Exploring the role of community-based enterprises in consumers' voluntary clothing disposition via UK swapping events using theory of social practice

Swapping implies an exchange of garments, whereby ownership is redistributed between individuals, without monetary fees (Henninger et al., 2019; Philip et al., 2019). Swapping events are often organised by individuals within a community and, thus, could be described as forming community-based enterprises. These community-based enterprises often emerge as a result of community members wanting to address a specific issue in their vicinity, whether this may be, here, overconsumption of garments and, thus, going against the dominant paradigm of throw-away culture, or wanting to make garments accessible to every person living within the community (Sforzi and Bianchi, 2020). Developing community-based enterprises can be challenging, as they are based on complex relationships, not only between the members who have created the enterprise, but also between the enterprise and the community, as without commitment and participation these enterprises cannot survive (Borzaga and Sforzi, 2015).

In linking this to swap events, consumer involvement in swapping plays a key role, and is characterised by simultaneous adoption of the “provider” and “obtainner” roles, which underpin the process of swapping (Ertz et al., 2016). This means that to obtain clothing from the swap, consumers need to first provide clothing (which is referred to as letting go or voluntary disposition in this paper). To reiterate a previous point, the dual role of the consumer as both a provider and obtainner of garments, illustrates the link to collaborative consumption, which seeks to extend the useful time of materials (including garments), by re-circulating them as many times as possible and fostering a different approach to consuming. To explain, rather than purchasing first hand, pre-loved items become the centre of attention by collaboratively using already existing garments and either, rent, swap or re-sell them (Henninger et al., 2021). To ensure that there is sufficient flow of items being brought to the swap and items taken out of the swap, friendly environments need to be created that are not stigmatised and non-judgmental (Hu et al., 2018; Henninger et al., 2019). Aside from consumers in their capacity as obtainners and providers, community-based enterprises generally rely on “voluntarism, altruism and community-based commitment” (Sforzi and Bianchi, 2020, p. 282) to run, here, swap events. Within the context of swapping, it is often

passionate individuals who are setting up these community-based enterprises to provide a solution to a problem. Again, the latter point of the quote provided by Sforzi and Bianchi (2020) is key here, as without commitment from the community, positive change cannot be achieved. This positive change can also be linked to social innovation in that it empowers people to give back to the community not only through volunteering for these community-based enterprises, but also by participating in voluntary disposition of their own garments. Letting go of garments that are in good condition may enable someone else to, for example, secure a job, go out for special occasions or simply express their individual identity.

Existing literature has reported four key types of swapping set-ups, summarised in Table 1 (Rathinamoorthy et al., 2019). Although a swapping typology is useful in understanding how different swaps work, there is an overlap among the terms, blurring the exact definition of concepts and their differences (ibid). The extent to which organisers are involved in different swap types varies, which is highlighted by collaborative intensity (Ertz et al., 2016). Where certain swap types are purely peer-to-peer (swishing or swap parties), swap meets and swap boutiques tend to have an organiser as a mediator of the exchange which inherently influences the swapping practice and, thus, links more closely to the community-based enterprise set-up (Matthews and Hodges, 2016). Online swapping represents a mix of both (Philip et al., 2019).

Previous literature focusing on the consumer perspective has highlighted social aspects, such as sharing styles and fashion information and community belonging, as key drivers (Armstrong et al., 2015; Matthews and Hodges, 2016), which also links to community-based enterprises and social value (Lautermann, 2013; Sforzi and Bianchi, 2020). Past studies have further elaborated on consumer participation and engagement in swapping, emphasising personality traits and values (e.g. need for leadership and uniqueness; Armstrong et al., 2015; Lang and Armstrong, 2018a, 2018b), decluttering (Matthews and Hodges, 2016), sustainability concerns (Henninger et al., 2019) and barriers for swapping such as perceived quality, performance risk and availability/sizing (Henninger et al., 2019; Lang and Zhang, 2019). Swapping literature is dominated by behaviour-centred models such as the theory of planned behaviour (e.g. Armstrong et al., 2015; Matthews and Hodges, 2016; Lang and Armstrong, 2018a, 2018b), and uncovering a gap for practice-oriented studies (Philip et al., 2019; Camacho-Otero et al., 2019), which are further discussed.

