Sharing
Sources
Gray Sources
The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the ‘Sharing Economy’ 2016, The European Commission's science and knowledge service
The Sharing Economy, Price Waterhouse, Consumer Intelligence 2014
4 big trends for the sharing economy in 2019 (2019) World Economic Forum,
Peer to Peer Sharing
Subtopic
Frenken 2017
The digital platforms are able to make stranger sharing less risky and more appealing because they source information on users via the use of ratings and reputations. Although there is a growing body of evidence thatratings are generally inflated and not very accurate (Overgoor et al., 2012; Zervas et al., 2015),
There is something new about the sharing economy, which one of us has called “stranger sharing” (Schor, 2014). Historically, although there are some exceptions, people tended not to share with strangers or those outside their social networks. Sharing was confined to trusted individuals such as family, friends and neighbours. Today sharing platforms facilitate sharing among people who do not know each other, and who lack friends or connections in common. Frenken 2016
There has been widespread ambiguity and even confusion about the term “sharing economy” among academics and the public alike. One reason is due to a common misconception about the sharing economy: its novelty. Participants in the sharing economy employ a discourse of trendiness, technological sophistication, progress and innovation. Frenken 2016
From having largely been talked about as, for example, Uber and Airbnb, the number of platforms eglobal and local e steadily increase, often as adaptations and modifications of the original platforms (Geissinger et al., 2017).
The development of the sharing economy indicates several paths: the separation between those accessing and those owning resources, individuals (and companies) operating the sharing economy as professions and businesses, and peers participating in the sharing economy for profit and financial reasons (see, e.g., Acquier et al., 2017; Mair and Reischauer, 2017) cited in Gessinger 2019
The more or less widely accepted definition nonetheless views two-sided markets as a platform that serves two or more groups of consumers with heterogeneous demand, and with bilateral indirect network externalities. Hou 2018
The sharing economy involves a platform that “provides a discrete set of services to the parties using it, facilitating their efforts to transact effectively and efficiently,[...], agreeing to terms with them, and performing the contract”. 15
Most importantly, the sharing economy differs from the traditional business model in that it replaces the traditional role of distributors. Hou 2018
Sharing Cities
The emerging “sharing economy” is particularly interesting in the context of cities that struggle with population growth and increasing density. Cohen 2014
The potential sustainability benefits associated with such sharing economies are interesting from an organizational and environmental perspective, particularly in the context of the increasing urbanization many countries experience today. Cohen 2014
At three strategic locations – London, Lisbon and Milan – we will demonstrate the effectiveness of new technologies in improving urban mobility, increasing the energy efficiency of buildings and reducing carbon emissions.
Sharing Cities, as part of the circular economy, aims to irreversibly change the way we think about the role of digital technology in our cities and to clarify how we all can benefit from and contribute to this transformation process.
The Circular Economy is a relevant topic that is attracting
an increasing research interest (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016). In particular, Stahel (1997) emphasised that selling utilization instead of ownership of goods - core aspect of the Functional Economy - is the most relevant sustainable business model for a loop economy (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016) cited by Toni 2018
Community sharing
Altruism
Or perhaps altruism is an investment strategy: we do good deeds to others in the hope that they will return the favour (known as [reciprocal altruism]. It could even be a way of demonstrating our resources, showing how wealthy or able we are, so that we become more attractive and enhance our reproductive possibilities.
A variety of different explanations to account for this have been put forward. One suggests that perhaps there is no such thing as “pure” altruism at all. When we help strangers (or animals), there must always be some level of benefit to ourselves, such as making us feel good about ourselves, or gaining the respect of others.
Under this view, it makes sense to help people who are closely related to us genetically, such as family members or distant cousins, because what may seem like self-sacrifice actually benefits our gene pool. But what about when we help people to whom we are not closely genetically related, or even animals?
According to the modern Neo-Darwinian view, human beings are basically selfish, the “carriers” of thousands of genes, whose only aim is to survive and replicate themselves.
https://youtu.be/72-obuscJ-E
Agency theory leverages the metaphor of a contract to explore the relationship between a party (principal) who delegates work to an agent (Cohan 2014
The primary focus of agency theory research is “relationships that mirror the basic agency structure of a principal and an agent who are engaged in cooperative behavior, but have differing goals and differing attitudes toward risk” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 59).
