the sharing economy contributions to food security … · the sharing economy: contributions to...

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

The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia 1

Keywords

Australia, diverse economies, food security, food sharing, sharing economy, social

inclusion.

2 The sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia

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


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.


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


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


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


List of Tables

Table 3.1 Diverse economies framing ....................................................................... 38

Table 4.1 Participants classification ........................................................................... 54

Table 4.2 Participants pseudonyms and classification ............................................... 58


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


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:

Date: March 2019

QUT Verified Signature


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,


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.


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


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


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).


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”


(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.


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 &


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,


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.


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).


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


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,


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


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.


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-


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.


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


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


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


(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


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


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.


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.


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


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).


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


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.


Table 3.1 Diverse economies framing (adapted from Gibson-Graham, 2014, p. S150)

ENTERPRISE LABOUR PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS FINANCE

CAPITALIST

Family firm

Private unincorporated firm

Public company

Multinational

WAGE

Salaried

Unionised

Non-union

Part-time

Contingent

PRIVATE

Individually owned

Collectively owned

MARKET

Free

Naturally protected

Artificially protected

Monopolised

Regulated

Niche

MAINSTREAM MARKET

Private banks

Insurance firms

Financial services

Derivatives

ALTERNATIVE CAPITALIST

State owned

Environmentally

responsible

Socially responsible

Non-profit

ALTERNATIVE PAID

Self-employed

Co-operative

Indentured

Reciprocal labour

In-kind

Work for welfare

ALTERNATIVE PRIVATE

State-owned

Customary (clan) land

Community land trusts

Indigenous knowledge

ALTERNATIVE MARKET

Fair and direct trade

Alternative currencies

Underground market

Barter

Co-operative exchange

Community supported

agriculture, fishing, etc.

ALTERNATIVE MARKET

State banks

Co-operative banks

Credit unions

Govt. sponsored lending

Community-based

financial institutions

Micro-finance

Loan sharks

NON-CAPITALIST

Worker cooperatives

Sole proprietorships

Community enterprise

Feudal enterprise

Slave enterprise

UNPAID

Housework

Family care

Volunteer

Neighbourhood work

Self-provisioning

OPEN ACCESS

Atmosphere

Water

Open ocean

Ecosystem services

Outer space

NON-MARKET

Household sharing

Gift giving

State allocations /

appropriations

Hunting, fishing

Gleaning, gathering

Sacrifice

NON-MARKET

Sweat equity

Rotating credit funds

Family lending

Donations

Interest-free loans

Community supported

business


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;


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


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


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 &


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).


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.


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;


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


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.


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):








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,


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


(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


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,


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


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

(major role)

Number of

participants

Sub-classification

(primary activity)

Number of

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


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.


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


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.


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

Pseudonyms Classification

(major role)

Sub-classification

(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


Pseudonyms Classification

(major role)

Sub-classification

(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


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).


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.


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


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


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 &


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


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


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


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


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)


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.


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,


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.


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


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,


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.


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


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


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


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.


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:


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


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:


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


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,


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.


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.


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


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


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


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,


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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,


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


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.


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,


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


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.


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:







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


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


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”.


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


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 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.


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?


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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.

Reference List 123

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/thesharingeconomylacksasharedd

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/definingthesharingeconomywhatis

collaborativeconsumptionandwhatisnt

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

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/1F1C9AF1C156EA24CA257B8E001707B5?opendocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/1F1C9AF1C156EA24CA257B8E001707B5?opendocument

http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30070161

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d075c9bc-45b3-4ac0-a8f2-6494c7d1fa0d/files/national-waste-report-2016.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d075c9bc-45b3-4ac0-a8f2-6494c7d1fa0d/files/national-waste-report-2016.pdf

https://www.hospitalitymagazine.com.au/yume-app-aims-to-reduce-food-waste-in-hospitality-sector/

https://www.hospitalitymagazine.com.au/yume-app-aims-to-reduce-food-waste-in-hospitality-sector/

https://www.fastcoexist.com/3022028/the

https://www.fastcoexist.com/3046119/defining

124 Reference List

(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

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4683826b-5d9f-4e65-9344-a900060915b1/files/national-food-waste-strategy.pdf

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4683826b-5d9f-4e65-9344-a900060915b1/files/national-food-waste-strategy.pdf

http://www.communityeconomies.org/

Reference List 125

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

https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-sharing-economy-isnt-about-sharing-at-all

https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-sharing-economy-isnt-about-sharing-at-all

http://www.fao.org/3/a-y4671e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/I9553EN/i9553en.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf

https://www.foodbank.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-Foodbank-Hunger-Report.pdf

https://www.foodbank.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-Foodbank-Hunger-Report.pdf

126 Reference List

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

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/

Reference List 127

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

128 Reference List

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.

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/70626/

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/1456264339?accountid=13380

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/1456264339?accountid=13380

https://www.agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/publications/16-053.pdf

https://www.agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/publications/16-053.pdf

Reference List 129

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.

https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/FoodSecurity_web.pdf

https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/FoodSecurity_web.pdf

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/

130 Reference List

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

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198286356.001.0001/acprof-9780198286356

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198286356.001.0001/acprof-9780198286356

https://hbr.org/2013/01/from-zipcar-to-the-sharing-eco

https://hbr.org/2013/01/from-zipcar-to-the-sharing-eco

https://smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/1-15-2014_revised_sundararajan_testimony.pdf

https://smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/1-15-2014_revised_sundararajan_testimony.pdf

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg2

https://yumefood.com.au/about

Appendices 131

Appendices

Appendix A: Interview protocol

Sharing economy: Contributions to food security in Australia

Protocol for semi-structured interviews

Principal

Researcher:

Denise G. Nogueira Master of Philosophy Student

Associate

Researcher(s):

Dr Carol Richards Principal Supervisor

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.

132 Appendices

• (Supply chain) Does your initiative affect the traditional food supply chain?


• (Local development) Do you promote local development through your initiative?


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?

the sharing economy contributions to food security … · the sharing economy: contributions to...

Documents