THE SHARING ECONOMY: CONTRIBUTIONS TO FOOD SECURITY IN AUSTRALIA
Denise Gibran Nogueira Bachelor of Business Graduate Diploma in Sustainability Management
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy
School of Management QUT Business School
Queensland University of Technology 2019
Keywords
Australia, diverse economies, food security, food sharing, sharing economy, social inclusion.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 1
Abstract
The last decade has witnessed the rise of the sharing economy, a phenomenon that enables access to goods and services by promoting more direct connections between individuals or among individuals and organisations. Although sharing is not a novel practice, the sharing economy came to the fore when digital platforms were employed to mediate transactions, extending the physical realm and changing social and market dynamics in a definitive way. The current manifestation of the sharing economy is complex and contradictory. Some argue that the sharing economy is a disguised form of neoliberalism, while others consider it a potential pathway to a new economic paradigm, one that involves more equitable, sustainable and distributive economic practices. Although the rhetoric of the sharing economy is based on promoting access to goods and services, there is limited evidence on how it enables access for individuals or groups that are currently on the edges of the formal economy or are marginalised in society. Given the rise of food sharing initiatives, this study examines food security to understand the extent to which the sharing economy can promote access to food for economically marginalised populations.
Food security is said to occur when people have sufficient access to food to attend their needs for a healthy and active life. Although food security can be considered a result of food production, the literature has shown that food availability does not ensure access to food. The main causes of food insecurity are grounded in poverty and socioeconomic inequalities, which constrains people’s ability to acquire enough food. In Australia, where food production surpasses the population’s demand, food insecurity is rising both in numbers and severity, meaning that more people are skipping meals and/or eating less because they cannot afford to buy enough quality food. Currently it is estimated that more than four million Australians, 18% of the population, are experiencing food insecurity. This is affecting not only the most vulnerable populations but also working-class families that are dealing with structural issues such as rising living costs (housing, utilities, food) and casualisation of the workforce, which compromise income stability. However, regardless of this increasing trend, the Australian Government, for the last decades, have been adopting emergency food relief as the main approach to addressing food insecurity. Although food relief has a role to play in emergency situations, in persistent situations, food insecurity
2 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
requires a combination of short- and long-term solutions at multiple levels to overcome the barriers to access to food and address the structural issues that perpetuate this condition.
This research unpacks the relationship between the sharing economy and food security in Australia. Informed by diverse economies theory, the research explores how the sharing economy promotes access to food to a population that is unable to acquire enough healthy quality food to meet their needs. A single case study design sought in-depth understandings and theoretical insights, and drew upon 15 semi- structured interviews with various social actors directly or indirectly involved with food security in Australia. The findings of this research suggest three typologies of the sharing economy: transactional, transformative, and transitional. These typologies offer a range of possibilities to address food insecurity, contrasting with only the one approach adopted in Australia. Moreover, the research presents evidence that the contributions and constraints of the sharing economy to access to food, core element of food security. The study concludes that the sharing economy is a diverse phenomenon that has demonstrated some inclusive practices towards food security. However, to achieve a widespread transformation, government intervention is required to support community-based food sharing initiatives and to promote structural change so as to address the fundamental problems that cause food insecurity in the first place. This research expands the theoretical understandings of the sharing economy, provides empirical evidence of its implications to food security, and identifies practices and policies that can be developed to achieve food security in a more meaningful way in Australia.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 3
Table of Contents
Keywords ...... 1 Abstract ...... 2 Table of Contents ...... 4 List of Figures ...... 6 List of Tables ...... 7 List of Abbreviations ...... 8 Statement of Original Authorship ...... 9 Acknowledgements ...... 10 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 12 1.1 Food security ...... 12 1.2 The sharing economy ...... 14 1.3 Diverse economies ...... 16 1.4 Research approach ...... 17 1.5 Thesis outline ...... 18 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 20 2.1 Food security ...... 20 2.2 The sharing economy ...... 27 2.3 Conclusion ...... 31 Chapter 3: Diverse Economies ...... 33 3.1 Concept and background ...... 33 3.2 Reframing the economy ...... 35 3.3 Place-based approach ...... 39 3.4 critiques OF diverse economies ...... 42 3.5 Diverse economies approach informing sharing economy research ...... 45 3.6 Conclusion ...... 46 Chapter 4: Research Design ...... 48 4.1 Methodology ...... 48 4.2 Sampling strategy ...... 50 4.3 Data collection ...... 55 4.4 Data Analysis ...... 59 4.5 Researcher reflexivity ...... 60 4.6 Ethics ...... 61 4.7 Summary ...... 61 Chapter 5: Understanding food (in)security in Australia ...... 62
4 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
5.1 Conceptualizing food (in)security ...... 62 5.2 “An invisible problem” ...... 64 5.3 Challenges for organisations involved with food (in)security ...... 66 5.4 Barriers to food access ...... 68 5.5 More than “filling people's hungry bellies” ...... 70 5.6 Summary ...... 75 Chapter 6: Connecting the sharing economy and food security ...... 76 6.1 Understanding the sharing economy...... 76 6.2 The sharing economy approaches ...... 78 6.3 The sharing economy practices addressing food insecurity ...... 80 6.4 “There is an empty chair” ...... 83 6.5 Summary ...... 86 Chapter 7: Key contributions of the sharing economy to food security ...... 87 7.1 Collaboration ...... 87 7.2 Resources (re)allocation ...... 90 7.3 Shorter supply chains ...... 93 7.4 Digital platforms and technology ...... 97 7.5 Summary ...... 101 Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions ...... 103 8.1 The sharing economy spectrum ...... 104 8.2 Sharing access to food ...... 109 8.3 Contributions of this research ...... 117 8.4 Limitations and further research ...... 120 8.5 Conclusion ...... 121 Reference List ...... 123 Appendices ...... 131 Appendix A : Interview protocol ...... 131
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 5
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Combining the cores of the sharing economy ...... 29 Figure 3.1. The diverse economies iceberg ...... 36 Figure 8.1. Access through food for free ...... 111 Figure 8.2. Access through fair prices ...... 112 Figure 8.3. Access through subsidised prices ...... 114
6 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Diverse economies framing ...... 38 Table 4.1 Participants classification ...... 54 Table 4.2 Participants pseudonyms and classification ...... 58
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 7
List of Abbreviations
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics AFN Alternative Food Network AFSA Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance CSA Community Supported Agriculture FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations RTF Right to Food Coalition SDG Sustainable Development Goals UK United Kingdom UN United Nations USA United States of America
8 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: QUT Verified Signature
Date: March 2019
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 9
Acknowledgements
A famous African proverb says, “It takes a whole village to raise a child”, meaning that it takes a whole community of people with different roles, not only parents, to bring up a child. After undertaking this master’s degree, I would say that it takes a whole community to complete a research degree. Even though the researcher holds the authorship responsibility, there are academic and personal ‘villages’ that surround and support the researcher along this journey. I have been in great company!
I start by acknowledging my amazing supervisors, Carol Richards and Robyn Mayes, without whom I would not have completed this researh. Carol and Robyn, thank you for your generous guidance, teaching me how to walk my own research pathway. Thank you for the ongoing support, since we first met, always being present and backing my plans. And thank you for the joyful interactions surrounded by laughter and coffees, which certainly made the hurdle easier. You both have my deep admiration for the great researchers and persons that you are.
The academic village would not be complete without my research colleagues. A big shout-out to all of them who shared advice, lunches, and friendship along this journey. A special thank you to the ‘Salon-ers’ for the mutual learning and support to our research candidatures. Also, I want to thank the participants of this research, who were very generous in sharing their time, knowledge and experiences to make this research possible. I learned a lot from them! In finishing this thesis, I also acknowledge the contribution of professional editor, Dr John McAndrew, who provided copyediting and proofreading services, according to the guidelines laid out in the university- endorsed national ‘Guidelines for editing research theses’. Also, would like to demonstrate my gratitude for my two examiners who provided generous comments that strengthened this final thesis and fulfilled my heart with joy at the end of this long journey.
In my personal village, I would not get this far without my beloved parents, Odilon, Dirce, and my late mum Regina. Thank you for your lifetime examples and for nurturing my flights in life, even when I decided to fly to the other side of the world. Obrigada, amados! A special thank to my sister, Simone, who mentored me through the application to this master’s degree and, together with my brother Henrique,
10 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
continued to provide invaluable support all the way through. I am following in your steps, manos! My special gratitute to my parents (in-law) in Australia, Keith and Jan, who have received me as a daughter. Thank you for our happy dinners on Fridays and for the countless days that you looked after our kids.
Finally, and most importantly, my heartfelt thanks to my husband Karl, who has been by my side every day. Meu amor, thank you for celebrating each achievement, for sharing words and hugs of encouragement, for looking after everything else when I could not share the load, and, most of all, for caring for our most important ‘project’ together: our daughters Joanna and Sofia. To them I dedicate this thesis. Meninas, thank you for the countless colourful drawings that decorate my desk and for the lovely hugs that broke the writing monotony. After all, I hope this work can inspire you to be curious about the world and be careful with others while you are pursuing your own pathways in life.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 11
Chapter 1: Introduction
“People’s food options have become so limited in the way they are offered to them” (Sam, research participant).
“Genuine food security lies in more choice, not less” (Carolan, 2013, p. 143).
This research unpacks the relationship between the sharing economy and food security, aiming to understand how the sharing economy promotes more equitable access to food in Australia. In a context where retail distribution is concentrated within the supermarket duopoly and where the government’s efforts towards food security have been limited and unable to promote genuine change over time, the sharing economy has come to the fore as a phenomenon that can promote unconventional access to goods and services. In addition, the sharing economy rhetoric emphasises its contribution to a more equitable and sustainable economy.
This introduction provides an overview of the research and this thesis document. Specifically, it introduces the key working concepts of the study: food security and the sharing economy. The overview of the working concepts leads to identification of the research gap followed by an elaboration of the theoretical lens employed. The research approach presents the methodology employed and research questions that are addressed in this exploration. The last section of the chapter presents the structure of this thesis.
1.1 FOOD SECURITY
The international definition of food security, developed at the World Food Summit in 1996, states that it is a “situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO, 2018, p. 159). Food insecurity, which is the lack of food security, can encompasses both undernourishment and obesity as forms of malnutrition. At the global level, food insecurity has the attention of international
12 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
agendas towards sustainable development. However, over the past decades, the number of obese people has risen and the number of undernourished people has recently increased from 795 million in 2015 to 821 million in 2017 (FAO et al., 2018).
Contrary to the common understanding, food insecurity is not restricted to developing economies. According to the FAO, it is estimated that more than 10% of the population in developed regions are undernourished and more than 13% are obese or overweight (FAO et al., 2018). In Australia, more than four million people have experienced food insecurity in a period of 12 months, representing 18% of the population (Foodbank, 2018). Food insecurity largely remains an invisible problem that is disguised by a sense of an abundance of food, which contrasts with popular understandings of food insecurity. Indeed, Australia’s food production surpasses internal demand and is exported to supply international demand (PMSEIC, 2010) and, at the same time, 5.3 million tonnes of food are wasted in the country (Blue Environment, 2016). Supported by this abundance fallacy, the national government has taken emergency food relief as the main strategy to address food insecurity in Australia. Food relief is provided by the non-profit sector that donates meals and food parcels as part of a market-driven, welfare agenda (Devin & Richards, 2016). Also, food relief operations are largely supported by food rescue organisations that divert surplus food from landfill to charities (Booth & Whelan, 2014). Food relief makes a short-term contribution to household food insecurity by providing food for those in need. However, evidence from Australia and elsewhere has shown that, in the long term, this approach can hide the depth and breadth of food insecurity, compromising the development of effective responses (Riches & Silvasti, 2014).
In Australia, food insecurity occurs in both urban and rural areas caused by income instability and structural inequalities that affect peoples’ ability to purchase food to meet their needs (Foodbank, 2018; National Rural Health Alliance, 2016). The data has shown that this problem is not only affecting the most vulnerable population but also working-class households that are struggling to make ends meet. Stagnant wage growth, increasing living costs (i.e., housing, utilities, and also food), and casualisation of the workforce are amongst the main problems (Foodbank, 2018; Richards, Kjærnes, & Vik, 2016). In addition, in remote and outer suburban areas, food distribution is also poor and often the population have limited or no access to healthy options (Foodbank, 2018; National Rural Health Alliance, 2016). In Australia, the
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 13
supermarket duopoly, one of the most concentrated food retail systems in the world intensifies this problem by concentrating power over prices and retail distribution (Richards et al., 2016).
Therefore, isolated initiatives such as food relief provide only a limited contribution to overcoming social, economic and geographic barriers to food. There is a need to articulate short- and long-term efforts, both at national and local levels, to ensure people have the conditions to acquire food according to their needs and preferences. Richards et al. (2016) emphasise the role of institutional frameworks and policies to articulate an overarching approach to tackle food insecurity. This institutional approach may be related to topics like food prices, trade agreements and poverty reduction (Candel, 2014; Richards et al., 2016). It has been argued that the food security agenda has to evolve from ensuring food supply and minimum calorie intake to promoting access to food through social, economic and distributive justice (Carolan, 2013), meaning that the available food be equitably distributed.
The increasing reliance on food banks in developed countries such as the United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Canada and Australia (Riches & Silvasti, 2014), suggests the food security research agenda is incomplete. There is more to be learned on this topic, particularly as centralised approaches have not resolved food insecurity over time. This current research study explores community- based approaches that favour the distributive justice approach articulated by Carolan (2013).
1.2 THE SHARING ECONOMY
The sharing economy has emerged as a relatively novel phenomenon that is changing how people have access to goods and services. The sharing of goods and services is not a novelty. On the contrary, it is a long-lasting practice within social networks and physical domains. However, the concept of sharing has gained new contours in the last decade, with technology expanding these practices to digital domains, enabling connections between individuals and organisations in a digital context. These new contours have shaped what is increasingly being referred to as ‘the sharing economy’, which is claimed to be changing social and market dynamics in a persistent and enduring way (Belk, 2014; Frenken & Schor, 2017).
14 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
The term ‘sharing economy’ has been employed to describe a range of initiatives. Often, it is associated with global platform-based commercial start-ups, such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the term is also relevant to more ubiquitous neighbourhood and family practices which shares goods and services such as housing, tools, accommodation, and transportation (Schor, 2016). The diversity of examples is also present in food sharing, a term that associate food practices and the sharing economy. In the food context, sharing can encompass UberEATS or Deliveroo, on-demand platforms for food delivery, and community-based initiatives such as community supported agriculture (CSA). In his most recent book, The Food Sharing Revolution, Carolan (2018) explores a number of practices like cooperative farming, meals sharing and food waste platforms to understand the possibilities that the sharing economy represents for food systems. The practices involve food production, distribution, processing, and consumption, demonstrating that food sharing is happening from farms to tables.
In such a complex context, the academic literature has argued that having a widespread definition of the sharing economy is an impossible task, or even unnecessary (Acquier, Daudigeos, & Pinkse, 2017; Martin, 2016; Schor, 2016). Instead of pursuing a common definition, empirical and theoretical contributions have been made to understand the sharing economy as an emergent phenomenon. Proposing a broad approach, Acquier et al. (2017) frame the sharing economy into three interrelated cores: platform economy, access economy, and community-based economy. These frames reflect the motivations of the sharing economy initiatives and, therefore, contribute to understandings of their implications for social, environmental and economic dynamics.
The sharing economy discourse often emphasises its contributions to social, environmental and economic sustainability. However, the contradictions between its rhetoric and practical examples raise concerns. For some, the sharing economy is a threat, a disguised form of neoliberalism (Cockayne, 2016); for others, it has been perceived as an opportunity for the development of a decentralised, equitable and sustainable economy (Martin, 2016). This latter understanding is supported by Carolan’s observations on the sharing economy: “My primary interest in sharing technologies is that they have prompted a conversation about the way our food economy functions, opening up space for more equitable and humane relationships”
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 15
(Carolan, 2018, p. 5). However, the impact of the sharing economy to social, economic and distributive justice over the longer term remains unclear (Carolan, 2018; Frenken & Schor, 2017; Martin, 2016). There is limited evidence that the rhetoric of shifting from ownership to access (Botsman & Rogers, 2010) is enabling people who are on the margins of the conventional economy to have access to goods and services. Moreover, the contribution of the sharing economy in promoting equitable access to food remains under-researched (Frenken & Schor, 2017; Martin, 2016; Schor, Fitzmaurice, Carfagna, Attwood-Charles, & Poteat, 2016). Hence, the focus of this research is to understand the contribution of the sharing economy to food insecurity in a context where food provisioning is restricted by mainstream distribution channels and food insecurity is growing due to structural inequalities.
1.3 DIVERSE ECONOMIES
Employing the diverse economies theoretical approach, this research examines the sharing economy as a diverse phenomenon that encompasses multiple practices to address food insecurity in Australia. The diverse economies theory highlights economic practices that are commonly hidden or disregarded by the conventional representations of what constitutes the economy (Gibson-Graham, 1996, 2006, 2008a). Diverse economies recognise capitalist, non-capitalist and alternative practices that co- exist in social relations and may or may not contribute to promote positive change (Gibson-Graham, 2006). As such, it provides a useful lens through which to examine the relationship between the sharing economy and food insecurity
The articulation of diverse economies through a place-based approach is claimed to have efficacy in transforming communities and inspiring larger scale transformation (Gibson-Graham, 2004, 2008a, 2014). This is largely due to place-based approaches enabling mobilisation of resources and knowledge whilst employing democratic processes to address problems at the local level (Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2011). This theoretical approach provides the lens to identify and analyse the sharing economy initiatives observed in this study as diverse and decentralised alternative economic activities. In particular, social inclusion takes a central position when expanding traditional definitions of ‘the economy’ to incorporate often hidden and under-reported exchanges of goods and services.
16 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
1.4 RESEARCH APPROACH
Informed by diverse economies theory outlined above, this research unpacks the relationship between the sharing economy and food security in Australia. Concerned about economic diversity and social inclusion, this thesis reports on the possibilities that the sharing economy offers to promote access to food to a population that is unable to regularly acquire food to meet its needs and preferences. This research interrogates four common characteristics of the sharing economy that are drawn from the literature: adoption of collaborative practices, utilisation of resources that are unused or underused, implementation of shorter and/or more localised supply chains that differ from the conventional ones, and the adoption of digital platforms to mediate transactions (Acquier et al., 2017; Belk, 2014; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Martin, 2016; Richardson, 2015; Schor, 2016). These characteristics are explored in terms of their relevance and practice associated with food security. This research focus is addressed through three research questions:
(1) What are the contributions and constraints of the sharing economy to food security in Australia?
(2) How do food sharing initiatives engage in diverse economic activities to promote food security?
(3) How is the sharing economy promoting access to food for individuals or groups experiencing food insecurity?
The research is informed by a socio-constructionist epistemology (Crotty, 1998), adopting an abductive approach to address the questions (Blaikie, 2007). Employing a single case study design, the research seeks in-depth understandings of food sharing economy participants’ perspectives and experiences. This approach allows theoretical insights drawn from the food security context in Australia (Dubois & Gadde, 2002, 2014). Data collection is conducted through semi-structured interviews, and participants are directly or indirectly involved in food sharing initiatives such as community farming, street kitchen, food hub, advocacy, or consultancy. Participants of this research were selected using a purposive sampling strategy (Creswell, 2007). This strategy aimed to select participants that can provide multiple perspectives on the research topic. Data was interpreted using thematic analysis techniques (Strauss &
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 17
Corbin, 1990). Findings contribute to the theoretical understanding of the sharing economy, provide empirical evidence of its implications for food security, and identify relevant practices to support initiatives in the field and inform government interventions.
1.5 THESIS OUTLINE
Following this initial chapter, this thesis is structured into seven other chapters. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature on the working concepts of this research: food security and the sharing economy. Providing the baseline for this research, the literature review starts with the background and concept development of food security. Next, the chapter describes the approaches to address food insecurity and provides details on the current state of food insecurity in Australia. Subsequently, the chapter synthetises relevant literature on the sharing economy, offering the basis for understanding how the sharing economy has been socially constructed, especially over the last decades. Chapter Two concludes with the identification of the research gap that justifies this research.
Chapter Three enunciates the diverse economies theoretical approach, which informs this research. After describing the theoretical propositions of the diverse economies approach, the chapter discusses this approach in relation to a broader literature on alternative economies. Then, the chapter elaborates on how the diverse economies approach contributes to this research and how it has been employed to examine the sharing economy in various fields, including food systems.
Chapter Four presents the research design employed in the study. Initially the chapter describes the methodology adopted based on a single case study. Afterwards, the chapter details the sampling strategy and participants’ profiles followed by data collection and data analysis methods. Then a reflexive appraisal presents the researcher positionality. The last part of the chapter clarifies the procedures employed in relation to the ethics of this research.
Based on participant data, the findings of this research are organised in three chapters. The first, Chapter Five, describes interviewee understandings of food (in)security in Australia. These findings provide the context from which to examine the contributions of the sharing economy to food security. The second findings chapter,
18 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Chapter Six, links the sharing economy and food security, offering participant perspectives to understand the sharing economy as a broader phenomenon and its practice to promote food security. Chapter Seven presents the findings on key characteristics of the sharing economy, elaborating on participants’ perspectives on their relevance and their practices to achieve food security.
Chapter Eight finalises this thesis by discussing the key findings of this research. The discussion is organised in two parts that address the three research questions articulated above. Following the discussion, the chapter states the contributions and limitations of this research and proposes an agenda for future research. Lastly, the chapter provides a conclusion of this study.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 19
Chapter 2: Literature Review
As introduced in Chapter One this research aims to explore the contributions and constraints of the sharing economy to food security in Australia. Providing the baseline for the research, this chapter presents a comprehensive review of the literature on the core concepts: food security and the sharing economy. First, food security is presented through a description of the concepts and a historical background. Next, the various approaches to addressing food insecurity are outlined, indicating the approach that underpins this research. The first section closes with the current state of food insecurity in Australia. Next, the sharing economy is presented as the second core concept. As an emerging phenomenon, the sharing economy lacks a widespread definition but to overcome this challenge, the comprehensive literature review below presents key conceptual framings and current understandings of this phenomenon. Based on the extant literature on the sharing economy, the research gap is identified and justified. The last section concludes this literature review, articulating the core concepts and indicating the approach that this research adopts to achieve its purpose.
2.1 FOOD SECURITY
2.1.1 Concept and background Although having adequate access to food is a human right (United Nations, 1948, p. 62), food insecurity remains a major issue that has mobilised governments, organisations and civil society at local, national and international levels (FAO et al., 2018). The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) states that food security is “a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO et al., 2018, p. 159). According to the FAO, there are four dimensions that need to be considered on the pursuit of food security: (1) availability, when food is physically present; (2) access, when households and individuals have economic and physical access to sufficient food; (3) utilisation, which relates to how the food is prepared and consumed by individuals; and (4) stability over time, when food security is a lasting condition that is not compromised by social, economic, environmental and political factors (FAO et al., 2018).
20 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
The definition of food security by the FAO has changed over the last 45 years, which reflects the complexity of the issue and has implications for policies, strategies and monitoring approaches (FAO, 2003). At first, in the mid 1970s, the focus to ensure food security was on the supply of food, in terms of volume and stability, to ensure the availability and price rates at national and international levels (FAO, 2003). In the 1980s, the demand for food was included in the definition, discussing food security at the household level. A few years later, the international community recognised the temporal dynamics of food insecurity (chronic and transitory) (FAO, 2003). A decade later, in the mid 1990s, the definition of food security included aspects of nutrition, safety and preferences. The current definition of food security, as stated above, was approved at the World Food Summit in 1996, and it was just at the time that poverty, rather than food availability and distribution, was recognised as the root cause for food insecurity (FAO, 2003).
Over the last decades, food (in)security has been integrated into the international agenda. In the World Food Summit in 1996, 182 governments committed to halve the number of undernourished people by 2015 (FAO, IFAD, & WFP, 2015). This target was reinforced by the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals, established in 2000, which included to “halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger” (FAO et al., 2015; United Nations, 2015, p. 20). By 2015, many developing countries had made significant progress, but the target was not accomplished on a global scale (United Nations, 2015).
Currently, food security as a global challenge is cemented into the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) for 2030 (Goal 2), which states, to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture” (United Nations, 2018, para. 1). However, the most recent reports have shown a shift away from a declining trend in world hunger, which raises concerns about the future (FAO et al., 2018; United Nations, 2018). The latest global report on food security notes that the number of undernourished people has risen from 795 million in 2015 to 821 million in 2017. The SDG’s progress report says, “After a prolonged decline, world hunger appears to be on the rise again. Conflict, drought and disasters linked to climate change are among the key factors causing this reversal in progress” (United Nations, 2018, para. 2).
Although food insecurity is most often linked to less economically developed countries, it is estimated that 10.8% of the population in more developed regions are undernourished (FAO et al., 2018). In addition, these developed regions present higher rates of overweight and
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 21
obesity amongst adults than less developed regions, more than 13% and 5%, respectively (FAO et al., 2018). Contrary to the common sense, obesity is considered another manifestation of food insecurity, and this is related to malnutrition caused mostly by high prices of fresh and healthy food and cheap prices for energy dense and industrialised food (Patel, 2012). Worldwide, obesity is increasing and affects one in eight adults (over 672 million) (FAO et al., 2018). The next sub-section presents how food insecurity has been addressed, discussing the implications of the various approaches.
2.1.2 Addressing food insecurity The development of the food security concept has framed the agri-food agenda. However, according to Carolan (2013), the term ‘food security’ has been appropriated by powerful corporate players to frame the agenda towards market-driven interests based on food production, rather than social security. For example, the development of (bio)technology to improve productivity, resilience and nutritional benefits of food (i.e., genetically modified seeds) as a response to climate change and population growth (FAO, 2009). To explain how the dominant rhetoric of food production and allocation has been implemented, Carolan (2013) sets three cumulative foci that have occurred since the 1940s. The first focus is ‘calorie-isation of food security’, which justifies the emphasis on food production (green revolution) to ensure food supply. Adding to that, from the 1970s onwards, the ‘neoliberalisation of food security’ intensifies trade liberalisation and the globalisation of food supply chains as a means to facilitate efficient allocation of food through markets. The third focus, ‘empty calorie-isation of food security’, started in the 1980s and reflects the financialization of food systems where investments in the food industry outweigh investments in agriculture. This focus leads to the vast increase in availability of processed food that is changing dietary patterns around the world. Although these foci could be considered a success in terms of the volume and price of food calories currently available, they also generated extensive negative environmental, social and economic impacts that can act to constrain genuine food security currently and in future (Carolan, 2013).