Camacho-Otero et al. (2019) outline specific elements of practice which are central to swapping, identifying interplays between practice elements and its impact on swapping performance and recruitment of new practitioners. Although Camacho-Otero et al. (2019) findings form an important ground for understanding swapping from a social practice perspective, their study does not elaborate on the decision-making behind brought garments, which links to voluntary disposition, despite identifying clothes brought to swaps as a key material element. Similarly, Philip et al. (2019) contribute a framework of skills, meanings, rules and materials that enable online peer-to-peer swapping. The context of online swapping is however fundamentally different from offline swapping; hence the relevance of their finding is limited for public swapping events which are often based on community-based enterprises (LoveYourClothes, 2023; Albinsson and Perera, 2012) and the subject of this study.

The introduction alluded to the fact that the literature often focuses on different terminology, when it comes to an end-of-life of garments. On the one hand, there is the disposal of a garment, which implies a finite end and often the result is that the garment is binned; on the other hand, letting go or voluntary disposition implies that the garment may

Source: Adapted from Rathinamoorthy et al. (2019)

have reached the end-of-life for one consumer, but is still in a good enough condition to have a second life or further life for someone else (Laitala, 2014; Soyer and Dittrich, 2020).

To explain, voluntary disposition implies that a garment has a remaining life with a second, third or n-th owner, prior to being disposed (Laitala, 2014). Voluntary disposition or letting go of an item implies an emotional process, whether the garment is a reminder of a particularly special moment in life (e.g. wedding and first job) or one that reminds the owner of a hard time (e.g. loss of close relation). In either instance, letting go of a garment is a process that can bring forward complex emotions, and, thus, can have an impact on the decision-making process, in terms of which garment may be parted with.

The available literature on clothing disposal and/or voluntary disposition outlines a focus on exploring motivations, reasons and consumer factors and, thus, reveals a gap in understanding voluntary disposition through the TSP. Although it is useful to understand the motivations and reasons as these are part of the practice to a certain degree (Shove et al., 2012), these are not linked with any actions following voluntary disposition such as new product acquisition nor being presented as part of any practice, which are gaps addressed in this research. Albinsson and Perera (2009) explore swapping as a form of voluntary disposition; this is done together with other non-monetary disposition modes, therefore, lacking in-depth focus on the swapping format itself. Using swapping events as channels for voluntary disposition is, thus, contextually novel and extends the theoretical understanding of collaborative consumption models (e.g. swapping) as avenues for unwanted clothing.

Previous literature reports that consumers' choices for letting go of a garment are closely linked with the reasons for voluntary disposition (e.g. physical and/or psychological; Laitala, 2014; Norum, 2017; Sarigollu et al., 2020). In the fashion context, physical obsolescence relates to wear and tear in products, often linked with low quality of fast fashion products (Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009; Laitala, 2014). Items which can no longer be worn due to irreversible damage are either landfilled or donated for rags (Norum, 2017). Contrarily, psychological obsolescence regards ending the product lifetime due to the psychological state of the user themselves (Sarigollu et al., 2020). Laitala (2014) also reports fit or size, lack of storage space, clothes going "out of style" or boredom as reasons for letting go. Literature findings are consistent in that trendy clothing and fashion-forward items tend to be let go of more often, especially by younger consumers (Lee et al., 2013; Pingki and Kuntala, 2021), warranting the need to research alternative voluntary disposition routes (e.g. swapping). Initial purchase price of clothing can further be a deciding factor for the mode of whether a garment is disposed of or if it follows a voluntary disposition route (Lee et al., 2013), which have neither been confirmed for swapping nor researched in depth (Laitala, 2014). Higher priced products and quality products tend to be gifted or sold (Sarigollu et al., 2020). Consumers further dispose of clothing for charitable reasons (e.g. natural disaster relief calls) or lack of wardrobe space (Lee et al., 2013). This paper will contribute the reasons for selecting specific clothing for a clothing swap which is currently not addressed.