sharable
How ro guides
People-powered solutions
for the common good
A usufruct is a system in which a person or group of persons uses the real property (often land) of another. These "usufructuary" do not own the property but do have an interest in it, which is sanctioned or contractually allowed by the owner Elickson 2013
Peer to peer tourism
Sharing economy: “In the sharing economy, new ventures develop and deploy digital platforms to enable peer-to-peer sharing of goods, services and information. The underlying proposition of sharing economy fi rms is that they can add value by allowing owners of resources to make their idle personal assets (e.g., rooms or homes) available to those who need them (e.g., travelers).” Netter 2019
Sustainable tourism development is strictly linked to the satisfaction of‘the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future’(WTO, 1993),
In 2018, P2P accommodation makes up about 7% of accommodation globally, or roughly 8 million beds. World Bank. This growth is not spread evenly: it appears to be stabilizing in some more mature markets and accelerating in emerging markets.
Airbnb
Airbnb is a good example of a dualistic practice as it contains mixed characteristics. It is profit-oriented but it also creates social bonds. It is reciprocal while at the same time dependent on members and their collaboration. Habibi
Transformative?
Assumptions Martin 2016
Framing 5: The Sharing Economy Reinforces the Neoliberal Economic Paradigm; A Sharing Society is Needed
corporate co-option of the sharing economy (e.g. Airbnb and
Couchsurfing); the casualisation of labour within the sharing economy a lack of concern with issues of environment
sustainability; the assumption embedded within the sharing economy's peer-to-peer model that individual actions alone lead to social change; and, the exclusivity of the sharing economy (i.e. only those who already own assets can share them).
Framing 3: The Sharing Economy is a Pathway to a Decentralised, Equitable and Sustainable Economy
Framing 2: The Sharing Economy is a More Sustainable Form of Consumption
Framing 1: The Sharing Economy is an Economic Opportunity
The sharing economy could bring about the end of capitalism: that’s the provocative claim made by economic journalist Paul Mason, among others. But my ongoing research indicates that there are many possible futures for the sharing economy: it could transform the world of work as we know it – or it could gradually fade from the public eye. Martin in The Conversation 2015
The idea is that these new forms of consumption have major environmental benefits. As these practices reduce consumer demand for products, this in turn reduces the number of products manufactured and ultimately decreases carbon emissions.
Some have argued that online sharing platforms can enable a new form of collaborative consumption, where citizen access rather than own products
The exact nature and impacts of the sharing economy are still disputed. The organisers of social movements, entrepreneurs, established businesses and politicians all have very different ideas of what the sharing economy is, and what it should become. Martin in The Conversation 2015
Materialism
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981)
Instrumental materialism “in which the possession of things serves goals that are independent of greed itself and have a specific limited scope within a context of purposes” (p. 231).pic
terminal (p.301) materialism as “a habit of consumption [as] an end in itself, feeding on its autonomous necessity to possess more things, to control more status, to use more energy” (pp. 230–231).
In fact, as millennials enter adulthood and the middle class, the trend seems to be for them to own less stuff. Not only is there a thriving “minimalist” movement, but the advent of the digital and sharing economies have made this much easier. (Forbes)
Among all the variables that are shown to increase willingness to participate in the sharing economy (e.g., economic incentives, political and environmental concerns, and social aspects), materialism is the least expected. Davidson
Based on Habibi sharing-exchange continuum, programs that fall closer to the sharing end of the spectrum are comprised of characteristics of an experiential nature in addition to providing access to products. Cited by Davidson
It would appear that materialism and sharing stand in contrast to one another. Moreover, because materialism is associated with feelings of control over possessions and strong attachments to objects, many would argue that it is naturally antithetical to sharing (Belk, 2007).
Materialist consumers hold the view that the ownership and possession of objects are instrumental towards many functions in their lives and materials are part of their identity (Shrum et al., 2013). Materialism is identified as consisting of three dimensions: the importance of acquiring possessions; the role that acquisition plays in the pursuit of happiness; and how such possessions are used to define success (Richins & Dawson, 1992). cited by Davidson 2018
EU on interests and counterpoints
Hirschman (1977), notes that passions and interests are counterpoints that integrate each other. This view challenges both those who see the self as a utility-maximizing machine and the communitarian thinkers who long for a world without avarice and the quest for lucre. Passionate idealism and uncompromising utilitarian individualism are two faces of the same coin. Economic activity is also driven by passions and practices that cannot be reduced to competition between individuals or firms. At face value the ‘sharing economy’ seems the perfect candidate for a positive integration of passions and economic self-interest: an opportunity for richer human experiences and utilitarian gains, for both economic and social innovation. Its success could be seen, to borrow again from Hirschman (1970), as a mixture of ‘exit’ and ‘voice’, empowering individuals as both consumers and independent entrepreneurs.
