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

what do people think of shared goods?

There are many reasons as to why we engage in sharing of goods. Reasons may include underutilisation of the product as it would only be used for a seasonal period of time. In addition, we may not want to accumulate too many unnecessary items. Also, it presents to us an economic opportunity to make profit out of valuable items we already have at home

The emergence of online marketplaces have encouraged people to start sharing and selling their pre-loved goods. Although there is an issue of the quality and durability of shared goods, people are more willing to share and purchase items that are of less value compared to items that are priced higher.

For example, people are usually more willing to purchase secondhand clothes, shoes and household items compared to buying secondhand mobile phones and televisions. This is because the retail price of clothing is significantly cheaper than that of mobile phones. Since these items do not take up a significantly proportion of our income, we are more likely to trust and purchase from online marketplaces. In the case of buying secondhand mobile phones and other electronic gadgets, the price may be still high if phone is kept in decent condition. We would thus want to ensure that the phone is working in good condition by testing it out at physical retail stores.

There is also a social stigma when it comes to purchasing secondhand items. Generally we would prefer purchasing something brand new in its original state because we can only then be sure of the product's quality. Apart from the issue of quality, we typically shun away from purchasing secondhand goods due to concerns about our social image. Buying something that has been used by someone else may also imply that we are not able to afford the good at its original price. However, this may not always be the case.

People may choose to purchase secondhand goods because these goods get better in time. These may include boots, leather goods, cast-iron skillets and musical instruments. For example, cast-iron cookware develops a non-sticky surface that allows one to fry, bake or stew without the ingredients sticking to the pot. In such cases, these secondhand goods may be priced even higher than its original retail price due to its improved quality over time.

This model can be efficient as it would reduce the wastage of resources. Take for example the amount of textbooks a student needs to purchase throughout the school year. Our usage of these textbooks are seasonal - we would probably only use it during the semester. When the school term ends, these textbooks would accumulate and not only waste space, but also results in wastage of resources when we decide to throw them out. Thus, instead of purchasing new textbooks directly from retail stores, students usually prefer to buy secondhand textbooks from their seniors or on websites that allows the resale of textbooks. In comparison to the retail price of textbooks, secondhand books can be up to half its retail price. In addition, a book with notes and workings written on its pages is usually preferred to over new books (since we are given more resources and insights!). Apart from purchasing secondhand textbooks, students can also trade different textbooks with each other during the semester.

Hence, shared goods is generally welcomed in society due to its environmental benefits and practicality. It is usually more successful in small local communities through peer-to-peer and business-to-peer transactions as items are usually valued less. In terms of business-to-business transactions, sharing of goods may not be more regulation to ensure that there are certain guidelines to follow when exchanging or renting goods between businesses.

References:
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-consumer-intelligence-series-the-sharing-economy.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255698095_The_Sharing_Economy_Why_People_Participate_in_Collaborative_Consumption
http://ask.metafilter.com/136636/What-items-get-better-with-use
http://www.columbiatribune.com/arts_life/community/cast-iron-gets-better-with-age/article_f7adda56-2e48-52e3-b720-4fddab25986c.html

what are shared goods?

Shared goods refer to the exchange, trade, sale or loaning of items among people in society. These goods can be almost anything that is of value, and almost anyone can take part in the sharing of goods. Online platforms such as eBay and Amazon has facilitated in the rise in peer-to-peer and business-to-peer transactions.

With the increased cost of living and a shift towards more minimal lifestyles, this has led to a growth in the goods-sharing economy. Goods that are highly shared are usually items with a high market value and is not fully utilised all the time - such goods include furniture, appliances, professional cameras, specific hardware tools, and even medical equipment. 

Sharing of goods is not something that is happening only today - it has been around for centuries. There are many kinds of second-hand shops - consignment stores, pawn shops and thrift stores. There are also many platforms to encourage the sharing of goods - flea markets, garage sales, online marketplaces and physical thrift stores. 

A type of thrift store is Goodwill. Goodwill was founded in 1902 by an early social innovator, Rev. Edgar J. Helms. He collected used household items and clothing that were unwanted by wealthier areas in Boston. He trained and hired poorer people to repair these goods - the repaired goods were then either resold, or given to these people. 

Thrift stores such as The Salvation Army, Goodwill and Savers encourage people do do good by donating their used and unwanted goods to the less fortunate. A fraction of the store's annual income would be then donated to charities. Initially when thrift stores first started out, they attracted usually the lower income families who are unable to afford full priced retail items in stores. 

However, with today's fast fashion trends and an overall thriftier society, an increasing number of people are turning to shopping at thrift stores for products. Social media sites such as Youtube has helped encourage more people to start looking for gems in thrift stores. In the Youtube community, there are many content creators who have the ability to encourage their viewers to change their views. Recently, fashion trends are more geared towards reinventing trends set in the 1980s and 1990s - thus, people are able to find better and cheaper deals shopping at thrift stores rather than the commercial retail stores that would usually charge exorbitant prices. 

Apart from thrift stores, online markets such as eBay has encouraged people to sell or trade their secondhand items. Carousell, a peer-to-peer Singapore founded lifestyle mobile application that encourages people to sell their secondhand and pre-loved goods is also increasingly popular not only to millennials, but also to the older tech savvy generation. People are selling items such as textbooks, kitchen appliances, electronic devices, vintage and antiques and even automobiles.

However, there are issues that arise when people sell their secondhand items. The most important question people have when they purchase or loan these secondhand goods would be the durability of the product. Especially on an online platform, users would not be able to judge the quality and condition of the goods when the transaction is being done online. There would be great risks when purchasing secondhand goods online as we cannot guarantee that it would be in a good working condition. Would it be worth it spending slightly less for a product that would likely break down in a couple of months? 

In terms of shared medical equipment (sharing of medical equipment between institutions), there would also be an issue of urgency. Hospitals and clinics may result in sharing of medical equipment because they are extremely costly to purchase. However, if both institutions need to use the same equipment at the same time, there may be issues regarding who gets to use it first - this can potentially lead to longer waiting times and reduced efficiency of such institutions. 

Shared goods does have its benefits to society in terms of less waste generated and a more efficient allocation of resources. However, we have to be mindful of the potential drawbacks that shared goods entails such that we are able to minimise potential issues to ensure long term sustainability of the system. 

References:

http://www.goodwill.org/about-us/

http://www.localgovsharingecon.com/uploads/2/1/3/3/21333498/localgovsharingecon_sharedgoods_oct2015.pdf