Several studies demonstrate that consumers pick a voluntary disposition mode based on convenience as well as accessibility; this means that the use of household or recycling bins and donation centres, often hinges on the consumers' proximity to the specific channel as well as time constraints (Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009; Laitala, 2014). In addition, consumers typically engage in more than one form of voluntary disposition (Lee et al., 2013). Product quality, price and product congruence with self-image further impact if an item is let go of (Sarigollu et al., 2020). Nonetheless such findings have not been confirmed nor investigated in relation to swapping as a voluntary disposition channel. Weber et al.'s (2017) research finds that fashion-oriented consumers (i.e. consumers with high interest in fashion trends)

were more likely to participate in swapping and other alternative modes of voluntary disposition such as resell and take-back programs. Donation to charity shops or charity bins was found to be the standard practice for most consumers even with clothing that was mildly stained or had minor defects (Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009; Weber et al., 2017).

Albinsson and Perera (2009) proposed a framework of voluntary disposition mapping influences on consumer decisions to let go as well as modes of voluntary disposition. They highlight community characteristics (e.g. sharing network and infrastructure), individual characteristics (e.g. values and consumption patterns, identity, life transitions, experience and role models) and item characteristics (e.g. sentimentality, condition and economic value) as influential factors affecting how an item is let go of. The following voluntary disposition modes have been outlined – sharing, exchanging (swapping), donating, recycling and ridding. Though Albinsson and Perera (2009) offer a rich discussion on individual factors influencing the decisions to let go of items, there is a gap in explaining the actual decision-making process of consumers and how it links to the selection of the particular mode of voluntary disposing of garments, which will be addressed in this research.

The TSP as an approach introduces an alternative conceptualisation of behavioural change, shifting from individualistic, linear and rationalist approaches to a more dynamic framework based on practices (Shove et al., 2012; Spaargaren et al., 2016; Hui et al., 2017; Reckwitz, 2002, p. 249) defines practice as “a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other”. Reckwitz (2002) further explains practice is a “block” or a pattern which is made up of interdependencies between elements such as bodily and mental activities, “things” and their use and background (know-how and prior understanding), emotional and motivational knowledge (Reckwitz, 2002). The TSP has been particularly popular in the field of environmental research as it is useful in understanding consumption from a different perspective (Welch and Yates, 2018). This is especially important in the fashion context where sustainable attitudes and values do not translate into behaviour, otherwise known as the attitude-behaviour gap (Wiederhold and Martinez, 2018; Park and Lin, 2020).

Criticising the relative vagueness and loose description of such conceptualization, Shove et al. (2012) proposed a framework based on three elements: material, competence and meaning. Material regards the physical objects and tangible “things” used for the enactment of a practice (e.g. clothing or swap venue). Competence involves the skill, the know-how and the technique (e.g. rules of the event). Meaning encompasses the motivational knowledge, symbolic meanings, ideas and aspirations (e.g. seeking community). The practice forms when elements integrate, and links are formed between individual elements as practices are enacted (ibid). This research uses Shove et al.’s (2012) framework as the lens for exploring swap events, namely, by unravelling the individual elements which are part of swapping practice and impact the voluntary disposition of garments (which has been previously highlighted as a key element in swapping practice by Camacho-Otero et al., 2019).

Better understanding of practice elements have a direct implication for understanding of the practice itself and are, therefore, important to research further (Philip et al., 2019). This research contributes to better understanding of key practice elements in community-based enterprises, unravelling the dynamic relationships between material (i.e. clothing) and competence (i.e. letting go) which has a direct impact on the active operation of swap events as community-based enterprises. Understanding voluntary disposition of garments is essential for comprehending how practitioners either reproduce or defect from swapping (Shove et al., 2012). Moreover, community-based enterprises play a significant role as spaces

One condition underlying consumer participation in swapping is the requirement to bring clothing to swap. The amount of clothing one can bring, tends to be capped to prevent dumping (Henninger et al., 2019). The amount is further noted down in “stamps” which are given to the swappers upon “check-in” and deducted from their stamp cards when leaving the event [C02, C03, C04, C16 and C18]. Given that the number of garments one can bring is capped, consumers must select appropriate items to swap (Henninger et al., 2019). Whilst some consumers select clothing just before the event, data revealed a common strategy among more experienced swappers which involves a “swap bag”. “I always have this charity or like swap bag and I would always reserve certain things which I think: you know what? That’s quite nice. I’ll save that for a swap. It’s like something I wore to a wedding” [C10]. C15 reports on a similar practice: “I have a little pile of things in a bag that are waiting for the next swap shop and you know I make sure that I’m taking good things”. The “swap bag” is used as a strategy to aid with decision-making regarding swappable items, with one emphasise being that these items are “good” and of higher value.