Materialism is a construct that differs both within and between cultures. Not only are there individual and cultural differences in the levels of materialism, but the meaning of the construct itself is likely to differ between people and between cultures.Because cultures differ across time as well as space, the intersection of culture and materialism is a moving target. (Belk, 2015 in Handbook of Culture and Consumer Behavoir)
Ward and Wackman (1971) defined materialism as “an orientation which views material goods and money as important for personal happiness and social progress” (p. 422).
Trends with the sharing economy
EU pathways
Barbarisation. Traditional firms and work are dis-intermediated, decentralised, and parcelled, to be re-intermediated through algorithms. Robots substitute work, workers perform routinised, repetitive micro-tasks. Dis-embedding and dis-empowerment without government intervention lead to unemployment and inequality.
Growth-oriented globalisation. There is no societal and cultural re-embedding, with minimal government intervention, leading to increasing inequality, social polarisation, and a negative impact on sustainability. ‘Sharing’platforms lead to human capital specialisation and ‘virtual labour migrations’.
Regulated sustainability. Governments push for re-embedding through regulatory and traditional intervention to steer society toward sustainability and resolve the disempowerment and unfair effects of the ‘sharing economy’.
Great transformation. This community-led, optimistic path (green, social, and fair economic prosperity) requires no major regulatory intervention. The re-embedding of the economy happens entirely through changes in behaviourand culture.
“sharewashing”: companies latching onto the term because it sounds enticing, not because there is actual sharing involved.
The “sharing economy” – which is expected to go from generating global revenues around $15 billion in 2015 to $335 billion by 2025 – is a model based on collaboration thanks to the capabilities enabled by internet-based software, which promote consumption without ownership and provide matchmaking platforms. World Economic Forum
Back in 2009, there were only a handful: Zipcar, BlaBlaCar and Couchsurfing among them. Airbnb had launched in fall 2008, Uber in spring 2009. “Access over ownership” is a shift that has taken root, as digital and mobile technologies make it ever easier to access goods and services on-demand. It is no longer a millennial preference, but a part of modern society. World Economic Forum
More research is needed concerning how the sharing economy is related to sustainability as suggested by Daunorien_ e et al. (2015), and there is still very limited research focusing on the platforms in the sharing economy. Geissenger 2019
While economic gains may not necessarily contradict the sustainability connotation of the sharing economy, separations of those using and producing offerings (also linked to the profes-sionalization) would, as would the transfer of resources, rather than the sharing and accessing (cf. Belk, 2014).
Having received hundreds of millions in venture capital (Alsever, 2013), these platforms induce both competitive and institutional turbulence in several established industries (Laurell and Sandstr€m,2-17)
om, 2016). cited by Geissenger 2019
And, there is the shift in how the sharing economy is operated that may have changed its sustainability connotation. More precisely, Airbnb and Uber, for instance, have created platforms for commercial exchanges between individuals. Geissenger 2019
In the early days, it was rare not to have a conversation about how the sharing economy could responsibly mitigate hyper-consumption and truly build community connections. These benefits have not disappeared, but it is increasingly difficult to find sharing economy platforms that practise these principles in reality. The focus has shifted towards convenience, price and transactional efficiency: “community” as commodity. World Economic Forum
Sharing Economy Sustainable?
The term sharing has become so ubiquitous on social media websites and especially with services offered through the sharing economy that it has arguably lost its meaning (John, 2013). cited by Habibi 2017
Sustainable consumer behaviour is a set of actions improving social and environmental performance but also meeting the needs of present and future generations as a result of actions that aim to conserve the physical environment and protect other individuals and groups (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2011; Bonnes and Bonaiuto, 2002); it studies why and how consumers do or do not incorpo- rate sustainability issues into their consumption behaviour (Belz and Peattie, 2009) cited by Toni 2016
The sharing economy is rather hard to delineate because it encompasses a whole range of work arrangements, from people genuinely sharing things with one another with no regard for monetary compensation to those where assets and services are sold or rented for a price. Ahsan
The common-sense meaning of sharing excludes forms of exchange where a monetary benefit accrues to one or more party, and hence innovations based on peer-to-peer asset rental (e.g. Airbnb) could be excluded from the sharing economy. However, if one considers that access to an asset can be shared (rather than the asset itself), the accrual of monetary benefit becomes irrelevant and innovations based on peer-to-peer asset rental are included within the sharing economy. Martin 2016
Sharing has probably been the basic form of economic distri- bution in hominid societies for several hundred thousand years.
