concluding the sharing economy

Over the past weeks I have covered several aspects of the shared economy - shared mobility, goods, spaces, food, healthcare and money. They are similar in a sense that they involve sharing a certain product or service, however the ways to go about making the shared industry effective may differ.

In the aspect of shared mobility, from the government's point of view, the main goal is to reduce carbon emissions and traffic congestion. To attain such goals, we would have to reduce reliance on cars with internal combustion engines (by switching to electric cars), introducing efficient public transport models and even alternative modes of transport such as cycling. These solutions usually promote environmental-efficiency such that the total carbon emissions is reduced. Catered shared buses such as shuttle buses from bus or train stations to nearby malls can also increase traffic, spurring economic growth.

However, shared mobility in the eyes of consumers involve making our lives more convenient and at a cheaper price. Ride-sharing applications such as Uber, Grab and Lyft exist to provide a seamless process by allowing us to book rides directly from our mobile phones; no more standing at pavements and frantically hailing for cabs during peak hours. Increased competition results in stiff price wars, benefiting mostly the consumer. Employees and "self-employed" drivers feel the pinch from the cuts in salary, causing them to have to work longer hours for the same amount of pay. Workers in the shared economy are getting paid on a piecework basis, rather than on an hourly basis. Although it is can increase the incentive and motivation to work, having no base pay means that people's monthly incomes depend largely on the demand for their services. For workers who already have stable jobs and use Uber as a supplementary source of income, the piecework scheme would not matter as much. However, for people who work in the sharing economy full time, it might not be financially stable in the long run. Furthermore, these people are seen as "self-employed", meaning companies in the sharing economy are not obliged to provide them with employment benefits such as sick or paid leave. Hence, the main bulk of people benefiting are usually the company and the consumers.

In the aspect of shared goods, the model's main purpose is for users to make money out of the things that they already have at home. These goods are usually highly valued but under-utilised. The profit model usually includes either sharing or renting the goods out via an online platform. There are many components under the shared goods umbrella, thus some types of goods are more valuable profit models than others. It is easier to rent, or sell an electronic gadget compared to a clothing item. This system also largely depends on the durability of a product - if the lifespan of a product is likely to be long, naturally the more it can be rented or sold for. To promote people to get involved in sharing goods, there are initiatives such as flea markets, thrift stores and online peer-to-peer marketplaces for people to list their items for sale.

Shared food, although seems like a feasible way to reduce food wastage and promote social inclusiveness, has many limitations. Current regulations and laws in place do not allow for commercial retailed food to be made in a personal kitchen in someone's home. Other aspects of shared food include selling leftover food at a fraction of its original price to reduce food wastage, or giving away leftover meals to the needy and homeless. There are also more initiatives of purchasing a suspended meal and giving it to someone else in need. Such examples in Singapore include "Chope Food for the Needy" and "Rice Garden". These pay-it-forward initiatives can hopefully reduce the income inequality and overall quality of life in the country.

Shared healthcare can be seen as an opportunity to increase efficiency in hospitals. The common database that hospitals can access to rent non-emergency medical equipment can significantly reduce operation costs and increase utilisation rates. This also means that more resources can be diverted into other aspects such as research and development.

The sharing economy creates new jobs for people, however it also comes at the expense of a reduction in labour force in other sectors. To ensure that everyone in society benefits from the existence of shared companies, more has to be done to provide fair treatment and schemes such that no one is being made better off at the expense of another. The sharing economy's presence in society will only increase with time, and it has great potential to reduce inequality and promote efficiency. With more regulation and improvements being made, I do believe that the sharing economy can promote long term sustainability not only for users of the shared economy but society as a whole, not forgetting the environment.

my personal experience with the sharing economy

Being financially independent at the mere age of twenty is difficult, especially in Singapore where the cost of living is so high. Back in 2014, I was made aware of a mobile lifestyle application Carousell. Carousell is a peer-to-peer online marketplace where practically anyone could sell their secondhand items.

(source: http://zulfatiizazizulkifli.blogspot.sg/2016/03/carousell-platform-termudah-untuk.html)

Initially when I started out using the application, the things I bought were mostly brand new items. At that point in time I found the idea of purchasing something that was used by someone else to be quite uncomfortable. After I got the hang of it, the buying and selling process became almost addictive - everyday I would log in and check Carousell to see if there were any potential buyers interested in my product. 

In the past two years, I have sold many items - from secondhand clothes, textbooks, watches, an air purifier and even my old fish tank! Through meeting up with buyers or sellers, you not only get to check the physical condition of the good (secondhand items especially), but it also gives you a chance to strike a conversation with someone of a common interest with you. This also allows the fostering of unconventional friendships, and also builds a community with people of similar interests and hobbies.

 I have since leveled up from selling secondhand items - now I hold pre-orders and also supply items to buyers. Having such a platform allows me the flexibility to juggle between school work and having a part time 'business'. Many students especially are jumping onto the Carousell bandwagon as it is a good way to earn some pocket money. Students like myself often have busy schedules with projects and deadlines. Starting out a small business like an account on Carousell allows one to experience what it is like to potentially run your own business in the future. 

To be successful in the sharing economy, it is essential to be backed up by positive reviews. This is especially so when competition is high. As the things I mostly sell are clothing items that are currently in trend, there are many other sellers selling similar or even identical items. As such, reputation and price becomes a determining factor during the buyer's decision-making process. Thus, sellers often go the extra mile to ensure that the transaction is smooth. For example, sellers may travel to the convenience of buyers, provide free mailing options and even give discounts for quick deals. These small actions can significantly help boost the reputation of a seller, and may even encourage past buyers to come back for more. 

A downside to being an active member in Carousell would be that we can never predict what kind of buyers we meet. There are nasty sellers who sell secondhand items and claim that the condition is as good as new, but when buyers receive the item, it is almost unwearable. There are also people who arrive very late during meetups, or even worse do not turn up. Despite this, there are improvements that are being made to ensure a smooth transaction between the buyer and seller. Once a seller accepts an offer made by a buyer, both of them can now exchange feedback with each other. This acts as a measure to ensure both the buyer and seller make a successful transaction to prevent having a negative review being left on their profiles.

Carousell is a good platform to start selling as everyone is welcome. There are many categories from clothes, furniture, luxury items, cars and even homes for rent. It has groups and communities where people can join, and has many filters that can be tailored to the needs of users. I have greatly benefited from the invention of Carousell and other sharing companies like Airbnb and Uber. Although no company is perfect, it looks like companies in the sharing economy are here to stay, and we should do our best to ensure that the welfare or people and the environment is kept at a priority such that we can all benefit from a shared model in the long run.  

opportunities in the sharing system

Bike-sharing schemes are increasingly popular today, with cities investing more in bicycle systems as a primary form of public transportation. The availability of stations available makes it easy for commuters to simply activate a bike with a card and be on their way.