The “swap bag” represents an additional step in the letting go decision-making process, however, in the TSP context, this strategy has key implications for the competence element of the practice. Welch and Warde (2015) note, decision-making and other aspects of individual autonomy are played down to focus instead on the organisation of practices. The swap bag, therefore, impacts the timing of carrying out swapping practices, which poses implications on how long the consumer needs to spend in preparation for swapping events. Curating a swap bag in anticipation of a swapping event means that consumers reduce the amount of time spent looking for swappable items prior to the event. To explain, a swap bag is created over time, when consumers “declutter” their wardrobe. This is a significant benefit as it can make the practice less stressful/time consuming and more convenient. It also outlines a commitment to making a “positive” change and be part of the community-based enterprise that was set up for the purpose of reducing fashion consumption (Sforzi and Bianchi, 2020).

However, there is also a negative aspect of preparation time, which was mentioned by C01: “Actually, I also think that it [swapping] might not be as convenient time-wise. Because for example, I have to prepare quite a bit for the swap, go through my clothing and then decide what to bring and well that can take time”.

Interestingly, there is a link between the level of experience with swapping and the use of the “swap bag” strategy. C10 and C15, who report on the swap bag strategy, are either very experienced or advanced swappers (Table 2). Contrarily, C01 who reported that time spent picking out clothes makes swapping inconvenient is a “beginner swapper”. This shows that the level of experience impacts the practice and with greater experience, a new level of competence is reached (Shove et al., 2012). As previous literature on voluntary clothing disposition does not feature a model of decision-making regarding letting go of clothing, the “swap bag” strategy forms a unique contribution made within this research paper as a new step in the consumer decision-making process for swapping.

A recurring theme in the data set is the implicit understanding among consumers regarding the clothing brought to swaps, which further linked to peer-pressure susceptibility. Peer pressure implies the influence over a person’s behaviour and/or beliefs by their peers who share similar interests and social status (Clasen and Brown, 1985). The implicit understanding and related peer-pressure represent new meanings within the practice

configuration and at the same time they result in diversifying the competence and material elements. The clothing brought to a swap is impacted by the common understanding of what is seen to be acceptable as well as the rules [C04, C09, C12 and C15]. Rules can vary by organiser with regards to the type of items allowed to swap (e.g. some organisers do not accept shoes but others do) but it is often explicitly stated that consumers should refrain from bringing soiled or damaged clothing (Camacho-Otero et al., 2019). As such, the rules pose new meanings as to how the community-based enterprise is perceived and understood by the community of practitioners. At the same time it highlights the complex of relationships between the swap organiser (community-based enterprise) and swappers (members of the public) that is based on following implicit contracts as well as being altruistic, as garments should provide the same joy and purpose for the next owner as they have done for the previous one (Borzaga and Sforzi, 2015). Past research incorporated rules as part of the practice composition for online swapping (Gram-Hanssen, 2011; Philip et al., 2019). However, in this study rules are understood to be an inherent part of competence. This is because in order for consumers to participate in swaps, they have to adhere to the rules which reflect the “know-how” (competence) of practice.

Whilst swapping events tend to have rules which are explicit, consumers reported an implicit social contract among the swapping community:

I think there is this like implicit thing in the swapping community that you're taking good stuff as well. [...] Lots of the stuff that I got I wouldn't want to take to a swap shop or go to charity anyway. You know if they are worn out or the colours faded. But the better stuff I will keep to one side for my next swap shop so that I get good stamps rather than donating these [C15].

C15 reports the implicit understanding among swappers, which is to bring “better” garments – not worn out or have colours faded. They further highlight that “better” clothing might be worth more to the organisers and they will, therefore, get “good” stamps. From the quote by consumer C15 it is clear that their frequent swap event involved a value system. Whilst value systems are not always in place, some swaps do feature these upon check-in which can impact the garments that are selected by the consumers. Although on the one hand this can be positive, as the swap event may be perceived to be better and with good chances to gain “good” products, on the other hand, it could lead to exclusion of certain consumer groups by design, as not everyone may have garments that are “good” – or at least does not perceive them to meet the standard (Kay et al., 2016). To explain, items can be either classed as “good” or “better” (e.g. high-end clothing brands, natural materials, unworn or lightly worn), often depending on brand, material and condition. If consumers bring “better” brands as part of the implicit social contract, the quality of the swap is likely to increase which would in-turn improve the consumer swapping experience. Consumers reported being keen on getting “better” items out of a swap which however hinges on them bringing better items in the first place [C04, C09 and C15].

