentioned in relation to undesirable situations between lenders and borrowers.

Images of lent items getting damaged or not being returned (in time) evoked ideas of ownership, risk, unreliability, lack of care, forgetfulness, concern, disappointment and anxiety.

In some cases lending was perceived to be easier than borrowing, its flip side practice. As a social convention, borrowing implies having to take possession of somebody else’s belongings, take care of them and return them. Although connected with gratefulness, getting access, not having to buy it (or pay for it upfront), building trust and social links (e.g. meeting new people, making friendships), special occasions, needing something and obtaining it, borrowing was in some circumstances considered unpleasant.

Thomas: “I’ve found it difficult borrowing from people. I think it’s a pride thing, essentially. I am normally in a position to be able to, if I need a tool, buy it or borrow from my father in law, because basically I see him as family, and therefore it’s different.”

Pride, accepting help, incapacity to do or afford something, discomfort with

“the asking”, awkwardness, feeling (time-)constrained and imposing oneself on others are ideas sometimes associated with borrowing. In some cases the practice may imply obligation, of both giving things back (on time) and possibly reciprocating by lending in future.

Overall, the positive meanings that interviewees linked with lending and borrowing appeared different in nature. Stronger and more stable values-related images were identifiable in the case of lending (e.g. caring, security and

dependability in relationships), which may reflect the specific profile of the sample reached (i.e. generally highly motivated and committed individuals). Borrowing, on the contrary, predominantly elicited ideas of a very practical type, which were value⁵⁶-related: they tended to be built around convenience and were situational (e.g. getting access, not having to buy it). In analysing the negative associations, personal attributes and dispositions appeared to be relevant in the case of borrowing (e.g. pride, incapacity to do or afford something) (i.e. values-related meanings), whereas ownership of material possessions was at stake in the case of lending (e.g. risk, lack of care) (i.e. value-related meanings).

Trust, time and proximity appeared to be key (value-related) aspects either facilitating or hindering lending and borrowing. The monetary cost (if any) implied in this type of transaction (e.g. fuel to collect and return borrowed items, fees applied by lenders and service providers) may additionally influence willingness to borrow.

Holly: “There is, also, with both of them [i.e. lending and borrowing], kind of a time and a hassle factor. I wouldn’t necessarily choose to borrow something rather than, say, go out and buy it. Because sometimes the hassle factor is much greater for doing that, if you’ve got to go and get it, and if it limits the timeframe in which you can use it, and then you’ve got to give it back to them; or if you’re going to feel very anxious about getting something back from somebody in the same state.”

Convenience and overcoming the “that’s not worth it” effect are crucial to engagement when alternative ways of performing the same practice are already in place (e.g. asking family and friends, knocking on neighbours’ doors) or competing practices exist (e.g. buying new in a shop).

6.3.2 Bartering and Swapping

Bartering was seen by some interviewees as a reciprocal and equal exchange of goods or services for other goods or services. As such, it implies some negotiation to agree on the transaction value.

Amy: “I see bartering as being more negotiated: “So, you give me this and I’ll give you this”. And you may even haggle a little bit about what

56 The term ‘value’, in a classical economic perspective, refers to the relationship between utility, quality and price of a product or service perceived by consumers (for a comprehensive literature review see Zeithaml, 1988 and Woodall, 2003). Conversely, ‘value’

is used in this thesis with a broader connotation to include what is perceived as convenient, practical and efficient (which may, or may not, result from economic considerations about utility, quality and price).

my thing is worth and what your thing is worth. Maybe I’m giving you five things for your one thing and you think that’s not enough, so I say:

“Ok, I’ll give you six”.”

Given the centrality of the bargaining process, many interviewees also associated (and identified) bartering with negotiating for a lower price on something. This practice, common in some countries, appeared to be uncustomary for the interviewees and, in Thomas’s words, the “fix-price culture in the UK”. Unease with bartering down the price may be rooted in the (values-related) negative connotation attributed to this practice, which is generally perceived as impolite and, often, unfair to the person who is selling the good.