Citi Bike in New York City opened in 2013 with 332 bicycle stations and with 6000 bicycles. The amount of stations available in the city becomes a good alternative and a quick way for people to get from one place to another. However, safety issues include users not having a helmets available to them at these kiosks. Users are required to bring their own helmets with them when they ride with Citi Bike. As helmets take up quite a bit of space in backpacks and are usually forgettable, people often tend to travel without one. Thus, many users end up renting the bicycles without wearing proper head gear protection. This becomes a huge concern, since up to 58% of cyclists do not wear helmets when cycling. 

On 17 November 2016, inventor Isis Shiffer won the 2016 International James Dyson Award for the invention of the EcoHelmet.

(source: http://www.businessinsider.sg/paper-bike-helmet-james-dyson-award-2016-11/?r=US&IR=T#wqsdysqwjm5Vc9bs.97)

Made of  paper, the device collapses and fits nicely in any bag. At first glance, one would not think that something made of paper could potentially save you from accidents. However, Shiffer pointed out that the radial honeycomb design makes the helmet "as solid as a traditional polycarbonate plastic helmet". The helmet has a biodegradable coating, making it resistant to light rain for up to three hours. Since it is made out of paper, the helmet is fully recyclable, so used helmets can be made again into a completely new one. The bendable material of the helmet allows it to fit a variety of heads, and its airy material allows for air ventilation. The helmets would be sold in vending machines nearby bike share stations at a very affordable rate of $5. 

Such innovations suggests that there are many opportunities that companies and even entrepreneurs can make use of in the shared economy. 

References:

http://www.bikehugger.com/posts/consumer-reports-58-percent-do/

http://www.businessinsider.sg/paper-bike-helmet-james-dyson-award-2016-11/?r=US&IR=T#wqsdysqwjm5Vc9bs.97

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citi_Bike

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/11/17/this-disposable-paper-bike-helmet-for-cycle-share-schemes-could/

do we share because we really care?

The sharing economy started out for people to make a quick buck out of the things that are under-utilised at home. In addition to achieving higher levels of efficiency, the sharing economy has transformed to making users more aware of the environmental benefits that comes from sharing. These two goals are vastly different - making extra money relies on the profit maximising economic structure, whereas being environmentally concerned has to do with the social welfare of the population and the environment around us. Is it then possible to strike a balance between the two, where the shared model can encompass both allowing users to earn money, yet being environmentally concerned at the same time?

Airbnb is increasingly popular today as it offers users with a different local experience with each trip. The variety and choice of home listings on Airbnb is almost endless, allowing users to choose the home they feel most interested in. In 2007, founders Joe Gebbia and Brian Chesky were struggling to pay their rent. Upon realising that they had three extra airbeds, the website airbedandbreakfast was born. They rented out the beds and cooked the guests breakfast, charging them $80 per night. The idea came about to make money out of the extra bed or extra room they had that was vacant. Fast forward 9 years later, Airbnb is now valued at $1.3 billion, with more than 10 million nights booked in more than 19,000 cities in 192 countries. 

Today, more people are turning to investing in homes with the sole purpose of transforming them into lucrative Airbnb listings. This goes against the main reason why Airbnb started out in the first place. With people increasingly purchasing homes to rent them out, this puts a stress on the government as it would mean less homes available for first-time home buyers. Coupled with the growing population around the world, the high competition for homes can significantly drive up prices of homes. In this case, the social welfare of society is not being fully maximised. 

Furthermore, people are increasingly revamping their homes to increase traffic on their Airbnb listings. The main reason why Airbnb is so popular among millennials especially is because of its unique and aesthetically-pleasing environment. Home owners are making their homes more fitted to users - having high speed wifi, air-conditioning, heaters,bathtubs, and even painting or renovating the place. When comparing Airbnb homes to traditional hotels, Airbnbs are generally seen as being more green. When we stay in homes, we tend to consume less water and take more public transport. However, such results are seen more of a coincidence - it was not Airbnb's primary goal to have such green effects. Hence, in this aspect, consumers of shared homes tend to share because it presents us with a cheaper and unique option, instead of sharing because of its environmental benefits. 

References:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9525267/Airbnb-The-story-behind-the-1.3bn-room-letting-website.html

refugees seeking homes in the sharing economy

With the political unrest in the Middle East, more refugees are fleeing their home countries in search for new homes. More than 1.1 million migrants have arrived in Germany since the start of 2015, many of whom do not have proper places to live. Refugees who have made it into Europe were moved into overpopulated migrant camps that had little resources. Majority of people end up homeless, sleeping on the street and with almost no chance at finding proper jobs.

After seeing reports about refugees fleeing violence in the Middle East, Kuwait-born Amr Arafa decided to create a website to connect refugees and victims of domestic violence with people who are offering a safe place to stay until they get back on their feet. The website, EmergencyBnB, allows both hosts and guests to access the website to get in touch with each other. Like its name states, the provision of housing is not for a long period of time. These people or families are able to seek shelter in the homes of people until they are independent enough to leave.

Another platform that provides temporary housing for refugees is Refugees Welcome in Germany. The non-profit organisation has two primary goals - to match these refugees with homes, and to properly assimilate them into the host country's culture. Started in 2014, has since matched more than 800 asylum-seekers with hosts and helping them adapt to the new country. Under their program, refugees are expected to pay rent, but most are being subsidised by the government. Hosts can also charge a heavily discount rate such that refugees are able to afford the cost of living. The non-profit organisation encourages home owners to open up their flats to refugees, but there has been a declining rate in rooms being let out due to cases of refugee violence within the country.

Registration of rooms have fallen to about 70 per month, but refugee applications reached over 10,000. Despite the significantly less rooms available, matching refuges to hosts also incur a long processing time as these refugees have to be screened to determine whether they are suitable candidates. Questions include their background, origin country, age, spoken languages. Once a refugee passes the screening, the refugees and hosts must then meet in person first before the refugee moves in. In the eyes of hosts, an empty room provides them with an opportunity to help someone in need. In the eyes of these refugees, the empty room signifies a new beginning. Not only does the room provide these refugees with a shelter over their heads, but it also allows them an opportunity to start over. Living with a local roommate can significantly help refugees assimilate into the country as locals can teach them the culture and the system in this entirely foreign place.

The sharing economy has great potential in helping refugees seek better lives in their new found home. Although the number of asylum-seekers in Germany is said to increase from 600,000 in a year, shared homes is the first step to enable them to blend in and start their new lives here successfully.


References:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-survey-idUSKBN13A22F
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/emergencybnb-aims-bring-sharing-economy-worlds-vulnerable/story?id=41569437
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/18/refugees-welcome-aims-to-use-sharing-economy-to-ease-europe-immigration-crisis.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/refugee-bnb-or-refugee-tinder-why-german-citizens-are-taking-asylum-seekers-their-2096685

the sharing economy on inclusiveness

One main feature of the sharing economy is that it relies heavily on social media and the Internet. Since people are dealing with each other online rather than in person, it becomes imperative that our online profiles be reputable and approachable to build trust. In line with the old saying "don't trust whatever you see on the Internet", people are becoming more skepitcal toward the information that is being shown online. To maintain and even build trust, people would thus rely on reviews and recommendations that have been left by other users within the community.

People trust people, and people trust good reviews. Hence, having a reputable platform of quality reviews would correlate to having more revenue.  In the example of renting out your home on Airbnb, or selling your preowned items on Amazon or eBay, the quality of reviews plays a significant role in the buyer decision-making process. It gives people a sense of comfort knowing that a product or service is legitimate and lives up to a certain standard. Thus, the more information you share, the more likely it is that people will trust you.

However, sharing too much information could potentially result in discrimination among different income and ethnic groups. To encourage people to be open within the shared economy, people are encouraged to upload pictures of themselves with basic information about them, and rate each other after every successful transaction. This creates a virtual personal connection and friendliness in the community. The sharing economy is supposed to encourage more people to connect with one another and bond over common ideas. But with recent studies on racial discrimination, such sharing economy countries are at risk.

Researches at MIT, Stanford and the University of Washington found that African American users often wait longer to get a ride on ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft. They are also far more likely than white Americans to get canceled on by drivers. African Americans not only face issues when it comes to transportation. They also have tougher times renting out rooms on Airbnb (white names have a 16% higher chance of booking on Airbnb than African American names) and selling goods on eBay. It is not only the pictures that create racial bias - people are also able to differentiate your race just by someone's name. An experiment was done in Seattle, where black-sounding names of people had to wait about 30% longer than someone of a white-sounding name. Through these studies, it can be seen that despite efforts being made to have a more inclusive society, some form of racial bias and stereotypical judgement still lingers in this day and age.

With such racial discrimination still very present in society today, these companies have adopted measures to curb the issue. Now, before accepting a trip, Uber drivers can only see a passenger's location and star rating. Airbnb has also experimented with reducing the visibility of photos on booking pages and relied more on the reviews of the home. Success of the new proposed solution is also hindered, since photos as well as real names are necessary in creating trust and safety on a platform where everyone are essentially strangers to each other. In Uber's new proposed strategy where the driver can only see the location and star rating of a user, it becomes impractical if the driver is not able to identify the user on a crowded street at location.

Under a new policy, Airbnb has since implemented better measures to prevent discrimination of any form. Once a host rejects a potential guest when the space has been booked by someone else, Airbnb will automatically block these dates out, disallowing someone else from seeing it as available. This would prevent hosts from denying a user based on their race, only to offer the same dates to someone of a more preferred race. The company also explicitly reminds hosts that they cannot decline guests based on their skin colour, ethnicity, nationality nor sexual orientation. Both users and guests are also required to agree to a clause stating that they would treat all members within the community equally with respect and without judgement or bias.

Such racial issues remain as a challenge to society. In order for society to progress, it is important to start changing our mindsets into becoming more accepting individuals and to welcome people who are 'different' from us, rather than shunning them away. In my next post, I will discuss the success of opening up homes to the less privileged and offering refugees a place to stay.

References:
https://medium.com/the-sharing-economy/why-you-should-expose-yourself-online-more-b47e6f7d32ef#.s1c4gmzdp
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/02/the-sharing-economy-has-a-serious-racism-problem-but-there-may-be-a-way-to-fix-it/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/08/how-airbnb-plans-to-fix-its-racial-bias-problem/
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/05/brown-v-board-v-airbnb/483725/

does the sharing economy benefit workers or only the company?

The sharing economy breeds an inclusive and welcoming society. It increases productivity by using resources more efficiently, and allows the public to benefit from the shared model. However, there are still certain social, ethnic and income groups that are at the bottom of the sharing economy's receiving end.

The act of sharing implies equality such that people in lower income brackets can also benefit from this emerging shared model. However, it is said that the sharing economy mostly benefits those who are already doing well. Majority of lower income groups who rely on these sharing platforms for thei primary incomes would be most affected when economic times are tough. Jobs in the sharing economy are usually temporary, part time jobs (e.g. Uber drivers or food delivery riders). People are able to be contributors to more than one sharing company - an Uber driver can also be renting his house on Airbnb. As such, income levels may be difficult to verify when applying for mortgage, credit cards and other loans. Furthermore, since these jobs are likely to be contracted, people typically do not receive employment benefits such as health insurance or paid leave. 

The issue is less of a concern for people who already have full time jobs outside of the shared economy. These people have a stable day job, and may turn to jobs in the shared economy for some extra cash. However, when people's primary jobs are within the shared economy, profit margins are squeezed, leaving them with little salary to enjoy a comfortable life. 

With the increasing number of competition within the shared economy, companies are increasingly cutting costs and pushing profit margins lower such that they are able to offer consumers lower priced options compared to their competitors. Although consumers benefit from the lower price charged, workers in the shared economy are faced with constant cuts in their salaries.

British online food delivery company Deliveroo has been accused of exploiting their riders by altering the pay structure. The current £7 per hour and £1 per delivery is getting squeezed to a mere £3.75 per delivery with no base hourly rate. This means that Deliveroo is changing their structure to move from time wages to piecework. Riders are paid based on the amount of deliveries they do, rather than the amount of time they spend working. The change in structure caused massive uproar within the community, and riders went on strike against the threat of this new system replacing the current model.

These companies do not pay their workers any form of employment benefits on the grounds that these workers are "self-employed". Since they are independent contractors, the company is not obliged to provide them with benefits that regular employees get. By forcing the cost of doing business onto their workers, such companies get increasingly richer, while their workers remain stagnant and earn only the bare minimum. 

In addition, many companies in the sharing economy are choosing to remain as private companies so that they can have maximum flexibility. By postponing their initial public offerings, these companies do not have to please their shareholders, they need not report their annual reports, nor do they require third party auditing. In the government's point of view, keeping a company private may not be ideal as this gives them room to tweak statistics, and even falsify records. By remaining private, this allows them to keep business plans to themselves such that no insider information is being leaked out to competitors, which can be a huge concern especially in technology sectors. 

References: 

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/08/deliveroo-strike-sharing-economy-living-wage/

http://www.alternet.org/labor/study-sharing-economy-mostly-benefits-americans-who-are-already-doing-well

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/companies-stay-private.asp

partnership between hospitals and uber

It is reported that more than 3.6 million Americans miss their medical appointments each year due to transportation barriers. This is especially prominent in the suburbs where public transportation networks are not extensively built yet. People largely rely on private transportation to get to their checkups on time.