Although ensuring food production as a major solution to food insecurity is a common understanding to date, this approach was challenged by Sen in the early 1980s. Sen (1981) articulated the entitlement approach, which affirms that famines and food insecurity occur when there is a loss of individual entitlements, rather than lack of food availability. Therefore,
22 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
this approach focuses on the “ability of people to command food through the legal means available in the society” (Sen, 1981, p. 43). These means may be endowments, assets or workforce labour, which can be exchanged for food. According to the entitlement approach, in the short term, the focus of interventions to overcome famines and food insecurity is food supply by ensuring direct distribution of food or distribution of money that can be used to buy food. However, in the long term, the focus should be on the people’s capacity to acquire food, which is governed by political, social and economic aspects (Sen, 1991), for example, ensuring just payments to the workforce so that they have the conditions to purchase food according to their needs and preferences. Sen says that “exchange entitlements represent a comprehensive picture of exchange possibilities faced by groups of people, and reflects, among other things, the institutional structure of the economy” (Sen, 1976, p. 1275). Complementing Sen’s entitlement approach, Devereux (2001) highlights social-political dimensions and sheds light onto the role of non-market institutions to promote (or deplete) entitlements. In the context of this research, his most important contribution is the recognition of ‘fuzzy entitlements’, which are not related to private ownership but to other forms of ownership and use that can enhance the capacity of people to have access to food. Devereux describes the fuzzy entitlements as:
Rights or claims over resources that are held collectively (by groups of people, or institutions) … Rights can also be exercised at varying levels, from ownership (the strongest form, including rights of disposal) to access and usufruct rights (the weakest form, where ownership and use are often separated). (Devereux, 2001, p. 258)
Adding to this approach, Carolan (2013) argues that food security is not achieved by access to food (‘secure by food’) but through a process that benefits people and the planet (‘secure through food’). Therefore, social, economic and distributive justice are a pathway to achieve food security (Carolan, 2013; Patel, 2012). This approach relates food security to food sovereignty, a concept coined by the peasant social movement La Via Campesina. According to Mann (2014, p. 3), “the concept of food sovereignty challenges the dominance of agribusinesses and an unjust trade system, promoting an alternative system of small-scale, localised agriculture as a fairer solution to hunger, poverty and climate change”. Food sovereignty intertwines aspects of equality and democracy in the pursuit of food security (Clendenning, Dressler, & Richards, 2015; Jarosz, 2014; Mann, 2014).
Some of the economically developed countries have been employing this approach, especially in urban contexts (Alkon et al., 2013; Clendenning et al., 2015; Mann, 2018). In Australia and other countries, like Canada and the USA, community-based movements and
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 23
organisations are focused on the local provision of food through social, economic and environmental justice (Anguelovski, 2015; Davila & Dyball, 2015; Edwards & Mercer, 2010; Levkoe, 2006; Loh & Agyeman, in press; Mann, 2018; Markow, Coveney, & Booth, 2014; Roncarolo, Adam, Bisset, & Potvin, 2016; Wekerle & Classens, 2015). However, in Australia (as in other countries), community-based food practices tend to have more participation from the well-educated middle class than from people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Dixon & Richards, 2016; Markow et al., 2014). This challenge indicates the limitations of the models and approaches to promote more equitable food systems (Dixon & Richards, 2016; Markow et al., 2014).
In this context, the literature emphasises the role of an institutional framework as part of a systemic approach to tackle food insecurity (Candel, 2014; Candel & Pereira, 2017; Richards et al., 2016). The scope of public policies encompasses more than food systems, involving broader social, economic, environmental and political issues like household income levels, wealth distribution, public health, education and social security, food prices, food waste, trade and financialization of food systems (Candel, 2014; Grote, 2014; Richards et al., 2016). Ultimately, this institutional framework aims to address food insecurity by overcoming systemic socioeconomic inequalities and poverty, ensuring the means for people to purchase or have access to food according to their preferences (Richards et al., 2016). To investigate more deeply what this means for the present study, the next sub-section presents the current state of food insecurity in Australia, demonstrating the relevance of the topic to the context of this research.
2.1.3 Food insecurity in Australia Despite knowledge that food insecurity also affects people in more economically developed countries, the food security agenda of the Australian federal government has been mostly oriented around food production. Government reports demonstrate that Australia produces more food than is required to feed its population (PMSEIC, 2010). Moreover, the country adopts the position of the Asian ‘food bowl’, claiming its contribution to international food security (Farmar-Bowers, 2015; Richards et al., 2016; Watson & Merton, 2013). Whilst Australia produces enough food to engage in a food export economy, over 5.3 million tonnes of food are wasted across the food supply chain (Blue Environment, 2016), giving the impression of abundance which sits contrary to popular understandings of food insecurity.
24 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
However, this perception overlooks trends that mediate between the abundance of food and access to food. Issues such as income inequality, wage growth stagnation, and a higher cost of living mean that although food is in apparent abundance, some Australian households do not have the means to acquire it (Richards et al., 2016).
The national data on food insecurity, provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), is considered limited as a resource with which to analyse the severity and extent of the problem (Temple, 2008). This data originated from the Australian Health Survey, which utilises only two questions focused on the financial barriers to buy food (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). This approach overlooks other aspects related to food insecurity (i.e., quality of food, availability, safety, etc.) (Temple, 2008). Monitoring is also compromised as the latest data available is from 2011-13 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013).
At the time of writing, the most current report on food insecurity is provided by the Foodbank Hunger Report 2018. Although this report draws on a limited sample, the results align with other studies and reflect a rising trend in food insecurity in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013; Foodbank, 2018; National Rural Health Alliance, 2016; Temple, 2008). According to Foodbank (2018), more than four million people (18% of the population) have experienced food insecurity in the last year. Among them, 76% are considered to have very low food security, when “food intake is reduced and eating patterns are disrupted due to lack of money and other resources for obtaining food” (Foodbank, 2018, p. 13). Food insecurity occurs in both cities and country areas, but the report shows that people living in regional and remote areas were 33% more likely to have experienced it in the previous 12 months (Foodbank, 2018). Among the population that is food insecure, 39% are in single parent households, 36% are unemployed or looking for work, 29% live in rental housing, and 20% are employed on a part time or casual basis (Foodbank, 2018). These figures demonstrate how some socioeconomic circumstances are strongly associated with food insecurity in Australia (Foodbank, 2018).
Although food insecurity is more prevalent in the country, urban and peri-urban areas also experience poor access to food, especially in spaces that have limited or no access to healthy foods: so-called ‘food deserts’ (Alkon et al., 2013; Edwards & Mercer, 2007; Lawrence, Richards, & Lyons, 2013; Richards et al., 2016). This problem is aggravated by the concentration on the distribution channels and pressure on food prices placed by the duopoly of supermarkets (Coles and Woolworths) that control 70% to 80% of the food retail market (Richards et al., 2016). In food deserts, the population rely on cheap, calorie dense and highly-
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 25
processed food that can lead to malnutrition in the form of hunger or overweight and obesity (Alkon et al., 2013; Clendenning et al., 2015; Patel, 2012).
An increasing number of the population are now seeking food relief from charities (Booth & Whelan, 2014; Foodbank, 2018; Richards et al., 2016). The Foodbank report estimates that, per month, 710,000 people received food relief from charities partnering with them (Foodbank, 2018). Furthermore, these charities indicate that the demand for food relief is increasing and some are having problems meeting the demand (Foodbank, 2018). During the last two decades, the main strategy to address food insecurity in Australia has been emergency food relief that is provided through the non-profit sector rather than government interventions (i.e., Foodbank, Second Bite, Oz Harvest) (Booth & Whelan, 2014; Farmar-Bowers, 2015; Lawrence et al., 2013).
Although food relief is an important approach to the provision of emergency access to food, Booth and Whelan (2014) argue that the food banks’ success has hidden the need for real change in terms of addressing the underlying causes of food insecurity (which are explored in more detail below). Foodbanks in Australia are said to have become a corporatized industry that benefits corporate interests by framing the food insecurity problem as a re-distribution issue (Booth & Whelan, 2014) whilst serving as an opportunity to promote food retailer’s corporate social responsibility (Devin & Richards, 2016). By the end of 2017, a national food waste strategy was launched in Australia, reinforcing the role of food rescue to reduce food waste whilst also addressing food insecurity (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017). Meanwhile, the need for a national strategy to tackle the root causes of food insecurity remains outstanding (National Rural Health Alliance, 2016).
In summary, although food insecurity in Australia is increasing, government strategies at the national level remain limited and sometimes inadequate to address this issue. Looking for complementary and alternative solutions in the Australian context, this research examines how food sharing is mobilised as an approach to promote equitable access to food. The next section describes the sharing economy, providing the theoretical background and its empirical relation to food security.
26 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
2.2 THE SHARING ECONOMY
2.2.1 Background Although the sharing economy might be perceived as a novelty, sharing of goods and services is not a new phenomenon (Belk, 2014; Frenken & Schor, 2017). It is a usual economic practice within communities and (physical) social networks where individuals share with family, friends and neighbours based on relations of trust (Frenken & Schor, 2017). These practices have declined in parts of society but they “remain more common in working class, poor, and minority communities” (Frenken & Schor, 2017; Schor, 2016, p. 12). In the food arena, examples of food sharing include food swapping among neighbours, cooking for people that are ill, or sharing backyard produce.
More recently, the sharing economy emerged to the fore of the public debate. This emergence started in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when technologies enabled individuals to establish connections with each other within a digital context (Frenken & Schor, 2017). In this new context, the common sharing practices that used to be contingent on social networks expanded to digital platforms involving individuals and organisations. Since then, the emphasis has been more on ‘economy’ than on ‘sharing’ (Carolan, 2018). To complicate this issue, related terminologies to describe a sharing economy came to the public domain. These include terms such as ‘collaborative consumption’, ‘collaborative economy’, ‘peer-to-peer economy’, ‘gig economy’, and ‘on-demand economy’ (Avital et al., 2014; Botsman, 2015; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Gruzka, 2016; Sundararajan, 2014). These terms have interchangeable characteristics and overlapping definitions (Acquier et al., 2017; Murillo, Buckland, & Val, 2017). However, the use of the term ‘sharing economy’ prevails among all of them (Martin, 2016).
Currently, the sharing economy is a complex and messy field. There is a wide range of initiatives (informal or formal organisations) that are considered or declare themselves part of the ‘sharing economy’. The examples are grounded in a variety of circumstances, including for-profit or non-profit driven models, monetized or non-monetized transactions, peer-to-peer or business-to-peer relations, and community-based or commercial approaches (Schor, 2016). According to Martin (2016, p. 152), the sharing economy is comprised of "a small number of large-scale commercial platforms with international reach (e.g. Airbnb, Uber); and, a much larger number of small scale peer-to-peer platforms (e.g. Easy Car Club) run by a mix of commercial, social enterprise and non-profit actors". This variety of characteristics expresses different, and sometimes divergent, approaches and motivations. Nonetheless, based on a range
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 27
of literature, some characteristics emerge as relevant to understand how the sharing economy operates, for instance, the adoption of collaborative practices, utilisation of resources that are unused or underused, implementation of shorter and/or localised supply chains that differ from the conventional ones, and adoption of digital platforms to mediate transactions (Acquier et al., 2017; Belk, 2014; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Martin, 2016; Richardson, 2015; Schor, 2016).
2.2.2 Framing and conceptualising the sharing economy The sharing economy lacks a widespread definition and the working definitions employed in this research are shaped by the author’s interests and ideologies and do not reflect a broadly accepted consensus (Acquier et al., 2017; Murillo et al., 2017). In fact, the lack of consensus is the common ground in the literature and some authors contest the importance of a universal definition (Acquier et al., 2017; Gruzka, 2016; Martin, 2016; Murillo et al., 2017; Schor, 2016). Drawing from the various definitions in the literature, this research adopts the definition that the sharing economy is an economic approach that enables access to goods and services by promoting more direct connections among individuals or between individuals and organisations (Acquier et al., 2017; Avital et al., 2014; Botsman, 2013, 2015; Cockayne, 2016; Frenken & Schor, 2017; Gruzka, 2016; Martin, 2016; Richardson, 2015; Schor, 2016; Sundararajan, 2013).
Since the sharing economy is a developing concept, some authors propose conceptual framings that contribute to better understanding this phenomenon (Acquier et al., 2017; Frenken & Schor, 2017; Martin, 2016; Richardson, 2015). Among them, Acquier et al. (2017) takes a broader comprehension of the sharing economy by framing it into three organising cores: (1) the access economy, (2) the platform economy, and (3) the community-based economy. The access economy is composed of “initiatives sharing underutilised assets (material resources or skills) to optimise their use” (Acquier et al., 2017, p. 4). The second core approach is the platform economy, which employs digital platforms to facilitate decentralised transactions among peers. And the third organising core is the community-based economy, that represents interactions that are coordinated through non-contractual, non-hierarchical, or non- monetised forms of interaction. The overlap between these three organising cores provides another four typologies that helps to make sense of the sharing economy. These are as follows: (4) the access platform, which promotes access to underutilised resources or services through digital platforms; (5) community-based access, which offers, at the community level, access to
28 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
underused resources or services; (6) community-based platform, which combines the scaling potential of platforms to benefit the community; and, lastly, (7) the sharing economy ideal represents the sum of the promises and contradictions of the sharing economy making it unlikely to occur (Acquier et al., 2017). These framings of the sharing are represented in Figure 2.1. Some of the promises and tensions identifies in each of these framings are presented in the next sub-section.
Figure 2.1. Combining the cores of the sharing economy (Acquier et al., 2017, p. 7)
2.2.3 Contributions and contradictions of the sharing economy In general, the sharing economy discourse emphasizes the potential to transform the current economy into a ‘new economy’ that is more equitable and sustainable. However, most authors demonstrate ambiguity in relation to the contributions of the sharing economy to this new economic paradigm (Frenken & Schor, 2017; Gruzka, 2016; Martin, 2016; Richardson, 2015; Schor, 2016). Moreover, when the sharing economy is framed as a for-profit platform economy , it is often interpreted as a form of disguised neoliberalism (Cockayne, 2016; Martin, 2016; Morozov, 2013; Murillo et al., 2017). “It is neoliberalism on steroids”, says Morozov
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 29
(2013, para. 10), which is reproducing, or even intensifying, the negative outcomes of the current economic paradigm, for example, through questionable labour practices or concentration of economic power. Overall, the sharing economy has been contested in conceptual and practical ways (Acquier et al., 2017; Frenken & Schor, 2017; Gruzka, 2016; Martin, 2016; Murillo et al., 2017).
Based on an online ethnography, Martin (2016) mapped the main arguments that are employed to support or critique the sharing economy’s transformative potential. In his study, supporters of the sharing economy, who want to empower the movement towards a transformative change, argue that it is: (1) “an economic opportunity”, (2) “a more sustainable form of consumption”, and (3) “a pathway to a decentralized, equitable and sustainable economy”. On the contrary, actors that demonstrate resistance or criticism towards a transformative agenda argue that the sharing economy: (1) “creates unregulated marketplaces”, (2) “reinforces the neoliberal economic paradigm”, and (3) “is an incoherent field of innovation” (Martin, 2016, pp. 153-157).
Aligned with the framing that considers the sharing economy a pathway to a decentralised, equitable and sustainable economy (Martin, 2016), the rhetoric of the sharing economy promises more inclusive and wider access to resources, individual economic emancipation, and community and social bonding (Acquier et al., 2017; Schor et al., 2016). However, the literature on the sharing economy provides very limited evidence on the inclusion of individuals or groups who are in the margins of the conventional economy. Moreover, the literature evidences some pressures over the sharing economy to put aside social goals, rendering an initial ‘good will’ to commercial interests (Murillo et al., 2017; Schor, 2016). This tension is reinforced by Eckhardt and Bardhi (2015, para.1), who note that “when ‘sharing’ is market-mediated – when a company is an intermediary between consumers who don’t know each other - it is no longer sharing at all”.
2.2.4 Food sharing and food security: Identifying the research gap In the context of food sharing, Carolan (2018, pp. 5-6) argues that the sharing technologies “have prompted a conversation about the way our food economy functions, opening up space for more equitable and humane relationships”. As stated in Chapter One, this research is especially oriented so as to understand the contributions and constraints of the sharing economy to food security. Rooted in poverty and socioeconomic inequalities, food
30 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
insecurity occurs when people are unable to have adequate access to food to meet their needs. The relevance of this topic is reinforced by the proposed agenda for future research (Frenken & Schor, 2017; Martin, 2016; Schor, 2016). This agenda encompasses how the sharing economy promotes access to resources available beyond the current cohort of ‘users’, which is embedded in issues like poverty, class, gender, and ethnicity (Murillo et al., 2017; Schor et al., 2016). Additionally, looking into a more distributive economy, future studies are invited to examine how the sharing economy is contributing to equitable access, emphasising issues of income, wealth, power and control including providers and users in the sharing economy (Frenken & Schor, 2017; Martin, 2016; Schor et al., 2016)
While there is a growing literature on food practices in the sharing economy, there is limited research on the implications of the sharing economy to food security (Michelini, Principato, & Iasevoli, 2018; Morone, Falcone, Imbert, & Morone, 2018; Richards & Hamilton, 2018; Wekerle & Classens, 2015). Wekerle and Classens (2015), investigate the sharing economy practices employed in urban lands that are allocated to produce food in Toronto (Canada). In their paper, Wekerle and Classens (2015) examine principles that support an urban food security movement based on land sharing. Another research (Michelini et al., 2018) explores food waste and the sharing economy by looking into the contributions to food security in Italy. They analyse the implications of using digital platforms, identifying benefits in terms of cost reduction and peer-to-peer transactions. However, the authors point to threats that emerge from commercial possibilities (i.e., secondary markets) that can compromise the source of food for people in need (Michelini et al., 2018). Two other studies are also focused on food waste reduction through sharing practices. However, the discussions are primarily concerned with environmental outcomes rather than food security (Morone et al., 2018; Richards & Hamilton, 2018). Notably, most of these studies were published in 2018, after the current research study commenced, indicating the nascent state of the literature on this topic. Therefore, it can be seen from the above discussion that there is a clear gap in the literature that examines the contributions of the sharing economy to the equitable access to food.
2.3 CONCLUSION
This chapter presented the working concepts of this research: food security and the sharing economy. In the first section, the literature on food security presented the concept and different approaches to address food insecurity. The review also found evidence of the
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 31
entwined relationship between food insecurity and socioeconomic inequalities, demonstrating that food security can be achieved through a process of social, environmental and distributive justice (Carolan, 2013). In Australia, although food insecurity is increasing, government efforts at the national level remain focused on emergency food relief, which has limited contributions in the long-term (Richards et al., 2016). In this context, the second section presented a review of the sharing economy literature as a phenomenon that promotes access to goods and services by shifting conventional economic relations (Martin, 2016; Schor, 2016). Although the rhetoric of the sharing economy claims to contribute to inclusive access, there is limited evidence to support this claim (Frenken & Schor, 2017; Schor et al., 2016). Within the food sharing economy, a range of practices are shifting the way food is produced, distributed and consumed (Carolan, 2018). However, the contributions of the sharing economy to food security remain unclear. Therefore, this research explores the sharing economy in terms of social inclusion and economic diversity to address food insecurity in Australia. This leads to a consideration of the ‘diverse economies’ approach, which is presented in Chapter Three.
32 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Chapter 3: Diverse Economies
The diverse economies theoretical framework recognises economic models that emerge from communities to address issues of local and global scales (Gibson-Graham, 1996, 2006, 2008a). This theoretical framework has been employed to understand the sharing economy in various contexts, including food sharing (Davies et al., 2017b). This chapter presents the diverse economies approach, highlighting how it brings value to this study by providing the lens to analyse the sharing economy as an economic diverse phenomenon. The first section introduces the conceptualisation and early development of the diverse economies theory. After that, the second section presents the framings developed by Gibson-Graham1 to re-read the economy beyond its conventional representations. The next section describes the politics and practices of place-based initiatives that seek transformative outcomes. Following that, the fourth section contrasts the diverse economies approach with economic alterity, exploring complementarities and critiques. Thereafter, the last section describes how this theoretical approach has been employed to research on the sharing economy and alternative food systems, justifying why and how diverse economies is used in this research.
3.1 CONCEPT AND BACKGROUND
The diverse economies theory is drawn from feminism and poststructuralism to “produce a discourse of economic difference as a contribution to a politics of economic innovation” (Gibson-Graham, 2008a, p. 615). Envisioning a post-capitalist economy, diverse economies challenges the capitalist hegemonic and homogenised concept of economy by highlighting a myriad of place-based economic practices. Although ubiquitous, these practices are often undervalued, unobserved, or unknown by the conventional understanding of what constitute the economy (Gibson-Graham, 1996, 2006, 2008a). This focus on economic diversity can potentially contribute to ‘other worlds’ based on values of economic, social, and environmental justice (Fuller, Jonas, & Lee, 2010; Gibson-Graham, 2008a; Harcourt, 2014)
1 J. K. Gibson-Graham is the pen-name of economic geographers Katherine Gibson and late Julie Graham.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 33
Initially, the diverse economies theory was articulated by J. K. Gibson-Graham in two seminal books dedicated to rethinking the economy and economic development. The first book, The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy, was published in 1996 after the European experience of a national level socialism had collapsed. At that time, the dismantling of the Soviet Union diminished the anti-capitalist possibilities, strengthening the idea that the literature has called TINA (There Is No Alternative) (Gibson- Graham, 2008a; White & Williams, 2016; Wright, 2010). In that context, Gibson-Graham’s book attempted to “open up an imaginative space for economic alternatives at a point when they seemed to be entirely absent, even unwanted” (Gibson-Graham, 2008a, p. 613).
A decade later, in 2006, she published the second book: A Postcapitalist Politics. There she theorises on “a politics of economic possibilities”, inspired by experiences that were flourishing around the world (Gibson-Graham, 2006, p. xxxiii). These experiences were influenced by an also blossoming positive conjuncture that promoted and connected them as a movement, for example the World Social Forum that started in 2001 (Gibson-Graham, 2008a). In this book she develops three main contributions: (1) a new language that expands perspectives of economic possibilities, (2) emphasis on self-cultivation of subjects to aspire and enact alternative economies, and (3) a collaborative approach to develop economic experimentation (Gibson-Graham, 2006). Employing what she calls “a weak theory of the economy”, Gibson-Graham (2006, p. 60) presents a set of discussions and techniques to re- read the economy, uncovering a plurality of economic practices that are not considered in the representations of the economy. Overall, ‘re-reading’ is an approach to look for the novelty and for the different and making them become credible and possible by recognising their existence (Gibson-Graham, 2006). Gibson-Graham explains how re-reading can reveal unusual economic activities that are often neglected by conventional approaches.
By marshalling the many ways that social wealth is produced, transacted, and distributed other than those traditionally associated with capitalism, non-capitalism is rendered a positive multiplicity rather than an empty negativity, and capitalism becomes just one particular set of economic relations situated in a vast sea of economic activity. (Gibson- Graham, 2006, p. 70)
In 2008, encouraged by the proliferation of academic practices and inspired by the future possibilities of the diverse economies theoretical framing, Gibson-Graham (2008a) recognises the emergence of a diverse economies research community. In this publication, Gibson- Graham (2008a) calls for a “scholar activism” which recognises scholar’s “constitutive role in
34 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
the worlds that exist, and their power to bring new worlds into being” (Gibson-Graham, 2008a, p. 614). As such, this theoretical approach challenges the current view of the economy and supports the development of post-capitalist practices and alternative economic spaces (Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016). As shown later, this proves to be a useful lens through which to interpret sharing economy actions and practices.
3.2 REFRAMING THE ECONOMY
In A Postcapitalist Politics, Gibson-Graham (2006) introduces representations of the economy that contribute to the construction of a language of economic diversity. This language contests and displaces the dominance of capitalist economic activities, giving voice to practices that are being imagined and performed beyond capitalism. For example, as observed by Harcourt (2014, p. 1319), “worldwide nonmarket transactions (often performed by women) account for a substantial proportion of transactions that are not predominantly a market economy”. The capitalist parameters and measures, such as gross domestic product, do not consider these alternative economic practices as part of a functioning economy (Gibson- Graham, 2014).
To explore this discrepancy between capitalist and non-capitalist economic activities, Gibson-Graham (2006) developed the iceberg metaphor (Figure 3.1). In this image, the tip of the iceberg represents the typical capitalist economic activities: paid labour, market transactions, and capitalist enterprises. Beneath its tip, the iceberg brings a myriad of economic practices which are often disregarded by conventional representations of the economy. According to Gibson-Graham, the submerged part of the iceberg is a “grab bag of activities, sites, and people [where] the chaotic, laundry-list aspect has an inclusive effect, suggesting an open-ended and slightly arbitrary process of categorisation” (Gibson-Graham, 2006, p. 69).
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 35
Figure 3.1. The diverse economies iceberg (Gibson-Graham, 2006, p. 70)
Derived from the iceberg metaphor, Gibson-Graham (2006) proposed a framing to evidence this economic diversity. The diverse economies framing serves as a non-exhaustive guide to re-read the economy (Gibson-Graham, 2006, 2008a, 2014). Through deconstructing the identity of the economy, it positions pre-conceived capitalist economic activities not as dominant, but as one part of a broader economic spectrum. The diverse economies framing has been employed to specific contexts as a starting point to recognise and imagine heterogeneous economic practices (Gibson-Graham, 2008a), such as practices that are performed by the sharing economy.
As an open-ended work, the diverse economies framing has evolved over time following the development of the body of knowledge (Gibson-Graham, 2008a). In its first representation the framing encompassed three economic practices: transactions, labour, and enterprise (Gibson-Graham, 2006). The latest version of the diverse economies framing (Table 3.1), presents five types of economic practices: enterprise, labour, property, transactions, and finance (Gibson-Graham, 2014). The framing presents how these practices are performed in three distinct economic approaches: capitalist, non-capitalist, and alternative to capitalism. The
36 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
capitalist approach encompasses the practices that are “recognised and privileged by mainstream economic theory and unquestionably included in representations of the economy” (Gibson-Graham, 2014, p. S149). The non-capitalist approach represents the informal sector, which develop economic practices that are considered relevant to wellbeing but are disconnected of the mainstream. The alternative approach is constituted by practices that “might incorporate aspects of mainstream practices but that operate according to distinctively alternative, non-market-oriented ethics” (Gibson-Graham, 2014, p. S151). Controversially, these non-capitalist and alternative representations includes practices that can be promoting or threatening to social well-being (Gibson-Graham, 2008a). Contrary to the conventional understanding of economy, diverse economies also bring to light undesirable or unethical economic relations such as slavery and theft (Gibson-Graham, 2006).