Heinrichs (2013: 228) has heralded the sharing economy as a “potential nnew pathway to sustainability”, whilst Botsman and Rogers (2010) argue that it will disrupt the unsustainable practices of hyper- consumption that drive capitalist economies
Both platforms have made the journey from an entrepreneurial start-up company to a multi-billion dollar international corporation in less than fie years (Lashinsky, 2015, Konrad and Mac, 2014).
The Silicon Valley success stories of Airbnb and Uber have catalysed a vibrant sharing economy discourse, participated in by the media, ICT industries, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and grassroots activists. Martin 2016
Much of this interest arises from the Silicon Valley success stories of two sharing economy platforms: Airbnb, an online peer-to-peer platform which enables people to rent out residential accommodation, including their own homes, on a short term basis; and, Uber, an online peer-to- peer platform providing taxi and ‘ridesharing’services. cited in Martin 2016
The sharing economy, which popularized several non-ownership consumption alternatives, is a fairly new yet global phenomenon. Its rise and expansion was so fast that research has fallen behind in understanding and explaining the related issues. (Frenken 2017)
Links with Collaborative Consumption
Collaborative Consumption: “ (... ) traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trading, renting, gifting and swapping, redefined through technology and peer communities. Collaborative Consumption is enabling people to realize the enormous benefits of access to products and services over ownership, and at the same time save money, space and time; make new friends; and become active citizens once again” Netter 2019
The diffusion of social networks and online communities, the environmental concerns and cost-consciousness lead to the sense of aggregation, openness and cooperation that paves the way to sharing activities (Botsman and Rogers, 2010) cited by Toni
Collaborative consumption is people coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation. By including other compensation, the definition also encompasses bartering, trading, and swapping, which involve giving and receiving non-monetary compensation. But this definition of collaborative consumption excludes sharing activities like those of CouchSurfing because there is no compensation involved (Belk 2014)
The Collaborative Economy, as an innovative consuming model, raises from a confluence of events and circumstances, i.e. the advent of technology, e commerce and social media, growing customer awareness and the proliferation of web communities. Toni 2018
The collaborative economy is a relatively new economic system approach based on peer-to- peer transactions. It includes the shared creation, production and consumption of goods and services accessible for all through online platforms and smartphone applications.“ (Beaumont, 2016:6)
The assumption behind collaborative Consumption is the existence of assets, the willingness of the assets or service to provide to another user from the part of the owner (either that it is not able to take advantage of the period of their life, or even with the intent to do so), the existence of the subject (in particular, natural persons) that has the interest to take advantage of such assets or service, free of charge or for a fee (Felson, Spaeth, 1978). cited in Hruska
The term Collaborative Consumption arises from the research of Felson and Spaeth (1978) that defined it as those events in which one or more persons consume goods or services in the process of engaging joint activities with others.
Collaborative consumption (Belk 2014)
The sharing economy has been suggested to offer the potential of transitioning societies into a post-ownership economy (Belk, 2014).
“The Collaborative Economy is a phenomenon that is boosted by technological advances, connectivity, and social trend that lead people to switch from the need of possession to the need of access. A revolutionary trend is in progress, despite currently under regulated, which implies the coexistence of innovative and traditional market places. Toni 2018
‘pseudo-sharing as a phenomenon whereby commodity exchange and potential exploitation of consumer-creators present themselves in the guise of sharing.’ Belk 2014
Two types of sharing that frequently occur are “demand sharing” and “ open sharing.” Demand sharing is evident when our children ask to be fed, but also when someone asks us for the time of day.Belk 2014
On the other hand, when sharing involves dividing something between relative strangers or when it is intended as a one-time act such as providing someone with spare change, directions, or the time of day, it is described as “sharing out.” Bel 2014
There are two commonalities in these sharing and collaborative consumption practices: 1) their use of temporary access non-ownership models of utilizing consumer goods and services and 2) their reliance on the Internet, and especially Web 2.0, to bring this about. Web 2.0
Sharing Economy Platforms
Lifestyle sharing
Borrow My Dog
Borrow My Doggy enables owners to list their pooches for borrowers to spend time with. The service enables anything from evening cuddles, lunchtime walkies, or even dog and/or housesitting!
My Wardrobe: Clothes
Olio Food Sharing
https://youtu.be/80CFkR30Kxg
Taskrabbit
TaskRabbit is a mobile marketplace for people to hire people to do jobs and tasks, from delivery, to handyman to office help. Founded in 2008, the site has 4,000 Taskrabbits on the service nationwide who bid to do tasks that are posted by people looking for a service. All the "rabbits" are interviewed and have their backgrounds checked before going on the system.