People tend to set appointments in the middle of the day to avoid long queuing at hospitals. However, such timings are also when public transportation are not frequent. This process becomes challenging for people who have chronic conditions that require frequent appointments to the hospital. At times when there is a lack of transportation available, patients may end up dialing 911 for non-emergency situations. This may present a huge problem since it diverts resources that could have been used for other patients with more pressing needs.

When going to a medical appointment becomes a hassle, patients are more likely to miss the appointment. This could potentially lead to untreated symptoms and worsening health problems. Hospitals would also incur extra costs when patients miss their appointments. Resources are not being fully maximised, and resources are wasted when patients do not turn up.

Thus, some hospitals have chosen to partner with ride-sharing companies to get patients to their checkups. MedStar Health, a nonprofit healthcare system with hospitals in Maryland, began its partnership with Uber in January to allow patients to book for Uber rides on the hospital's website, as well as setting reminders prior to the appointment. The older generation makes up a slightly larger proportion of patients. Thus, they may not be as tech-savvy enough to book their appointment rides through the website. Medicaid patients who do not have access to the Uber app or the Internet can thus arrange their rides by calling the hospital's patient advocates where the rides would be planned for them.

With this switch to relying on private transportation companies (instead of taking public transport or having their own private cars), the cost of financing the rides come into question. Although these costs for services may vary, Medicaid patients' transportation for non-emergency medical visits are fully covered. The reimbursement rate however, depends on the state rules. In addition, ride-hailing services are not entirely wheelchair friendly especially in rural areas where there is a limited number of Uber drivers. Uber is seen as a good alternative especially in cold winter seasons where it would not be feasible to be standing in the snow waiting for a public bus to arrive. With an Uber waiting outside one's house can make the journey to hospitals that much more convenient and having one less thing to worry about.

The partnership with ride-hailing companies is ideal for countries with many rural and suburban areas where public transport networks are not extensive. The long distances between suburban homes and hospitals also makes ride-hailing feasible. However, in a small country in Singapore where the public transport system is widely accessible even in smaller neighourhoods, the option of calling an Uber may not be as largely used. Most hospitals are located within walking distance to MRT stations and bus stops. Furthermore, many hospitals in Singapore also offer shuttle bus services that ferry patients from nearby MRT stations.

References:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/08/hospitals-are-partnering-with-uber-to-get-people-to-checkups/495476/
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2547765
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/uber-circulation-non-emergency-medical-transportation/

shared healthcare

When we think of the sharing economy, we usually think of Airbnb and Uber. However, back in 2011, Cohealo was founded on the basis of providing shared healthcare. Based in Boston, Cohealo aims to provide hospitals with a sharing platform to increase the utilisation of current equipment in hospitals. 

Healthcare remains as a priority for most countries. It is usually the goal of a country to ensure proper quality healthcare is provided for the people. However, hospitals generally face a steep cost when it comes to purchasing equipment and machines. These machinery can be highly specific, meaning the utilisation rate of these machines are low. According to Cohealo, the standard utilisation rate of any given machine in a hospital today is about 42%. This suggests that these highly specialised and expensive machines are not being fully utilised. With Cohealo, utilisation rates can shoot up to almost 80%, double of its current rate. 

Cohealo is a technological company that sells software that helps hospital systems keep track of the expensive equipment and machinery they own. Machines are being stamped with QR codes at the back, and iPads are being loaded with software that captures the QR code using its camera. This allows the software system to be constantly updated with what machine is being used and where it is being used at. Cohealo also works with shipping partners who are responsible for transporting the hospital equipment from one hospital to another; the shipping partners also ensure all equipment are being tracked via their GPS system. This is in line with Cohealo's goal of bringing treatments to the patient, instead of having patients travel to where the equipment is available.

Cohealo's sharing process is similar to how a library works. Inside Cohealo's database, personnel are able to check the availability of the selected machinery. Once it is available, an order is placed and arrangements are made to transport the machinery from one hospital to the other. This creates a sharing platform for hospitals to borrow equipment from each other.  The goal is to increase the utilization of equipment the hospital system already owns.

Owning highly technical machinery would not be sustainable for hospitals because these equipment would not be heavily utilised due to the small proportion of people who require the use of these machines. Furthermore, manufacturers of these machines come up with new upgrades every few years, requiring hospitals to purchase new ones. Having to constantly purchase a new equipment every few years is financially draining to a hospital's resources. Renting the equipment would also not be ideal because reimbursement fee would be close to the rental fee being paid for the machine. Thus, instead of owning and renting, sharing seems to be an optimal solutions.

Due to the transportation time needed to move equipment from one place to another, the equipment should not be used for emergencies. The type of equipment that Cohealo suggests to share are general equipment that are more for scheduled checkups, screening equipment or surgical equipment. 

Cohealo has proved to be successful, saving hospitals up to $2 million in its initial years - this number would only increase with time. This system has yet to be implemented in Singapore. However, given our small size, transportation of equipment would be easier since distance between hospitals are likely to be shorter in comparison to in a large city like Boston. 

References:

http://cohealo.com/

http://www.betaboston.com/news/2015/05/08/two-new-execs-join-cohealo-startup-that-helps-hospitals-track-pricey-equipment/

http://www.aihw.gov.au/haag09-10/hospitals-expenditure/

http://medcitynews.com/2014/10/cohealo-uber-ride-sharing-medical-equipment-sharing/

drones and food

The sharing economy relies heavily on technology and the Internet. The increasing number of automobiles on the roads also increases the time taken from one place to another. With cooked food being perishable, is it then a viable option to adopt drones to deliver ready cooked meals?

(source: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/272889)

Food delivery waiting time can reach up to two hours during peak hours. Riders would also have to navigate traffic during such time periods, further delaying the time taken for people to receive their food orders. Hence, companies are looking towards quickening delivery times via drones.

Online food delivery app Foodpanda started testing delivering meals a few months ago, and is hoping for a full-fledged conversion in the coming years if trials go well. Drones' can cost anywhere between $700 to $250,000. However, advancements in 3D printing can significantly increase speed of production process as well as reducing the cost of production. Switching to drone food delivery would remove the need for people and transport. Although it would reduce traffic congestion and carbon dioxide emission, this would also cause a rise in unemployment.

Drone delivery also has its setbacks. Singapore's skyline and towering structures could be a potential problem. The narrow high rise buildings mean that it would be challenging for drones to navigate on lower grounds. Since many residential flats have very similar designs and structure, it may be difficult for drones to find the exact block and unit number - drone deliveries tend to favour low rise landed properties since they are easier to identify and navigate to.