The sharing economy encompasses a range of economic practices that vary between food swapping among neighbours to platform-based start-ups. While a few initiatives that are market-oriented are widely discussed and researched, most of these practices remain invisible. The iceberg metaphor and the diverse economies framing depicted above are guiding tools to identify and understand economic diversity within the sharing economy. The next section presents how diverse economies analyse economic heterogeneity from a place-based approach.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 37
Table 3.1 Diverse economies framing (adapted from Gibson-Graham, 2014, p. S150)
ENTERPRISE LABOUR PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS FINANCE CAPITALIST WAGE PRIVATE MARKET MAINSTREAM MARKET Family firm Salaried Individually owned Free Private banks Private unincorporated firm Unionised Collectively owned Naturally protected Insurance firms Public company Non-union Artificially protected Financial services Multinational Part-time Monopolised Derivatives Contingent Regulated Niche ALTERNATIVE CAPITALIST ALTERNATIVE PAID ALTERNATIVE PRIVATE ALTERNATIVE MARKET ALTERNATIVE MARKET State owned Self-employed State-owned Fair and direct trade State banks Environmentally Co-operative Customary (clan) land Alternative currencies Co-operative banks responsible Indentured Community land trusts Underground market Credit unions Socially responsible Reciprocal labour Indigenous knowledge Barter Govt. sponsored lending Non-profit In-kind Co-operative exchange Community-based Work for welfare Community supported financial institutions agriculture, fishing, etc. Micro-finance Loan sharks
NON-CAPITALIST UNPAID OPEN ACCESS NON-MARKET NON-MARKET Worker cooperatives Housework Atmosphere Household sharing Sweat equity Sole proprietorships Family care Water Gift giving Rotating credit funds Community enterprise Volunteer Open ocean State allocations / Family lending Feudal enterprise Neighbourhood work Ecosystem services appropriations Donations Slave enterprise Self-provisioning Outer space Hunting, fishing Interest-free loans Gleaning, gathering Community supported Sacrifice business
38 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
3.3 PLACE-BASED APPROACH
The previous section described the diverse economies framing as a guide to recognise economic diversity beyond conventional representations. This section presents the place-based approach, which enables the emergence and development of non-capitalist and alternative economic activities. This is useful to understand how the sharing economy can address food insecurity based on challenges and opportunities at the local scale. The literature on economic diversity debates two political economic imaginaries, which are called ‘politics of empire’ and ‘politics of place’ (Fuller et al., 2010; Gibson-Graham, 1996, 2004, 2006; Osterweil, 2005; Rebello, 2006; White & Williams, 2016; Zademach & Hillebrand, 2013). The politics of empire understands the economy as a global set of relations, ruled by dominant forces, that aim to perpetuate growth, as “a matter of life or death” (Gibson-Graham, 1996, p. 108; 2004, 2006; Rebello, 2006). In this context, Marxism is presented as a counterforce that envisions a total revolution over capitalism (Gibson-Graham, 2004). This totality approach considers decentralised and disarticulated initiatives reformist, and, therefore, dismisses them (Gibson-Graham, 2004). As a consequence, the Marxist revolution reinforces ‘capitalocentrism’, a term coined by Gibson-Graham (1996) to express the centrality of capitalism in relation to all forms of economic activities (Fuller et al., 2010; Gibson-Graham, 2006, 2014; Rebello, 2006; White & Williams, 2016). This is how Gibson-Graham describes capitalocentrism:
When we say that most economic discourse is ‘capitalocentric’ we mean that other forms of economy (not to mention noneconomic aspects of social life) are often understood primarily with reference to capitalism: as being fundamentally the same as (or modelled upon) capitalism, or as being deficient or substandard imitations; as being opposite to capitalism; as being the complement of capitalism; as existing in capitalism’s space or orbit. (Gibson-Graham, 1996, p. 6)
In contrast to the politics of empire, the politics of place sheds light onto economic possibilities that are created and enacted in the different locations (Gibson- Graham, 2006). Considering that “places always fail to be fully capitalist” (Gibson- Graham, 2004, p. 663), these economic possibilities emerge from the social movements as a politics of local and personal transformation (Fuller et al., 2010; Gibson-Graham, 2004, 2006, 2008b; Harcourt, 2014; Harcourt & Escobar, 2002;
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 39
Osterweil, 2005). Using the wordplay from Gibson-Graham (2006, p. xxi), politics of place understands that transformation happens ‘now’ and ‘here’, instead of ‘nowhere’. ‘Now and here’ relates to economic and political possibilities within a geographical space at present, while ‘nowhere’ represents a space and time of domination that is out of reach (Gibson-Graham, 2006, 2008a). Therefore, the transformation sought by the politics of place is ubiquitous and disarticulated, instead of consolidated and orchestrated by or for a centralised power (Gibson-Graham, 2004, 2008b; Osterweil, 2005; Rebello, 2006).
Place-based initiatives can articulate alternative arrangements and narratives that address specific local problems (Gibson-Graham, 2008a, 2014). Contrasting with project-orientated approaches, place-based initiatives aim for long-term transformation resulting from a continuous practice of negotiation, reflection and self- criticism among different players (Gibson-Graham, 2004, 2006). Rebello (2006, p. 269) says that the most relevant contribution of place-based solutions does not come from the small and local scale, but from how “this necessarily embedded character may help produce nonexploitive connections rather than exploitive conjugations”. Although place-based initiatives are focused on the local scale, they are not isolated (Gibson-Graham, 2004, 2008b, 2014; Osterweil, 2005). Instead, they cultivate cosmopolitan links by engaging in a web of significance that shares the language and practice of economic, social and political transformation (Osterweil, 2005). This process, that Osterweil (2005) calls ‘place-based globalism’, promotes reciprocal learning, supports the development of local practices, and foments the replication of successful experiences. She describes three characteristics of place-based globalists: (1) focus on local, current and everyday activities while engaging in global change networks; (2) strengthen of micro-politics based on culture, subjectivity, and modality to resist domination from macro-politics; and (3) dislocation of a unified global order to enable a space of freedom and justice. This broader perspective complements the place-based approach by connecting local and global into dynamics of transformation.
In the diverse economies literature, place-based initiatives have also been referred to as ‘community economies’ (Cameron, 2015; Community Economies Collective, 2018; Gibson-Graham & Cameron, 2007). Gibson-Graham (2008a, p. 627) claim that “community economies are simply economic spaces or networks in which relations of interdependence are democratically negotiated by participating individuals
40 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
and organizations; they can be constituted at any scale”. These initiatives are primarily built from local abilities, experiences and assets, which are revealed by focusing on community strengths, rather than weaknesses (Cahill, 2008; Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2011). Therefore, community economies “challenge directly the conventional idea that poor communities are deficient or on the margins of economic activity and need to be modernised or brought into the dominant market system for peoples to ‘develop’” (Harcourt, 2014, p. 1319). Rather, such communities are involved in economic activities that are not necessarily only defined by hegemonic views of economy.
In addition, community economies aim to promote agency among local people, especially the ones that are traditionally seen as economically marginalised (i.e., women, carers, unemployed youth, rural population) (Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2011). These initiatives engage “with people in a process of creating both the subjects and enterprises of ‘intentional community economies’”(Gibson-Graham, 2006, p. xxii). The process of developing community economies involves government officials, NGOs engaged in emancipatory community development, alternative enterprises, and advocacy organisations (Cahill, 2008; Gibson-Graham, 2006, 2008a; Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2011). Interactions with non-local players (state, non-governmental organisations, donors, etc.) may be established ad hoc, which attempts to disperse external power influences and risk of co-optation (Gibson-Graham, 2004). More recently, technology has contributed to make these initiatives more visible and expanding their global networks, which confounds the global and the local, the revolution and the reform, the opposition and the experimentation, the institutional and the individual transformation (Gibson-Graham, 2008b; Harcourt, 2014; Roelvink, 2016; Stephansen, 2013). Examples of place-based initiatives exist in various parts around the globe, showing “how global transformation can be found in diverse contexts that are not exclusively or predominantly capitalist” (Harcourt, 2014, p. 1319). These initiatives are organised in various forms: co-operatives, social enterprises, social movements, associations, and even conventional enterprises. Gibson-Graham (2008a) provides an illustrative list of examples: household practices of care; consumer, producer or worker’s co-operatives; alternative food networks; local and/or alternative currencies, crowdfunding and informal credit, among many other examples that are explored in the literature. As shown later (see Section 3.5), the
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 41
sharing economy is an example of local and global embeddedness that has come to the fore in the last decade. Although, the sharing economy is often associated with platform-based enterprises, it also encompasses place-based practices that are contributing to local and global transformation.
3.4 CRITIQUES OF DIVERSE ECONOMIES
Although Gibson-Graham’s work is considered the most influential, the debate on economic diversity and alternative spaces has expanded significantly with contributions from economic geography, political science, sociology, management, among other similar fields (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016; Jonas, 2010, 2013). One of the most significant contributions emerges from the debate on economic diversity and alterity (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Fuller et al., 2010; Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016; Leyshon, Lee, & Williams, 2003; White & Williams, 2016; Wright, 2010; Zademach & Hillebrand, 2013). In this context, alterity interrogates the relation between alternative and mainstream economic practices, when alternative is the belief “in the possibility of an economic and political ‘other’” (Jonas, 2010, p. 4). Research on alterity is commonly informed by a different epistemological and theoretical stance than Gibson-Graham’s (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016). While she adopts a poststructuralist discursive approach, most authors on alterity take a critical realist materialist approach (Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016). Therefore, the current debate on diverse economies and alternative space is perceived as “a diverse project itself, i.e., a set of approaches and schools of thought rather than a united front” (Zademach & Hillebrand, 2013, p. 22). Nevertheless, there is an effort among some scholars to employ the approaches as complementary. This complementarity is relevant in the context of this research. Although a solution to food insecurity can be addressed from a place-based approach, food insecurity is a result of multiple factors that are beyond the capacity of a community to fully address.
The different philosophical approaches informing research in this field are often noticed as a polarisation between ‘sceptics’ and ‘believers’ (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Jonas, 2010). For the sceptics, the diverse economies approach is utopic and, as such, has been referred to as ‘Neverland’, the fairy tale place where believing can make wishes become true (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Fuller et al., 2010; Gritzas &
42 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Kavoulakos, 2016; Jonas, 2010; White & Williams, 2016). McKinnon provides a critique to the possibilities and limitations of the discursive approach:
Arguments of alterity and transformative effects are tinged with this hope - what we believe, what we say, how we speak and act and see may be able to constitute new realities, new futures. Of course, just believing does not make it so. (McKinnon, 2010, p. 259)
Researchers on alterity are more concerned about the outcomes that these experiences produce in relation to capitalism and criticise diverse economies for having limited consideration on existing forces that are in place (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Fuller & Jonas, 2003; Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016; Lee, 2010). Meanwhile, believers embrace this politics of hope by focusing on the possibilities that economic diversity offers to places and individuals (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Fuller et al., 2010; Gibson-Graham, 2006):
We can think ourselves out of the materiality of capitalism or repressive state practices, we should affirm that our orientation toward possibility does not deny the forces that militate against it – forces that may work to undermine, constrain, destroy, or sideline our attempts to reshape economic futures … but we should deny these forces a fundamental, structural, or universal reality and instead identify them as contingent outcomes of ethical decisions, political projects, and sedimented localised practices, continually pushed and pulled by other determinations. (Gibson-Graham, 2006, p. xxxi)
In common, these theoretical approaches aim to analyse economic activities and understand the implications to social and economic justice (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014). The debate has developed constructive contributions to the body of knowledge on diverse economies and alternative spaces (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016). Fuller and Jonas (2003) and Lee (2010) have made a theoretical contribution by developing analytical categories and frameworks that explore the level of alterity and transformative potential of alternative institutions In his work, Lee (2010) attempts to interweave the discursive and materialist approaches. He accepts the contributions of diverse economies to open possibilities but also recognises that solutions hold an unwavering role to produce, exchange and consume values that are required for human and social existence (Lee, 2010).
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 43
Another critical contribution comes from Samers (2005), who understands that diverse economies presents an “inadequate distinction between what has come to be defined as informal employment and a range of alternative/informal economies” (Samers, 2005, p. 876). By focusing on common expressions of informal economic practices, he argues that some practices explored in the diverse economies framing can be based on exploitative relations that are very similar to capitalism itself (Fuller et al., 2010; Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016; Samers, 2005). Therefore, Samer considers that alternative economies are naïve in terms of political approach and selective when exploring economic practices. (Fuller et al., 2010). To overcome this limitation, he recommends a focus on the conditions of employment and the overall relationships that rule how surplus is produced, extracted, and distributed in diverse economies practices (Samers, 2005). This approach is useful when critiquing the ‘sharing’ framings employed by the sharing economy to justify transactional and exploitative relations.
Importantly, the literature also considers that diverse economies need to take deeper consideration of power-relations and historical geographic context. (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016; Jonas, 2010). In terms of power relations, “there is an awareness that choices are constrained by power relations existing at the individual, household, local, national and global levels, in diverse ways and in varying intensity” (Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016, p. 930). Therefore, to overcome these constraints, authors suggest a process of recognition and reframing of power relations by looking at social movements, state, and institutional arrangements. In terms of geographical context, these places often present inherent inequalities and are submitted to hegemonic economic dominance that can constraint the development of place-based solutions (DuPuis & Goodman, 2005; Wright, 2010). To avoid the risk of producing ‘ahistorical’ narratives, authors suggest to recognise that place-based initiatives emerge from a social-political historical context (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Jonas, 2010). Overall, the literature on alterity suggests that looking into the community and individual levels is important but, in order to produce an effective narrative, it is relevant to consider contextual relations and historic (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014). These considerations are relevant for this research because they open the possibility to analyse contextual factors that promote or constrain food security in Australia.
44 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Another discussion focus on the scale of change of diverse economies (Jonas, 2010). On the one hand, the focus on local scale is relevant to the context and has potential to transform local systems. On the other hand, while diverse economies are not concerned about scale change, the scale and scope of capitalism is becoming more hegemonic and influential (Jonas, 2010; Lee, 2010; Zademach & Hillebrand, 2013). However, while the focus on the small scale can undermine the pursuit of a viable model and the transformative potential, scaling up through growth enacts closer relations with the mainstream system. In this case, the risk of co-option becomes a threat to transformative outcomes (Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016; Jonas, 2010).
This viewpoint raises important questions about the extent to which alternative social enterprises are merely small-scale experiments operating at the margins of capitalism and the state, which are unlikely to have a big impact in terms of transforming or replacing the dominant global capitalist economic and political order. (Fuller et al., 2010, p. xxiv)
The threat of co-option is also presented in the sharing economy literature, indicating the relevance of this issue to this research. Overall, the debate on economic diversity and alterity “reflect[s] a willingness on the part of the researchers involved to cooperate in order to build a reproducible present and future in a more ethical, sustainable, democratic and cooperative way” (Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016, p. 930). Theoretical and empirical development is expected to be a result of multiple efforts to recognise and systematise economic models that are emancipatory (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014). For that, there is a call for researchers to employ a critical and reflexive approach to research, expanding the boundaries of the current economic and political knowledge towards a hopeful alternative (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016; Jonas, 2010). The next section outlines how the diverse economies approach has been employed as a theoretical framework to explore the sharing economy in various fields, especially food systems.
3.5 DIVERSE ECONOMIES APPROACH INFORMING SHARING ECONOMY RESEARCH
In recent years, diverse economies approaches have been employed by several studies as a theoretical approach to explore the sharing economy (Holmes, 2018;
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 45
Richardson, 2015). One of the first, and currently the most cited, publications is by Richardson (2015), who explores the paradoxical relations of the sharing economy with capitalism as well as with alternative economies. Her analysis suggests three performances where the sharing economy enacts diverse economies: (1) sharing through community, (2) sharing through access, and (3) sharing through collaboration (Richardson, 2015). Following this study, other publications examine how the sharing economy has been playing a role in promoting economic diversity in various fields, for example, access to capital (Langley & Leyshon, 2017; Roig Hernando, 2016), urban mobility (Zademach & Musch, 2018), and legal frameworks (Morgan & Kuch, 2015).
In particular, research combining food systems and diverse economies, more specifically alternative food systems, has been proliferous (Davies et al., 2017a; Davies & Legg, 2018; Jehlička & Daněk, 2017; Maye & Duncan, 2017; Rut & Davies, 2018). Diverse economies have also been employed to interrogate food sharing, a combination of the sharing economy and food systems in local and global studies. In this field, the work of Davies et al. (2017b) is distinct. They interrogate food sharing as a global movement across 100 urban areas, exploring the implications of digital technologies and consolidating the results into a database of diverse food sharing economies. More recently, Loh and Agyeman (in press) explore urban food sharing practices in Boston (USA), examining them as a local social movement. This study indicates the possibilities and limitations of food sharing practices to achieve transformation in lower income neighbourhoods and communities. Although these previous studies contribute to the purpose of this research, this current research differs from them by focusing on the contributions of the sharing economy specifically to food security in the Australian context.
3.6 CONCLUSION
Food security is a major issue that involves social, economic and political aspects. In Australia, the root causes of food insecurity are deeply related to structural inequalities that have been exacerbated by neoliberalism. While the main response to food insecurity is emergency food relief, Australia lacks a combination of efforts to address this issue in a meaningful way. In this context, the sharing economy comes to
46 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
the fore as an economic approach that enables access to underused resources by promoting more direct connections between individuals and organisations. Although the sharing economy has been very contested, this phenomenon is examined to understand its transformative potential. Informed by the diverse economies theory, this research investigates how the sharing economy can promote or constrain food security in Australia. The purpose of the research is to understand how the sharing economy enables access to food to people experiencing food insecurity, contributing to a more equitable food system. The next chapter describes the research design employed to conduct this study.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 47
Chapter 4: Research Design
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a thoughtful description of the research design employed in the study, which aimed to reach an in-depth understanding of the implications of the sharing economy to food security in Australia. The next sections provide details of the methodology, strategies and procedures adopted in the research process. The first section enunciates the philosophical assumptions that inform the research, the research questions, and the methodological approach, which is based on a single case study. Afterwards, the second section outlines the sampling strategy employed and provides a detailed description of participants, evidencing the diversity and quality of informants of this research. Data collection approach, instruments, and procedures employed during the interviews are described in the third section. The following section presents the data analysis process, describing how the data was coded and how the analysis was developed throughout the study. After that, a reflexive appraisal presents the researcher positionalities. The chapter concludes by clarifying the procedures adopted to ensure an ethical process and mitigate risks associated with the research.
4.1 METHODOLOGY
This study discusses the empirical implications of the sharing economy to food security in Australia. Food security provides a complex and conjunctural context, intertwining social, environmental, economic and political issues. More specifically, while examining food security, this research sheds light on the implications of the sharing economy for the inclusion of individuals or groups that currently occupy the edges of the formal economy or are marginalised in society. The study aims to address three open-ended research questions (Creswell, 2007; Yin, 2018):
(1) What are the contributions and constraints of the sharing economy to food security in Australia?
(2) How do food sharing initiatives engage in diverse economic activities to promote food security?
48 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
(3) How is the sharing economy promoting access to food for individuals or groups experiencing food insecurity?
The research is informed by a constructionist epistemology, which posits that meaning is continually socially constructed based upon social experiences and interactions, and encompasses multiple perspectives related to a phenomenon (Creswell, 2007; Crotty, 1998; Grandy, 2018). Additionally, concerned about the implications of the sharing economy for social justice, the research employed a critical perspective (Crotty, 1998). As a critical project, this study aims to uncover if and how the sharing economy promotes social inclusion through food security practices (Crotty, 1998). Based on these theoretical assumptions, an abductive reasoning strategy was adopted (Blaikie, 2007; Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Piekkari & Welch, 2018), which permits “constructing theories that are derived from social actors’ language, meanings and accounts in the context of everyday activities” (Blaikie, 2007, p. 89). An abductive reasoning implies a nonlinear approach to the research process, promoting a constant interchange between theory and data (Dubois & Gadde, 2014). Considering that the sharing economy theory is in a nascent state of development, this research employed a qualitative research approach to further understand the sharing economy and gain theoretical insights into the context of food security in Australia (Edmondson & McManus, 2007).
In the last decade, the sharing economy has emerged as a new phenomenon, assuming various meanings and motives in different contexts. Employing a single case study research design (Creswell, 2007; Piekkari & Welch, 2018; Yin, 2018), this research facilitated in-depth understandings of participants’ views and experiences of the sharing economy in their everyday practices associated with food security in Australia. This design allows the researcher to seek theoretical insights drawn from a particular context, contributing to the development of the research field (Blaikie, 2007; Creswell, 2007; Dyer & Wilkins, 1991; Piekkari & Welch, 2018).
A branch of methodological literature in social science advocates that multiple case studies are more appropriate so as to develop theory through comparative analyses (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2018). However, such design employs a linear and positivist approach that is oriented toward generalisation (Dubois & Gadde, 2014). Thus, it may be more focussed on theory originating from comparative insights rather than deep understanding based on a particular setting (Dubois & Gadde, 2014; Dyer & Wilkins,
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 49
1991). In terms of scope, many case studies are related to specific programs or organisations rather than a complex context, compromising their contribution to understand higher order of articulations and implications (Jones & Murphy, 2010).
The credibility of the case study design is supported by a range of studies that have employed this approach in the nascent sharing economy literature (Shenton, 2004). Some studies adopted multiple cases (Davies et al., 2017b; Holmes, 2018; Miralles, Dentoni, & Pascucci, 2017; Schor, 2017; Schor et al., 2016; Wekerle & Classens, 2015); and others a single case (Loh & Agyeman, in press; Martin, Upham, & Budd, 2015; Martin, Upham, & Klapper, 2017; Rut & Davies, 2018). While most of the single case studies focus on a specific organisation, recent studies, including the current study, have explored the sharing economy as a multilevel movement (Loh & Agyeman, in press; Rut & Davies, 2018). An example of this approach is Loh and Agyeman (in press), which examines how the urban food sharing movement has promoted food justice in lower income suburbs in Boston. Their study encompasses not a single organisation, but a diverse set of practices, organisations and efforts that contribute to transformative outcomes.
This research recognises the relevance of single case studies to gain in-depth access to a rich context from which the researcher can understand the theoretical and practical relations associated with a phenomenon (Dubois & Gadde, 2014). Dyer and Wilkins (1991, p. 615) considers that the ultimate goals of single case studies are “to provide a rich description of the social scene, to describe the context in which events occur, and to reveal … the deep structure of social behaviour”. Aiming to understand how the parts affect the whole (Creswell, 2007), participants were selected based on their involvement in different sharing economy initiatives related to food security. The in-depth semi-structured interviews helped to identify, combine and compare multiple perspectives of this phenomenon in order to clarify meanings and implications (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Dyer & Wilkins, 1991; Piekkari & Welch, 2018).
4.2 SAMPLING STRATEGY
Based on the methodology described in the previous section, this research employed a purposeful sampling strategy, aiming to select participants from contexts that could provide multiple perspectives on the phenomenon under investigation
50 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
(Creswell, 2007; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). The target population aimed to represent part or all the cores of the ‘sharing economy ideal’: community-based economy, access economy, and platform economy (see sub-section 2.2.2) (Acquier et al., 2017). The population was composed of individuals directly involved in or representing sharing economy initiatives (programs or organisations) associated with food security in Australia. Participants were identified using snowball techniques and selected based on three criteria (Miles et al., 2014). The first criterion aimed to select sharing economy initiatives pursuing social change. This criterion was grounded in one of the framings proposed by Martin (2016), which considers that the sharing economy is a pathway to a decentralised, equitable and sustainable economy. The second criterion aimed at capturing the diversity of experiences of the participants, enabling the research to explore multiple experiences of the sharing economy in the food security context. This diversity of experiences took into account the core activities in which the participants engaged, such as advocacy, commercial activities, food production, food rescue, meals distribution, research, and service provision. Finally, the last criterion focused on the geographic scale (regional, national or international), seeking participants that could explore different scales and, in conjunction with others, reflect a national Australian context. Overall, the selection criteria sought idiosyncratic and systemic perspectives on the topic. For example, a participant was engaged in food donation at the regional level, directly contributing to food security, while another was a service provider operating in Australia and overseas to support alternative distribution channels.
The aim was to conduct between 12 to 15 in-depth interviews. This number is appropriate to the nature of the research and to the timeframe of a Master of Philosophy degree. Although the research literature does not recommend a specific number of interviews (Myers, 2013), it was important to have an estimated number to guide the selection of participants along data collection. Also, the number of interviews should reflect multiple voices among participants and observe theoretical saturation (Myers, 2013). During the data collection, through juxtaposing data and research questions, some emerging themes indicated common and particular preliminary findings. Also, the absence of data on some topics indicated other preliminary findings. On the pursuit of theoretical saturation, the final four interviews were conducted with participants from different backgrounds and the interview protocol was adapted to explore
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 51
idiosyncrasies that could lead to new findings and/or to confirm or disconfirm preliminary findings. Although theoretical saturation is not a precise aim in qualitative research, the final sample involving 15 interviews was considered satisfactory to develop the research.
4.2.1 Participants Interviewees hailed from the states of Victoria (n = 8), Queensland (n = 4), New South Wales (n = 1), South Australia (n = 1) and the Australian Capital Territory (n = 1). The prevalence of participants from Victoria reflected the advanced stage of the food movement/sharing economy agenda in that state, mostly promoted by a range of local food policies, when compared to the other states at the time. Although there were no participants located in other states and territories (Western Australia, Tasmania, and Northern Territory), these geographic regions were partially represented through the countrywide lived experiences of some participants. Nonetheless, geographical representation was not a key aim for the study. The recruitment process had a high success rate: only one person declined out of 16 individuals that were approached. This person claimed limited experience and suggested other potential participants. Also, interviewees representing formal organisations occupied senior positions with a lengthy experience in the organisation (Myers, 2013). Moreover, participants were the primary choice of the researcher. Only in one case, out of 15 interviewees, the primary contact person recommended another senior representative of the organisation based on the link between of the research topic and the job description of that person.
As a result of data analysis, participants were classified into three categories: direct food providers (n = 4), indirect food providers (n = 3), and enablers (n = 8). The direct food providers were organisations (formal and informal) or individuals that provide food directly to the population for free or through market transactions. This category involves activities like food markets, food hubs, social supermarkets, street kitchens, community gardens, and dumpster diving. The indirect food providers were organisations or programs that produce or distribute food but do not reach the end- users. Examples of activities in this category include food rescue, food donation, and food production. The last category is enablers. These are individuals or organisations contributing knowledge and resources to promote food security or support sustainable food systems in Australia. This category encompasses activities such as advocacy,
52 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
network facilitation, consultancy, platform providers and research. Furthermore, participants were sub-classified according to their primary activities. For that, the following sub-categories were employed: advocacy (n = 3); commercial activities (n = 2); food production (n = 2); food rescue (n = 2); meals distribution (n = 1); research (n = 2); and service provision (n = 3). Table 4.1 shows the distribution of participants according to these classifications.
Classifying roles helped the researcher consider multiple perspective during data analysis. Notably, 10 out of the 15 participants have been involved in more than two activities. The richness of experiences varied from dumpster diving to policy advocacy at the national level. However, this overlap of activities also complicated the classification of participants according to roles and activities. An illustrative example of this entanglement is a fictional participant involved in commercial activities (direct food provider), developing research on food security (enabler) and with previous experience in food rescue (indirect food provider). To overcome this challenge, participants were classified based on the major perspective provided during the interviews. For example, again using the illustrative case above, if this fictional participant based most of the responses on his/her commercial experiences, he/she would be classified as a direct food provider. However, this classification did not limited participants from responding based on other experiences.