Mobility
Rent a bike from a neighbor through sharing startup, formerly known as Spinlister.
Liftshare
Liftshare matches passengers with drivers heading in the same direction. Whether it’s a regular commute or a trip to a festival, we want to help drivers fill their empty seats. By doing so, our average regular sharers cut their carbon footprint by 10%, save over £1000 a year and arrive at their destination happier.
Turo UK
Do you have a car which sits parked for lengthy periods of time? Why not add your motor to Turo and let it pay for itself! Owners can gain from their vehicle which would otherwise be sat stationary, and borrowers can find the perfect car for their journey!
Getearound
Peer-to-peer car sharing company Getaround lets people can borrow cars from others. Owners who are out of town can also leave their car with Getaround, which will rent out the car, clean it and take care of it. Getaround cars are covered by a $1 million insurance policy from Berkshire Hathaway. Currently operates in San Francisco, Austin, Portland, San Diego, Chicago
Defining a sharing economy
Grey Material
The sharing economy, also known as the access economy, peer-to-peer economy, or collaborative economy is a mode of consumption whereby goods and services are not owned by a single user, but rather only temporarily accessed by members of a network and underutilized assets are shared, either for free or for a fee. Wikipedia
Before the internet, renting a surfboard, a power tool or a parking space from someone else was feasible, but was usually more trouble than it was worth. Now websites such as Airbnb, RelayRides and SnapGoods match up owners and renters; smartphones with GPS let people see where the nearest rentable car is parked; social networks provide a way to check up on people and build trust; and online payment systems handle the billing. Economist 2013 (!)
Academic
The sharing economy is rather hard to delineate because it encompasses a whole range of work arrangements, from people genuinely sharing things with one another with no regard for monetary compensation to those where assets and services are sold or rented for a price. Ahshan, 2018
The concept of the sharing economy is a fuzzy one, with the label acting as a floating signifier that can be slapped onto a variety of different concepts. Online collaborations, open-source software communities, and sharing platforms with no monetary exchange are lumped together with multi-billion-dollar behemoths backed by profit-seeking venture capital. Ahsan 2018
Peer to peer comprises peer-based transactions that can be characterized as-corporate, commercial, temporal, and tangible. Hawlitschek 2018
Tangible: transactions are centered on physical products or product-services (excluding the provision of pure service, such as on TaskRabbit).
Temporal: resource transfer is temporal and usually rather short-term (excluding buying/selling platforms such as eBay, as well as long-term transactions such as on Realtor),
Commercial: transactions are commercial; that is, they involve an exchange of money between peers (excluding neighborly help or mainly idealistic communities such as Couchsurfi
ng),
The sharing economy and its description is based on the shared consumption, participation, community thinking. That means the economic model is based on sharing or renting products, in contrast to their exclusive and indivisible ownership. Hruska 2018
Sharing is a form of social exchange that takes place among people known to each other, without any profit. Sharing is an established practice, and dominates particular aspects of our life, such as within the family. By sharing and collectively consuming the household space of the home, family members establish a communal identity. Eckhardt 2015 HBR
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. Rather, consumers are paying to access someone else’s goods or services for a particular period of time. It is an economic exchange, and consumers are after utilitarian, rather than social, value.
Felson and Speath (1978) define acts of collaborative consumption as “ those events in which one or more persons consume economic goods or services in the process of engaging in joint activities with one or more others”
(p. 614). cited by Belk
The popular notion of the sharing economy represents an umbrella term and often subsumes a broad variety of concepts and ideas. Hawlitschek 2018
acces based consumption
collaborative consumption
The term ‘‘Sharing Economy’’ was first mentioned in 2008 and denotes the ‘‘collaborative consumption made by the activities of sharing, exchanging, and rental of resources without owning the goods.’’ (Lessig 2008, pp. 143 ff.). cited by Puschmann 2016
We follow Acquier et al. (2017) and tentatively define the sharing economy as an umbrella construct for a variety of for-profit and non-profit, business-to-consumer and peer-to-peer setups that enable the compartmentalization of ownership and the usership of goods, skills, and services. cited in Netter 2019
The sharing economy is an economic model defined as a peer-to-peer (P2P) based activity of acquiring, providing, or sharing access to goods and services that is often facilitated by a community-based on-line platform. Schlor, 2016