Furthermore, there are rules and regulations that may hinder the success of drone delivery services. In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed a rule that an operator is required to maintain a visual line of sign of sight of a small Unmanned Aerials System (UAS). The operator would also need to see the UAS with unaided vision (except for glasses). Also, flights are limited to daylight only. This could present a huge concern for food delivering companies since many orders are made during the evening to night time. These regulations can thus hinder the success of drone delivery.

An alternative to increasing traffic congestion on the roads could be to combining ride-sharing and delivery services. Uber hopes to combine UberPool (its ride-sharing service) and UberRush (its delivery service) to remove city congestion and reduce its costs. Combining the cost of sharing a ride and a package can not only curb congestion issues, but it also reduces costs as one less rider is needed. This increases efficiency since the empty boot of an Uber can now fetch a package.

Although the idea can reduce manpower and resources initially needed, the proposed solution can also be counter-productive. In a crowded city like New York, most delivery services for smaller items are done on motorcycles or even bicycles. Using bicycles allows riders to navigate through the congested traffic and use smaller roads to get to the destination quicker. Although having packages in an UberPool ride can save resources and costs, the system may in fact increase the waiting time for customers to receive their package. Thus, the solution may not be feasible for same-day delivery when traffic on the roads is congested during peak hours.

References:
http://digiday.com/brands/uber-combine-ride-sharing-delivery-services/
https://fstoppers.com/aerial/250000-drone-footage-will-probably-be-best-video-youll-see-all-day-66159
http://digiday.com/brands/uber-combine-ride-sharing-delivery-services/
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/272889
http://www.dronethusiast.com/drone-delivery-plans-hindered-new-faa-proposed-rules/
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/foodpanda-tests-drone-deliveries-in-singapore.html

dining in someone else's home?

Most social gatherings seem to revolve around good food. A couple of friends, a few glasses of wine at a bustling restaurant seems to be an ideal dinner. However, the food industry is revolutionising. Technology has allowed us to book seats for a meal in a 'restaurant' location right in someone else's home. Instead of paying exorbitant prices and being sandwiched between other paying customers at a fancy restaurant, apps such as EatWith and VizEat are inviting people to dine in their homes.

EatWith, an American based food sharing company, allows chefs to promote private dinners for a group of about six or more guests. The price charged is determined by the chef, and customers who are intrigued by the food menu can reserve a seat for a selected date. Once the minimum reservations are being made, guests would proceed to chef's home for a hearty meal alongside each other. The social interaction between can hopefully lead to forging new friendships and maybe even some cooking tips from the chef themselves.

However, EatWith is not as widely utilised. There aren't many chefs willing to open up their homes and offer to sell their services. This means that even in large cities, there are not always a variety of meals to choose from. Even if users find a suitable meal they would like to have, the app requires users to specify which date they would want to go ahead with. Usually people have to make reservations a few days before (the more in advance, the better) so that chefs have enough time to source for ingredients. It becomes a hassle if people have to plan their dinner meals too far in advance, and people may not be willing to travel long distances just for a meal. As a result, if chefs do not obtain a minimum number of guests registering for a particular day, the dinner would not proceed as planned because the profits made may not be sufficient to cover for the cost of ingredients.

People primarily use EatWith as it features near-professional chefs to cook their meals, thus providing them with a restaurant-quality dish at a cheaper price. However, other food sharing companies such as VizEat focuses more on tourism. The European startup allows travelers to eat dinner in the homes of locals, giving them an authentic local experience. With more than 20,000 hosts in 110 countries, VizEat is growing in popularity.

However, the issue of hygiene comes into question when selling food to people from your home kitchen. In California, in order to sell food from your home, your kitchen needs to have a sink at least 18 by 18 inches in length and width, and 12 inches deep. Countertops are also required to be nonabsorbent (made of stainless steel), can openers must have a metal piercing that can be removed and cleaned. Light bulbs above the area where food is prepared has to be coated and shatter resistant. All these changes can require about $50,000 and might turn one's kitchen into more of an industrial kitchen than a house kitchen.

Thus, there are many rules and regulations that startups have to be careful not to cross. In many countries across the world, foods that are sold to the public are required to be cooked in a commercial kitchen. In California specifically, the retail food code specifically states that commercial food sales cannot be operated from one's personal home kitchen. Food sharing startups have to be very cautious of the rules and laws since the health of the public is at risk. People are also usually hesitant to consuming food that is not being certified as safe for consumption in fear of contracting illnesses and even food poisoning. This could be a potential reason as to why such food sharing applications and companies are not doing financially well. Hence, food sharing startups are in a difficult position when the law and public health is concerned. In order to thrive within the shared economy, it becomes imperative that these companies have more stringent rules on how foods are being made.

References:
http://mashable.com/2016/09/06/vizeat-social-dining-funding/#u5q6pERU9mqX
http://www.eater.com/2016/3/31/11293260/airbnb-for-food-apps-eatwith-feastly
https://www.fastcompany.com/3061498/gigged/the-food-sharing-economy-is-delicious-and-illegal-will-it-survive
https://www.josephine.com/

shared food - paying it forward

A suspended meal refers to a concept in which people pay in advance for a meal that will be provided to those who request it later. The request for these extra meals are usually people who are not financially able to pay for the meal.

As countries continue to progress, the Gini coefficient increases - the rich get richer, leaving the poor even poorer than before. In Singapore, up to 140,000 households fall below the basic income expenditure of $1250 a month - this equates to about $312 per person. This means that up to 560,000 people live under this income bracket. Given Singapore's high cost of living, it is unlikely that people can live comfortably with $312 per month.

Rice Garden, a social outreach program initiated by NTUC FoodFare in 2009, aims to provide highly nutritious meals starting at $1.50 per meal. Apart from their affordable meals, Rice Garden allows people to purchase food vouchers at $2.50. These vouchers can then be given out to whoever you deem to be needy - the cleaners in the vicinity, the granny collecting old newspapers. The vouchers can be redeemed at any Rice Garden outlet (over 30 outlets nationwide). This pay it forward initiative allows people in the community to contribute and help people in need.

However, such schemes have its limitations. These initiatives are usually promoted and made aware to people through traditional media or social media. However, those who are truly needy may not have access to these platforms. The elderly living in one-room flats may not have access to television, or even newspapers to know about such initiatives happening around them. To further ensure that such initiatives target these specific groups of people, it is imperative that better strategies are adopted to make it known to them. This may include approaching them at their homes to inform them about how the community has come up with plans to provide them with affordable and even free food such that they do not go to sleep hungry. Comparing to simply donating to organisations who help the needy and the homeless, the act of physically giving these coupons out to those you think deserve it will allow us to see the direct impacts of our efforts.

References:
http://danielfooddiary.com/2014/01/29/ricegarden/
http://www.foodfare.com.sg/rg-locations.html
http://dollarsandsense.sg/3-hard-truths-about-poverty-in-singapore/

what is shared food?

