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

International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education

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

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

C. M. Joyner Armstrong & H. Park

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

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

Published online: 28 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 426

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

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

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

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

ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 30 December 2016
Accepted 21 June 2017

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

© The Textile Institute and Informa UK Ltd 2017

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

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

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

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

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

2. Conceptual development

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

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

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

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

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 277

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

3. Towards the ternary relationship
framework

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

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

3.1. Consumer–product relationship

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

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

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

Figure 1. Ternary relationship framework for research.

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

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

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

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

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

Consumer–product relationship

Resource
efficiency

Product life extension via
attachment (by
individual)

Highly symbolic clothing
types

Symbolism
Time with the item
Short term
Long term

−

−
−
−
+

+

+
+
−
+

. Product types poised for R-O

. Symbolism as deterrent to clothing CC within UNO models

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

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

Material utilisation via use
intensity (by collective)

Infrequently used clothing
types

User carelessness; repair/
maintenance

Transportation
requirements

Reduced demand for new
product

Avoidance of premature
disposal

Product quality
Style obsolescence

+

−

−

+

+

−
−

−

−

−

+

+

−
−

. Product types poised for UNO

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

Consumer–consumer relationship

Community Sociality Anonymity/communality
Public/private access
Spatial distance

−
−
−

−
−
−

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

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

Consumer–organisation relationship

Nature of
Business

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

For-/non-profit

−

−

−

−

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

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

Politics
Innovation

−

−
−

−

−
−

. Political motivations of consumers to adopt apparel CC

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

Social capital Knowledge, skills
Empowerment

−
−

−
−

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

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

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 279

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second, there is little denying that both UNO and RO
models yield some reduction in production demand and
premature disposal (Leismann et al., 2013); however,
potential rebound effects (Reim et al., 2015) are also
easily …

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: [email protected]

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

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 …