One Good Turn: Tackling Poverty through the Circulation of Goods in Kirklees

When the Coalition Government came to power in the UK in 2010, David Cameron announced the Big Society initiative claiming it to be a “serious reform agenda to take power away from politicians and give it to people’ (cited in Slocock, 2013: 6). An independent audit conducted in 2013 found that the Big Society was “failing to live up to its own rhetoric in key areas”, but that it is nonetheless inspiring: “not only has it spawned many new initiatives with real impact on the ground, many people...are also continuing to turn to civil society as a positive force for social change” (2013: 6). One example of such a civil society initiative is a local community group called One Good Turn, which set up in Huddersfield during 2010. The group initially operated through a number of Facebook sites, where members listed the things they no longer required and those in need put their names forward to receive the items on a first come-first-served basis. Sophia Crawshaw took over the running of the sites in the summer of 2011, and in an article published in the local newspaper six months later, she explained that the group was set up “as everyone is struggling right now during the recession and even charity shops are becoming expensive.” The Facebook sites have a varied membership from teenagers to pensioners; “lots of young mums and first home buyers” and Sophia enthused that “it’s so lovely to see people giving things away to help others – it’s seeing the best side of human nature and kindness...” (Huddersfield Examiner, 2012). Within a short period of time under the stewardship and kind-heartedness of Sophia, One Good Turn became a registered charity, which now liaises “closely with other Kirklees Council Agencies and several other local charities to help as many people as possible” who are in need within Huddersfield and its surrounds (www.onegoodturncharity.org.uk )

A phenomenological study of home baking: The ‘Rebirth of Romanticism' and the rise of the craft consumer

This paper investigates home baking as an instance of ‘craft consumption' (Campbell, 2005) against the backdrop of rising participation in the phenomenon of home baking and the increasing importance of emotion in consumption defined as the ‘Rebirth of Romanticism' movement (Gray, 2011). Phenomenological interviews conducted with a sample of 14 home bakers indicate that pleasure, authenticity and simplicity all play an important role in bakers' experiences, lending support to Gray's argument that a ‘Rebirth of Romanticism' can be discerned within this context of contemporary consumption. Moreover, our findings reveal that pleasure is linked in part to the opportunity to engage in ‘manual labour', an activity missing in the professional working lives of our consumer sample. These preliminary findings add depth to Campbell's (2005) theoretical conceptualisation of the craft consumer. Further research focusing on different contexts such as DIY and gardening are needed in order to assess the robustness of the concept of the craft consumer and the status of the Rebirth of Romanticism

Producing & Consuming Public Space: A ‘Rhythmanalysis’ of the Urban Park

Research suggests an opportunity to offer a more comprehensive analysis of temporal consumption experiences encountered by park users, and the subsequent contribution to a perceived ‘sense of place’. Using visual ethnography and rhythmanalysis, our study distances our analysis from textual accounts of park usage as well as provide policy recommendations

Food waste and sustainability: distributed responsibility – constructing a sharing economy?