Roughly one third of the food produced every year (1.3 billion tonnes!) gets lost or wasted. Food losses and waste amounts to roughly US$ 680 billion in industrialized countries and US$ 310 billion in developing countries. The world produces 17% more food per person today than it did 30 years ago. Despite this, close to a billion people go to sleep hungry every night. This highlights that many people in the world who are living in poverty lack access to food and the income to purchase it. 

As we address developing countries' issue of food shortages, we also have to pay attention to the excess amount of food being wasted in developed countries. The amount of food being wasted in developed countries alone stands at 230 million tonnes. This number equates to the amount of food being produced in Sub-Saharan Africa. Hence, this becomes a pressing issue that we need to address. With better ways of managing our food waste, we will consume our Earth's resources more efficiently, leading to better food sustainability.

Foodsharing sites have since surfaced to encourage people to prevent leftovers from going to waste. One such app is called Leftoverswap - where people can offer leftovers to other locals for free. By allowing people to give away their leftover food to other people, this minimises food wastage. However, since food is perishable, donors and recipients often live close to each other. The app allows for anyone to share their leftovers - people need not have a certificate to prove that they are licensed. Hence, the issue of hygiene and quality of food comes into place. Furthermore, who is to be legally responsible if a receiver suffers from any side effects after consuming a donor's leftovers? However, the chances that someone deliberately serves undercooked or inedible food is low since.

Food sharing may not only be limited to processed and cooked food. Companies like Cropmonster allows farmers to post excess crop that would otherwise be composted.

Other types of foodsharing sites include Too Good To Go, where restaurants put up food that was leftover from peak periods. These foods are priced at a fraction of its original price. In comparison to Leftoverswap, Too Good To Go features licensed restaurants. Although buyers would have to pay for the leftover food (as opposed to getting it for free under Leftoverswap), purchasing from licensed restaurants would further assure buyers of the quality of food.

Food sharing can also be in the form of shared kitchen space. Sharing of kitchen space is often utilised by home-based food businesses who want to scale up their business - setting up a shop may be too costly, yet permanently using their homes to cater to their business may not be feasible in the long run. Baker's Brew Studio in Singapore rents out their studio to individuals who share a common passion of baking. This is not only economically friendly for home-based bakers, but also encourages a social network among other bakers who are just starting out in the business.


References:
https://www.oxfam.ca/there-enough-food-feed-world
http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/food-start-ups-turn-to-shared-kitchen-spaces
http://www.bakersbrewstudio.com/kitchen-rental

crowdfunding - is this sustainable?

Shared money not only involves the transfer and movement of money from people to businesses - it can also be the movement of money within the community itself (peer-to-peer).

Given the increasing Gini coefficient in developed countries, the rich are only getting richer, while the poor get even poorer. Crowdfuding therefore presents an opportunity for financially capable people to donate, or give back to the less wealthy by donating small amounts of money. Coupled with the increasing tech-savvy society, the Internet and social media has allowed us to make seamless transactions easily. Social media networking sites like Facebook has 'share' functions that allows people to share videos, photos and stories to basically the whole world with the click of a button. Given social media's immense power to spread information to the mass public, an increasing number of people are turning to crowdfunding sites to ask for donations. 

According to GoFundMe, between 2011 and 2014, the number of medical fundraising campaigns have increased from 8,000 to 600,000 - "Medical, Illness and Healing" has become GoFundMe's most heavily utilised fundraising category. Before the invention of social media and the Internet, fundraising events were planned offline and could only reach a smaller public audience - information would likely be spread through word of mouth, or through traditional mediums like posters, television and radio. With the Internet's help, information is able to reach a significantly larger audience.

Medical crowdfunding promotes sustainability as it increases the quality of lives of both the donor and the receiver. People who donate feel a sense of satisfaction as they give back to society. The process of donating also promotes a balancing of wealth from the rich to the less fortunate.

In terms of crowdfunding for projects, time taken to source for capital is greatly reduced with support from the public. This speeds up the production process such that more products are being put out into the market, thus encouraging people to spend. Hence, this spurs the economy. Crowdfunding can force people to improve - the amount of money pledged to a project usually determines how many people support your product, and deem it useful to them. When a project does not hit its crowdfunding goal, this encourages people to improve their product to identify reasons why their product is not as successful as others. This promotes sustainability as projects are constantly being improved to garner support from the public.

However, despite the wide use of crowdfunding sites, there is always a risk when people make transactions over the Internet.

The most obvious risk would be that the money donated by the public may not end up to the intended people. There are also third parties who handle monetary transactions between the public and the receiver. In cases where families of the sick relatives are the one maintaining the GoFundMe page, they may use the proceeds for their personal gains. In addition, people may even fake an illness as a quick and easy way to get money from the public. Crowdfunding after all can only be done through an online platform - given that we cannot trust everything we see online, it becomes difficult for us to decipher whether such cases are genuine or actually a scam.

Furthermore, such crowdfunding sites usually require processing fees. GoFundMe charges a 7.9% processing fee and transaction fee of $1 per donation. Due to the high cost of publishing a post onto the platform, people with small social networks often have trouble meeting their crowdfunding goals. This is especially so since medical campaigns amount to the highest utilised category - each campaign therefore receives little attention. Hence, success rate may be significantly hindered if the campaigns are not able to reach out to a large enough audience. However, despite success rates being low, users tend to have a better chance at attaining their crowdfunding goals when asking the online public (compared to by word of mouth).


References:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andre-bourque/is-crowdfunding-your-medi_b_7088486.html

http://grantspace.org/tools/knowledge-base/Nonprofit-Management/Sustainability/what-is-crowdfunding

http://sustainableinfrastructure.org/the-potential-of-crowdfunding-for-public-private-partnerships/

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/crowdfunding-innovation-sustainability-startups
http://theconversation.com/civic-crowdfunding-will-challenge-governments-and-charities-46977

pros and cons of shared money

Below is a product that has been featured on Kickstarter

Imagine after seeing Podo on Kickstarter, you pledged $89 in donations because you were interested and believed in the potential of the company. If nothing goes wrong, you would be expecting your 2 sets of Podo camera by February 2017 latest. However, things can indeed go wrong and your product may be delayed, or even worse, the company may not have the potential to manufacture any Podo cameras.

In this blog post, we will be looking at some of the pros and cons of using crowdfunding sites to both the funders and the creators.

For creators, they benefit from a lower cost of capital. For early stage ventures, many entrepreneurs may find it expensive to access to capital as they have little operating track record and credibility. However, by posting their ideas on crowdfunding sites, they might be able to gain access to cheaper capital. This is because most of the sites are rewards-based, meaning that they do not charge interest on the loans, but expect the product back in return for their pledge. This poses less risk for the funders. In a traditional loan, the interest would have to be paid even if the project has failed. However, on crowdfunding sites, there is no interest and only the promised delivery of the product. If the production fails, then there is also no binding obligation on the part of the creators to refund the funders.