Similarly, C12 reported:

I think there's this hidden expectation that you have to bring good stuff. You know because the people at the check-in desk take out the stuff in front of the whole queue (. . .), it just means everyone is watching who has brought what [. . .] and I think that sometimes plays a role in what I bring (. . .) I just don't want them to think my stuff is old or dirty or not worthy, even when it is mostly old. I will try to pick out the best pieces before I go.

Though not explicitly stated, bringing “better” items to a swap event has also arisen as a key theme in other interviews. The implicit understanding and “hidden expectations” reported by swappers to bring “good” clothing links with what Reckwitz (2002) describes as “shared understanding” and is further denoting the collective cognitive structures in place.

Whilst it is expected that beginner swappers would not necessarily adhere to the implicit social contract due to their lack of experience, swappers of all levels of expertise were eager to bring “better” clothing. C08 who has attended only one swapping event notes that “[clothing brought to the swap] were all in good condition, I think some even had tags on because they were gifts or I couldn’t return them anymore”. Similarly, C01 (beginner swapper) tried to bring “better” clothing in terms of fabric quality and brand. As aforementioned C12 and C15 were both considered experienced swappers, as was C04 and C09 who further corroborated the implicit social contract in terms of clothing brought to a swap.

Although bringing “better” items to a swap arguably elevates the experience for those involved or for any new swappers, it could also be considered as a limitation for the practice itself and the classification of such community-based enterprises. This is especially the case if “better” is defined in terms of the brand of clothing. Some consumers, both existing and new, might be excluded as they do not own clothing from certain brands due to financial constraints. Thus, the implicit social contract can act as a barrier for certain consumer groups and can further cause practice detraction if consumers feel judgement from fellow swappers. This means that although community-based enterprises, such as those organising swaps, may have the intention to be community-focused and provide positive behaviour change, peer-pressure and unwritten rules (social contracts) can also have unintended consequences, such as, in the worst case, exclude certain groups from the event due to a lack of, for example, financial means (Kay et al., 2016). This is also an area that can be investigated further in the future.

Another theme that emerged from the data was consumer peer-pressure susceptibility which, as a meaning, impacts upon the competence and material elements. Peer-pressure was felt by swap participants and is, therefore, considered to be a meaning due to the feelings associated with the practice. Fraanje and Spaargaren (2019) consider emotions a key aspect within collaborative consumption and shaping future trajectories of the practice. C08 highlights “I think I was a little worried at first people would judge my clothing, I wasn’t really sure how the swap would work but yeah I remember trying to take nice stuff so people wouldn’t judge me”. As a beginner swapper who attended only one event, C08’s concern over the judgement from other swappers lends itself to a discussion whether peer-pressure can be considered a significant barrier to swapping as a practice for beginner swappers. At the same time this theme warrants discussion on whether peer-pressure could

be a barrier for the continued success of community-based enterprises, as it could impact community engagement.

If consumers feel that their clothing is not worthy to be swapped because they might be judged by others, they might not engage in the practice altogether or cease participation after a single event. This would also imply that social value failed to be created. C06 echoed views from C08:

I felt a little bit self-conscious I guess. When I first brought my products up because obviously they were products that I didn't want anymore and I didn't want the person who was taking those products off me to think these are disgusting [. . .]. Even though I probably wasn't being judged at all, in my head I thought is there going to be an element of judgement here?

Whilst C08 explicitly stated fearing judgement by people in the swap, C06 and C12 also point out the organisers who are checking in the clothing: "people at the check-in desk take out the stuff in front of the whole queue and you know, it just means everyone is watching who has brought what" [C12]. The organisers have an important role in checking whether clothing is acceptable for swapping, which can inadvertently cause greater pressure upon consumers to select better garments. C12 further states their garment selection is in fact partially influenced by the process of organisers checking the clothing and examining garments in front of people which links back to the previously discussed implicit social contract, as well as complex relationships that are built between organisers and members of the public. Thus, the implicit social contract to bring better items can be explained in part by the peer-pressure susceptibility of individual consumers, as well as the nature of community-based enterprises (Borzaga and Sforzi, 2015).

