The largest industrialized countries currently live in a world of "consumption and disposal". It's perfect for the bottom lines of firms and for abstract measures like GDP, but the social and environmental costs of living this way are high – for example, the high price of "fast fashion". We all like to be able to use less and recycle more, but how can we, as a society, switch to the "use and move" model?
What is needed for firms and consumers to become equal and active partners in value creation is to do so sustainably and independently. This process is known as value co-creation. Our economic and social system has evolved into a system of exchange of goods and commodities and money. Society and the economy, based on value co-financing, mean we are moving to a service-sharing system where firms and consumers are equal partners. Firms provide knowledge of a particular trade or kindness, while consumers provide knowledge of the specific expectations, experiences, and contexts in which they experience a good or service.
One example is delivery firm DHL, which regularly brings together its customers and service partners to share best practices in innovation centers. Patagonia has the potential in the apparel industry, helping users create value through repair workshops, clothing exchanges and more.
Co-value of value changes consumption
In the 19th century, farmers, merchants and merchants directly created value through their activities. The twentieth century was the century of the firm, and in the second half of the year multinational companies gained momentum. All of these models have their basis in the gross output model, in which suppliers provide goods and services to the consumers who use them.
The consumer of goods and services coming into the 21st century, as well as the customer in the business relationship, have played a key role in creating customer-centric values.
The first fundamental difference between value coexistence is that all economic activity and exchange are interdependent – value is created only by the relationship between the two actors, and thus it is always created. In such relationships, each actor uses knowledge to create value. The actual meaning does not include the goodness, service, or information gained from the applied knowledge, but it depends on what the other actor is doing based on his or her own knowledge. Goods and services are only vehicles used for the value derived from knowledge.
For example, a lawyer will use legal knowledge to protect a client. The chef at the restaurant will use his cooking knowledge to prepare delicious dishes. The designer will use his or her skills to design sophisticated and modern and comfortable furniture. Applying knowledge results to activities (in our examples, client protection, serving dishes, furniture design) that firms and individuals do for themselves or others, and this may involve the use of tangible goods (eg, meat, vegetables, etc.) to cook dishes. ; Wood or other furniture materials). However, there is no substantive, independent value for essential goods and services. Therefore, ownership of goods does not in itself matter. However, in today's economic model, in most cases, value creation requires ownership.
The second fundamental difference is that all actors are equal contributors to value creation. In the extreme version of this mindset, all economic and social actors are alike the provider and beneficiary of knowledge. Thus, it is no longer necessary to distinguish between a firm and a customer. Instead of thinking about business-to-business and business-to-business, proponents of this approach are arguing from actor to actor for social and economic exchange. In this world, exchange takes place on the basis of the knowledge that is used to serve one or more actors. In this perspective, the traditional notion of consumer and consumption issues is moving forward.
A vision for the future or a reality?
To illustrate this philosophy we can simply look at all Internet-based businesses that provide different forms of actor interaction. Platforms, such as Booking.com and Opodo, mediate between a traditional supplier firm and a customer that provides a connecting service. Uber, BlaBlaCar and Airbnb have created a universal economy to provide platforms for people to share their homes or cars. Unused space and capacity will turn into a boon for these firms.
However, these models of sharing have been heavily commercialized and professionalized and lost their share. Numerous countries have taken measures to ban, restrict and penalize platform businesses. Criticism includes price pressures on traditional providers, tax evasion, excesses and unfavorable working conditions. True sharing platforms like Couchsurfing have not grown like commercially oriented platforms but continue to survive.
Traditional manufacturing-based firms, such as Patagonia and Decathlon, provide users with a platform to exchange or trade used products. Outdoor clothing and apparel brand Kathmandu returns any product they sell for recycling, even if it is another brand. Patagonia [patagonia.com/worn-wear-repairs/] But also a shoe maker tricycle [trickers.com/uk/care] Offer repair services to its users. Patagonia and retail REI go as far as encouraging customers No. Buy.
Many of these companies create value with their customers, use a second product by giving it a second life or extending the life of an existing product. Firms and customers need to work together to make this happen. While it may be argued that such strategies in Patagonia are irrational and contrary to the wishes of shareholders (fortunately the company is privately owned and therefore have no shareholders), taking the co-financing perspective, the company understands that more and more sustainable value is created for product life. Prolong the light, rather than encourage excessive consumption and the mentality of "use and dispose".
Value is co – financed through the interaction with the business – consumer, the business – to – business interaction and the customer – to customer relationship, which becomes shorter with the actor – actor interaction. All of these interactions are a place of value co-creation for the joint or both parties. All of these opportunities have the potential to help us "consume less" without "less material." Further alternatives, such as renting clothes to respond to people's needs, exist for the traditional "buy, use and dispose" mentality. However, changing the way people think and behave and achieve these alternative ways still requires an equal amount of traditional "consumption".
Digital platforms: Making the world a more difficult place
This article is published by Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Value co-financing: from "consumption and disposal" to "consumption and transition" (February 17, 2020)
Retrieved February 17, 2020
This document is subject to copyright. For the purposes of private law and research other than a fair case, no
Part may be transmitted without written permission. The content is provided for informational purposes only.