Thomas: “I think it’s definitely instilled in me that it’s slightly rude to barter, or a bit cheeky.”

As a system of exchange, barter does not involve money. However, transactions may be mediated by alternative currencies (e.g. time-based currency, complementary/community credits), for example in Time Banks⁵⁷ and Local Exchange Trading Systems⁵⁸ (LETS). These grassroots initiatives have reciprocity, empowerment, revitalising and building community as core ideas. However, a pressure to reciprocate could possibly undermine the whole purpose of helping each other for free.

Holly: “I had some very limited involvement with some LETS schemes where I used to live. As someone with a disability, I had some problems with it because people were on a level playing field and those systems often seem to assume that you would always have something equivalent to give back. And this seemed to take away the idea of just giving being ok. There always seemed to be the kind of “what do I get back out of this?” rather than having people just doing things for other people when they were able to. All seemed a bit calculated to me. So, I was always a bit uncomfortable about that and never really got involved in a very formal way.”

Swapping was defined as giving one thing and receiving something else back. It was perceived as a more spontaneous and commensurate exchange (i.e.

“mutually benefitting”) between two comparable things, particularly suitable for

57 “Timebanking is a means of exchange … where time is the principal currency. For every hour participants ‘deposit’ in a timebank, perhaps by giving practical help and support to others, they are able to ‘withdraw’ equivalent support in time when they themselves are in need. In each case the participant decides what they can offer.”

http://www.timebanking.org/what-is-timebanking/

58 “LETS – Local Exchange Trading Systems or Schemes – are local community-based mutual aid networks in which people exchange all kinds of goods and service with one another, without the need for money.” http://letslinkuk.net

certain product categories (e.g. children’s clothing and toys). Swapping was considered “less about value” than bartering.

Brian: “I don’t think you have any real concern when you are swapping that you get the same value back. It doesn’t have to be an equal transaction, and I think most people who swap get that sometimes you lose a bit, sometimes you gain a bit. That’s just the way it is, and you don’t lose any sleep over it.”

Similarly to lending and borrowing (when these transactions are for free), some interviewees believed swapping to be driven by high moral purposes and (values-related) principles.

Thomas: “Lending, borrowing and swapping are all very nice ideals in terms of taking money out of the equation and trying to move towards a society that is less focused on money or capital.”

6.3.3 Sharing and Trading

Sharing was defined by most interviewees as the joint ownership and benefit of a certain good, or the communal usage of a privately owned possession (either a product, skill, or space). Ideally, people agree to share something they own without expectation of any return or other form of reciprocation. For this reason, it more often takes place among family, friends and acquaintances. Trust, commitment and care were key (values-related) meanings associated to sharing.

Brian: “Most examples of my sharing would be inside the family, where basically anything that I own is a shared resource, and rightfully so.

How much I share outside of the family? I don’t know. To me there is always a real boundary almost at the family home’s door, when it kind of goes out. It is easy, obviously, to share with the people that you know and love; there is very little sharing that seems to happen outside.”

In contrast, most interviewees felt at unease with the word trading, which seemed to evoke (value-related) images of expected financial returns and have an element of greed “wrapped up” in it.

Holly: “Trading is a funny word. It’s not a word I take to, really. I’m really not keen on things like eBay: it’s kind of all about placing a monetary value on things. So, I have an instinctive slightly unhappy relationship to that word comparing to sharing.”

Trading has a more commercial (and less amicable) connotation and implies a more formal type of transaction generally mediated through money. As such, it is perceived as a profit-making activity in which economic interests are prioritised over values.

Linda: “Trading to me represents much more a financial or commercial operation, where there is money and where the value is defined more from an economic perspective than a values perspective. For me sharing is much more values-driven and trading is more economically-driven.”