From the interviews, it has become evident that there is a link between the level of judgement and subsequent peer-pressure consumers may feel and how the swapping event is organised in terms of the layout (where check-in desk is located) as well as the value system of the swap (token or like-for-like). Thus, there is a dual relationship in terms of the practice elements: material configuration (swap layout organisation) and competence (swap system) can influence the extent of meaning (pressure felt by consumers); at the same time meanings are influencing the materials (clothing itself brought by consumers) and competence (the skills to select and value appropriate clothing). This finding is supported by Shove et al.'s (2012) argument that elements themselves are of transformative nature as they are mutually shaping whilst also interdependent.

It is interesting that peer-pressure was felt by both beginner and experienced swappers alike. Whilst to an extent the peer-pressure to bring better clothing can lead to a higher quality of clothing in the swap, it is at the same time a barrier. Overcoming the barriers of judgement and peer-pressure is an important aspect which can make the community-based enterprise feel more inclusive and welcoming or not. It will also promote social interaction and trust which are key determinants for social innovation development (Pansuwong et al., 2023). Altering the layout of the swap so that the check-in phase is more discreet and away from the rest of the queue can be a potential strategy to alleviate feelings of anxiety and self-consciousness over clothing brought to swaps. It was further suggested by C14 that:

Having clear directions on what is expected is really important. To be honest, when things aren't clear, it leaves it open to interpretation and also people interpret things differently and that's where it can end up being not fair for certain people by accident? The events can be really hectic sometimes too and I think clarity makes a difference and can make it less stressful in general.

The use of a value system can further impact the level of pressure one feels to bring good items and conform with an implicit social contract. The type of value system further links to organisers' expectations, not just consumers', which can heighten the pressure one feels

during check-in. Data show that there are generally two systems in terms of swap organisation: firstly, all items are valued as one token and can be swapped in a like-for-like fashion; and secondly, the system involves the organiser “valuing” items which means that some items can be worth more than one token and can then be swapped accordingly for items with the same or similar value. For instance, items with tags on, designer labels or vintage pieces are often worth more tokens and can only be swapped with items of the same token value. This however could be seen as bias, as what some organisers may perceive as “better” may differ between swap events and/or areas on which these community-based enterprises operate. Moreover, the way clothing is valued by the organiser can influence consumer feelings regarding their own wardrobe and type of clothing brought to swaps. The competence of the practice is, therefore, not only influencing the meaning (consumers feelings) but also the material (clothing brought to swaps). C17 highlights that “she [the organiser] would like take the clothing out of my bag and would go “oh this is nice” or like “wow what an amazing piece” and that really made a difference I think because I felt that my clothing was appreciated”. The quote supports the notion that organisers play a key role in creating a judgement-free environment at the very start of the event and can make a difference to the swappers’ experience and likelihood of return. It can also create social value, as a positive attitude towards changing behaviour can be supported, by building an inclusive environment that is fostered by trust (Sforzi and Bianchi, 2020). At the same time, however, the organisers’ involvement in valuing items may increase the pressure felt by participants if the organiser does not respond to items brought in a positive manner or comments on their suitability. The system can, therefore, influence not only the type of clothing consumers bring but also how they feel about the practice and any emotions associated with carrying out the practice.

A further finding encompasses how swappers refer to the initial letting go stage in the context of swapping. Whilst beginner swappers perceive swapping as “disposing” of garments, advanced and experienced swappers refer to swapping as giving “new life” to unwanted garments, which is more aligned with the voluntary disposition terminology. The change in discourse surrounding swapping is significant as it signals different variations of the practice and is likely influencing the type of items consumers are bringing to swap. Moreover, seeing swapping not as disposing but as giving new life to quality items carries implications for what swapping events are and how they can be marketed further to reach greater awareness among the general public. The difference in how swapping is referred to is exemplified C13: “I took like 10 things with me I think, which was the maximum allowed. I’ve just gone through a big clear-out of my wardrobe so the swap was really just a convenient way of getting rid of the stuff but then maybe getting two or three pieces back. I was very much trying to reduce my wardrobe at this point”. C13 highlighted decluttering and reducing wardrobe size (Matthews and Hodges, 2016; Camacho-Otero et al., 2019) influenced the number of garments brought to swap. C13 further said they wanted to “get rid of the stuff” which supports existing literature that found consumers often treat swapping events as dumping grounds for unwanted clothing (Henninger et al., 2019). Another beginner swapper also acknowledged that clothing brought to the swap was no longer wanted by them: “I felt a little bit self-conscious I guess. When I first brought my products up because obviously they were products that I didn’t want anymore” [C06]. It is interesting that C06 felt the need to explicitly state that they brought products they did not want anymore which is also what made them feel self-conscious. This is contrasting with more experienced swappers who as opposed to feeling self-conscious or referring to clothing