Creators are also able to access the market situation for the product. When creators put up their ideas on crowdfunding platforms, they are able to see the amount of interest that the public has. This can be seen from the amount of money pledged. The greater the amount of money pledged, the greater the demand. If the initial reception is not that good, the company could choose to stop the project to prevent further losses.

On crowdfunding websites, funders that pledge the projects are usually those who are very interested in the projects. This could be potentially useful for the creators as they can gain feedback and comments from these funders. In certain cases, where funders are able to gain access to the products, they could provide creators with in-depth review of the products.

However, there are also several downsides. First, there is a risk of revealing too much information – Other forms of accessing to capital does not require the creators to reveal too much information about their products. However, when accessing the crowdfunding method, creators will need to disclose their information publicly. For creators who are worried about imitators, this could be a potential problem.

There is also less professional input – In other forms of capital accessing, there will be professional investors involved (venture capitalist and angel investors) that can bring professional insight and relationship access into the business. However, in crowdfunding where the funders involved do not have such skills, there will be less professional input given. 

From the funder’s point of view, they gain an early access to products. In rewards based crowdfunding, the funders will usually provide their products as the rewards. In the event where production is successful, these funders will be the first to receive the products.

Funders also gain access to investment opportunities. This usually refers to companies who are seeking equity investment opportunities, but have hesitations about the creator’s ability. After getting funds from crowdfunding websites and production has started, equity investors can access the credibility of these creators and may provide second-round of equity funding if required. 

Downsides to funders occur when there is an inability of the creator to deliver. On crowdfunding platforms, creators are all over-optimistic about their ideas and only show the potential benefits. However, the risk involved are not shown to the funders, creating information asymmetry. In some cases, there have been many creators who do not deliver the products to the funders, leaving them with lost money.

Hence, we can see both the pros and cons involved to both parties. Although there are positive benefits, it is important that we look at the potential risk involved when using such platforms. This is not meant to be a comprehensive list. 

what is shared money?

In the sharing economy, there is also the idea of shared money. This comes in the form of crowdfunding, which is defined as “the practice of funding a project or venture by raising many small amounts of money from a large number of people, typically via the Internet.” Here, we can see that it fits into the shared economy as it is collaborative in nature – many people come together to support the idea and share the cost of it.

Crowdfunding works like this: Companies or people who have come up with a new idea but do not have enough funds to proceed with it further, can put their ideas up on crowdfunding websites. Investors or individuals, who are interested in the idea, can donate or pledge money to them, allowing these companies with ideas to gain access to funds.

To simplify things, below is a diagram illustrating the crowdfunding process. In most cases, the usual crowdfunding follows the same process. However, there are different types of crowdfunding and step 4 may not be the same in all cases.

(Source: Crowfunder.co.uk)

There are different types of crowdfunding - namely rewards crowdfunding, equity crowdfunding, donation crowdfunding and lending crowdfunding. 

Examples of crowdfunding sites and projects:

There are mainly four different types of crowdfunding methods, which will be shown below:

1)      Rewards Crowdfunding: Different levels of rewards are set for the different levels that the individuals donate or provide. Usually the rewards corresponds to the product being developed. This constitutes majority of the crowdfunding projects at the moment.

2)      Equity Crowdfunding: Exchange of actual shares in a private company for capital. Entrepreneurs can set cap level for each investor and also approve or deny investors who wish to see their business documents. Equity crowdfunding is on the rise after President Obama signed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act in 2012, which relaxed the rules on sale of securities.

3)      Donation Crowdfunding: Donations are given for a particular cause or project, without expecting anything back in return.

4)      Lending Crowdfunding: Entrepreneurs will raise funds in the form of loans and return it to the lenders over a specified time and interest rate.

I will be will be focusing more on rewards crowdfunding as it is the most common form.

Kick Starter was launched in 2009 as an American-based platform that provides a global crowdfunding platform. It mostly focuses on creative projects as their mission is to bring creative project to life. Kickstarter currently the first in the crowdfunding market, with the highest funded project to date. They operate on the “All or Nothing” approach, meaning that if a project does not hit their goal, the money will be returned to those who pledge it. 

Indiegogo was founded in 2008 and is based in America as well. Similar to Kickstarter, it provides a global platform, but it focuses on a larger range of projects. They aim to help individuals, groups and non-profits raise money. A key feature of Indiegogo that is different from Kickstarter is the model that they operate on. Indiegogo operates on the “Keep It All” model meaning that even if the project is not 100% funded, the person behind the project gets to keep the money. 

References:
https://www.fundable.com/crowdfunding101/types-of-crowdfunding
http://www.nber.org/papers/w19133.pdf
https://www.indiegogo.com
https://www.kickstarter.com/

does sharing of goods really increase sustainability?

In order to determine whether shared goods are sustainable, these goods need to effectively reduce overall demand of people's purchase of the product. These products should deter us from permanently buying the product since sharing the product is a good alternative to privately owning it.

When purchasing secondhand electronic appliances and gadgets, the internal condition of the good has to be durable enough to last a long lifespan. If the product wears and tears easily after a short amount of usage, it is not enough to reduce the overall demand since people will not find it worth it to purchase a secondhand product that would not last. For example, when renting of professional camera equipment, the equipment should follow a standardised check with every transaction. This ensures the durability of the camera.

However, when compared to clothing, the overall demand may not significantly be reduced by the sharing of goods. Since we are in an era of fast fashion, people tend to choose quantity over quality (since we would not get much use of a piece of clothing). Coupled with the fact that shared clothes are usually cheaper, we would usually purchase more since prices are low. Thus, we are instead demanding more clothes instead of reducing our demand for clothes. In this sense, sharing and selling of secondhand clothes in particular may not be fully sustainable because we are still consuming more (although they are secondhand).

However, sustainability can still be reached despite having a large quantity of clothes. Because of the fast fashion era, we end up having more clothes than we need. The amount of clothes will only continue to increase when we keep up with such trends, leaving a large pile of clothing untouched after wearing them for a short period of time. Since these clothes would most likely be in good conditions, we can collate the clothes and donate them to the underprivileged instead of throwing them away. Such practices can reduce the amount of clothing and fabric being wasted as these clothes are being given to underprivileged people who view clothes as a need than want.

In order for such practices to be successful, more has to be done to encourage a sharing culture. As seen from the table below, the number one reason why people do not recycle items is because places are not convenient for them to do so. In Singapore, despite her efforts to encourage recycling, it still seems to be insufficient. There are not as much recycling bins as there are bins for general wastage. Similarly, there are not many donation centres that are easily accessible to everyone. Thus, people may be more inclined to throw rather than to donate. To encourage people to donate more, the government can increase its efforts to build a stronger recycling and donating culture.

