The Consequences of Participating in the Sharing Economy: A Transparency-Based Sharing Framework

Abstract

The sharing economy is estimated to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the global economy and is rapidly growing. However, trust-based commercial sharing—the participation in for-profit peer-to-peer sharing-economy activity—has negative as well as positive consequences for both the interacting parties and uninvolved third parties. To share responsibly, one needs to be aware of the various consequences of sharing. We provide a comprehensive, preregistered, systematic literature review of the consequences of trust-based commercial sharing, identifying 93 empirical papers spanning regions, sectors, and scientific disciplines. Via in-depth coding of the empirical work, we provide an authoritative overview of the economic, social, and psychological consequences of trust-based commercial sharing for involved parties, including service providers, users, and third parties. Based on the aggregate insights, we identify the common denominators for the positive and negative consequences. Whereas a well-functioning infrastructure of payment, insurance, and communication enables the positive consequences, ambiguity about rules, roles, and regulations causes non-negligible negative consequences. To overcome these negative consequences and promote more responsible forms of sharing, we propose the transparency-based sharing framework. Based on the framework, we outline an agenda for future research and discuss emerging managerial implications that arise when trying to increase transparency without jeopardizing the potential of trust-based commercial sharing.

The Distinctive Domain of the Sharing Economy: Definitions, Value Creation, and Implications for Research

“…While the sharing economy has distinct characteristics, an important commonality between this special issue and other studies (Gerwe and Silva, 2020; Köbis et al, 2021) is our collective hope to dispel the notion that the sharing economy is independent from the ‘regular economy’. Like Matryoshkas – sets of nested Russian dolls – the sharing economy is nested in and intertwined with the wider systems of exchange of goods and services, and this growing complexity explains why it is often difficult to define its bounds.…”

“…For instance, the Airbnb platform started by enticing temporary capacity only from private individuals, but now even property‐management firms, professionally run B&Bs, and boutique hotels use this platform on an ongoing basis (and demand is not limited to private individuals). An important commonality between this special issue and other studies is the recognition of this dynamism (Gerwe and Silva, 2020; Köbis et al, 2021), which implies opportunities to explore whether and to what extent sharing platforms characterized by different providers and users and/or different assets will exhibit more or less churn in membership. Alternatively, we might argue that those provider and user categories with more uniform user demand and/or more stable sources of providers might support more persistent advantages for platform providers.…”

“…Our definition is broader than in the past and it includes platforms that some might exclude from the sharing economy (e.g., Expedia, Hotels.com, crowdsourced delivery platforms such as DoorDash, Postmates, Grubhub and Uber Eats, or software and usability testing such as Applause). To be fair, our expansive view of the sharing economy was either anticipated or hinted at by the burgeoning literature (e.g., Ameri et al, 2020; Gerwe and Silva, 2020; Köbis et al, 2021; Pan Fang et al, 2021; Ta et al, 2018).…”

“…However, as often occurs following the emergence of a new research domain, these definitions are not fully consistent, encompassing, or coherent. Some emphasize how the sharing economy facilitates socioeconomic connection and peer‐to‐peer engagement (Köbis et al, 2021); others highlight the distinction between efforts to coordinate collaborative access and consumption for a monetary versus non‐monetary compensation (e.g., bartering, trading, and swapping; Belk, 2014), while still others direct attention to whether individuals or business entities own or share the accessed assets. For example, Möhlmann (2015) differentiates between sharing a physical asset that is privately owned (e.g., a home on Airbnb, or a peer‐to‐peer carsharing company such as Turo) and assets that are company‐owned (e.g., car2go and ZipCar).…”

Trust in the Ride Hailing Service of the Sharing Economy

“…Uncertainty is critical to trust, because trust is unnecessary if the trustor can control an exchange partner's actions or has complete knowledge about those actions (Coleman, 1990). Transparency is required to stimulate and maintain trust between parties (Köbis, Soraperra, & Shalvi, 2021). Providing relevant, timely, and reliable information positively relates to the competence aspect of trust (McKnight, Kacmar, & Choudhury, 2004).…”