In terms of association with food security, 10 participants were directly involved with the food security agenda through activities such as producing, donating or selling food to people who are food insecure, advocacy to enhance food security policies and research on food security. The other five participants were indirectly involved with food security, as their activities may contribute to food security by addressing associated issues such as community development, health and wellbeing, alternative distribution channels and sustainable food systems. This diversity of experiences was important to understand how the sharing economy is situated in the core of food security and in its periphery. The diversity of the geographic scale of participants’ activities was also observed. Four participants were primarily involved in activities on a regional level. This regional level encompassed activities in an urban, peri-urban, and/or rural area. Eight participants developed activities on a national level or in various states of the country. Lastly, three interviewees participated in organisations
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 53
or programs with operations in Australia and overseas, characterising an international scale.
Although the interviews did not aim to systematically collect individuals’ demographics (age, education, gender, and professional background), some general characteristics could be drawn from the data to elucidate the profile of individuals that participated in the research. A remarkable characteristic is that nine out of the 15 participants hold a PhD degree, which is reflected in the nature of the interview contributions to the research. Another relevant characteristic is that most participants have been working in the field for many years, ranging between 3 and 18 years of experience. In many cases, participants reported examples from 10 years before. Building on that, it is also interesting to notice the diversity of professional backgrounds, such as digital technologies, environmental sciences, health and nutrition, hospitality, law and social sciences. In addition, in most instances, participants combine different activities, demonstrating multiple involvement within the field. These characteristics reflect a general profile of participants. For example, a participant could be providing consultancy services to a program, be involved as a volunteer in another organisation and be developing research.
Table 4.1 Participants classification
Classification Number of Sub-classification Number of (major role) participants (primary activity) participants
Direct food provider 4 Commercial activities 2
Food production 1
Meals distribution 1
Indirect Food provider 3 Food rescue 2
Food production 1
Enabler 8 Advocacy 3
Service provision 3
Research 2
54 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
The fieldwork itself demonstrated how individuals and organisations associated with food security are interconnected. Often, during the interviews, participants referred to one another when suggesting a potential participant to the research or giving recurrent examples. As a measure to overcome this enclosed context, the researcher purposefully selected outliers, individuals that were not directly connected or even did not have any connection with the predominant context (Myers, 2013). To gain access to those outliers, the researcher contacted them directly.
In general, most participants demonstrated willingness to contribute to the research. Most of them responded to the first email and scheduled the interviews within a week. Also, almost all participants provided long and contextualised answers during the interviews, instead of short and straightforward responses. Only one participant provided very short and direct answers, which may be justified by the fact that this participant was late for the interview and expected it to finish on time, which was what happened. Critical considerations, when individuals present ideas that may not be well received, were also common across the interviews, which suggests a certain level of trust established in the process (Myers, 2013). Finally, most participants suggested readings, examples to investigate and potential participants as contributions to development of the research.
4.3 DATA COLLECTION
The primary method employed for data collection was semi-structured interviews (Creswell, 2007; Myers, 2013). One-on-one conversations were conducted to explore participants’ subjective experiences in order to understand the research topic. The interviews were carried out in the spirit of a ‘conversation with a purpose’ (Charmaz, 2006). This approach aimed to enhance rapport with participants by creating a fluid conversation and a pleasant atmosphere for the interviewees. The questions were broad and open, allowing participants to articulate meaning from particular questions and from the interactions with other questions (Creswell, 2007).
Data collection occurred during October and November 2017. The interviews were expected to last approximately one hour and were set according to participants’ convenience. Due to geographical and time constraints, the interviews with participants outside Brisbane were conducted by video call (using Skype) or telephone.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 55
Video calls were offered as the first option since, regardless of the distance, the researcher could use some informal communication (gestures, facial expressions, eye contact) that could help facilitate the development of the interview (Creswell, 2007). However, most participants from other states and territories preferred telephone interviews. The face-to-face interviews took place at the participants’ workplaces in Brisbane and surrounding suburbs. Among the 15 interviews, three were conducted face to face, four via video call, and eight via telephone.
4.3.1 Instruments As a qualitative inquiry, the main instrument developed prior to fieldwork was an interview protocol with open-ended questions (Miles et al., 2014). This interview protocol was designed to guide the semi-structured interviews. However, it was not meant to be strictly observed. Instead, the researcher often adapted the questions to better suit participants’ points of view and adopted prompts to explore nuances of their responses (Myers, 2013). The protocol was divided in three blocks of questions: (1) food security context and background, (2) the sharing economy characteristics and examples, and (3) challenges and opportunities for food security in Australia.
In the first set of questions, participants were invited to describe their individual or organisational background and how they were involved with food security. These initial questions allowed the researcher to get a sense of participants’ lived experiences, specific contexts and preferred terminologies, which informed the rest of the interview. The second block of questions explored participants’ views and experiences on a set of sharing economy characteristics relating to food security. The characteristics examined were drawn from the literature and included adoption of collaborative practices, utilisation of resources that are unused or underused, implementation of shorter and/or localised supply chains that differ from the conventional ones, and adoption of digital platforms to mediate transactions. At first, these characteristics where discussed loosely, without being directly related to the sharing economy. This approach was taken to assess responses based on empirical experience, rather than pre-conceived sharing economy concepts. Their association with the sharing economy was disclosed afterwards, when participants were asked to explain their understanding of the sharing economy and their relationship with the concept. This measure was taken to access meanings and accounts produced by
56 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
participant’s reflections on their practical experiences, and to avoid preconceptions associated with the term ‘sharing economy’ (Blaikie, 2007). In the third block of questions, participants were invited to share an overview of current challenges and opportunities for their initiatives and organisations. The purpose of these questions was to access multiples perspectives on food security in Australia.
The first three interviews were used to refine the questions, aiming to clarify ambiguities and adopt terminologies that were more familiar to the interviewees (Myers, 2013). Additionally, following an iterative analytic process common to abductive reasoning (Piekkari & Welch, 2018), the researcher presented some preliminary findings to later participants to collect comments that could contribute to the subsequent phases of the data analysis. These preliminary findings were presented as prompts after the interviewee answered a question or as an adaptation of the protocol’s question. The interview protocol is available in Appendix A
4.3.2 Procedures Through a preliminary search, prior to data collection, the researcher identified gatekeepers and sought access to research participants. The recruitment process was based on electronic mail (email) addressed to each participant. The emails provided a brief explanation of the research and additional files (Information Sheet and Consent Form) to support the person’s decision on whether to participate. After demonstrating interest, a formal interview was scheduled according to participants’ preferred time.
At the start of each interview the researcher explained the research purpose and ethical implications for the participant. This procedure was guided by a script, ensuring that all relevant information was covered (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012). All participants were informed that their participation was voluntary, and they could withdraw from the research at any time during the interview or within 2 weeks after the completion of the interview, without penalty or comments. The researcher also confirmed that the data would be de-identified during transcriptions and reporting. After providing clarification and responses to queries, the researcher sought explicit consent to conduct and record the interview. At the end of the interview, the researcher communicated when the audio recording ceased.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 57
All interviews were recorded and transcribed by the researcher. The audio files had on average 55 minutes per interview, ranging from 31 minutes to 1 hour and 10 minutes. Notes were taken during and immediately after the interviews. The transcription was supported by an automated online service (Trint). The automated service was used to accelerate and reduce costs of the transcription process, as an alternative to outsourced professional services. Considering that this procedure was not commonly employed in other studies, the researcher sought for a specific approval from the university’s Office of Research Ethics and Integrity to ensure that it complied with the confidentiality and ethics requirements. After approval was given, the interviews were transcribed in two phases: draft transcriptions generated by the automated service, and final versions edited by the researcher to ensure accuracy to the audio records. Transcriptions originated 150 pages of single-spaced data, the shortest being seven pages and the longest 14 pages. The electronic versions of the consent forms, audio files and transcriptions were stored in the research folder in the Research Data Storage Service (RDSS) at QUT, with restricted access to the researcher and the research supervisors. All transcriptions were de-identified, and gender-neutral pseudonyms were attributed to each participant. To preserve anonymity, interviewees’ pseudonyms, major roles and activities are only presented in this chapter, and next to the finding, only the pseudonym is used to indicate the source of the data. Table 4.2 presents the pseudonyms and classification of each participant.
Table 4.2 Participants pseudonyms and classification
Classification Sub-classification Pseudonyms (major role) (primary activity) Alex Direct food provider Food production Ash Enabler Advocacy Casey Indirect food provider Food rescue Charlie Direct food provider Meals distribution Chris Indirect food provider Food production Jay Enabler Advocacy Jesse Enabler Service provision Jules Enabler Research Kerry Enabler Advocacy
58 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Classification Sub-classification Pseudonyms (major role) (primary activity) Kim Enabler Service provision Lee Enabler Research Lou Indirect food provider Food rescue Pat Direct food provider Commercial activities Sam Direct food provider Commercial activities Toni Enabler Service provision
4.4 DATA ANALYSIS
Following an abductive reasoning strategy, data analysis was conducted throughout the research process, i.e., from the start of data collection to the final report. Nonetheless, the densest part of data analysis was conducted after the transcriptions were finalised. The analysis was manually conducted, without support of analytical tools, based on thematic analysis techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
At first, during the data collection process, the researcher employed open coding to identify emerging themes. These themes were then juxtaposed with the research questions to understand if theoretical saturation was reached. Preliminary findings were presented for comment to the last participants.
The key phase of the data analysis was conducted after completing data collection and transcriptions. In that phase, the data was analysed, labelled, and categorised employing open and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Axial coding is an analytical technique to reorganise the data after open coding, making different connections among the categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The labels were given on the transcription documents and the categories were organised as a mind map, which enabled the researcher to establish connections between different categories. As a result, the data analysis generated six mind maps. The first two maps were structured to conceptualise and contextualise each key concept of the research: the sharing economy and food security. Afterwards, the other four maps were related to the sharing economy characteristics explored in the interviews. From this analysis, the researcher developed an extensive document reporting the findings. Using selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), these maps were contrasted with the research questions and
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 59
reassembled into three other maps that supported the final narratives that are presented in this thesis.
4.5 RESEARCHER REFLEXIVITY
From the first reflections that originated the study to the thesis conclusions, this research was shaped by my lived experiences (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Shenton, 2004). This section aims to unpack my background, discuss the challenges and opportunities that I faced during the research, and elucidate the philosophical approach that informed my position as a foreigner developing research in Australia. The decision to develop research in Australia, where I have been living for the last 3 years, brought some challenges and opportunities to the research (Shenton, 2004). As a novice in the Australian context, I had to become familiar with the field, understanding the language employed, who the players were and how they interacted. For that, I endeavoured to gain background knowledge by accessing multiple public resources (databases, articles, videos, websites), and to interact with social actors by getting involved in local, regional and national networks and events. Nevertheless, the lack of familiarity also became an opportunity. It allowed me to identify potential participants that were not necessarily known in the field and start the fieldwork without strong preconceptions. During the interviews, as a naïve interviewer, I could seek basic concepts that underpin participants’ experiences and, afterwards, along with data analysis, the lack of proximity allowed me to explore different relations across the data, contributing to the results of this research. Until the start of this research, I was not familiar with the work of Gibson-Graham on diverse economies (Gibson-Graham, 1996, 2006). Nevertheless, more than an appropriate theoretical approach for this research, diverse economies resonated with some of my philosophical assumptions and with my background working with co-operatives, grassroots organisations, social enterprises, small business and corporations in Brazil and other countries in the Global South. The call for a researcher that contributes to making other worlds possible mobilises me in the pursuit of a lasting academic experience (Gibson-Graham, 2008a).
60 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
4.6 ETHICS
Ethics approval for this research was granted in September 2017 by the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT Ethics Approval Number 1700000736). This procedure considered the interview protocols, consent form, and participants information sheet, which were employed during the recruitment process and data collection. The research was classified as a ‘low risk research’, as the only possible risks to participants were inconvenience, considering that participants had to allocate time for the interview, and a minor discomfort, for being interviewed and recorded. To mitigate these risks, the researcher employed a set of measures along the research process: (1) time and location for the interviews were set based on mutual agreement, which included face-to-face, telephone or video call (via Skype); (2) all relevant information to support participants’ voluntary consent decision were provided in the beginning of each interview; (3) a hospitable interview context was promoted, in the spirit of a ‘conversation with a purpose’; and (4) confidentiality was ensured vis-à-vis data collection and de- identification for data analysis, writing and publication. In addition, in March 2018, participants received a summary report with preliminary findings of the research. At that occasion, participants were invited to comment and provide feedback to the researcher.
4.7 SUMMARY
This chapter described the research design adopted for this study, outlining the methodology employed to address the research questions. The chapter also provided a detailed description of the sampling strategy, data collection procedures, and data analysis process. The positionalities of the researcher were disclosed in a reflexive appraisal followed by the ethical considerations and procedures. The next chapters (Chapter Five, Six and Seven) present the findings of this research.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 61
Chapter 5: Understanding food (in)security in Australia
Based on the interviews, this chapter describe participants’ perspectives on food (in)security in Australia. These findings provide the context to understand food security and inform the further analysis on the contributions of the sharing economy to food security in Australia. First, the chapter presents how participants conceptualise food security in Australia, based on their experiences and knowledge, and contrasts the term with other terminologies employed in the country and worldwide. Next, a second section discusses the invisibility of food security, which compromise policies and strategies to tackle this issue. The third section presents a profile of the organisations involved with food (in)security, including funding, purposes and challenges according to interviewees. The following section focus on how participants perceive the barriers to access to food, and the last section provides their view on issues that complement access to food in the pursuit of food security. The chapter concludes by drawing together key findings and explaining how they inform the analysis presented in the subsequent chapters.
5.1 CONCEPTUALIZING FOOD (IN)SECURITY
In the beginning of the interviews, participants were asked to describe their understanding of food security. For most interviewees, the notion of food security was closely associated with access to food, which demonstrates consistence with the official definition: “a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO et al., 2018, p. 159). According to Pat, “access [to food] is the issue. If you do not have access, then you are food insecure”. A few participants also stated that access alone is not enough to ensure food security. To support this understanding Kerry referred to the four dimensions of food security: food availability, access to food, food utilisation and stability over time (FAO et al., 2018). This more comprehensive approach to food security was expressed by a few participants, mostly enablers, who hold different roles
62 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
associated with food security. An example is Ash: “Food security can be a very big concept involving agriculture, and business, and trade, and tariffs … all the way down to individual nutrition, food literacy and skills”. Showing a distinct use of the term, Pat observed that food security is distorted to support corporate interests: “food security is just a false issue that big chemical companies, like Monsanto, like to talk about to push their GMO and all sorts of other products”.
When discussing a broader agenda related to food systems, participants employed other terminologies, such as food sovereignty, right to food, food justice, food democracy, and fair food. Although the interviews were focused on food security, when another terminology was used, participants were prompted to describe their understanding and relate it to food security. Food sovereignty was employed by participants that are involved in advocacy networks. Toni provided a broad framing of food sovereignty: “a values-based food system that foregrounds human health, wellbeing and ecosystem integrity, above the need for profit and capital accumulation”. Food sovereignty was related to ‘fair food’, a synonymous term used to reach people that are not familiar with the term food sovereignty. Referring to the work of the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA), Kerry commented, “I do not think that in Australia the discourse around food sovereignty encompasses the consumer end as much as it should”. Nonetheless, he noted that supporting producers is important to promote an equitable food system. In this context, ‘right to food’ was employed to denote the consumer side. Demonstrating deep understanding on the topic, Toni and Kerry observed that the ‘right to food’ is underpinned by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which imposes a legal obligation to be addressed by the Australian Governments at all levels. In most instances, ‘right to food’ was associated with the work of the Right to Food Coalition (RTF), an advocacy network founded in 2016, which works to ensure equitable access to food in Australia (RTF, 2018). Kerry noted that the RTF is concerned about “how to reinject questions of equity into discussions about food systems … and how to make sure that equity [is discussed] from the start. Equity is often an afterthought”.
Showing the overlap among the terminologies, some participants considered that the RTF’s agenda is focussed on food security: “The RTF is a leading advocacy campaigning organisation on this issue of food security in Australia”, observed Toni, another participant involved with the RTF. Food justice and food democracy were
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 63
noted by a couple of participants when emphasising impacts on social justice and democratic participation on the way people have access to food. Nevertheless, different from the USA and other countries, these terms are not embedded in the common narratives in Australia (Clendenning et al., 2015). In general, according to participants, these concepts (food sovereignty, fair food, right to food, etc.) encompass social, economic and political issues related to food systems, retaining food security as an essential condition for their fulfilment (Carolan, 2013). Toni explored the relations between food security and food systems:
The issues that need to tackle food insecurity are the same ones that need to tackle all the other major challenges of the food system: the poverty of farmers, the way [farmers] have been affected by the dominant market system, the degradation of the lands, the exploitation of workers, the loss of farmland due to urban sprawl, [the] concentration of the fast food industry, and the rise of obesity and related diseases. All these things in my analysis are interconnected. They come back to the most fundamental problem of excessive concentration of wealth and power in society, in politics, in economy, including in the food system.
5.2 “AN INVISIBLE PROBLEM”
When talking about the food security agenda in Australia, most participants noted that food insecurity is an invisible problem and one which is not prioritised by governments. “In Australia it [food insecurity] is certainly an invisible problem”, stated Kerry. An aspect that contributes to the overall lack of public awareness is the limited data available. On that, Jules commented, “How can we address food insecurity when [we] have no real sense of the scope, depth, and nature of the problem? That is very convenient for governments, because no government wants to admit that they have hunger in their population”. Overall, participants pointed that the lack of data on food insecurity compromises awareness and actions to tackle this issue.
The agenda is undermined by a false assumption that Australia is food secure because the country produces more food than is required to feed the population (PMSEIC, 2010). As noted by Sam, “Australia has an abundance of food that could feed three times our population, but we have a significant problem of food insecurity”. The other fallacy identified in the interviews is associated with food relief (Booth &
64 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Whelan, 2014). Participants demonstrated a recurrent concern about the reliance of governments on food relief charities, often distributing food diverted from food waste, as the major solution to food security in Australia. According to Sam, “with the shrinking role of government, the reliance has been on welfare philanthropies and charities to take up that responsibility [to provide access to food]”. This reliance of governments from federal and state levels on food relief was mentioned by Casey, who supplies food to charities: “As far as they [governments] are concerned, the not-for- profit charity sector has it all covered [solutions to food insecurity], and they do not need to act. Which could not be further from the truth”. Showing another facet of the same problem, Ash observed that the food charities have contributed to inhibit other solutions: “How do we put forward other solutions when food charities have been so successful in selling themselves as ‘the solution’? They are a part of it [one solution among others]”. Several participants observed that while food relief plays a relevant role as an emergency assistance, it cannot be considered a long-term solution. “The fact that they [people] can get free food from an agency does not make them food secure”, stated Lee. To illustrate the inefficacy of this approach in the long term, Jules shared a personal experience:
Last week, I was at an emergency breakfast program … and one [person]… kept looking at me … After, she came up to me and she said: “I recognize you”. And I said: “I think I recognize you [too]”. And it turns out that I had interviewed her [years] ago for [a project] about food insecurity among homeless people … At that time, she was a young person. And the sad thing is that years later she's still in a similar situation. So, she's not been able to move through. She's just trapped in this cycle. And there are lots of reasons why. Their life [homeless people] is fairly complicated, but it just struck me. That was just so ironic.
Currently, food relief charities are strongly supported by food rescue organisations (Booth & Whelan, 2014; Farmar-Bowers, 2015; Lawrence et al., 2013). The food rescue organisations position themselves as food security organisations. According to Casey, who works for a food rescue organisation, the business model of these organisations is “We acquire surplus food donated by retail all over [and] we redistribute that food to agencies who provide meals or food parcels to those in vulnerable positions in the community”. To reinforce the focus on food security, he noted that the key indicator that his organisation monitors is the number of meals
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 65
correspondent to the amount of food reallocated. However, for most enablers, the primary goal of food rescue organisations is food waste, not food security. Lee, who previously worked in a food rescue organisation, stated, “Their [food rescue organisations] discourse comes very linked to food security, but the way they explain what they do [is] very much linked to food waste, food security seems to be secondary”. Lee compared food rescue organisations to logistics companies, observing that they collect food that would go to landfill and redirect it to charities that provide food for “hungry bellies”. Overall, participants emphasised that food insecurity remains a non-priority for governments, although they have legal obligations to ensure the right to food to the whole population. Moreover, the only strategies in place, based on food relief and food rescue, offer a limited contribution to address the problem.
5.3 CHALLENGES FOR ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED WITH FOOD (IN)SECURITY
In relation to the organisations and initiatives operating in Australia, there is a range of players that are directly and indirectly contributing to food security in Australia. These players perform different roles across and beyond the food supply chain (production, distribution and consumption). Across the food supply chain, initiatives are contributing to food security by employing community gardening or farming practices, donating the produce to supply people in need, diverting food waste from landfill to consumption, swapping food in communities to share produce or meals, facilitating access to food, sharing meals, and providing emergency food relief, among many other examples. Beyond the food supply chain, organisations are mobilised in activities that contribute knowledge and resources to support the efforts in place. Examples of these activities are advocacy, networks, research, and services provision (consultancy, technical assistance, business platforms). Most of the players operate in a very small scale and are struggling to reach financial viability. Although a few participants noted that scaling up is part of their plans to increase impact, Sam, based on his experience with affordable markets, observed that scaling up brings additional costs to organisations that are already struggling to survive:
The modelling that we have done shows that an increase in scale … ultimately will bring the organisation to a financially self-sustaining model. There is still a
66 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
question mark whether that is attainable because with scale comes investment cost into assets, logistics infrastructure, and systems to enable that scale.
In this context, a critical aspect for the organisations involved with food security is access to resources, especially funding. Adequate funding was mentioned as crucial to start, support or expand the operations of most players interviewed in this case study. Furthermore, the available funding is often focused on short-term and narrow approaches, rather than a systemic approach. Kerry observed how the lack of funding options affects the programs:
The philanthropic sector in Australia is severely underdeveloped. If you are not getting government funding, or you do not have church-based funding, it is very difficult to run any program … I think the programs that we have, and the organisations delivering those programs, are in many ways a result of the funding environment that we all find ourselves in.
A few participants also mentioned that the public funding available is focused on food rescue, which was not considered effective in addressing food insecurity. Jules stated, “I think it is morally reprehensible to be spending public money funding food banks or investing in food banks when there is no evidence in the literature that they actually address food insecurity in the long term”. Nevertheless, funding is not a regular stream even for food rescue organisations. Casey noted, “[Food rescue organisations] get government grants from time to time, but [they] have to apply for that in a competitive basis as anybody else. It has no continuous government funding in any state”. However, a couple of participants observed that a narrative associated with food security facilitates access to funding. Based on his experience in a food rescue organisation, Sam noted, “People want to fund people. They want to fund initiatives that support feeding people, rather than funding initiatives to stop food waste. So, we were utilising weightily the people’s story as a way of getting interest and funding”.
Looking for other ways to support their operations, most organisations rely, partially or completely, on volunteer work, in-kind donations, private funding, and cross subsidies. Kim commented on how organisations combine strategies to reach financial sustainability: “You can have volunteers in a community food enterprise to bring the price down, or cross subsidise between different consumers base. You can
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 67
invest in efficiency in your distribution operation. Anyway, there are quite finite strategies”.
While participants noted governments’ lack of priority and adequate strategies to address food insecurity in Australia, they also indicate that there is a range of initiatives and organisations operating in the practical field. However, most of them operate in a small scale and have limited or no access to regular funding. As a result, these organisations tend to rely on irregular additional resources, such as private donations, to support their operations in the short term. These participants’ perspectives contribute to contextualise the next sections and to inform the discussion and conclusions.
5.4 BARRIERS TO FOOD ACCESS
As described in the literature, there are social, economic and geographic barriers that undermine food security. In the literature, the social barriers are related to conditions such as single parenting, aging, illness, physical and mental disabilities (Foodbank, 2018; Temple, 2008). However, these social barriers were not explored during the interviews. Only one participant mentioned them: “We know from local studies that food insecurity is much higher in some vulnerable populations: Aboriginal people, single parent families, people living alone, homeless people” (Jules).
During the interviews, the economic barriers were primarily associated with income insecurity and poverty. Some participants observed that these conditions have been exacerbated by an increase of unemployment, the casualisation of the workforce, and a rise in living costs (including food retail costs). Although income insecurity can be temporary, interviewees mentioned that the impoverishment of the population in Australia has led to a reliance on food relief. For instance, Casey noted, “Some families are just doing it tough, needing support for a few weeks to get back on their feet. [Others] can be long-term arrangements, where people are absolutely dependent on the food program”. In a similar vein, a few participants noted how food insecurity is also affecting some middle-class households. According to Jules,
Food insecurity is not just occurring for people who are poor or of low income … There is some emerging evidence that food insecurity is affecting middle income families in Australia. There are lots of financial pressures: the cost of
68 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
living, the cost of housing, the cost of utilities and services. That means that food in a household is getting more and more squeezed.
In addition, a few participants commented on the economic power exerted by the supermarket duopoly in Australia. For them, Coles and Woolworths have affected farmers and consumers by controlling prices and distribution channels. The rise of prices of fresh food, for example, was commented upon by Casey: “People need their budgets to go further [to cover raising living costs] and food is a flexible cost … [The rise of the food prices] is putting people into the situation where they are not able to access good food”. The concentration in the food system was pointed out as a situation that can deepen the barriers to food. “People’s food options have become so limited in the way they are offered to them. We are relying on big businesses, in this duopoly that dominates our food system”, noted Sam. This comment provides insight on the importance of diversifying the retail options as means to enhance access to food (Dixon & Richards, 2016).
Alongside the economic barriers, interviewees also discussed the geographic barriers to food access. For them, these barriers are mostly associated with the urban sprawl because, often, people living in the outer suburbs lack the infrastructure to ensure access to food. For instance, outer suburbs can have a poor public transport service or have no local food shops. A few participants associated this phenomenon with the terminology ‘food deserts’ (Alkon et al., 2013; Edwards & Mercer, 2007; Lawrence et al., 2013; Richards et al., 2016). Pat, relating the importance of geographic access, stated, “Not being able to access fresh food within walking distance or relatively easily by public transport makes you food insecure”. As a strategy to overcome geographic barriers, Chris explored the role of urban farming: “Urban farming all over the place. That is where the food needs to be [in the cities], not out in the middle of Australia … Part of the food insecurity problem [is that] the food is away from the people”. Furthermore, other participants associated the geographic barriers with the cost of food:
[There is] a lot of people living in metropolitan areas. For them to physically get to their food, where it is grown, is quite challenging. They have to pay for the transport of the food, and the distribution of that food, and other costs coming as well, which ultimately makes the food less attainable for people who do not have a lot of cash. (Lee)
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 69
In summary, the findings of this section are aligned with the literature by saying that Australia has more than enough food to supply the population, but food insecurity is deeply related to structural barriers such as income and distribution (Foodbank, 2018; Richards et al., 2016; Temple, 2008). The wages growth stagnation and the increasing living costs (i.e., housing, water, energy) compromise the household budgets for food, which is considered a flexible item. In terms of food distribution, the urban sprawl creates spaces that are poorly served by fresh food outlets. The distances and transportation issues are challenges for individuals and families to purchase food, especially those with young children, disabilities or illness.