Sharing of goods can also take the form of renting. Today, with the option of renting big ticket items, it can effectively reduce the demand for these luxury items, especially if one can foresee it being under-utilised when purchased. Some examples may include wedding dresses, photography equipment, karaoke systems, and portable wifi. These products generally have a high initial cost - if they are not fully utilised, they are usually depreciated very quickly, thus rendering it not economically effective to purchase the good. As such, businesses in these industries are booming because people would rather rent these products than to actually buy it. Having such a rental system ensures sustainability as resources are not being wasted or under-utilised, thus ensuring an effective use of the product.

In conclusion, sharing of goods does increase sustainability in the long run. However, its success depends largely on people's behaviour and perceptions towards sharing. Even with increased government's efforts to encourage sharing and donating, if people are not receptive to such ideas, sustainability will still be difficult to achieve.


References:
http://www.shareable.net/blog/is-sharing-good-for-the-environment-it-depends
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/psychology-of-why-people-dont-recycle_us_57697a7be4b087b70be605b3

is renting clothes sustainable?

The fast fashion era has seen us under-utilising many clothing pieces from our wardrobe. With the high price we pay for quality clothing, the high price tags can potentially deter us from making the purchase. Is it then feasible to rent clothes, for a fraction of the original retail price?

Rental models allow for customers to borrow fashion items for a specific period of time, at the cost of about 20% of the item's original price. Rent the Runway is a website where customers can rent exquisite clothing items meant for special occasions such as wedding events or a party. Launched in 2009, the website draws 5.5 million active members that features many designer brands. Having a system where customers rent a specific piece of clothing, rental companies are able to lower their cost of items. This rental model system creates value for clothing items that get only a limited amount of use. It would not be profitable to have a fashion rental model that features casual clothing - although these clothing are lower in cost in comparison to evening gowns, the high usage rate can significantly reduce the durability of clothing.

Having a rental model means that there would be a huge amount of inventory, thus increasing the warehouse costs to hold these items. Other costs incurred would also be shipping costs and maintenance cost (to dry clean and fix any tears or defects in the outfits). In order to fully maximise the stock's availability to the public, products returned to the company in the morning are dry cleaned and ready to be shipped out to a new customer by the evening. Rent the Runway is also the biggest dry cleaner in the U.S., typically dry cleaning up to 2000 dresses every hour.  One might think that rented companies only carry common sizes in order to maximise their profits (since they may incur losses if they purchase expensive pieces that majority of members do not fit in). However, Rent the Runway has a huge range of sizes available, from size 0 to size 22, making sure that nobody gets left out on the deals. Furthermore, the company sends users two sizes in case the one they placed an order for does not fit.

This system however, may not fully work in peer-to-peer platforms. Renting out clothes from our own wardrobe becomes difficult if we have no established a proper reputable background for people to trust. Although we may price the same items on professionally done websites at a cheaper price, people may still be hesitant towards transacting with peers. Furthermore, when it comes to expensive clothing items that require professional dry cleaning, individuals may not get as good a deal when compared to other rental companies. This means that profits earned from renting the dress out may not even be enough to cover the cost of sending the item to dry cleaning.

Renting in the shared economy is still a relatively new concept, and people are still reluctant to share clothes with other people, especially on peer-to-peer platforms. It is more difficult convincing someone to share their clothing pieces with someone else than convincing them to share a home, or a car. Personally, the thrill in buying or trying a piece of clothing is the fact that it is something new. People may also view their clothing as something very personal and private to themselves, thus having to wear something that a stranger has put on their body before may feel slightly uncomfortable to them.

References:
https://www.renttherunway.com/
https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/fashion-tech/will-the-sharing-economy-work-for-fashion-rent-the-runway-rental

companies' take on shared goods

Companies are increasing their efforts in making their products more sustainable. Some examples of the rising environmental efforts include reducing the usage of plastic bags, encouraging people to use their own recycled bags and switching to green energy.

An example of a company that promotes environment sustainability is Swedish retailer H&M. In 2013, H&M started an initiative for people to drop off and donate their unwanted or unused fabrics and clothes (of any condition) at their stores in exchange for a voucher. It is estimated that up to 95% of clothing thrown away can be re-purposed or reused in one form or another. Clothes collected at H&M outlets will be then sorted and categorised as either re-wearable to sell in secondhand stores, reused as cloths, or recycled to make new fabric.

Since the revolution began in 2013, H&M has thus far helped recycled 28,000 tons of unwanted clothes. H&M came up with its permanent Conscious collection, made using recycled and sustainable materials such as organic cotton and recycled cotton.

However, there are limitations in ensuring sustainability of these products. The nature of fabrics make it extremely difficult to recycle blended material - thus this limits the variety of fabric that can be recycled. Out of the fabric that are recyclable like cotton, the quality of cotton reduces with wear. This affects the durability and quality of the clothing, especially if a piece has been worn and used consistently overtime. This makes it difficult for an entire item of clothing to be 100% recycled material. In addition, since the process of recycling fabric is still lagging behind in terms of technology, it is estimated that it would take H&M 12 years just to recycle 1,000 tons of clothing waste. Thus, results of today's effort would only be felt in the future. Since people are not able instantly see the direct effects of recycling and re-purposing old clothes, this may deter them from actually contributing and putting in effort to reduce environmental wastage of resources.

There is also an issue on H&M's production processes when manufacturing its clothes. Being one of the world's largest retailer of clothes, H&M produces a massive pile of clothes per day. This process - sourcing and growing of raw materials, dyeing the fabric and shipping the finished goods, puts a large strain on the environment. For the amount of effort it takes to recycle clothing, recycled fabric only takes up 1% of total materials H&M used in 2015.

This could suggest that although H&M may have genuine intents to encourage environmental awareness and promote corporate social responsibility, is using such ways as a marketing tool to increase their overall sales. By providing consumers with cash vouchers when they make a donation, people are more inclined to purchase H&M's products (although they might not have been loyal customers in the past). Hence, this increases H&M's profitability as a small cash discount can potentially increase H&M's sales immensely. When presented with a cash voucher, this encourages people to buy things they may not necessarily need or even want. This can hinder sustainability efforts as these cash vouchers are essentially encouraging people to buy more clothes and products - many of which they may not fully utilise.

References:
http://qz.com/662031/is-hm-misleading-customers-with-all-its-talk-of-sustainability/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/brands/hm-is-using-5-vouchers-to-become-more-sustainable-will-it-work/
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/style/hm-old-clothes-donation
http://www.herworldplus.com/fashion/updates/hm-launch-clothing-recycling-initiative