6.3.4 Renting/hiring and Gifting

Most interviewees described renting as a formalised version of lending and borrowing, involving a monetary transaction. When renting, goods are accessed or granted access to for a period of time, without transfer of ownership. This was considered a convenient solution when there is a need for a short-term use of a product, the item is quite specialist or expensive to buy and/or maintain, or whenever the person would feel burdened with it afterwards. Compared to borrowing, such a formal arrangement could also provide an additional degree of reassurance, as suggested by Holly (“You have a more formal kind of contract, so there’d be less discomfort if something went wrong”), and quality.

Linda: “Since what you’re paying for it’s not gonna be yours, there’s a huge service around making sure that you get a good thing, or at least what you believe, quality-wise, you should be getting for what you pay.

A good example of this is renting a car. I went on vacation last month and we rented a car and we wanted it to be clean, we wanted it to work and to have no problems.”

A rental business model has to meet customer expectations in order to be successful. Therefore, a negative experience could deter people from choosing renting over private ownership. Renting was also believed to entail limitations in terms of availability and may result in a less convenient and more expensive option.

Thomas: “I think renting is very difficult, especially renting a car. I think the very nature of the insurance along with the dodgy nature of car rental firms makes it an undesirable experience. I’m always far more stressed when I drive in a rental car, in case something happens to it, [if it gets] a very light scratch and they try to charge me hundreds or thousands of pounds to repair it, if a tyre gets a puncture then I need to pay a ridiculous amount of money for it. And that I think gets in the way of people actually choosing renting as a sustainable opportunity.”

Gifting was explained as when products, skills or spaces are given away

“unconditionally”, at no charge and not expecting anything in return. Gifting was also described as a one-way offer involving a transfer of property. Meanings associated to gifting included altruism, generosity, solidarity, kindness and caring.

Linda: “Gifting is much more values-related. It’s about understanding and feeling what the other person wants and giving away that sense of property of something to someone else. And also in the gift there’s the

sense of doing it for the pleasure of gifting and not expecting anything back because otherwise it’s ‘swapping’ or ‘bartering’ or ‘sharing’, but it’s not ‘gifting’.”

Giving for free, making someone happy, helping people or doing a good turn were all positive (values-related) images connected with gifting. Many interviewees thus indicated that they enjoy and get pleasure from giving presents to people, or even to “gift time” through volunteering.

Connie: “What goes around comes around. So, if everybody goes out there doing good things like giving things to people, you’d benefit from that at some point. If everybody works like that, then society works better.”

Although gifting (either giving presents or helping others) was generally seen as an open-hearted and kind act, at times the gift may result unwanted and/or produce a sense of social obligation (e.g. to make use of the undesired gift or to reciprocate in future).

Thomas: “There is kind of an almost English awkwardness about accepting help myself, unless it’s someone that I’ve already helped. I suppose it’s the very British nature of “if someone has invited you for dinner, you have to invite them back”. And if they invite you and you haven’t, you will find it awkward. It’s one of those things that I don’t quite know why it is, but it is.”

6.3.5 Discussion

Section 6.3 investigated the meanings (i.e. cultural conventions, expectations and socially shared meanings) that interviewees ascribed to collaborative consumption practices. For each practice (i.e. ‘lending’, ‘borrowing’, ‘bartering’, ‘swapping’,

‘sharing’, ‘trading’, ‘renting/hiring’ and ‘gifting’ products, skills or spaces), interviewees were asked what the proposed word meant to them and what ideas it inspired.

Accounts were fairly consistent across interviews. Interviewees discriminated between practices of a typically commercial nature (i.e. trading, renting/hiring and bartering) and practices more directly associated with free transactions (i.e. sharing, swapping, gifting, lending and borrowing). They tended to express more neutral (or negative) evaluations of the former, and were more positive about the latter.

In analysing the meanings associated with each practice, they appeared to be either value-related (e.g. practicality, efficiency, convenience), or values-related (e.g.

trust, care, helpfulness). Both value-related and values-related meanings were

associated with each of the eight collaborative consumption practices under examination. However, they appeared to have different pre-eminence, for example, value-related meanings outnumbered values-related meanings in ‘renting/hiring’, whilst values-related meanings were predominant in the case of ‘gifting’.