In recent years notions of ‘sharing’ and ‘circular’ economies have emerged as new ways of moving towards sustainability. Alongside the rise of new values, trends and technologies these ideas are closely aligned through the joint focus on reducing and reusing scarce resources. In this paper we explore these connections through empirical material collected during research to examine the attempt to initiate a sharing economy in Kirklees in the north of England. The marketing literature has tended to focus on the nature of the exchange of goods and services among participants of the sharing economy (e.g. Corciolani & Dalli, 2014; Scaraboto, 2015). The issue of ‘sharing’ has thus received considerable attention and critique (Arnould & Rose, 2016; Belk, 2016) with some claiming that the sharing economy isn’t about sharing at all (Eckhardt and Bardhi, 2015; Stokes et al., 2014) – an issue also raised by sociologists (Schor 2015). We contribute to this debate by focusing on the process of sharing to move beyond reified notions of sharing ‘subjects’ and ‘organisations’. Focusing on the issue of food waste and Kirklees Council’s attempt to foster sharing between local charities and supermarkets to reallocate wasted food to the increasing number people in ‘crisis’ (Trussell Trust 2013), we explore the emergence of ‘distributed responsibility’ and a ‘food waste discourse coalition... contingent on the involvement of supermarkets’ (Evans et al. 2017: 13). In September 2014 Kirklees Council won €1m in the Mayor’s Challenge at Bloomberg Philanthropies in the US. The award was to help implement Comoodle, an initiative that envisages a revolution in the way public services are delivered via sharing. A key feature of Comoodle is the desire to stimulate the sharing of underused local resources in the form of ‘stuff, space and skills’ (Kirklees Council, 2015). During 2015 we conducted an ‘ethnographic case study evaluation’ (Robson 2000) of three pilots set up to test initial Comoodle assumptions about sharing. Here we focus specifically on the pilot for space, which centred on the Welcome Centre in Huddersfield – a charitable organisation and food bank that provides food and other items to individuals and families in crisis. At the time, the need for space was paramount if the Centre was to accept waste food donations from supermarkets. A short-term offer was secured from market services at the council, who agreed to share ‘space’ (cold storage) in return for ‘stuff’ (waste food) and ‘skills’ (from the centre). As an interviewee from the Centre stated: ‘What they’re offering is they provide us with space and... we in return, at no cost to them... provide a crisis support service for the people of Kirklees.’ The offer was withdrawn when other market traders complained about the Center getting something for nothing, yet supermarkets were neither approached nor offered to provide an alternative. Their role was a taken for granted assumption, which for us begged questions about the motivation and pressures to develop a sharing economy. This becomes all the more pertinent when we consider the vast amount of food supermarkets waste: last year Sainsbury’s donated 3,000 tonnes of food, just 7% of their surplus overall (Stuart and Jarozs 2017). Yet the benefits to Kirklees of getting this ‘sharing’ pilot to work – at a time when they were subject to massive funding cuts from central Government – were such that they felt compelled to pursue it. Where does this leave us? Well, in their work on the politics of sustainability, Evans et al (2017) trace the changing discourses around food waste campaigning in the UK across two periods. The insights that emerge, are instructive, we argue, in this instance at least, for the light they shed on the attempt to construct a sharing economy. In the first period (2007-2013) the involvement of a range of governmental and non-governmental actors in a new governmentality of food waste – linked to the publication of The Food We Waste report from WRAP (2008) – was a central theme. During this period, Evans et al (2017) argue that ethical responsibility was used to problematize everyday patterns of consumption and secure the responsibilization of consumers through a range of political (food waste) rationalities. An unintended consequence of this approach, they argue, was a growing awareness of food waste and subsequent calls for greater collective responsibility, with food waste thus being recognized to be a systematic rather than an individual problem. In the second period (2013-2015) Evans and colleagues show that ‘politics of blame’ underpinning supermarket waste strategies lessoned considerably as environmental debate – including an intervention by Pope Francis – increased awareness of food waste globally. However, they claim that the subsequent emergence of ‘distributed responsibility’ should not simply be seen as a ‘triumph of shared over individual responsibility’ (2017, 10). The emergent ‘food waste discourse coalition’ of governmental and non-governmental actors was still contingent, they argue, on supermarket participation, and on the individual consumer. Yet in this period the discursive focus was no longer simply about what the individual consumer could do to reduce food waste and enhance sustainable consumption, but on what supermarkets could do for the consumer. In this context, as Evans et al (2017, 12) note, when it comes to food waste ‘the consumer’ is now used as a ‘rhetorical device to mediate the relationships between strategic and collective actors’. In is our contention that the notion of ‘sharing economy’ was used in a similar way in Kirklees to mediate relationships and find policy solutions to pressing local problems through engagement with the ‘food waste discourse coalition’. What does this say about food waste, sustainability and the assumed links between sharing and circular economies? Well, if supermarkets really want to address the food waste problem, and move toward a circular economy, we conclude that they need to cut food waste at source rather than depending on charities and food banks (Stuart and Jarozs 2017). Sharing is potentially a useful adjunct to circular thinking, but as our analysis demonstrates, ‘sharing initiates’ are not always about sharing. References Arnould, E.J. & Rose, A.S. (2016) Mutuality: Critique and substitute for Belk’s “sharing”, Marketing Theory, 16/1, 75-99. Belk, R. (2016) Accept no substitutes: A reply to Arnould and Rose, Marketing Theory, 16/1, 143-149. Corciolani, M. & Dalli, D. (2014) Gift-giving, sharing and commodity exchange at Bookcrossing.com: new insights from a qualitative analysis, Management Decision, 52/4, 755- 776. Eckhardt, G.M. & Bardhi, F. (2015) The Sharing Economy Isn’t About Sharing at All. Evans, D., Welch, D. and Swaffield, J. (2017) Constructing and mobilizing ‘the consumer’: Responsibility. Consumption and the politics of sustainability, Environment and Planning A, 0(0)1-17 Kirklees Council (2015) Comoodle Delivery Plan Robson, C. (2011) Small Scale Evaluation, Sage: London Schor, J. B. (2015) Getting sharing right, Contexts, 14 (1) 12-19 Scaraboto, D. (2015) Selling, Sharing, and Everything In Between: The Hybrid Economies of Collaborative Networks, Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 152-176. Stuart, T. and Jarozs, D. (2017) Supermarkets should be cutting food waste, not relying on charities, Guardian 3rd February Stokes, K., Clarence, E., Anderson, L. & Rinne, A. (2014) Making Sense of the UK Collaborative Economy, Nesta Trussell Trust (2013) Increasing numbers turning to food banks since April’s welfare reform. Press release 11 July: Available at: https://www.trusselltrust.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/06/Increasing-numbers-turning-to-foodbanks-since-Aprils-welfare-reforms-1.pdf (accessed16 March 2017) WRAP (2008) The Food We Waste: Food waste report v2, Institute of Food Researc

