Value creation in a circular economy is based on products being returned after use. In the case of smartphones, most are never returned and tend to be kept in drawers. Smartphone access services (e.g., leasing or upgrade) have been experimented with in the Netherlands but have been largely unsuccessful. This study explores the reasons why consumers rejected these access-based smartphone services and is one of the very few to address this topic. The findings are compared with the case of car access services, which are socially better accepted, to identify potential areas for improvement. The qualitative study consists of in-depth interviews with consumers (n = 18) who either adopted and used a smartphone or car access service, or had considered a new smartphone or car but did not choose access-based consumption. The findings of this small-scale study suggest that the main reasons for the rejection of smartphone access services are a lack of awareness, misunderstanding of terms and conditions, and unsatisfactory compensation for their sacrifice of not owning. Smartphone access providers could thus clearly communicate customers' rights and responsibilities, offer an excellent service experience (especially during repair) by taking over the burdens of ownership, and stimulate the societal logic shift from ownership to access.

No abstract

No abstract

For the transition toward a circular economy, it is essential that products are returned for reuse, refurbishing or recycling. In order to address the lack of literature on the topic from a user perspective, this paper explores how users can be stimulated to return used smartphones. Taking a Research through Design approach, we developed a novel set of "design for divestment" principles. Divestment is the process users experience when separating from a product. After introducing a conceptual model of divestment based on an extension of the Consumer Decision Process model by Blackwell, Engel, and Miniard, we describe seven empirical studies (i.e., design projects) into smartphone divestment. The studies explore factors that influence a successful divestment process. We report on a highly complex process with interrelated factors changing over time. While it is impossible to define a blueprint for an ideal divestment process, several patterns emerged such as the need to emotionally support users, to give them confidence regarding data security, and to provide information at the right moment. These unique insights contribute to consumer research (i.e., circular consumption); and by translating the insights to ten design principles for divestment, a novel contribution is made to the field of design research. benefit when returning a high-quality product? Related to the quantity of return flows, how can we create a "culture of return," where users routinely seek appropriate modes of disposition after use, e.g., donating at collection points or selling through a take-back scheme?Within the context of CE, this study focuses on design for divestment from a user perspective. It addresses these questions from a Research through Design (RtD) approach. From a design point of view, it is interesting to observe the imbalance between the extensive care put into the design of product purchase and product use experiences, and the careless way in which the final phase of consumption is often designed. We thus ask, can design contribute to creating more valuable and valued divestment processes from the user perspective?Following Gregson, Metcalfe, and Crewe [14] and Glover [15], we use the term divestment to refer to the final phase of the consumption cycle of purchase, use, and divestment. Divestment represents the combination of physical separation and mental and emotional separation processes that users go through when ending the use cycle of a product (see Table 1). Divestment is depicted here as the combination of disposition (i.e., physical separation) and detachment (i.e., mental and emotional separation of the product).

This paper contributes to the debate on user responsibility in a circular economy. It discusses the responsibility of users (for instance related to product care and product end-of-use) in various circular business models and considers how designers can help users fulfil their responsibility. The paper explores two extreme conceptions of user responsibility: high user responsibility that typically occurs in classic sales models, and low user responsibility, for instance in product-as-a-service models. Potential directions are given to designers to stimulate care, maintenance, repair and circular end-ofuse paths without scaring off or punishing users.