5.5 MORE THAN “FILLING PEOPLE'S HUNGRY BELLIES”
In a direct critique of the food relief model, Lee, stated that food security should not be confined to the idea of “filling people's hungry bellies”. Although, participants foregrounded access to food as the core concept of food security, some of them considered that access per se is not enough to address food insecurity. According to them, access to food needs to consider other aspects that contribute to people’s wellbeing: nutrition, health, preferences, and social connections. This broader understanding is partially supported by the definition of food security that emphasises “access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO et al., 2018, p. 159). They are also aligned with some of the “pieces missed” proposed by Carolan (2013), who says that food security needs to be addressed as a process of socioeconomic justice and environmental sustainability. During the interviews, these aspects were pointed to as intrinsic to food security yet neglected by some practitioners and policy makers. In addition to access to food, participants highlighted four aspects of food security: health and nutrition, dignity and self-determination, social relations, and sustainability.
Comments on health and nutrition were presented throughout the interviews. However, participants demonstrated special concern about the food relief model saying that this model is mostly focused on food provision, regardless of the nutritional and health benefits. According to interviewees, access to unhealthy food, particularly processed food, does not meet the basic needs of individuals and can exacerbate personal health issues such as allergies, intolerances, diabetes, and heart disease.
70 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Individuals in vulnerable situations may get worse if they are provided food that deteriorates their health conditions and wellbeing. Jules commented that:
[Food relief agencies] are inundated with donations of what I call treat foods. So, things that are energy dense and nutrient poor. They [food relief agencies] give this stuff out for people who are trying to manage diabetes. So, [if] they lost their medication, or their diabetes is uncontrolled … It puts them in a very difficult position because they are hungry, they need the food.
Demonstrating concern about the type of food that is offered, some food providers mentioned that they offer only, or primarily, healthy and nutritious food. This type of food is associated with freshness and includes vegetables, fruits, bakery items, and sometimes, dairy and meat. A few initiatives adopt guidelines or policies to enforce the quality of the food that is provided. According to Sam, “when people are relying on the welfare system for food access, it is absolutely our responsibility as a community to ensure that we are providing healthy nutritious food … [we] are improving access to quality affordable fresh fruits and vegetables”. In line with that, Casey, involved in a food rescue organisation, noted, “We try not to deal [with] any packaged food at all. Our focus is to provide fresh nutritious food as much as possible, so about 90 percent of fresh [food]”. Pursuing this further, a few participants noted that some organisations are primarily focused on access to food, any type of food, having the nutritional benefit as a secondary issue. One of the largest food rescue organisations in Australia was named by some interviewees as an example of this practice. Talking about food rescue organisations in general, Lee commented,
They say it is better [to offer any type of food] than having an empty belly, and better than that food and all that waste into landfill. But I tend to disagree because I know too much about the implications of obesity and diabetes and heart diseases, and their cost in our system.
From a public health perspective, access to non-nutritious food is linked to another facet of food insecurity: obesity. This facet is present in the literature as a type of malnutrition associated with the ‘empty calories’ of cheap industrialised food (Alkon et al., 2013; Patel, 2012). However, participants noted that, frequently, the general public do not associate obesity with food insecurity. Recently, obesity has gained the attention of policy makers due to its impact on the public health system,
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 71
while food insecurity is not prioritised. According to Kerry, involved in food security advocacy,
The Australian Government, on the federal and state level, know that obesity, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes are one of the most significant drains on the Australian purse. In New South Wales, if we do nothing from today and continue to maintain public health care for people suffering from obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes, current projections show that the state government will be bankrupt by 2030.
As part of the nutritional focus on food security, participants mentioned that some organisations provide educational programs: “It is called food literacy. It is basically providing people with the skills to store, to purchase, to budget, to cook, to discard food safely. Also, and most important, to enjoy a healthy diet”, explained Lee, who has been previously involved with these programs. These educational programs were mostly designed to provide skills to the staff involved in the preparation of food at food relief agencies.
In addition to nutrition and health, another key concern related to how the conditions in which people have access to food, especially food relief, is how it affects dignity and self-determination. Participants mentioned that some undignifying examples occur when the population experiencing food insecurity line up for food, sometimes in public spaces. Often, in these circumstances, people seeking food relief have to be assessed to confirm their condition and take whatever is offered, having no choice over what they eat or how to prepare meal. Jules shared an expression heard from people seeking for emergency food relief: “beggars cannot be choosers”, and explained,
People [seeking food relief] were resigned to the fact that they were in difficult circumstances, and because they were going to a food bank, they were not going to complain. They just took whatever was on offer, even though it might have been food products that they did not particularly like or were not culturally appropriate. And they just thought: ‘I am not in a position to complain because I am at the bottom of the pile’.
Demonstrating diligence regarding this topic, Lou gave an example from the food rescue sector which aims to address dignity through a social supermarket model.
72 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
In this supermarket, people can walk in and collect what they need, what they choose, free of charge. “We look after everyone, and anyone can do it with dignity and respect. We do not ask questions and we do not think people have to justify why they need [food relief]” (Lou).
The relation between food security and the sharing economy starts to become clearer when participants discuss the importance of providing means for people to establish social connections, while having access to food (Acquier et al., 2017; Schor et al., 2016). According to participants, these measures can enhance wellbeing and a sense of community, which is particularly relevant for the most vulnerable population. “They want some sense of commensality and conviviality. They want some seated meal services, where people get to connect with others. [Not] just being given a parcel and then going away, eating somewhere”, stated Jules, involved with vulnerable populations.
Most of the direct food providers mentioned shared meals as a practice to enhance social connectivity to overcome individual isolation and promote community bonding. For two of them, these shared meals are part of their regular activities, happening on a weekly basis. Demonstrating coherence with the nutritional aspect discussed before, participants noted that the shared meals are vegetarian or vegan. Adding to that, Charlie, who collaborates with a street kitchen initiative, mentioned that food plays an ‘equaliser’ role that facilitates social connections:
Food is a very primal part of our lives, but also it has a history of being a very social thing, like: people eat together, often cook together … I think it is a real equaliser, because everybody needs to eat and serve. When we are on the street … there would be people who are homeless, students, travellers, workers, [and] random people who are walking past … Because we all need to eat and like eating, we are linked in that way, so we can all sit down together.
In the same vein, participants observed that shared spaces, such as community kitchens, parks, and common areas may be re-signified by becoming a space for socialisation through these activities. Sam, who is involved with one of these practices, illustrated, “[The shared meals] are in the open space ... [where] people can sit, have somewhere to chat. There is, quite often, a little playground or something for the kids to play around as well”. Shared meals and shared spaces are examples of how sharing practices are adopted by these initiatives. In some cases, these practices are central to
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 73
promote food security, like in the street kitchen; in other cases, they are a complementary activity. In either situation, sharing food or spaces are practices that are believed to contribute to a sense of community among the people involved.
From another perspective, participants explored sustainability issues associated with food systems that can affect food security. The relevance of food systems to the environmental debate was noted by Jay: “Food has moved into the absolute heartland of environmental and ecological issues”. Jay noted that in the last 10 years, “food was agriculture”, thus considered a threat to the environment. However, in the last 5 years, Jay perceived an expansion on this understanding: “[Food] has escalated in importance because industrial scale food production and distribution has created a whole web of problems” and the debate around food has incorporated aspects such as food justice, food integrity, and food safety. According to Jay, the industrial production models have major impacts on ecosystems, for instance, water and greenhouse gas emissions. Demonstrating different practices in the sharing economy, two participants involved in food production stated that they avoid chemicals in their sites: “Our only criterion for growing food is that they are not allowed to use chemicals”, noted Alex.
Another sustainability issue explored in the interviews was food transportation, also referred to as ‘food miles’, the distance that the food travels from farms to households, which produces greenhouse gas emissions. According to a few participants, food miles are intensified by the urban sprawl phenomenon, which pushes farming land (producers) away from urban areas (consumers), and by international trading, which intensifies the commercialisation of food among countries. Chris, summarised the drivers that are increasing food miles and possible effects on food security:
(About) food insecurity in Australia, the problem is that we have a production system that is not a cottage industry, it is mass production, and the farmer is producing further and further away. They will grow a crop of tomatoes and the shops do not want that because they do not look nice … It is cheaper to dump it than is to sell or give it away, because it is too far away to bring it in [to the city] … The food system that we have at the moment is deliberately designed to make money for the people who already have it … Woolworths and Coles bought their bread from Ireland, half baked, shipped over (and) finished here. [They] baked,
74 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
packaged and noted, “it is baked locally”. Why are they doing that? Because it is cheaper.
This section explored participant perceptions and experiences of indicated aspects that may affect the achievement of full food security. Participants raised issues such as health and nutrition, demonstrated concerns about how food is produced and distributed, and how this affects food security in the short and long term. Most participants considered that health and nutrition are already reflected in the definition of food security from the FAO (FAO et al., 2018). However, dignity and self- determination, social relations, and sustainability are related to a more comprehensive understanding of food security (Carolan, 2013).
5.6 SUMMARY
This chapter presented participants’ perspectives on food security in Australia, indicating a lack of priority by governments. Efforts to address food insecurity are primarily focused on food relief, which in their perceptions and experiences, provides a limited contribution to resolving the problem. Interviewees also point that there is a range of organisations and initiatives involved with the food security agenda, which often operate in a small scale and with restricted resources. Overall, according to research participants, food insecurity is primarily related to distribution and affordability of food and, in order to be fully addressed, also encompasses issues like health, nutrition, well-being, and sustainability. These findings enable a nuanced understanding of the context in which the sharing economy operates to address food insecurity. The next chapter presents the finding on how the key characteristics of the sharing economy (i.e., collaboration, resources (re)allocation, shorter supply chains and digital platforms) relate to these challenges and contribute to food security in Australia.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 75
Chapter 6: Connecting the sharing economy and food security
This chapter analyses how the sharing economy is related to food security in Australia, based on the findings reported in Chapter Five. First, this chapter presents participants’ understandings of what constitutes the sharing economy, indicating different typologies that support the analysis of this phenomenon: transactional and transformative. In the following section, the typologies are explained in more detail, demonstrating that in the practical field these typologies are often combined rather than disassociated. The next section explores the economic diversity in the sharing economy and how it contributes to promoting food security. Subsequently, another section examines how the sharing economy promotes the inclusion of individuals that are experiencing food insecurity. The last section then summarises the chapter, presenting the main findings and how they inform the discussion and conclusions of this research.
6.1 UNDERSTANDING THE SHARING ECONOMY
Participants were prompted to present their understandings of the sharing economy, reflecting on language, meanings and accounts. In response, they demonstrated engagement with the term, elaborating their own definitions, and offering comparisons, critiques or examples. Interviewee responses confirmed that food initiatives value and practice the sharing economy. However, most of them do not use the term to describe their initiatives. Jules commented, “We do not use it in the discourse about food insecurity”. The absence of ‘sharing economy’ terminology amongst practitioners was expressed by Alex, involved with a community program: “We do not use that terminology, but from my understanding we can be considered part of the sharing economy”. This was corroborated by other participants. “It is not a word that we refer to often, but it is something that we put into practice every day”, commented Lou.
When describing their understanding of the sharing economy, some participants referred to sharing as a traditional form of social and economic interaction (Belk, 2014; Frenken & Schor, 2017). “Sharing is everywhere and even if we do not want to admit, things are always
76 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
being shared” observed Charlie, who is a community organiser. In this sense, the sharing economy is recognised in a myriad of economic relations such as bartering, gifting, and swapping, categorised by Gibson-Graham (2006) as alternative or non-market transactions. Providing a different perspective, Jesse noted that the current expressions of the sharing economy are distinct from the traditional forms because they are rooted in the rise of technology (personal computers, internet, smartphones and social media) (Avital et al., 2014; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Cockayne, 2016; Martin, 2016; Murillo et al., 2017). In addition, he associated the most recent expansion of the sharing economy, which happened in the last 10 years, with the global financial crisis:
The current manifestation of the sharing economy is very strongly correlated with the economic precarity that people have seen over the last decade and the massive changes that we were seeing in the global economy, rising inequality, and very stagnant to falling wage growth.
The relation between the sharing economy and economic precarity is noted mostly in the literature about profit-driven platforms, where these practices normalise precarious work and intensifies economic inequalities (Cockayne, 2016; Schor, 2017). In addition, participants reflected on practical examples associated with the sharing economy. At first, many noted that “what comes to mind is the sharing economy [examples], like Uber and Airbnb. These new [forms] of consumers accessing goods and services in a direct way”, pointed out Ash. Pursuing this further, Jesse offered a more comprehensive interpretation:
[The sharing economy] is a very broad term to describe everything from Airbnb to food swaps … Everything from the commercial transactional platforms, which are there to monetise interactions between peers, [to] the other end of the spectrum, [with] community run and community-initiated mending, gifting, swapping and so on.
This later interpretation indicates the breadth of practices in the sharing economy as understood by interviewees. Employing the diverse economies framing (see Table 3.1), the sharing economy is performed through a range of practices that combine capitalist, non- capitalist or alternatives to capitalism approaches (Gibson-Graham, 2006, 2014). One can say that there is not one single sharing economy but diverse sharing economies in the practical field.
Overall, participants expressed their concern about how the sharing economy terminology has been co-opted by commercial initiatives which, in the words of the enabler
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 77
Kerry, “[have] been shaping people’s views about what counts as a sharing economy”. This critique was reinforced by Pat, who mentioned, “We need to get that word back, reclaim it! Expose Uber and Airbnb for what they are, and then do something better”. This shared critique may explain why participants and the various initiatives do not employ the terminology of the ‘sharing economy’ in their discourse, although they recognise their practice as part of the sharing economy. This notion of a wide spectrum for the sharing economy, with two contrasting approaches, was explored by several participants. Similarly to the literature (Belk, 2014), some of them established a distinction between a ‘fake’ sharing economy, represented by the commercialised corporatized models, and a ‘true’ sharing economy, related to initiatives that share for a common good. These approaches were described by Jesse as a “transactional sharing economy” and a “transformative sharing economy”.
6.2 THE SHARING ECONOMY APPROACHES
As presented above, participants discussed the sharing economy based on two, sometimes divergent, approaches: transactional and transformative. The transactional sharing economy, according to Jesse for example, is “more about monetising lazy assets, surplus space or skills that people want to sell in a two-sided marketplace”. Uber and Airbnb were mentioned several times as examples of this type of sharing economy. Although Ash referred to these initiatives as “really big innovations” that, for example, promoted a “disruptive change in hospitality and accommodation”; according to others such initiatives “are useful … and interesting, but they are not sharing. They are still selling a service” (Charlie).
Overall, the key characteristics of the sharing economy’s transactional typology were monetised transactions, profit-driven models, venture capital investments, corporate structures, and platform-based operations. When asked about examples of this type of sharing economy related to food security, most participants could not recall any example, which reinforces the more transformative features and visions of the food-based sharing economy. Ash was the only participant to give an optimistic perspective built on the transactional example of Airbnb: “It is exciting that something could disrupt, hopefully in a helpful way, the food system in Australia, as profound … [as] Airbnb has [done] in the hospitality and accommodation space”. A few participants noted the example of Yume, a platform-based initiative in Australia which operates as a wholesale secondary marketplace for surplus food. This market-driven initiative re-distributes non-commercialised food surplus to food rescue organisations. Yume was the
78 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
only example of a larger scale transaction employing digital platforms to support the operations that make some contribution to food security.
The transformative approach was associated with sustainability, and the pursuit of equitable, sustainable and democratic outcomes (Martin, 2016). The understanding that the sharing economy can be a pathway to a new economy was corroborated by Jay: “sharing can be one element of the new economy that deserves attention and exploration”. A more detailed explanation of the transformative approach was offered by Jesse, who described it as “a social- economic and political movement … which is trying to change the system and develop new socio-economic models which are more sustainable, more in harmony with nature … and are providing equitable livelihoods and access to services for people”. Adding to that, Kerry observed that the “sharing economy does not have to involve a platform or an app”. This was complemented by Kim, who noted the transformative sharing economy “is about ownership and democratic control of common resources by the people who are impacted by it”. The idea that a transformative initiative needs to share ownership with people and community involved was ratified by other participants, especially enablers. Lee, one of the enablers, noted the long- term community benefits of these initiatives:
When it is done in a community development approach it is a lot more dignifying [because] there is a lot more ownership [and] empowerment. All these beautiful things that we know are a lot more effective in the long term.
The key aspects that emerged to describe this typology of the sharing economy were non- monetised transactions, change-driven models, collaborative structures, and place-based operations. For a few participants, an example of this sharing economy typology in food systems was the Open Food Network. With operations in Australia and other countries, the Open Food Network combines international and local scales. At the international scale, it shares knowledge and resources across different countries and at the local level it offers solutions to localise food systems. This initiative aims to change the food system by providing an open source platform which connects farmers and consumers by shortening the food supply chain, as described by Jesse,
The Open Food Network is trying to provide an alternative to the food system in Australia, [offering] free software for farmers and food producers so they can have better access to consumers in their own communities … [and] have an alternative venue for their products to be sold, than through the supermarket shelves.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 79
Drawing from participants comments, the Open Food Network can be portrayed as a unique example of the sharing economy ideal type proposed by Acquier et al. (2017) (see Figure 2.1), which combines the three cores of the sharing economy (community-based economy, access economy, and platform economy) to promote change towards a more sustainable food system.
The above descriptions offered by participants suggest contrasting understandings of the sharing economy. However, the practical field is mostly comprised by initiatives that combine these typologies, mixing transformative and transactional approaches. For example, they may have monetised transactions but operate in a collaborative structure that aims for social change. Although some initiatives do not necessarily aim at systemic change (like the Open Food Network), they offer transformative outcomes to a specific location, which is aligned with a place-based approach (Gibson-Graham, 2004, 2008a). These place-based initiatives emerge from the mobilisation of local resources, abilities or experiences to address an issue that is considered relevant for that context (Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2011). Reinforcing the importance of these place-based initiatives, Jesse stated that
All the different food swapping, and seed sharing, and community garden initiatives … are transformational because they are providing new opportunities for communities to self-provision their own food … without needing to rely on big supermarket chains or [using] traditional farming methods to get access to high-quality nutritious food.
Despite initially not identifying themselves with the sharing economy, this comprehensive understanding of what constitutes a transformative sharing economy framed participants perspectives on how this phenomenon changes food systems to address food insecurity. The next section presents a range of examples that emerged from the interviews and reflect the economic diversity present in the sharing economy (Frenken & Schor, 2017; Gibson- Graham, 2008a; Martin, 2016).
6.3 THE SHARING ECONOMY PRACTICES ADDRESSING FOOD INSECURITY
After conceptualising the sharing economy, participants were asked to consider how it performed in promoting food security in Australia (Gibson-Graham, 2008a, 2014; Richardson, 2015). The relationship of the sharing economy with alternative food systems was broadly explained by Jules, who considered that, in the food landscape, the sharing economy and Alternative Food Networks (AFNs) are synonymous:
80 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
The counterweight to the current industrial food system is about people taking a lot of control and exerting some sort of influence over the industrial food system. They do that by engaging in alternative food systems. So, things like farmers markets, backyard food swaps, CSAs – all these really align with the sharing economy. It is co-operative. It is about active participation. It is encouraging people to have a voice and have a say in how their food is accessed.
This understanding was corroborated by Kerry when exploring how AFNs are promoting alternative access to food: “Undoubtedly, anyone doing something like our food hubs or trying to re-localise food systems would be relevant … [Ultimately], if what they are doing is reducing the cost of goods for the consumer then that has an effect on food access”. Therefore, these alternative practices are responding to geographic and economic barriers and represent alternative channels of access (Richardson, 2015). However, the literature argues that creating alternative channels of distribution offers a limited contribution to addressing food insecurity in Australia (Dixon & Richards, 2016).
In addition, offering an example that differs from food rescue operations, some participants explored alternative ways to distribute food (Gibson-Graham, 2014). Making use of another terminology related to the sharing economy, Kim noted that these practices are “more collaborative consumption, a democratic increase of access to assets, [and] a kind of maximisation of resources”. An example of these alternative ways to distribute food are community-based non-monetised transactions (Edwards, 2011; Gibson-Graham, 2014). In this context, Sam noted that food swapping is a practice to connect people that does not involve money changing hands:
When I think of food sharing economy, I think of food swaps. I think of me, in my local street, walking up to my lovely neighbour and grabbing a couple of lemons for dinner that night. And then, when my basil is growing well, I can drop some off to her.
Nevertheless, Ash commented on the limitations of such small-scale forms of the sharing economy, like food swapping among neighbours, to address systemic issues. Ash noticed that there is a utopic approach to food that does not meet people’s lifestyles: “People do not actually want to spend that much time on getting food, preparing food. Sometimes I think people in the ‘foodie’ world forget that”. Afterwards, Ash proceeded, saying that “there will still need to be an element of convenience and affordability in any kind of innovation in this space. Otherwise it is just not practical, and it will be hard to threaten the current system”. This comment links
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 81
to the economic and geographic barriers to accessing food discussed in Chapter Five and to the critiques to diverse economies as a utopic approach that disregards structural issues at the individual, household, local, and national levels which affect choices (see Section 3.4) (Fickey & Hanrahan, 2014; Fuller et al., 2010; Gritzas & Kavoulakos, 2016; Jonas, 2010; White & Williams, 2016). In particular, it raises concerns about the contributions of these isolated initiatives to promote access to food without taking the structural and cultural barriers into account.
A range of diverse practices are emerging at the level of local councils, where multiple players are articulating local food systems. Jesse explained, “Community groups together with local governments [and] with other stakeholders collaborate through policies, programs, and infrastructure to meet a whole variety of different really great outcomes for that community through food sharing”. Examples of the sharing practices were community gardens, community food enterprises, and shared kitchens for homeless people, which represent diverse economic practices that may be capitalists, non-capitalists, or alternatives to capitalism (Gibson-Graham, 2014; Gibson-Graham & Cameron, 2007; Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2011). According to participants, these local initiatives are likely to become more common in the next few years. Interestingly, most enablers interviewed for this research were directly or indirectly involved with these local experiences through activities such as advocacy, consultancy, research, platform services, and community mobilisation. Participants noted that the orchestration of local players, including governments, producers, communities, and local business, is happening in different states of Australia to address issues of economic development, public health, local food production, and food security. According to Toni, these local food systems are one of the most important strategies to promote food security because of the integrated approach that they adopt. These are also examples where the sharing economy enacts diverse practices aimed at local development (Cahill, 2008). Participants also provided examples from other countries (i.e., Canada, the USA, and the UK) that have been implementing local food policies to overcome more systemic issues related to food insecurity. Kim commented on the potential of the local food arrangements to be an alternative to conventional systems: “There is a community in Victoria that set up a community food centre, which is a model that was very successful in Canada. That is one of the most important examples emerging to counter the traditional food sector”. However, unlike most participants, Ash provided a critique to the scalability of these local initiatives:
82 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
We are starting to see some interesting things emerge, in the local settings in Australia, that are making positive contribution to food security in a region. The local stuff is exciting but, for a population effect, it has to be national and it has to be systemic … We have a massive food system that needs to be reoriented and we cannot ignore that … To have mainstream reach, to impact the 24 million Australians, my priority is to spend my time and energy influencing federal government and the big food players in the system. I think that is more important for [national] food security and regional food security, with a lot of food going offshore and a lot of junk food coming into Australia.
Although the local approach is not enough to ensure food security at the national level, the literature has shown that articulation of local food systems can identify relevant issues and contribute to more informed policy making (Candel, 2014).
Overall, the findings in this section illustrate how the sharing economy enacts economic diversity (Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2011; Richardson, 2015). Adding to the examples explored in this section, the previous sections presented other practices that complement the sharing economy landscape, such as platform secondary markets, collaborative platforms, dumpster diving, shared meals, and community agriculture. These examples indicate that practices to address food insecurity have often emerged from place-based approaches, which mobilise available resources, skills and knowledge to address local issues in a decentralised way. These efforts may be represented by ordinary practices, such as food swapping among neighbours, or more complex practices, like the articulation of a CSA program (Gibson- Graham, 2014). For participants, relationships between multiple players should be driven by values such as equity, democracy, and sustainability. The next section presents how the sharing economy involves people experiencing food insecurity as part of its contribution to food security.
6.4 “THERE IS AN EMPTY CHAIR”
The engagement of people experiencing food insecurity is considered an essential practice to overcome structural social inequalities and develop more adequate solutions (Anguelovski, 2015; Dixon & Richards, 2016; Markow et al., 2014). A number of participants reinforced this understanding during the interviews. However, Sam pointed out, “There is an empty chair that is not being filled by people experiencing food insecurity”. A few participants referred to a lack of capacity to promote this engagement with a population that is very
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 83
vulnerable. Chris is involved in a community farming program that donates the produce to assist homeless people. When asked about the non-involvement of homeless people in the program Chris commented,
I do not know how to deal with people in that situation. There are different levels of homelessness, there is a lot of mental illness associated with that. We do not have the qualifications, or connections, or resources, or time at the moment to deal with that.
Nonetheless, later in the interview, Chris commented that once the program matures, there is an intent to have homeless people producing their own food under qualified supervision. A similar practice is already in place in another community farming project. A local organisation collaborates with a vulnerable community to produce food. While the local organisation provides the means to grow the food (land, equipment, and technical assistance), the vulnerable community runs the production for self-provision, taking decisions on what is grown and how it is grown, and having ownership over the crop. Among direct food providers, there were two examples of involvement with the population attended by the initiatives. The first example was from a street kitchen run entirely by volunteers. Charlie, one of the volunteers, commented,
We try not to have a distinction between the people who eat and the people who cook. Nobody wears a tag saying they are volunteers or anything. A lot of people who would have come and eat, have later come in to help cook.
The other example came from affordable markets in low-income suburbs, where customers were engaged in different phases of the initiative:
We do that [involve people] by engaging them through all processes when we establish a market … Our logo was designed in consultation with residents of public housing estates … All our produce is what the customers want us to provide … And then we engage them in the management of the market by volunteering through decisions of when we open, at what time, and again the produce that we sell. (Sam)
Other examples given pointed to consumers organised in co-operatives or buyers’ clubs having access to ethical or local produce: “They could not afford it [buying from a food hub], so [some] of them started co-operatives or buyers’ club. They buy from a lot of ethical suppliers, and some even buy direct from farmers”, observed Pat. Some interviewees also noted how sharing practices could promote a sense of ownership amongst the target population. Sam explained,
84 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
We are a trading enterprise, we buy and sell. But we share values with our customers and with our community. We share resources, we share the setting, we share the infrastructure. We absolutely share our knowledge, [because] part of our role, as we grow, is to share our knowledge about how we run the markets … and let the local community take ownership of that market.