A kaleidoscopic view of the territorialized consumption of place

Drawing on Brighenti’s (2010, 2014) theoretical exposition of territorology, we extend current conceptualisations of place within the marketing literature by demonstrating that place is relationally constructed through territorialising consumption practices which continuously produce and sustain multifarious versions of place. In our fieldwork, we embrace a non-representational sensitivity and employ a multi-sensory ethnography, thus helping to illuminate the performative aspects of everyday life relating to people who use urban green spaces. Our analysis articulates three key facets relating to the process of territorialising consumption practices: (1) Tangible and intangible elements of boundary-making; (2) Synchronicity of activities; and (3) Sensual experiences. Taken together these facets advance a kaleidoscopic perspective in which spatial, temporal and affective dimensions of the micro-practices of consumption territories-in-the-making are brought into view. Moreover, our empirical research adds an affective dimension to Brighenti’s theoretical elucidation of the formation and dissolution of territories, thereby incorporating sensual imaginations and bodily experiences into the assemblages of heterogeneous materials that sustain territories

Exploring the role of sharing culture and consumers’ willingness to participate in informal and commercial ride sharing.

Transportation globally is experiencing significant transformation in line with the demands and challenges of a rapidly changing world; on one hand enjoying unprecedented levels of ground-breaking technology and on the other trying to make consumption genuinely responsible (Anderson et al., 2020; Bajaj et al., 2021). Ride sharing which is the sharing of a ride with other passengers with similar itineraries (Furuharta et al., 2013; Jin et al., 2018) is considered to be both a sustainable and efficient form of shared mobility that helps to mitigate some of the additional challenges faced in fast growing cities in particular (Agatz et al., 2012; Furuharta et al., 2013; Vanderschuren & Baufeldt, 2018). Ride sharing can be categorized as being either informal, which involves sharing with known parties or commercial, which entails sharing with unknown parties via dynamic real time ride sharing platforms (Daily et al., 1999; Furuharta et al. 2013; Shaheen & Cohen, 2019). Whilst the literature on commercial ride sharing has grown significantly over the last decade, little is known about informal ride sharing in the context of marketing and consumer research, at least, or the dynamics between the two, especially in the context of a developing country. Informal ride sharing which predates dynamic, real time commercial ride sharing platforms continues to be a major form of transportation, particularly in cultures where sharing is a cultural norm, for example in many African cultures. Employing a consumer centric research approach and Lagos, Nigeria as the context, this study therefore seeks to understand how sharing culture influences consumers’ participation in informal and commercial ride sharing. The study is based on a theory-driven thematic analysis of 45 semi-structured interviews conducted with participants who reside in Lagos, Nigeria. This analysis identifies five core themes emerging from consumers’ socio-cultural environment, which influence their willingness to participate in informal and/or commercial ride sharing. These themes are interdependence, obligations and expectation to share, morality, need for status and practicalities of ride sharing. The themes provide a conceptual framework for developing an in depth understanding of how the sharing culture within a particular cultural context shapes consumers’ lived experiences of sharing and hence influence their attitudes in relation to both forms of ride sharing. It further demonstrates the complex relationship between informal and commercial ride sharing. Conclusively, the findings from this study provide valuable insight into understanding the role of sharing culture in shaping consumers’ attitudes towards sharing in general and as a result their willingness to participate in ride sharing in particular. It furthers contributes towards understanding consumer behaviour in the context of ride sharing with implications derived for the diffusion of commercial ride sharing platforms in Lagos, Nigeria and in places with similar socio-cultural conditions. The research also demonstrates the potential for commercial ride sharing to serve as a means to alleviate the challenges faced in the under resourced transportation sector in developing economies

