I wrote my master’s thesis about collaborative consumption in a REKO local food system. In this blog writing, I briefly discuss the main findings of my thesis.
The purpose of the study was to analyse and identify how collaborative consumption builds a local food system. The study used the data collected in the Organizing REKO project in 2024, consisting of 21 interviews with consumers, producers, and administrators. The analysis was conducted using a theory-driven qualitative approach.
The first objective of the study was to develop a theoretical understanding of how collaborative consumption and local food systems are connected. As a result, it can be said that local food systems create platforms for collaborative consumption (Ertz et al., 2019; Crivits & Paredis, 2013). They are built on direct interaction between consumers and producers, which mirrors the key feature of collaborative consumption: the exchange of resources directly between individuals, often without intermediaries.
The second objective of the study was empirical, and it aimed to identify different forms of collaborative consumption that occur within the REKO food system. Based on the study’s theoretical framework, REKO’s social interaction situations were divided into three categories: sourcing situations (Facebook group), trading situations (pick-up event), and pure collaboration. Direct interaction is at the core of everything in REKO and actors like to have discussions with each other. REKO is often perceived as a community where like-minded people meet. Although actors feel that they form relationships with each other, these do not develop into friendships.
The third objective of the study was to identify how the motivations that drive collaborative consumption can be seen in the social interactions of REKO actors. Previous studies have identified communality and hedonic values – such as meeting new people – as key motivations for collaborative consumption (Kim & Jin, 2020; Delgado et al., 2023). These motivations were also found to be evident in the interactions between REKO actors. The analysis showed that especially the direct interaction between them enabled more personalized customer relationships. Such interaction and shared values, such as preferring ethically produced local food, are contributing to the sense of community that many producers and consumers experience at REKO.
All in all, REKO is more than an exchange-focused marketplace, but it is also a social event where actors can meet each other. It can be concluded that communality of REKO could be used as a competitive advantage and producers should invest in building it. But it must be noticed that collaborative consumption in REKO cannot be classified under a single type, instead experiences differ depending on individual’s background, preferences, and motivations. For some, REKO is a communal place, while for others, it functions purely as a marketplace. Because of that, producers should identify these different customer segments and adapt to their needs.
Writing a master’s thesis was a great opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the research process and this specific topic. Connecting two different theoretical discussions and finding a real-life evidence to support that connection was rewarding and made the project feel meaningful.
By,
Aino Rotko (MSc in Marketing from the University of Vaasa, Finland)
Her thesis (in Finnish) can be found here
References
Crivits, M. & Paredis, E. (2013). Designing an explanatory practice framework: Local food systems as a case. Journal of consumer culture, 13(3), 306–336.
Delgado, A. C., Soares, R. R. & Proença, J. F. (2023). Motivations for Peer-to-Peer Accommodation: Exploring Sustainable Choices in Collaborative Consumption. Sustainability, 15(13), 10276.
Ertz, M., Durif, F. & Arcand, M. (2019). A conceptual perspective on collaborative consumption. AMS review, 9(1–2), 27–41.
Kim, N. L. & Jin, B. E. (2020). Why buy new when one can share? Exploring collaborative consumption motivations for consumer goods. International journal of consumer studies, 44(2), 122–130.