The understanding that the sharing economy practices involve sharing ownership was presented by other participants. Some of them mentioned that they are reviewing ownership structures to align with democratic values. “We are going through this governance review at the moment. We want to shift to a co-operative where we have actual democratic control embedded in the way that we run the [organisation]”, observed Kim. “When that happens [co- operative structure], then we will feel legitimately as part of the sharing economy”, commented Pat. Other participants also mentioned co-operative structures as a future aspiration in the pursuit of social change.
Notably, none of the examples related to ownership structure directly involved people experiencing food insecurity. In Kerry’s view this limitation may be explained by the profile of people leading the food movement: “the Australian food movement is very middle class and very white … that is another barrier to engaging directly with communities who are suffering from food insecurity”. Toni commented on the relevance of this aspect to achieve social change:
Generally, the people who are experiencing various forms of oppression, inequality, suffering discrimination are the ones that must be involved in working their way through that and being shaping the solution of it, or the strategy of the campaign, or the project, or whatever it is.
Aligned with that, Sam explained the importance of engaging with the population attended to develop an initiative and promote community development:
Ultimately, we are a community development initiative … which is having an impact on people's food security, on their connection to their local community, volunteers and staff who work at our markets, and having an impact on their health ... We go back to what traditionally was a way people engaged with each other for centuries, running local markets in an open setting. That is the beauty of these food markets. It is a powerful tool for positive social change and positive connection for communities.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 85
As the above demonstrates, participants consider community engagement to be essential to the pursuit of alternative practices in the sharing economy. Sharing ownership of an organisation with the community, for instance, is considered a demonstration of implementing democratic values. However, the examples of engagement with the population that is food insecure are nascent, scarce and often limited to giving voice, but not power over food production, distribution and consumption.
6.5 SUMMARY
This chapter presented participants’ understandings of the contributions of the sharing economy to an equitable, sustainable, and decentralised economic paradigm. At first, the sharing economy was represented by two distinctive typologies: transactional and transformative. However, the empirical evidence also portrays these typologies as interwoven. Often, the pursuit of transformative outcomes is associated with transactional operations that represent capitalist, non-capitalist or alternative economic approaches (Gibson-Graham, 2006, 2014). There is a variety of practices that emerge from place-based approaches, which combine available resources, spaces and knowledge to address food insecurity or promote sustainable food systems (Davies et al., 2017b). In this context, while most initiatives have had limited or no involvement with the population that is food insecure, a few of them are engaging with this population as a pathway to transformation. These initiatives are giving voice, and sometime sharing power, in the pursuit of food security as a process of social, environmental and distributive justice rather than a goal by itself (Carolan, 2013). The next chapter depicts key characteristics of the sharing economy to understand their relevance and practical contributions to food security.
86 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Chapter 7: Key contributions of the sharing economy to food security
This chapter presents participants’ perspectives on key characteristics of the sharing economy, describing relevance and practical contributions to food security. The key characteristics, as identified in the literature, are collaboration, resources (re)allocation, shorter supply chains, and digital platforms and technologies. The following sections present the findings on each of these characteristics, discussing their importance and providing empirical evidence on how they contribute to overcoming the barriers to food access and addressing food insecurity in a meaningful way. To conclude the chapter, a summary of the findings indicates the implications of these characteristics for food security in Australia.
7.1 COLLABORATION
In the literature, collaboration is a characteristic often associated with the terms ‘collaborative economy’ or ‘collaborative consumption’, variants of the sharing economy (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Gruzka, 2016; Martin, 2016; Richardson, 2015; Schor, 2016). Although none of the participants mentioned these other terminologies, the great majority considered collaboration an essential practice in the pursuit of food security. In a spontaneous way, a few interviewees explored collaboration as opposed to competition, associating it with trust, transparency and interdependency. Kim, whose organisation develops collaborative solutions, commented.
At the start, it feels a bit funny to be openly sharing everything because it is ‘anti’ the way our whole society and capitalism works. But once you demonstrated the culture of an open sharing and collaboration, in contrast to other ways of working, then it becomes infectious and you build trust.
Collaboration was explored by interviewees at three complementary scales: at the initiative level, at the local level, and at the national level. At the initiative level, collaboration was closely associated with the pursuit of financial and social viability. In terms of financial viability, collaboration with multiple stakeholders was referred to
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 87
as a way to reduce costs or increase access to capital and resources. Examples of this type of collaboration are crowdfunding campaigns, access to spaces or infrastructure, and in-kind donations and volunteer work. Among food relief organisations, collaboration was mostly related to the flow of food waste, involving donors and receiving charities, and financial resources from government grants and corporate or private donors. However, for community-based initiatives, other forms of collaboration emerged, indicating economic diversity in the sharing economy (Gibson- Graham, 2006, 2014). Chris, developing urban farming in shared land plots, supported by volunteers, in-kind and financial donations observed, “[Collaboration] is vital. If we did not have collaboration we would not exist. I could not have done all of this without the volunteers, the donors, the community, [and] the local residents”.
In terms of social viability, collaboration provides the basis to create lasting relationships with individuals and other organisations. These relationships were regarded as being supportive networks for the initiatives, enhancing their resilience to operate in adversities. Emily, involved in a CSA program, noted that collaboration principles established from the beginning were fundamental to the longevity of the organisation:
Even though we are legally a normal food business, we do it in a very collaborative way. Over the years, there have been many ups and downs where I look back and think that if we were just a normal straight business, with none of those [collaboration] principles underlying it, we would have been out of business a long time ago.
Pursuing this further, some participants observed that learning from others’ experiences was crucial to a successful initiative. “We were able to stand on the shoulders of giants”, noted Alex based on the experience that was acquired from other practitioners to support the design and implementation of a program. Some of these collaboration practices were formal partnerships. For example, based on the operation of a food rescue organisation, Lou described the basis of the partnership with supermarkets: “We are helping our food donors to meet their targets of reducing food waste and reducing waste to landfill, helping them to achieve their corporate social responsibility goals. And, they are helping us to feed people”. Opposed to the idea of formal partnerships, Charlie noted that the street kitchen program in which he is involved is entirely run by volunteers and sources the food mostly from ‘dumpster
88 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
diving’ – a practice through which edible food is collected from commercial rubbish bins. For Charlie, this was a considered a positive practice because it reduces the reliance on other organisations and reinforces the autonomy of the initiative as a social movement.
Moving from the initiative level to the local and national levels, collaboration was understood as an articulation of roles, strategies and resources to achieve a common purpose, often food security. “If you want to truly address food insecurity, it has to have collaboration involved. Collaboration within all levels of government and collaboration within all actors, everybody from manufacturers, researchers, and individuals”, stated Jules. This approach was mostly explored by enablers, who were not directly involved with the everyday operations of an initiative. At the local level, participants noted various programs that articulate producers, consumers, social enterprises, communities and local governments to transform local food systems. Jesse, involved in some local initiatives, mentioned that the collaboration can start from a government led initiative or from a grassroots articulation of multiple stakeholders:
That is where you can bring together community groups, local governments and other stakeholders to collaborate through policies, programs and infrastructure, in isolation or in combination, to meet a whole variety of great outcomes for that community through food sharing.
Among examples from different states and territories in Australia, a few participants commented on the experience of a local shire, where a collective articulation involving various players has been proposed to improve health, nutrition and wellbeing among residents. The project is led by a 10-year vision that covers various aspects of the local food system, including overweight and obesity rates, jobs and business opportunities, and access to fresh food within a walking distance.
On the national level, collaboration is associated with networking to influence public awareness and policy. As examples of collaboration networks, participants noted the AFSA and the RTF, advocacy organisations that operate in complementary agendas. Ash described what members of the RTF expect from the coalition: “They want opportunities to network and collaborate with likeminded peers. They want opportunities to raise awareness about household food insecurity and nutrition inequities in Australia. [And] they want to join for stronger advocacy and opportunities
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 89
for policy influence”. However, Kerry commented that the Australian food movement could collaborate more: “I do not think that we share information anywhere near enough or that we think about how we can actively collaborate together even if our perspectives are slightly different”. As an example of national collaboration to address another food system’s issue, Ash mentioned the articulation of efforts towards obesity prevention in Australia: “Groups in that area collaborated over the last couple of years and released a plan called ‘tipping the scales’, [where] they put policies and programs to government and others to provide a way forward to obesity prevention in Australia”.
The involvement with people experiencing food insecurity was spontaneously mentioned by a few interviewees, while most of them just elaborated on this level of collaboration after being prompted. Lee commented, “At the moment, the solutions to food insecurity in Australia rarely have a genuine involvement of the people who are experiencing food insecurity … There is no authentic genuine approach to this problem without it”. Some participants noted that there are a few initiatives built upon collaboration with people or communities that are experiencing food insecurity. These initiatives are explored in more detail in Section 6.4.
Overall, participants considered collaboration an essential practice to promote food security and sustainable food systems. In most cases, this characteristic of the sharing economy was associated with aspects of the place-based approach that supports the development of alternative economic approaches to addressing food insecurity (Gibson-Graham, 2006). Also, the evidence of collaboration beyond the local scale indicates practices of globalism, where place-based initiatives are engaged in external networks that share values, knowledge and experiences to promote change across places (Gibson-Graham, 2008b). Collaboration was also related to the orchestration of efforts to address food insecurity as a complex issue related to systemic determinants that affect individuals capacity to purchase or access food (Richards et al., 2016).
7.2 RESOURCES (RE)ALLOCATION
One of the core characteristics of the sharing economy is to optimise unused or underused resources (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Frenken & Schor, 2017; Schor, 2016). The optimisation of resources is often associated with the promotion of social,
90 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
economic and environmental benefits (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Frenken & Schor, 2017; Martin, 2016; Schor, 2016). In the context of food security, sharing underused resources is primarily associated with food but also involves other goods and assets. According to participants, food waste represents the most relevant underused resource that is shared to address food security.
In Australia, it is estimated that over 5.3 million tonnes of food are wasted across the food supply chain (Blue Environment, 2016). According to Sam, “the amount of food going to landfill is unnecessary and absurd”. Food rescue sets a link between food waste and food security by diverting edible food that would go to landfill to feed people experiencing food insecurity. The food rescue organisations receive donations from producers, manufactures, retailers, and local business, redistributing the food to charities that provide food relief. This association between food waste and food security was stated by Lou, based on experiences with a food rescue organisation: “What we do is actually to [work for] a world without food waste and free of hunger”.
However, while there is almost a consensus on the importance of optimising food waste, the implications of sharing food waste to address food security are a concern across interviewees. “Those two [food waste and food security] should not be conflated at all”, noted Sam. Several participants, including from food rescue organisations, observed that there is no evidence, in Australia or worldwide, supporting the use of food waste as an effective solution to food insecurity. On the contrary, a few participants reported that the evidence is that this approach increases disadvantages, for reasons such as lack of nutrition, undignifying practices, and irregular food supply, as presented in Section 5.5. Jules illustrated this concern with a quote from a British scholar who publishes on food waste and food security: “‘Leftover food for leftover people’, that is what says Elizabeth Dowler, from the UK. I think that is quite insightful”.
Adding to the limitations of food waste to address food security, a few participants mentioned that the food rescue sector is dealing with a small portion of food waste. Therefore, these interviewees observed that food rescue is not the main solution to food waste. In relation to this, some interviewees noted the recently launched National Food Waste Strategy which aims to halve Australia’s food waste by 2030 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017). Some participants consider this
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 91
initiative a great opportunity to address food system challenges. Ash, who experienced various roles in food systems, commented,
The food system is incredibly productive but, carefully considering nutritional needs in balance [with] what the environment can provide now and in future, is vital … We need a lot more prevention of waste, a lot more sustainable management of resources in the first place. We should not be producing the volume of food that we are or, if we are, we need to think about how to more equitably distribute it or store it for longer. It [minimising food waste] is hugely important. It is important now [and] it is going to get more important because of the environmental impacts of the food system.
Providing a counter perspective, a few participants observed that minimising food waste may have a negative effect on food rescue practices and food security. In Casey’s view, “Rescuing food can [be] a way to reduce food waste … but if measures are taken and less is wasted, there is no surplus food available. It is going to be even harder … to supply [food] to those in need”. Other ways to reduce food waste and address food insecurity were offered among participants who are not involved with food rescue sector. Examples are food swaps among communities and dumpster diving by vulnerable people and people that embrace an anti-consumerist lifestyle such as ‘freegans’ (Edwards, 2011; Edwards & Mercer, 2010).
In addition to food waste, other examples of shared resources such as land, spaces, infrastructure and services were explored in the interviews (Davies et al., 2017b). Sharing these underused resources was considered a valuable contribution to the viability of the initiatives. Interviewees referred to shared land as an opportunity to produce food at a lower cost to supply demand from local customers and people experiencing food insecurity. Chris commented on the conditions of a land shared for an urban farming program:
[The program] develops under-utilised land into urban farms to grow food for those in need. [A certain location] is a fully fenced [area], there is no access to water or electricity, but [they] can use the water across the fence [from neighbour] and put tanks in [to supply the garden beds]. It is just gravel on the floor, it is an old construction site. So, this is a site where [the program] created the garden beds. [They] carve out the cavity and put in manure, soil, compost and that is the growing medium.
92 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
The use of vacant land, mostly in urban and peri-urban areas, has been discussed in the literature as an example of the sharing economy associated with food production (Davies et al., 2017b; Miralles et al., 2017; Wekerle & Classens, 2015). Beyond land, participants commented on the utilisation of public spaces (streets and parks), infrastructure (community kitchens), and services (digital platforms) (Davies et al., 2017b).
Overall, sharing underused resources presents contributions and constraints to food security. On one hand, it can optimise the available food, giving access to the population that is food insecure, and convert underused stuff, spaces and skills to facilitate solutions (Davies et al., 2017b). On the other hand, it does not address issues of nutrition, stability of food supply and broader politics. The mobilisation of local resources to address food insecurity and other issues of a local food system can be considered part of the process to develop community economies (Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2011).
7.3 SHORTER SUPPLY CHAINS
As outlined in the sharing economy literature, access to underused resources can be promoted by articulating more direct relations among individuals and groups, or individuals and organisations (Acquier et al., 2017; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Martin, 2016; Richardson, 2015; Sundararajan, 2014). These more direct relations are translated into the articulation of shorter supply chains, often associated with peer-to- peer transactions. To assess the relevance of shorter supply chains to food security, participants were asked to describe the importance of this characteristic and provide examples from the Australian context. In response, they explored the articulation of shorter supply chain from three perspectives: reducing intermediaries, fairness and transparency, and geographic re-localisation.
When discussing shorter supply chains, most participants firstly focused on the reduction of intermediaries, also called ‘middle men’. According to them, the conventional supply chains are extensive, with several middle men taking a share, which ultimately adds to the retail price or reduces the price to farmers. In the Australian context, participants observed that the current supply chain, where the food retail market is dominated by the supermarket duopoly, represents a threat to food
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 93
security. Ash commented that “there is only two retailers and they have so much power in the space. When you talk about household food insecurity … for many people, once you are priced out of Coles and Woolworths, there is only the food charities. There is not much in between”. Interviewees noted that shorter supply chains can contribute to reduce transactional costs and, therefore, reduce prices to consumers. Lee commented on an ideal scenario for a shorter supply chain: “If we go through a more utopian scenario, where you get food straight from the farm, that food would be much more affordable … That could make a huge impact for food security, but unfortunately that is a utopian scenario”. However, other participants mentioned that the optimum model does not necessarily completely eliminate intermediaries. There are important gains in terms of scale and logistics when middle men are involved.
Among interviewees, the most common examples of shorter supply chains with less intermediaries were the food hubs. Often, food hubs are the only agents between farmers and consumers. Food Connect, a food hub operating in Brisbane, was a recurrent example across the interviews. Kerry explained how food hubs can contribute to food security:
If you cut out a whole range of different actors or middle men along the supply chain, and direct connect the producers and the consumers through an aggregated service, then you enable producers to receive a higher margin on the product ... and allow consumers to access that produce at a lower rate … I think food hubs are definitely a model that has capacity to address issues of food insecurity.
Another example used in the interviews is affordable markets. According to participants, often this model does not shorten the supply chain, but replaces a traditional middle man, embedding practices that were considered more equitable than the conventional. Affordable markets provide access to food for reduced price in communities or to populations that are in economic hardship. The most common example given by participants was the Community Grocer, operating in the outer suburbs of Melbourne. Toni, who follows this experience, explains how this model can contribute to increase access to food:
The Community Grocer is an affordable pop up food market that sources fresh produce from the wholesale market and take it to where people live, particularly disadvantaged groups in social housing. They make that food available once a week at a price that is 30 percent less than in the supermarkets.
94 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
On the contrary, participants commented that food rescue organisations represent an additional intermediary in the supply chain, connecting supermarkets and charities that provide food relief. Overall, reducing intermediaries is understood to contribute to more affordable food, eliminating some of the economic barriers that prevent people to purchase their food.
The second perspective explored by participants is fairness and transparency in shorter supply chains. According to them, an ethical intermediation can produce positive outcomes for farmers and consumers. The most common example given by participants was the CSA model in which consumers pay upfront for a share of the farmer’s produce. Pat explained how a shorter supply chain can contribute to establish a fairer relationship with farmers:
[A shorter supply chain] is important, mainly from a farmer empowerment point of view. There is less distance between the seller and the supplier, and that means that most of the money goes back to the farmer. The farmer gets to be a price maker instead of a price taker, which encourages them to keep farming. Whereas in the central market system, there is so much exploitation that goes on with farmers. Once the produce leaves their farmgate they have no idea of what happens to it, at the other end. Often, they will get a call from an agent saying: ‘we have got your pumpkins, but they do not have a good quality. You are not getting any money for it’ or ‘we have got your pumpkins, we will not be able to pay you for 90 days’. So, there is no control to the farmer whatsoever in that system. By having these direct relationships, we are able to share the risk with the farmer, who has traditionally bore the brunt of all the risk in the food system and thereby becomes very vulnerable to all sorts of impacts financial, climate, health.
Linking this debate with food security, some participants commented that a fair price can place a tension in the supply chain: “Sometimes there is a conflict between the objective to pay a fair price to farmers and get the affordability at the other end to consumers. Often, in the mainstream system, all those costs [environmental and social justice] are externalized”, observed Kim.
The third perspective explored by interviewees is re-localisation. This was considered the most important feature of shorter supply chains to promote food security. Although the sense of ‘locality’ amongst interviewees varied, most of them
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 95
referred to urban or regional contexts. According to participants, re-localisation often represents a community-based solution, addressing a range of issues associated with food security (Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2011). One aspect of re-localisation is local food production as an effort to support current and new farmers to grow food for local customers. Alex noted,
Why would you be growing food if you are not able to sell to the supermarkets? We are trying to demonstrate that there is a demand [for local food through alternative channels of distribution], then there is reason to grow food in a small scale and using regenerative practices.
This practice contrasts with the conventional supply chain, which is described by Pat:
We have a situation in Australia where our food system has a central market in each major capital city. For example, in Queensland, there may be banana growers up north, which is over two thousand kilometres away. They cannot sell locally into the supermarkets. They have to send their bananas all the way to the central markets in Brisbane, then the central markets put them back on a truck and send all the way back to the supermarkets up there, and then they can buy their bananas back. It is extremely inefficient.
Aligned with the example above, participants commented on the environmental benefits of a local food system, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions from transport and supports regenerative agriculture practices. In addition, Chris observed that local production can increase food security in periods of crisis: “There is only 3 days supply of food in the stores … Five days for the warehouses, then the military will take over …, and there is no one growing any food [in the city]”. However, Kerry commented on the limitations of local food production in metropolitan contexts:
The idea that we could re-localise the food production [of a metropolitan city], without a significant redesign of the city, seems out of reach. It is quite difficult to think about a large re-localisation of the food economy in a way that would impact on a significant population density.
Beyond food production, participants commented on social connectivity at the local level. According to them, re-localisation enables closer relations between local producers, commercial outlets, community, and even the local environment. Some
96 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
examples offered by participants were consumers helping farmers after extreme weather events, and local businesses being genuinely committed to customers satisfaction. However, participants noted that this cannot be a radical idea. “We are not going to get everything we need from this bio region, we still need to import things like chocolate, coffee, teas”, noted Pat. Adding to that, participants also referred to economic resilience as an outcome of re-localisation. Pat commented, “If you invest in locally owned and produced businesses, and growers, and makers, that has a multiplier effect economically. That dollar goes on to an employee who then spends it locally, bringing financial resilience to the local community”. Complementing this point of view, Jay contrasted corporate globalisation and re-localisation: “Corporate globalisation is what worries me, and localisation is a cure for that. It reduces standardisation, mass production, industrial scale … People have been in control of the small local business, of the supply chain”.
In summary, participants considered that shorter supply chains are a fundamental factor in overcoming some barriers to access to food and that they contribute to promoting other conditions of food security. The reduction of intermediaries (middle- men) indicates an opportunity to provide food at more affordable prices to end-users or adopt a fair price policy along the supply chain. The re-localisation of supply chains can address geographic barriers that affect access to food. Moreover, shorter supply chains are regarded by interviewees to establish more transparent and engaging relations among different actors. Although there are constraints that require critical consideration, the contributions of shorter supply chains indicate the potential contribution of the sharing economy to a decentralised, equitable, and sustainable food system (Carolan, 2013; Martin, 2016).
7.4 DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND TECHNOLOGY
The use of digital platforms and technology has often been perceived as a common characteristic of the most recent manifestations of the sharing economy, as described in the literature (Belk, 2014; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Richardson, 2015). However, it was almost a consensus among participants that technology is an enabler, not a major characteristic of the sharing economy. For most interviewees, the use of digital platforms was not considered essential to promote food security. Often,
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 97
participants attributed value to digital platforms and technology based on the contribution given to marketing, operational, or decision-making processes.
In marketing processes, social media (Facebook, Instagram) and other communication tools (Skype, Zoom, websites) were commonly employed by the initiatives. Most participants mentioned that these tools enable low-cost marketing of products to customers: “That is really valuable, especially when you are competing against big players in the food system, and you do not have a marketing budget. Those freely available digital platforms are very handy”, commented Pat, who uses social media to support a food business. In addition, some participants also commented about the contribution that social media and communication tools make to connect people regardless of geographic distances: “We can be connected even though different practitioners might be in different parts of the country. In a big country like Australia, it [digital platforms] really helps with connectivity”, stated Ash, involved in national networks. Adding to that, Kerry noted that online communities of practice could be an interesting way to share experiences, but he also noted,
What digital technologies and platforms need to be effective is a critical mass of users. [For example, there is] an online forum which is a communication platform for different food movements and users across Australia. It is good, there is nothing wrong with it, [but] no one uses it.
Contrary to what most participants observed, a few interviewees noted that social media has no relevance for their initiatives because they are primarily grounded in face-to-face relations. Charlie, who works as a mobiliser for a grassroots program, commented, “[The program] is run just by face-to-face contact, social media is not a big part of what we do”. The importance of the real contact, as opposed to virtual contact, was explored by other participants. Jay, who articulates a national network, noted: “[Technology] can bring people together, but not by itself at all. If you do not have good enablers, a Zoom meeting is just like any other bad meeting … [Zoom] is just another tool”.
The importance of digital platforms became more salient when exploring its contributions to operational processes. For initiatives that have online transactions (e- commerce), digital platforms were considered essential to run the business. In this case, the use of technology contributes directly to reduce transactional costs or support management processes. Based on the experience of a program that handles online
98 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
transactions, Alex commented: “It is extremely important. We are using a number of platforms to be able to manage subscriptions, payments and other stuff”. The contribution of digital platforms was also valued by food rescue organisations. According to participants, these organisations use technologies to support the logistics of food. “Our drivers connect back into home branch using an app, which allows us to monitor where they are, what is being picked up, how much is being picked up, and what is being dropped off”, described Casey, a participant working for a food rescue organisation. As an outstanding example of the use of technology for food rescue, a few participants mentioned Yume. As noted above, Yume is a platform-based marketplace that sells or donates food surplus, redistributing food that otherwise would become food waste. Jules, explained how Yume works and how this type of digital platform could be employed to promote food sharing among food relief charities on as on-demand basis:
Yume is an electronic platform [that] matches surplus food with somebody who needs food. For example, a hotel is running a function and they realised that they over ordered on the salmon, they post on the platform … and somebody can access the food. It [the food] might go to another restaurant, or it might also go to a charity. There is a sense of coordination of food surplus … There was also some suggestions that something similar would be useful specifically for charitable food relief. The idea behind is that … if [charitable] services are running low on stock, sharing could occur … in an electronic based interface.
From another perspective, Sam commented on the contribution of digital platforms to increase the scale of operations: “That is a tool to expand your business. If you have got a good value proposition, a good offer, technology can help promoting the product for potential new customers or existing customers”. Complementing this view, Pat observed, based on experience in another food business, “[Digital platforms] allow us to get a lot further reach with less dollars”. The contribution of technology to increase the scale of the local initiatives was explored by Kim, who considered technology essential for replication:
There are people on the ground, working on very localised solutions and models, but there has to be a way that we can share that amongst everyone across Australia. There is no other way than through technology, to get that scale through replication.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 99
However, most participants observed two downsides of operational digital platforms: the cost of development, and the complexity of combining different platforms to address the specific business needs. “It has been quite complex and quite costly”, noted Alex. In this context, many interviewees mentioned the Open Food Network, which is a free open source platform that connects producers and consumers, as a solution to reduce costs amongst initiatives, increase efficiency of operations, and enable access to other markets. While they value the contribution of this shared solution, participants also observed that this is not a solution that attends to all the needs.
In addition, the Open Food Network was cited as one amongst few other examples of the use of digital platforms to decision-making process. Jesse, who is involved in decision-making processes via digital platforms, described how the Open Food Network uses technology to engage partners from different countries on decisions related to governance, budget, innovation, and strategic direction:
The Open Food Network has taken an idea from Australia and now have partners around the world. They are really open in terms of communicating and making decisions with those partners, transparently through online tools. So, they try to be as inclusive as possible, to welcome those stakeholders in, to have conversations, to make decisions collaboratively. That is a good example of how they have used technology to develop inclusive decision making in governance.
Although there are very few examples like this, using technology for decision- making processes was considered a relevant practice to enhance participation and transparency among various stakeholders. In this context, participants often used open source platforms such as Loomio, Discourse, and Cobudget. In addition, some interviewees mentioned current or possible examples for the use of digital platforms: mapping resources available in a certain locality, providing up to date information that facilitates access to food relief for homeless people; and engaging with communities though social media campaigns. The Open Food Network was a recurrent example amongst interviewees that illustrates how digital technologies can be used for various functions in the organisation and be integrated to the purpose of promoting change.
Overall, participants understand that digital platforms play a role in enabling transactions but has a limited role in changing the causes of food insecurity. This is well summarised by Toni, who noted,
100 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Technology [has] got a role to play, but these questions [food security] are fundamentally political and economic. [They] are not going to be resolved by some app or technologic platform. These are fundamentally political questions about wealth and power in society, who has it and who does not, [and] how it is distributed.