Sharing Culture and the Sharing Economy: The Case of Lagos, Nigeria

The sharing economy over the last decade has experienced significant growth and attention particularly in developed countries. This trend is also gaining momentum in Africa, although consumer behaviour within the African context remains largely understudied. Africa has historically boasted a sharing culture but studies have yet to explore the dynamics between sharing culture and consumer participation in the sharing economy. Using the responses from 40 interviews from participants in Lagos Nigeria, this study specifically seeks to understand the role of sharing culture in influencing consumer participation in the sharing economy. The research findings identify four key themes that underpin consumers views and participation in the sharing economy as a result of sharing culture; problem solving, social relationships, high social tolerance, and need for status. The findings from this study provide practical implications for the diffusion of the sharing economy in a market like Lagos, Nigeria. The sharing economy allows individuals access to the use of assets and services often for a fee but sometimes not (Botsman, 2013; Böcker & Meelen, 2017). It has continued to grow in terms of initiatives, consumer adoption rates and in academic research particularly in developed countries (Acquier et al., 2017; Palgan et al., 2020). However, the sharing economy in emerging economies (Retamal, 2019) specifically in Africa is lagging behind and remains disparagingly understudied (Novikova, 2021). The exponential growth of the sharing economy in the last decade can be attributed to technological advancement facilitated by the internet and smart phones which allows millions of people around the world to connect instantly (May et al., 2017). As a result, the proliferation of the sharing economy is yet to fully take off in developing and underdeveloped parts of the world where consumers sometimes do not have the means or access to the technology required to participate (Wesgro, 2017). Despite this obvious limitation and a slow start, several developing cities in Africa are beginning to tap into this trend with digital platforms like Airbnb and Uber revolutionizing the hospitality and transportation industries and opening it up to millions of people within Africa and globally (Ndemo & Weiss, 2017). Lagos, Nigeria, home to an estimated 20 million people from multiple ethnic backgrounds, despite its numerous challenges, is considered to be one of the fastest growing economies in Africa (Dano et al., 2020; World Population Review, 2021). With improving technology, the market is experiencing a steady influx of global and indigenous sharing economy digital platforms particularly transport network companies (Wesgro, 2017). Many consider the emergence of the sharing economy in Africa as timely and crucial for the development of sectors such as tourism and transportation and forecast the sharing economy model as a potentially viable economic alternative and a paradigm upon which multiple industries can potentially benefit (Mutunga; 2018; Novikova, 2021). Whilst the sharing economy is technology enabled and formalised, informal sharing practices already exist in informal and smaller settings. Many African countries perhaps more than most parts of the world historically have had an array of collaborative consumption schemes (Wesgro, 2017). This has been recorded in the form of community money pools to food sharing, and crowdfunding (Jaeggi & Gurven, 2013; Esiobu et al., 2015). If a sharing culture already thrives in Africa could this be transferable to consumers’ acceptance and engagement in the sharing economy? This remains an area that is yet to be explored in the consumer behaviour literature. As sharing economy initiatives begin to gain momentum in environments where traditional sharing cultures have naturally thrived, the time is ripe to delve into the dynamics between sharing culture and participation in the sharing economy. Consequently, this study aims to explore how sharing culture influences consumer participation in the sharing economy using Lagos, Nigeria as the research context. Sharing culture, as defined by Katrini (2018) refers to the resourceful and alternate ways that groups of people come together to share and cooperate in order to meet their daily needs. Sharing culture is focused on fostering community, social inclusion and sharing. It is not driven by marketplace ideology but rather provides an avenue for people to meet mutual goals by tapping into different ideas, utilizing and relying on their common strengths (Katrini, 2018). Undeniably, sharing cultures and the sharing economy both share foundational similarities revolving around sharing with others and meeting mutual goals. However, the sharing economy is a hybrid economy that has merged sharing, commodity exchange, traditional marketplace practices and monetary transactions with internet-based platforms to create a new form of consumption (Scaraboto, 2015). In order to understand how sharing culture influences consumer participation in the sharing economy, this study adopts a qualitative approach based on the use of semi-structured interviews. In line with standard procedure, 40 participants from Lagos, Nigeria were recruited using non-probability convenience and snowballing sampling techniques. The semi-structured telephone interviews lasted an average of 30 to 40 minutes each, and were carried out over a period of three months. The sample of participants included different ages and lifestyles which provided a diversity of opinions and experiences. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six stage thematic analysis process was used to analyse the data. Four themes were identified as influencing factors that underpin consumers’ views and participation in the sharing economy, these are; Problem Solving, Social Relationships, High Social Tolerance, and Need for Status. These will be discussed in turn starting with problem solving. The most frequent communal sharing activities mentioned by participants are the sharing of food, family care, family expenses, housing, clothing, rides and cars, work spaces and money. Participants’ experiences of sharing culture initiatives are strongly motivated by the need to solve a problem. Many participants pointed out that because of limited resources, they have no choice but to find creative ways to survive, which generally involves the pooling of their resources to reach mutual goals. Sharing culture transcended just problem solving however, it also provides a means to foster social inclusion and community spirit. In some instances, participants considered being a part of a group, building networks and relationships to be the most important aspect of their sharing culture. Unlike the theme problem solving, building social relationships was expressed more passionately and held more emotional value and in this regard participants’ opinions were divided when it came to participating in the sharing economy. A majority of the participants did not see the sharing economy as a means to foster relationships and build community spirit, but rather as a purely functional means to an end. Having been exposed to different forms of sharing culture either as an observer, participant or beneficiary, most participants considered themselves to be more tolerant of others and as a result were not put off by the idea of sharing things with strangers. Many participants did not see sharing with others as a factor that could hinder their participation in the sharing economy. The final theme that emerged from this study is the need for status. This theme seems to contradict previous research as to the reasons why people engage in sharing culture (Katrini, 2018). However, in this cultural context, some participants pointed out the need to impress others and that other people’s opinions also played a role in their sharing culture experiences. Conclusively, this study contributes new empirical findings into the role of sharing culture in understanding consumer behaviour in the context of the sharing economy in this specific cultural context. Here, sharing culture is an important aspect of Nigerian cultural heritage and value. The prevalence of sharing culture appears to contributes towards consumers’ willingness to participate in new sharing economy initiatives. The findings from this study provide practical implications for the diffusion of the sharing economy in a market like Lagos, Nigeria. With a sense of cultural pride, values and community spirit deeply rooted and associated with their sharing culture, this has to be reflected when positioning and marketing sharing economy platforms. Furthermore, it is also important to note that different sharing economy initiatives and platforms will likely attract different consumers groups for example those that simply want to meet a need, those looking for social relationships, and status-seeking consumers. These different consumer segments will potentially be more inclined towards different forms of the sharing economy. This study creates a foundation for future studies to delve into different areas of the sharing economy in Africa in relation to specific sharing culture initiatives on a micro level. Also, as an emerging sharing economy market, alternate research designs such as a longitudinal study would help to illuminate how consumers’ attitudes evolve as they become more accustomed to engaging with formal sharing economy platforms. Finally, Africa is often treated as one market but it is a diverse market comprising of different countries, cultures and ethnic groups. This study focuses on the Nigerian consumer but more cross-cultural studies in Africa are needed to explore the similarities and differences that exist between different consumer groups in the sharing economy context