as “getting rid of”, celebrated clothes being passed on to others: “I think we all have pieces of clothing that have some emotional attachment, so there would be things that I’d seen in my closet that say I’d never wear anymore and it doesn’t really fit, but I still really like it [...] I really want to see it be worn on someone else” [C04]. C04 emphasises the fact they want their garments to “live on” with a different owner and as such there is a value creation process, by ensuring that garments can provide others not only joy, but also fulfil a new purpose. This can further link to the actual purpose of the community-based enterprises and the engagement of people, as swap participants are “living” what the community-based enterprise was set out to do: sharing of resources (Sforzi and Bianchi, 2020). Similar views were emulated during other interviews with experienced swappers [C07, C16 and C18] where swappers described swaps as destinations for clothing that deserve “new lives”. It is important to note that the way swapping is perceived by swappers is not mutually exclusive to the implicit social contract nor any feelings of judgement one might experience. Nonetheless, the branding of swapping and how consumers refer to such events could further offer an explanation as to why consumers try to bring “better” quality clothing to swaps. It could be argued that consumers are likely to bring clothing that had been looked after and loved if swaps are perceived as channels for such type of clothing. This means that consumers no longer bring basic items or clothing they want to “get rid of” but instead bring cherished items.

The reconceptualization of swapping events can, thus, impact the practice composition and influence all three elements of practice. The material element changes as consumers bring “better” items that have been properly looked after and “pre-loved” which can to an extent mean higher quality clothing that has lasted. It should be noted that whilst owners of the original item may have treated the item with longevity in mind, it does not mean that future owners will use and treat items in the same manner. The competence is further impacted as this affects the perceived skills necessary to engage within swapping practice, for example the selection process might be altered if the consumer regards swaps as destinations for pre-loved clothing rather than dumping grounds. The meaning element is significantly influenced with new connotations of the practice, impacting the feelings and emotions towards swapping as well as proposing a novel way of understanding the purpose of swaps. This in turn relates to the creation and provision of social value which can be achieved “through acting in accordance with the ideals of the respective social movement” (Lautermann, 2013: 197) which includes the exchange of products and services.

The theoretical contribution of swapping being classed as a destination for loved clothing by experienced swappers lends itself to an opportunity for swapping being marketed as such to new consumers. As swapping continues to be niche, marketing swapping as a unique place where loved pieces of clothing can live on beyond the original owner can potentially spark new interest for individuals that do not want to donate their items to charity or cannot part with them due to (emotional) attachments. Emphasising that clothing in swapping events have been looked after by previous owners and are in good condition to be worn by someone might elevate swapping events from being perceived as just another second-hand shop.

The findings, therefore, support the existing shift from marketing swapping events with “pre-loved” terminology rather than “pre-worn” (Grady, 2019). Heminger (2021) notes that the term “loved” can generate emotional attachment because loved clothing is not associated with “waste” or poor-quality garments, thereby decreasing the perceived risks associated with swapping. Storytelling via clothing and acknowledging previous owners can further be a branding point and support the marketing of clothes swapping. A common theme which has emerged from consumer interviews is that participants share stories about the swapped

clothing especially if they see a stranger looking or trying on their item [C04, C10 and C14]. Similar findings have been found in previous swapping studies (Matthews and Hodges, 2016). Despite second-hand clothing consumption continuing to be destigmatize, it is necessary to consider that hygiene is a key consumer concern (Henninger et al., 2019) and, therefore, marketing on the basis of previous owners could draw away potential practitioners.