In a similar vein, Jay, commented that technology is bringing dramatic changes to commercial processes but has made only a very limited contribution to diverting power structures to promote more democratic processes. Notably, in the context of food security, none of the participants noted the relevance of digital technologies to enable collective action or civic engagement, although this is a topic that has been researched for food movements in Australia and other countries (Carolan, 2017; Mann, 2018; Schneider, Eli, Dolan, & Ulijaszek, 2018). From the perspective of participants, digital platforms and technologies can be considered instruments of sharing, rather than key components of the sharing economy.
7.5 SUMMARY
In this chapter, participants presented their perceptions and experiences on four characteristics of the sharing economy: collaboration, resources (re)allocation, shorter supply chains, and use of digital platforms and technologies. Based on participant data, collaboration is considered an essential characteristic to address food insecurity. However, it is practiced in different ways by different types of initiatives. For some, collaboration is more related to institutional partnerships, while for others it is represented by community involvement. Resourses (re)allocation is often, but not only, related to food waste. Although this is a very common characteristic of the sharing economy, participants believe that sharing underused resources (especially food waste) offers a limited contribution to food security in the long term. In addition, shorter supply chains have also been considered a relevant characteristic to overcome barriers to access to food. Participants’ perspectives indicate that digital platforms are not critical to promote food security. These technologies are considered enablers which contribute to cost reduction and managerial processes. Overall, these findings suggest that collaboration and shorter supply chains are the main characteristics that contribute to promote adequate access to food (i.e., overcoming geographic and economic
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 101
barriers) and access to adequate food (i.e., food that is healthy, nutritious, sustainable). The articulation of these characteristics to enhance food security in Australia are discussed in Chapter Eight.
102 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions
The sharing economy initiatives are emerging as new forms of alternative economic activities around food, mobilising people, resources and knowledge to improve food security at the community level. The findings show contrasting perspectives on the sharing economy, contrasting the transactional and the transformative approaches. The transactional approach is more concerned about resource allocation while the transformative focusses on individual and community transformation. However, a third approach emerges from the empirical data. This approach has been defined in this study as ‘transitional’ and represents a combination of the transactional and transformative approaches, with the key aim of promoting equitable access to food. Although the most recent and widespread forms of the sharing economy are based on digital platforms, this thesis demonstrates that they are not central to food security. More important are the utilisation of underused resources, articulation of shorter supply chains, and collaboration. These characteristics are employed, in isolation or in combination, to make direct contributions to food security. Although the examples drawn from this research do not represent the totality of the practical field, they provide evidence of the breadth of experiences contributing to food security, directly or indirectly, in the short and long terms.
Based on these findings, the following sections discuss the implications of the sharing economy approaches to food security in Australia. The discussion aims to address the research questions defined for this study:
(1) What are the contributions and constraints of the sharing economy to food security in Australia?
(2) How do food sharing initiatives engage in diverse economic activities to promote food security?
(3) How is the sharing economy promoting access to food for individuals or groups experiencing food insecurity?
The next section elaborates on three sharing economy typologies that are drawn from the findings: transactional, transformative, and transitional. Framed by the diverse economies theory, these approaches are discussed in terms of their implications
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 103
to food security. Following this, the second section examines three models that emerged from the data to provide access to food. The section also elaborates on aspects that are required to fully address food security, such as health and wellbeing, sustainability, and ownership and control. At the end of this section, the discussion focuses on the need for government regulations and policies that is evidenced by the data. Following the discussion sections, this chapter presents theoretical and practical contributions, limitations of the study and implications for future research. This chapter closes with the conclusions on this research, which indicate that the sharing economy offers possibilities beyond the mainstream strategies to address food insecurity in Australia. However, there are limitations at the initiative and institutional levels that constrain transformative outcomes.
8.1 THE SHARING ECONOMY SPECTRUM
This section presents three typologies of the sharing economy that emerged from the data: transactional, transformative and transitional. While the first typologies are named from participant data, the third typology is named by this study reflecting a set of practices identified in the data. When exploring these typologies, participant data suggest that rather than being divergent, these typologies are combined along a spectrum of the sharing economy approaches. Framed by the diverse economies theory, this section analyses these typologies as a range of possible approaches that can be considered to address food insecurity in Australia. This section contributes to addressing the first research question and responds to the second research question, respectively: What are the contributions and constraints of the sharing economy to food security in Australia? and how do food sharing initiatives engage in diverse economic activities to promote food security?
8.1.1 The transactional sharing economy The interview data show the transactional sharing economy is often enacting capitalist practices, but also employs non-capitalist and alternative practices (Gibson- Graham, 2006, 2014). Often based on digital platforms, these initiatives offer innovative access to goods and services, conferring monetary value to ‘lazy assets’, to borrow an expression from Jesse (see Section 6.1). Although the rhetoric of these
104 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
initiatives may present a contribution to sustainability, this aspect is often subjugated to a capitalist mindset of profit maximisation and accumulation (Gibson-Graham, 2006, 2014). The non-use of the sharing economy terminology in the food security scene may derive from the immediate association of the term with initiatives like Airbnb and Uber, which the literature has been calling ‘neoliberalism on steroids’ (Morozov, 2013; Murillo et al., 2017; Richardson, 2015).
The literature indicates that neoliberal forms of capitalism have been unable to address food insecurity in any meaningful way (Richards et al., 2016). Notably, the contributions of the transactional sharing economy to food security seems to replicate this outcome. In the Australian food security context, the example that emerges from the research data is Yume. Yume’s public website positions the organisation as an alternative business: “Yume’s mission is to create a world without waste by facilitating the sale and donation of surplus food that may have otherwise been discarded” (Yume, 2018, para.1). However, in terms of food security, its approach is not different from conventional food wholesalers or retailers. Yume started with a retail operation, using an app to commercialise discount surplus meals between restaurants and individual customers (Boothroyd, 2015). In that model, Yume was addressing food insecurity more directly by promoting access to more affordable meals. However, the app is no longer available for download, which indicates discontinuation of the model. Meanwhile, Yume started a wholesale operation, creating an online secondary market that commercialises large amounts of food waste from manufacturers, supermarkets and hospitality services. This strategic shift can be explained by the literature, which indicates that, over time, sharing economy initiatives in a market-driven model are pressured to step back from ‘good will’ goals to respond to commercial interests (Murillo et al., 2017). In this wholesale business model, aligned with the food industry, Yume contributes to food security by providing donations of non-commercialised goods to food rescue organisations, a non-capitalist practice (Gibson-Graham, 2006, 2014). The literature says that food rescue organisations deal with a small proportion of edible food waste (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017). However, one can argue that in diverting food waste back into the markets, Yume can jeopardise the volume and quality of donations to food rescue organisations. In this case, the quote used by Jules seems to gain stronger contours: “leftover food for leftover people”.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 105
8.1.2 The transformative sharing economy At the other end of the sharing economy spectrum, the transformative sharing economy as reported here is more related to non-capitalist practices, but also employs some alternative and capitalist practices (Gibson-Graham, 2006, 2014). The findings associate this typology with a multiplicity of economic practices, such as swapping, bartering, gifting, collecting, and sharing. Often, monetary transactions are absent or irrelevant, and these practices take place in common spaces, neighbourhoods, backyards and streets. As illustrated in the iceberg metaphor proposed by Gibson- Graham (2006), the transformative sharing economy is enacted through economic practices that transcend capitalist representations of what constitutes the economy. The findings reveal various representations of the non-capitalist sharing economy, which result from individual or community efforts mostly based on volunteer work or informal organisations. This economic diversity is produced through experiences such as a street kitchen movement that uses public spaces to serve free meals to anyone on the street. The meals are prepared by volunteers in community kitchens or shared houses and made from ingredients that are collected through dumpster diving. Further examples drawn from the research data are community farming or gardening initiatives, where people produce food for self-provisioning or to give away to others. Moving from an organised collective to an individual sphere, food swapping among neighbours is regarded to be part of the transformative sharing economy that can be performed anywhere by anyone, but was not within the scope of this research.
The findings indicate that these practices contribute to alternative food provision, allowing communities and individuals to exert levels of self-provision, so that they are less dependent on mass food production and on the supermarket duopoly. Also, according to the research data, the most significant contribution to food security comes from promoting spaces that cultivate democratic participation and social wellbeing. Some of the examples noted are the street kitchen (described in the previous paragraph), community barbecues where people share meals in public spaces (regularly or sporadically), and community farms that are run by volunteers or vulnerable communities. This corroborates Levkoe (2006) argument that alternative food spaces promote citizenship type relations rather than consumer relations.
However, the findings indicate that most of these practices promote ad hoc access to food. As such, this typology can contribute to providing access to food in
106 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
situational food insecurity. When food insecurity is chronic, however, the transformative sharing economy is unable to ensure ongoing access to food. In addition, findings demonstrate that for most of these initiatives, food is seen as a way to promote community, social inclusion and wellbeing, and in doing so, these initiatives may address aspects of food insecurity. This approach to food security evidences Carolan (2013) claim that food security should have a ‘through food’ approach where the ultimate goal is social and individual wellbeing. Interview data shows that the regularity and continuity of these practices is dependent on volunteer engagement and precarious access to resources (i.e., vacant land, commercial food waste). Although initiatives of the transformative sharing economy are often small scale, they can be scaled up through replication in different places. Overall, the transformative sharing economy emphasises the sharing over the economy (Carolan, 2018). Although this typology makes marginal contribution to access to food, it promotes community bonding, wellbeing, and agency, which are considered important drivers for local transformation towards a more equitable food system (Levkoe, 2006).
8.1.3 The transitional sharing economy Between the transactional and the transformative approaches, the spectrum of the sharing economy is represented by a variety of models that combine transactional operations to achieve transformative outcomes, here called transitional sharing economy. The transitional sharing economy often enacts alternative, capitalist and non-capitalist economic practices (Gibson-Graham, 2006, 2014). Evidencing the economic diversity, this sharing economy approach aims to enable alternative access to goods and services through values-driven market relations (Gibson-Graham, 2006, 2014; Martin, 2016). The findings also show that it is mostly comprised of formal organisations such as co-operatives, social enterprises, community enterprises, and not-for-profit organisations. Often, they are run by a dedicated paid work force, which can be employed or have a share in the business. Nonetheless, they also count on voluntary work as a means to maintain community connectivity and reduce operational costs. These organisations are financially supported by a range of sources: commercial operations (revenues), corporate donations (financial and in-kind), government grants, and community support (crowdfunding).
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 107
The transitional sharing economy promotes access to food “for free or for a fee” (Botsman, 2015, para. 13). The most relevant model that provides food for free is food relief, the main strategy in place to address food insecurity in Australia. The food relief charities are supported by food rescue organisations, which are another example of the transitional sharing economy. Food rescue involves a complex logistics of food waste that aims to achieve positive outcomes in terms of food waste reduction and food relief. The findings indicate that food rescue organisations employ alternative and non- capitalist economic practices, such as non-profit enterprise structure, volunteer work and in-kind donations. However, the research data and the literature are critical of this model, especially because of its alignment with private corporate interests (Booth & Whelan, 2014), which can be evidenced when the food security agenda is conflated, if not subordinated, to the food waste agenda and the role that major supermarkets play in this. This example demonstrates how the food rescue organisations can replicate neoliberal politics, rather than a politics of place (Gibson-Graham, 2004). Moreover, the findings show that the over-reliance on this model constrains the development of other models to address food insecurity in a meaningful manner.
In terms of models that provide food for a fee (or price), there are various examples evidenced in the research data. The first set of examples are models that practice fair prices, reflecting the aim of promoting sustainable food systems. The data points to examples such as the CSA programs or food hubs, which connect farmers and consumers to articulate local, fair and sustainable supply chains, and the Open Food Network, an example of digital platforms employed to facilitate these connections between producers and consumers and aiming to enable alternative markets via shorter supply chains. Another set of examples offer food for more affordable prices. The most relevant models include pop-ups markets that are designed to offer food at more affordable prices to populations in food deserts. More affordable prices are also the goal for buyers’ clubs, box schemes and consumers’ cooperatives, which combine individual demands and make bulk purchases. The models of the transitional sharing economy aim to promote access to food. To understand their contribution to food security, the next section discusses how three of these models — food relief, CSAs and affordable markets — are overcoming geographic and economic barriers that conventional food systems have been unable to overcome.
108 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
In order to achieve transformative outcomes, the findings show that most models related to the transitional sharing economy internalise costs that conventional businesses externalise to society or environment. Therefore, they require external funding, complementing the commercial revenues, to became financially sustainable. However, participant data shows that these models struggle to access ongoing funding. Currently, most of them rely on external resources such as donations and volunteer work to support their operations. The findings also indicate that some of them employ practices of negotiation and accommodation of interests, looking for the best possible solution, rather than the ideal solution. For example, the pop-up markets opted to source the produce from conventional wholesalers rather than from alternative food providers that have fairer and sustainable practices. According to participant data, this practice ensures more affordable prices to end-users and contribute to cost reduction. However, this practice can expose end-users to issues related to health, price volatility, and in the long term, continuity of the model.
8.2 SHARING ACCESS TO FOOD
This section presents contributions and constraints of the sharing economy in promoting food security. At first, the section examines how the sharing economy promotes access to food as a critical pathway to overcoming food insecurity. Drawing on three main models that emerge from the findings, the discussion analyses: food for free (food relief), food for a fair price (CSAs), and food for a subsidised price (affordable markets). Complementing this analysis, the discussion examines the sharing economy contributions to health and wellbeing, sustainability, and ownership. Also, the discussion elaborates on the need for government interventions to promote systemic change. These aspects are flagged by participant data as important to fully addressing food insecurity in Australia. Therefore, this section complements the previous in addressing the first research question and also answers the third research question of this study: What are the contributions and constraints of the sharing economy to food security in Australia? and how is the sharing economy promoting access to food for individuals or groups experiencing food insecurity?
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 109
8.2.1 Food for free In Australia, food rescue organisations play a significant role in promoting access to food for free, diverting edible food waste from landfill to charities that distribute parcels or meals to people in need. As shown in the empirical data and in the literature, this is the major strategy for food security in Australia (Booth & Whelan, 2014). Although this model contributes to the alleviation of food insecurity in the short term, it does not ensure ongoing access to food nor is it concerned with issues such as health, wellbeing and dignity. These limitations are discussed in the literature (Booth & Whelan, 2014; Richards et al., 2016; Riches & Silvasti, 2014) and confirmed by the findings. The empirical data shows that the food rescue sector develops collaboration with multiple players to match ‘needs and haves’ (Botsman, 2015). On one side, there is the conventional supply chain focused on food waste reduction and, on the other side, there are food relief organisations aiming to alleviate food insecurity. However, the launch of the National Food Waste Strategy in November 2017 highlights concerns about the future of food waste, hence, food rescue and relief (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017). For some participants, a significant reduction of food waste is a step towards a more sustainable food system. For others, a reduction can represent less food to feed food-insecure people. These divergent findings demonstrate the vulnerability of a model reliant on food waste, which can provide unstable food supply. This instability compromises access to food for people that are experiencing food insecurity.
Another controversial aspect of food rescue is that instead of shortening the supply chain, as expected from a sharing economy approach, food rescue operations add intermediaries to the conventional food supply chain. Drawing from the empirical data, Figure 8.1 illustrates how these additional intermediaries relate to the conventional food supply chain. The literature recognises that this model brings efficiency to the food waste distribution by centralising the collection and distribution to charities (Booth & Whelan, 2014). However, the additional intermediation implies supplementary costs and resources, which reveal a contradiction of this model. In food rescue, the sharing economy needs to mobilise extra resources to better utilise the resources available. This is evidenced by the reliance of these organisations on financial donations and grants to support their operations. Overall, the additional cost needed to operate this model is internalised by the conventional economic system or
110 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
externalised to society and the environment. In either case, by addressing food security through access to free food, this sharing economy model can be intensifying structural social, environmental and economic injustices (Sen, 1981).
Figure 8.1. Access through food for free
8.2.2 Food for fair price In a different vein, the sharing economy also shares food for a fee or a price. According to participant data, in some instances the prices are similar to the prices set by supermarkets and conventional food outlets. In other instances, prices are subsidised to provide access to more affordable food. The first model is often related to CSA programs which articulate an alternative supply chain, partnering with local farmers and community to match supply and demand. The food is produced locally using environmental-friendly practices and is commercialised at fair prices. Corroborated by the literature (Dixon & Richards, 2016), the interview data demonstrate that this sharing economy model can benefit local food systems and create other channels of access to food, but provides limited contribution to promote access
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 111
to food for people experiencing food insecurity. As noted by Kim, there is a tension between fair prices to the farmer and affordability to end-users. Participant data indicate that the cost reduction obtained through a shorter supply chain (Figure 8.2) is allocated to ensure fair prices to farmers or to internalise other social and environmental issues. The benefits for consumers are related to the quality of the produce, which is considered healthier, and also to fairer relations along the supply chain and more sustainable practices. However, the prices remain equivalent to conventional food outlets. According to Alkon et al. (2013), the decision of what to eat is informed by the cost of food, rather than the quality or physical distance.
These initiatives, which are small in scale, often share the intent to expand their operations as a way to achieve financial viability and increase impact. According to the interview data, this is the only circumstance when digital platforms can make a contribution. However, the findings suggest that development and implementation of digital technologies represent significant investments which often are unavailable. Even though food security is embedded in the fairness discourse, it is not considered a viable focus to be executed.
Figure 8.2. Access through fair prices
112 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
8.2.3 Food for subsidised price The findings show that another sharing economy model is food for subsidised price, which aims to promote access to food via affordable markets. Through this model, the sharing economy promotes access to food by placing pop-up markets in low-income settings to sell food for lower prices than in conventional retail outlets. Based on participant data, Figure 8.3 illustrates how the affordable markets are related to the conventional food supply chain. The empirical findings presented here indicate that this sharing economy model overcomes some geographic and economic barriers, promoting access to food for people that are exposed to food insecurity. Participant data indicate that, with collaboration from the target population, these markets are designed to serve those who live in food deserts or who are food insecure. Contrary to the fair prices model, concerns related to fairness and sustainability along the supply chain are secondary. According to the findings, the focus of this model is to reduce prices through two strategies: (1) purchasing directly from the distributor, and (2) employing minimum margins on the final price. However, the practice, as described by research participants, shows that this is not enough to sustain the operations, especially at a small scale. Therefore, these sharing economy initiatives may rely on cross subsidies from different customer bases, donations and volunteer work. For example, the work of volunteers instead of a paid workforce can reduce cost for the organisation. The combination of alternative commercial transactions with non- capitalist labour and finance demonstrates the economic diversity in this sharing economy model (Gibson-Graham, 2014). Although the affordable markets can promote access to food in outer suburbs, they demonstrate limitations of the sharing economy to overcome systemic issues that affect food prices and sustainable food supply.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 113
Figure 8.3. Access through subsidised prices
8.2.4 Sharing more than food According to the findings, individuals' health and wellbeing are addressed in distinct ways among sharing economy players involved in food security. Most of the initiatives identified through this research have practices in place to share healthy and nutritious food to the target population. Drawing from the research data, an example is community agriculture programs which produce food employing ecological practices to donate to charities or for self-provision. Another example are shared meals (vegan or vegetarian) provided by some initiatives to people that are food insecure. On the contrary, some food rescue organisations and food relief charities are mostly concerned about “filling people’s hungry bellies”, as stated by Lee. In the macro context, the findings point to the need for regulations on the quality of food provided for free and on prices of food available in the markets. Currently, (ultra)industrialised food tends to be cheaper than fresh food (Patel, 2012), which impacts on the choices of people, especially when budgets are short (Alkon et al., 2013). In Australia, a regulatory framework towards quality and price of food is unlikely to happen under a neoliberal form of government (Richards et al., 2016). Nevertheless, contradictions of
114 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
this scenario emerge when participant data indicate an articulation of government efforts to address obesity. Albeit obesity is considered a facet of malnutrition and food insecurity, the data indicate that government’s obesity agenda is decoupled from food security and is driven by the financial impacts on the health care system.
The other aspect is sharing for sustainability. The findings evidence that this approach is often practiced through rescuing food waste and food production. Food waste has been widely discussed in the literature, as well as in the findings of this research (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017; Michelini et al., 2018; Morone, Falcone, Imbert, Morone, & Morone, 2016; Polackova & Poto, 2017; Richards & Hamilton, 2018). There has, however, been less attention to food production. In Australia, the sharing economy is mobilised to localise food production using ecological practices. Examples of urban and peri-urban initiatives are presented across the findings. Often, when employed in the food security context, these experiences are developed on shared, vacant or underutilised land. The land is used to produce food that can be distributed to people who are food insecure or be produced by people that are experiencing food insecurity. However, the relation with the land is precarious. The shared areas can be recalled at any time for housing or commercial purposes, including food production. This affects the capacity of initiatives to implement long-term investments that increase production (i.e., irrigation, infrastructure) and support the continuity of food provision. Based on participant data, the motivations for land sharing in the urban context are unclear. In the rural area, data suggest that land sharing is occurring as a result of droughts, ageing farmers and lack of economic incentives to recover lost crops. Some of the findings indicate that producing food in urban and peri- urban areas can be considered a resistance approach, rather than a feasible solution for major urban centres. Also, the findings indicate that when food production involves the population that is food insecure, the benefits to community building, social inclusion and agency are notable.
Moreover, in a broader perspective, interviewees also indicate that the involvement with people experiencing food insecurity is critical to promote transformative outcomes. Findings also evidence a different approach to ownership in the sharing economy. The literature on the sharing economy (Richardson, 2015) and food sharing (Carolan, 2018) argues that ownership in the sharing economy rejects the individualist form and embraces a collective mode that involves more social
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 115
participation and permits access to resources (i.e., land, community kitchen). Participant data shows a few initiatives that engage with the lower-income population, providing access to spaces where individuals and communities come together to contribute ideas, time and experiences. One of them is a community farming program where a vulnerable community takes control of the food production for self-provision. Although the community does not own the means to produce (i.e., land, seeds, machinery), it has access to these means through a sharing process. The importance of shared ownership and control to promote access to food links to the agenda on food sovereignty and food justice. These aspects focus on equality and democracy to transform food systems (Carolan, 2018; Clendenning et al., 2015; Jarosz, 2014; Mann, 2014).
Despite the contributions of the sharing economy to some aspects of food security, the findings reinforce the need to address structural issues through government involvement in addressing structural issues such as poverty (Richards et al., 2016). Food insecurity is on the rise in Australia (Foodbank, 2018). Meanwhile, the major solution of charitable services remains the same as decades ago and is highly controversial (Booth & Whelan, 2014; Richards et al., 2016). Aligned with the literature (Candel & Pereira, 2017; Farmar-Bowers, 2015), the findings demonstrate that governments need to be held to account to ensure that people have the means, physically and economically, to exert their right to food. However, under a neoliberal agenda, this role has not been fulfilled (Richards et al., 2016). Not only the most vulnerable population is affected (i.e., homeless people) by food insecurity. Interviewee experiences indicate that working class families are being affected by issues such as stagnant wages growth, increasing living costs (housing, utilities), food prices, and casualisation of the workforce. The research data confirmed that to address these issues in a meaningful way, governments need to have an integrated approach towards reasons why food insecurity is experienced in a major food producing nation. In this direction, while the national government are largely absent, with the expectation of provision for one-off emergency relief payments (Richards et al., 2016), the finding pointed to experiences that are happening at the local scale. Some local councils, such as Melbourne City Council, are developing local food policies that aim to transform local food systems and address food insecurity.
116 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
8.3 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS RESEARCH
Informed by the diverse economies theory, this research sheds light on sharing economy practices that are addressing issues related to food insecurity in Australia. These practices were identified and grouped into three typologies which constitute the first contribution of this research: (1) the transactional sharing economy, (2) the transformative sharing economy, and (3) the transitional sharing economy. These typologies evidence the inherent economic diversity of the sharing economy, combining capitalist, non-capitalist and alternative practices. Drawn in the context of food security in Australia, these typologies advance knowledge on the breadth of the sharing economy. The research provides a description of the typologies’ common characteristics and analyses their contributions and constraints to food security in Australia.
The transactional sharing economy takes a distributive approach, commonly focused on unused or underused resources, which, in the food (in)security scene, is represented by food waste or food surplus. Although environmental benefits are often associated with contributions to food security, these latter benefits are incremental in the short term and controversial in the long term. Showing a distinct approach, the transformative sharing economy is commonly an ongoing community-oriented practice. In this approach, the use of resources, such as food, land or spaces, is the means to transformative goals such as self-provisioning, agency, and community bonding. Although these practices may contribute to community transformation and social inclusion, access to food is mostly intermittent, thus, insufficient to ensure food security. While these two typologies reflect the dualism that is present in the sharing economy literature, the findings of this research reveal a third typology that employs transactional operations to achieve transformative outcomes. To promote food security, the transitional sharing economy focuses upon changes in the food supply chain to overcome some of the geographic and economic barriers that constrain people’s access to food. In these cases, access to food is more constant and there are efforts to give voice to the population. The challenge is to achieve a viable scale of operations without missing the transformative goal towards a more equitable and sustainable food system.
The gap identified in the literature review show limited empirical evidence on the contributions of the sharing economy to promote equitable access to goods and
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 117
services, especially for marginalised populations. Addressing this gap, this research also provides empirical evidence to understand if and how the sharing economy promotes access to food to individuals or groups that are food insecure. Food insecurity is experienced by vulnerable populations that are in the margins or excluded from the conventional economy (Richards et al., 2016). Moreover, in Australia there is evidence that food insecurity is also affecting working class households (Foodbank, 2018). This research highlights three operational models (food relief, CSA, affordable markets) that enable access to food for free or food for a fee. Based on key characteristics of the sharing economy that were drawn from the data (collaboration, resources (re)allocation, and shorter supply chains), these operational models were analysed in terms of their capacity to overcome social, geographic and economic barriers to enable continuous access to food.
It can be argued that food relief (food for free), the mainstream model in Australia, overcomes issues of affordability in the short term but does not enable enduring access to food. Moreover, in the long term, the costs associated with this model can be internalised by the food supply chain, potentially affecting the overall prices of food. The second model ‘food for fair price’ is often associated with CSAs. This model addresses social, environmental and economic inequities along the supply chain and overcome some geographic barriers. However, confirming the literature on AFNs, this sharing economy model does not overcome socioeconomic barriers, having a limited contribution to providing access to food to the population that is food insecure. The third model, ‘food for subsidised price’ is represented by affordable markets, which employ various practices to subsidise the price of food to end-users. In the short term, this model can overcome social, economic and geographic barriers by enabling regular access to more affordable food in urban food deserts. However, in the long term, this model is threatened by its scalability issues and financial viability. In practical terms, the identification of opportunities and constraints contribute to the development of current and new initiatives that aim to promote access to food for the population that is experiencing food insecurity.
This research makes a further contribution in that the findings indicate a paradoxical relationship between the sharing economy and structural socioeconomic inequalities. On the one hand, in the context of food (in)security in Australia, the emergence of the sharing economy cannot be justified by digital technologies but more
118 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
likely by a rise in socioeconomic inequalities that leads people to seek other ways to sustain their lives. On the other hand, although the sharing economy initiatives aim to promote food security, their contribution is restricted by socioeconomic inequalities such as unstable income not allowing regular access to food, urban sprawl leading to food deserts, the rise in living costs that impact on household food budgets, single parenting, old age, or illness that compromise the ability to engage in self-provisioning practices (Temple, 2008). Therefore, this research demonstrated that the sharing economy can enable access to food and offer other possibilities to address food insecurity in the country, rather than only food relief. Meanwhile, in order to achieve equitable access to food, there is a need to prioritise this agenda at the government level and articulate an institutional framework to overcome the structural barriers that exist in Australia. Therefore, in discussing the limitations of the sharing economy to address systemic issues, this research points to an agenda that can inform public policy makers and advocates, corroborating the literature on food security in Australia (Farmar-Bowers, 2015; Richards et al., 2016).
Overall, considering that the literature on the sharing economy is in a nascent stage of development, the sharing economy typologies suggested in this research contributes to expanding the theoretical understandings of this phenomenon. In practical terms, these diverse practices contrast with the current single solution adopted in Australia (i.e., emergency food relief). In addition, this research addresses the gap established in the literature review by providing empirical evidence on how the sharing economy promotes access to food as a core condition for food security. Reinforcing previous studies, the findings indicate that food relief is mostly concerned about food provisioning, regardless of the quality or individual preferences. In line with the FAO’s definition, most of the other initiatives mapped in this research are also concerned about issues of health, nutrition, dignity and sustainability (FAO et al., 2018). Nevertheless, the contributions of the sharing economy are constrained by structural inequalities that need to be addressed at national and other government levels to ensure food security in Australia.
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 119
8.4 LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
There are three key limitations that result from the research design employed in this study. The first is that this research was conducted in Australia, which is a so- called developed country under a neoliberal government regime. In terms of food systems, Australia produces more food than that which is needed to supply its population, indicating that food availability is not a problem. Therefore, the findings of this research reflect the Australian context and cannot be extended to other countries or regions without further considerations. However, the findings can contribute to other economic developed countries with ample food production and availability. The contributions of the sharing economy to countries that have different government regimes or follow a different pattern of food supply can contribute to expanding knowledge on the implications of the sharing economy to food security.
Another limitation of the research is the focus on urban and peri-urban areas. This limitation was a result of the research design and was reinforced by participants experiences. Only a few participants referred to rural and remote areas and, when they did, it was mostly related to the threats on farmers livelihoods. Although the development of this research led to a prevalence of the urban context, in Australia, food insecurity is reportedly more intense in country areas (Foodbank, 2018). Therefore, further research can also contribute to the exploration of the manifestations and contributions of the sharing economy in rural and remote areas.
The third limitation of this research is that data collection did not involve people experiencing food insecurity. In this sense, there is also an “empty chair”, borrowing the expression from Sam (a research participant). The research design was focused on how the sharing economy is mobilised, through its formal and informal initiatives, to address food insecurity. Therefore, the end-user’s perspective was not within the scope of this research but constitutes a relevant topic for future research. An exploration from the perspective of the population that is food insecure can deepen the understanding on the possibilities that the sharing economy offers to address access and agency of lower-income populations.
Other topics emerged from the findings which can be explored in future research. One topic for future research is land sharing in urban and rural settings, as a practice to address food security. Another topic is related to the launch of the National Food Waste strategy in November 2017. In the future, studies can explore the implications
120 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
of this strategy to food security and food relief provision from food waste. A third topic that can be further investigated is the proliferation of local food policies in councils across Australia. Understanding the motivations and implications of these local food policies to local food security and to governments at state and national levels can contribute to moving the institutional agenda forward.
8.5 CONCLUSION
“Food security is more than just food”, states Carolan (2013, p. 155) when contesting the idea reinforced in the neoliberal ideology that food insecurity is addressed by food production and the supply of calories. In response to this simplistic approach, Carolan (2013) argues that food security needs a ‘rainbow evolution’ that expands the possibilities, rather than reducing them. In Australia, food insecurity is rising in numbers and severity over recent years (Foodbank, 2018). Indifferent to this fact, the government sustains a non-priority approach based on the productivism mindset that Australia produces more than enough food to supply the population (Lawrence et al., 2013; PMSEIC, 2010). Moreover, the scarce efforts to address food insecurity in the country have been centred on the same solution for decades, emergency food relief, which is oriented to supply calories (Booth & Whelan, 2014). Moving towards a ‘rainbow evolution’, there is need to articulate different efforts that combine short- and long-term solutions, to overcome social, economic and geographic barriers which prevent people to have adequate access to food (Booth & Whelan, 2014; Richards et al., 2016). In this context, the sharing economy comes to the fore as a phenomenon that enables access to goods and services through unconventional ways (Acquier et al., 2017; Schor, 2016). However, the implications of the sharing economy to promote access for lower-income populations were previously unclear (Frenken & Schor, 2017; Martin, 2016). In this research, the sharing economy was explored in terms of its economic diversity and social inclusion, aiming to understand how the sharing economy is mobilised to promote food security in Australia.
In identifying a variety of sharing economy practices, this research highlights the possibilities addressing food insecurity in Australia, taking the discussion towards a ‘rainbow evolution’ (Carolan, 2013). Taking a more comprehensive approach than ‘just food’, the findings indicate that the sharing economy as explored here, with the
The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 121
exception of some food relief models, endeavours to promote health, nutrition, dignity, and sustainability. For the majority of the initiatives, the involvement of the lower- income population, not only as end-users but as agents of the sharing economy, is fundamental to promote equitable access to food.
122 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Reference List
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. (2017). Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.006 Alkon, A. H., Block, D., Moore, K., Gillis, C., DiNuccio, N., & Chavez, N. (2013). Foodways of the urban poor. Geoforum, 48, 126-135. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.021 Anguelovski, I. (2015). Alternative food provision conflicts in cities: Contesting food privilege, injustice, and whiteness in Jamaica Plain, Boston. Geoforum, 58, 184-194. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.10.014 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Australian health survey. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/1F1C9AF1C156EA 24CA257B8E001707B5?opendocument Avital, M., Andersson, M., Nickerson, J., Sundararajan, A., Van Alstyne, M., & Verhoeven, D. (2014). The Collaborative Economy: A disruptive innovation or much ado about nothing. Paper presented at the Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30070161 Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595-1600. Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to social inquiry (2nd ed.). Oxford: Polity. Blue Environment. (2016). Australian National Waste Report 2016. Prepared for Department of the Environment and Energy Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d075c9bc-45b3-4ac0- a8f2-6494c7d1fa0d/files/national-waste-report-2016.pdf. Booth, S., & Whelan, J. (2014). Hungry for change: The food banking industry in Australia. British Food Journal, 116(9), 1392-1404. doi:10.1108/bfj-01-2014- 0037 Boothroyd, A. (2015). Yume app aims to reduce food waste in hospitality sector. Hospitality Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.hospitalitymagazine.com.au/yume-app-aims-to-reduce-food- waste-in-hospitality-sector/ Botsman, R. (2013). The sharing economy lacks a shared definition. Fast Company. Retrieved from https://www.fastcoexist.com/3022028/the•sharing•economy•lacks•a•shared•d efinition Botsman, R. (2015). Defining the sharing economy: What is collaborative consumption - and what isn't? Fast Company. Retrieved from https://www.fastcoexist.com/3046119/defining•the•sharing•economy•what•is •collaborative•consumption•and•what•isnt Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What's mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption (1st ed.). New York: HarperBusiness. Cahill, A. (2008). Power over, power to, power with: Shifting perceptions of power for local economic development in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 49(3), 294-304. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8373.2008.00378.x Cameron, J. (2015). Enterprise innovation and economic diversity in community- supported agriculture. In G. Roelvink, K. St. Martin, & J. K. Gibson-Graham
Reference List 123
(Eds.), Making other worlds possible: Perfoming diverse economies (pp. 53- 71). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Candel, J. J. L. (2014). Food security governance: A systematic literature review. Food Security, 6(4), 585-601. doi:10.1007/s12571-014-0364-2 Candel, J. J. L., & Pereira, L. (2017). Towards integrated food policy: Main challenges and steps ahead. Environmental Science & Policy, 73, 89-92. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.010 Carolan, M. (2013). Reclaiming food security. London: Routledge. Carolan, M. (2017). Agro-Digital Governance and Life Itself: Food Politics at the Intersection of Code and Affect. Sociologia Ruralis, 57, 816-835. doi:10.1111/soru.12153 Carolan, M. (2018). The food sharing revolution: How start-ups, pop-ups, and co-ops are changing the way we eat. Washington, DC: Island Press. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded heory. London: SAGE. Clendenning, J., Dressler, W. H., & Richards, C. (2015). Food justice or food sovereignty? Understanding the rise of urban food movements in the USA. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(1), 165-177. doi:10.1007/s10460-015- 9625-8 Cockayne, D. G. (2016). Sharing and neoliberal discourse: The economic function of sharing in the digital on-demand economy. Geoforum, 77, 73-82. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.10.005 Commonwealth of Australia. (2017). National food waste strategy: Halving Australia’s food waste by 2030. Retrieved from https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4683826b-5d9f- 4e65-9344-a900060915b1/files/national-food-waste-strategy.pdf. Community Economies Collective. (2018). Community economies. Retrieved from http://www.communityeconomies.org/ Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspectives in the research process. London: SAGE Publications. Davies, A. R., Edwards, F., Marovelli, B., Morrow, O., Rut, M., & Weymes, M. (2017a). Creative construction: Crafting, negotiating and performing urban food sharing landscapes. Area, 49(4), 510-518. doi:10.1111/area.12340 Davies, A. R., Edwards, F., Marovelli, B., Morrow, O., Rut, M., & Weymes, M. (2017b). Making visible: Interrogating the performance of food sharing across 100 urban areas. Geoforum, 86, 136-149. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.09.007 Davies, A. R., & Legg, R. (2018). Fare sharing: Interrogating the nexus of ICT, urban food sharing, and sustainability. Food, Culture & Society, 21(2), 233-254. doi:10.1080/15528014.2018.1427924 Davila, F., & Dyball, R. (2015). Transforming food systems through food sovereignty: An Australian urban context. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 31(01), 34-45. doi:10.1017/aee.2015.14 Devereux, S. (2001). Sen's entitlement approach: Critiques and counter-critiques. Oxford Development Studies, 29(3), 245-263. doi:10.1080/13600810120088859
124 Reference List
Devin, B., & Richards, C. (2016). Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3181-z Dixon, J., & Richards, C. (2016). On food security and alternative food networks: Understanding and performing food security in the context of urban bias. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(1), 191-202. doi:10.1007/s10460-015- 9630-y Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553-560. Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2014). “Systematic combining” - A decade later. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1277-1284. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.036 DuPuis, E. M., & Goodman, D. (2005). Should we go “home” to eat?: Toward a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(3), 359-371. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.05.011 Dyer, W. G., Jr, & Wilkins, A. L. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 613-619. Eckhardt, G. M., & Bardhi, F. (2015). The sharing economy isn’t about sharing at all. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-sharing- economy-isnt-about-sharing-at-all Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179. Edwards, F. (2011). Small, slow and shared: Emerging social innovations in urban Australian foodscapes. Australian Humanities Review(51). Edwards, F., & Mercer, D. (2007). Gleaning from gluttony: an Australian youth subculture confronts the ethics of waste. Australian Geographer, 38(3), 279- 296. doi:10.1080/00049180701639174 Edwards, F., & Mercer, D. (2010). Meals in metropolis: Mapping the urban foodscape in Melbourne, Australia. Local Environment, 15(2), 153-168. doi:10.1080/13549830903527662 Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. FAO. (2003). Trade reforms and fod security: Conceptualizing the linkages. Rome: FAO Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-y4671e.pdf. FAO. (2009). How to feed the world in 2050. Rome: FAO Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Fee d_the_World_in_2050.pdf. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO. (2018). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2018. Rome: FAO Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/I9553EN/i9553en.pdf. FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2015). The state of food insecurity in the world 2015. Rome: FAO Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf. Farmar-Bowers, Q. (2015). Finding ways to improve Australia's food security situation. Agriculture, 5, 286-312. Fickey, A., & Hanrahan, K. B. (2014). Moving beyond Neverland: Reflecting upon the state of the Diverse Economies Research Program and the study of alternative economic spaces. ACME, 13(2), 394-403. Foodbank. (2018). Foodbank hunger report 2018. Retrieved from Foodbank website https://www.foodbank.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-Foodbank- Hunger-Report.pdf
Reference List 125
Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003 Fuller, D., & Jonas, A. E. G. (2003). Alternative financial spaces. In A. Leyshon, R. Lee, & C. C. Williams (Eds.), Alternative economic spaces (pp. 55-73). London: SAGE. Fuller, D., Jonas, A. E. G., & Lee, R. (2010). Interrogating alterity: Alternative economic and political spaces. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com Gibson-Graham, J. K. (1996). The end of capitalism (as we knew it): A feminist critique of political economy. Cambridge, Massachussets: Blackwell Publishers. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2004). The violance of development: Two political imaginaries. Society for International Development, 47(1), 27-34. doi:10.1057/palgrave.dev.1100013 Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2008a). Diverse economies: Performative practices for 'other worlds'. Progress in Human Geography, 32(5), 613-632. doi:10.1177/0309132508090821 Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2008b). "Place-based globalism": A new imaginary of revolution. Rethinking Marxism, 20(4), 659-664. doi:10.1080/08935690802299579 Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2014). Rethinking the economy with thick description and weak theory. Current Anthropology, 55(Supplement 9), S147-S153. doi:10.1086/676646 Gibson-Graham, J. K., & Cameron, J. (2007). Community enterprises: Imagining and enacting alternatives to capitalism. Social Alternatives, 26(1), 20-25. Gibson-Graham, J. K., & Roelvink, G. (2011). The nitty gritty of creating alternative economies. Social Alternatives, 30(1), 29-33. Grandy, G. (2018). An introduction to Constructionism for qualitative researchers in business and management. In C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods (pp. 173-184). London: SAGE. Gritzas, G., & Kavoulakos, K. I. (2016). Diverse economies and alternative spaces: An overview of approaches and practices. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(4), 917-934. doi:10.1177/0969776415573778 Grote, U. (2014). Can we improve global food security? A socio-economic and political perspective. Food Security, 6(2), 187-200. doi:10.1007/s12571-013- 0321-5 Gruzka, K. (2016). Framing the collaborative economy —Voices of contestation. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.002 Harcourt, W. (2014). The future of capitalism: A consideration of alternatives. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(6), 1307-1328. doi:10.1093/cje/bet048 Harcourt, W., & Escobar, A. (2002). Women and the politics of place. Development, 45(1), 7-14. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1110308 Holmes, H. (2018). New spaces, ordinary practices: Circulating and sharing within diverse economies of provisioning. Geoforum, 88, 138-147. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.11.022
126 Reference List
Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting interviews: Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1-10. Jarosz, L. (2014). Comparing food security and food sovereignty discourses. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2), 168-181. doi:10.1177/2043820614537161 Jehlička, P., & Daněk, P. (2017). Rendering the actually existing sharing economy visible: Home-grown food and the pleasure of sharing. Sociologia Ruralis, 57(3), 274-296. doi:10.1111/soru.12160 Jonas, A. E. G. (2010). 'Alternative' this, 'alternative' that...: Interrogating alterity and diversity. In D. Fuller, A. E. G. Jonas, & R. Lee (Eds.), Interrogating alterity: Alternative economic and political spaces (pp. 3-27). London: Routledge. Jonas, A. E. G. (2013). Interrogating alternative local and regional economies: The British Credit Union Movement and post-binary thinking. In H.-M. Zademach & S. Hillebrand (Eds.), Alternative economies and spaces: New perspectives for a sustainable economy (pp. 23-42). Bielefeld: Transcript. Jones, A., & Murphy, J. T. (2010). Theorizing practice in economic geography: Foundations, challenges, and possibilities. Progress in Human Geography, 35(3), 366-392. doi:10.1177/0309132510375585 Langley, P., & Leyshon, A. (2017). Capitalizing on the crowd: The monetary and financial ecologies of crowdfunding. Environment and Planning A, 49(5), 1019-1039. doi:10.1177/0308518x16687556 Lawrence, G., Richards, C., & Lyons, K. (2013). Food security in Australia in an era of neoliberalism, productivism and climate change. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 30-39. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.12.005 Lee, R. (2010). Spiders, bees or architects? Imagination and the radical immanence of alternatives/diversity for political economic geographies. In D. Fuller, A. E. G. Jonas, & R. Lee (Eds.), Interrogating alterity: Alternative economic and political spaces (pp. 273-287). Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing. Levkoe, C. Z. (2006). Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 89-98. Leyshon, A., Lee, R., & Williams, C. C. (2003). Alternative economic spaces. London: SAGE. Loh, P., & Agyeman, J. (in press). Urban food sharing and the emerging Boston food solidarity economy. Geoforum. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.08.017 Mann, A. (2014). Global activism in food politics power shift. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmilan. Mann, A. (2018). Food sovereignty: Deed histories, digital activism and the emergence of a transnational public. In M. Phillipov & K. Kirkwood (Eds.), Alternative food politics: From the margins to the mainstream. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Markow, K., Coveney, J., & Booth, S. (2014). Improving access to community-based food systems in Adelaide, South Australia: Strategies to encourage low- socioeconomic status groups to participate. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 9(1), 113-134. doi:10.1080/19320248.2013.840550 Martin, C. J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecological Economics, 121, 149- 159. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027 Martin, C. J., Upham, P., & Budd, L. (2015). Commercial orientation in grassroots social innovation: Insights from the sharing economy. Ecological Economics, 118, 240-251. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.001
Reference List 127
Martin, C. J., Upham, P., & Klapper, R. (2017). Democratising platform governance in the sharing economy: An analytical framework and initial empirical insights. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 1395-1406. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.123 Maye, D., & Duncan, J. (2017). Understanding sustainable food system transitions: Practice, assessment and governance. Sociologia Ruralis, 57(3), 267-273. doi:10.1111/soru.12177 McKinnon, K. (2010). Diverse present(s), alternative futures. In D. Fuller, A. E. G. Jonas, & R. Lee (Eds.), Interrogating alterity: Alternative economic and political spaces (pp. 259-269). London: Routledge. Michelini, L., Principato, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2018). Understanding food sharing models to tackle sustainability challenges. Ecological Economics, 1(45), 205- 217. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.009 Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks: SAGE. Miralles, I., Dentoni, D., & Pascucci, S. (2017). Understanding the organization of sharing economy in agri-food systems: Evidence from alternative food networks in Valencia. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(4). doi:10.1007/s10460-017-9778-8 Morgan, B., & Kuch, D. (2015). Radical transactionalism: Legal consciousness, diverse economies, and the sharing economy. Journal of Law and Society, 42(4), 556-587. Morone, P., Falcone, P. M., Imbert, E., & Morone, A. (2018). Does food sharing lead to food waste reduction? An experimental analysis to assess challenges and opportunities of a new consumption model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 749-760. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.208 Morone, P., Falcone, P. M., Imbert, E., Morone, M., & Morone, A. (2016). Tacking food waste through a sharing economy approach: An experimental analysis. MPRA, (70626). Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/70626/ Morozov, E. (2013). The 'sharing economy' undermines workers' rights. FT.com. Retrieved from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01. library.qut.edu.au/docview/1456264339?accountid=13380 Murillo, D., Buckland, H., & Val, E. (2017). When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: Unravelling the controversies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 66-76. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.024 Myers, M. D. (2013). The qualitative research in business and management (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications. National Rural Health Alliance. (2016). Food security and health in rural and remote Australia. Camberra: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Retrieved from https://www.agrifutures.com.au/wp- content/uploads/publications/16-053.pdf. Osterweil, M. (2005). Place-based globalism: Theorizing the global justice movement. Development, 48(2), 23-28. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100132 Patel, R. (2012). Stuffed and starved: The hidden battle for the world food system (2nd ed.). Brooklyn, N.Y.: Melville House Pub. Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. (2018). The case study in management research: Beyond the positivist legacy of Eisenhardt and Yin? In C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, & G.
128 Reference List
Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods (pp. 345-358). London: SAGE. PMSEIC. (2010). Australia and food security in a changing world. Canberra, Australia Retrieved from https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp- content/uploads/FoodSecurity_web.pdf. Polackova, L., & Poto, M. (2017). Responses to food waste in a sharing economy: We have fully transitioned to a participatory culture, and digital technology is key driver of that transition. Revista de Direito da Cidade, 9(1). doi:10.12957/rdc.2017.26763 Rebello, J. T. (2006). The economy of joyful passions: A political economic ethics of the virtual. Rethinking Marxism, 18(2), 259-272. doi:10.1080/08935690600578935 Richards, C., Kjærnes, U., & Vik, J. (2016). Food security in welfare capitalism: Comparing social entitlements to food in Australia and Norway. Journal of Rural Studies, 43, 61-70. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.11.010 Richards, T. J., & Hamilton, S. F. (2018). Food waste in the sharing economy. Food Policy, 75, 109-123. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.01.008 Richardson, L. (2015). Performing the sharing economy. Geoforum, 67, 121-129. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.11.004 Riches, G., & Silvasti, T. (2014). First world hunger revisited: Food charity or the right to food? (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Roelvink, G. (2016). Building dignified worlds : Geographies of collective action Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com Roig Hernando, J. (2016). Crowdfunding: The collaborative economy for channelling institutional and household savings. Research in International Business and Finance, 38, 326-337. doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.03.004 Roncarolo, F., Adam, C., Bisset, S., & Potvin, L. (2016). Food capacities and satisfaction in participants in food security community interventions in Montreal, Canada. Health Promot Int, 31(4), 879-887. doi:10.1093/heapro/dav085 Rut, M., & Davies, A. R. (2018). Transitioning without confrontation? Shared food growing niches and sustainable food transitions in Singapore. Geoforum, 96, 278-288. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.07.016 Samers, M. (2005). The myopia of "diverse economies", or a critique of the "informal economy". Antipode, 37(5), 875-886. doi:10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00537.x Schneider, T., Eli, K., Dolan, C., & Ulijaszek, S. (Eds.). (2018). Digital food activism. London: Routledge. Schor, J. (2016). Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 4(3), 7-22. Schor, J. (2017). Does the sharing economy increase inequality within the eighty percent?: Findings from a qualitative study of platform providers. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 10(2), 263-279. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsw047 Schor, J., Fitzmaurice, C., Carfagna, L., Attwood-Charles, W., & Poteat, E. D. (2016). Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy. Poetics, 54, 66- 81. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2015.11.001 Sen, A. (1976). Famines as Failures of Exchange Entitlements. Economic and Political Weekly, 11(31/33), 1273-1280. Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Reference List 129
Sen, A. (1991). Food, economics, and entitlements. In J. Drèze & A. Sen (Eds.), The political economy of hunger (Vol. 1: Entitlement and Well-being): Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198286356 .001.0001/acprof-9780198286356. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198286356.001.0001 Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. Stephansen, H. C. (2013). Connecting the peripheries: Networks, place and scale in the World Social Forum process. Journal of Postcolonial Writing, 49(5), 506- 518. doi:10.1080/17449855.2013.842773 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: SAGE. Sundararajan, A. (2013). From Zipcar to the sharing economy. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/01/from-zipcar-to-the-sharing- eco Sundararajan, A. (2014). Peer-to-peer businesses and the sharing (collaborative) economy: Overview, economic effects and regulatory issues. Paper presented at the Committee on Small Business of the United States House of Representatives. https://smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/1-15- 2014_revised_sundararajan_testimony.pdf Temple, J. (2008). Severe and moderate forms of food insecurity in Australia: Are they distinguishable? Australian Journal of Social Issues, 43(4), 649-668. United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. United Nations Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. United Nations. (2015). The millennium development goals report. Retrieved from New York: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015 %20rev%20(July%201).pdf United Nations. (2018). Sustainable Development Goals: Knowledge platform. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg2 Watson, A., & Merton, E. (2013). Food security in Australia: Some misplaced enthusiasms? Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policy, 32(3), 317-327. doi:10.1111/1759-3441.12040 Wekerle, G. R., & Classens, M. (2015). Food production in the city: (Re)negotiating land, food and property. Local Environment, 20(10), 1175-1193. doi:10.1080/13549839.2015.1007121 White, R. J., & Williams, C. C. (2016). Beyond capitalocentricism: Are non-capitalist work practices ‘alternatives’? Area, 48(3), 325-331. doi:10.1111/area.12264 Wright, S. (2010). Cultivating beyond-capitalist economies. Economic Geography, 86(3), 297-318. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2010.01074.x Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. Yume. (2018). About Yume. Retrieved from https://yumefood.com.au/about Zademach, H.-M., & Hillebrand, S. (2013). Alternative economies and spaces: New perspectives for a sustainable economy. Bielefeld: Transcript. Zademach, H.-M., & Musch, A.-K. (2018). Bicycle-sharing systems in an alternative/diverse economy perspective: A sympathetic critique. Local Environment, 23(7), 734-746. doi:10.1080/13549839.2018.1434494
130 Reference List
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview protocol
Sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia
Protocol for semi-structured interviews
Principal Denise G. Nogueira Master of Philosophy Student Researcher: Associate Dr Carol Richards Principal Supervisor Researcher(s): Dr Robyn Mayes Associate Supervisor School of Management, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
Can you please describe your food initiative and how it works? Prompts: How it started; context of activities; purpose of the initiative, main project(s) or program(s), expected outcomes.
Who are the end users of your initiative? How do you identify and connect with them? Prompts: Social-economic profile; location, numbers; main barriers to food access before intervention; how food access happens with intervention.
Now, I would like to understand if and how some practices (or characteristics) apply to your initiative. For each of them, could you describe how important they are to improve access to food and if (and how) they are employed in your initiative?
• (Collaboration) Do you have any type of collaboration in this initiative? Please describe importance and practice. • (Digital platforms) Do you use digital platforms to develop your initiative? Please describe importance and practice. • (Maximization of resources) Does your initiative redistribute food or reduce food waste? Please describe importance and practice.
Appendices 131
• (Supply chain) Does your initiative affect the traditional food supply chain? Please describe importance and practice. • (Local development) Do you promote local development through your initiative? Please describe importance and practice.
Recently, initiatives involving some of these characteristics have been considered as part of the ‘sharing economy’. Is your initiative engaged with this phenomenon? How? Prompts: why, what is the ‘sharing economy’, alternative terminology.
What do you consider to be the key success factors to promote access to food within your initiative and externally? Prompts: governance structure, business model, public policies, partners, community, funding.
What do you consider to be the key challenges in promoting access to food within your initiative and externally? Prompts: governance structure, business model, public policies, partners, community, funding.
Please, can you briefly describe what may be the next step(s) of your initiative to improve access to food? Prompts: expand current programs, new organisational model, reach another public.
Before we finish this interview, would you like to add any comment that has not been covered before?
132 Appendices