The Presentation of Self as Good and Right: How Value Propositions and Business Model Features are Linked in the Sharing Economy

Abstract

The sharing economy as an emerging field is characterized by unsettled debates about its shared purpose and defining characteristics of the organizations within this field. This study draws on neo-institutional theory to explore how sharing organizations position themselves vis-à-vis such debates with regard to (1) the values these organizations publicly promote to present themselves as "good" sharing organizations and (2) the business model features they make visible to appear as having the "right" organizational model. This study examines the online self-representations of 62 prototypical sharing organizations in Germany with regard to value propositions and business model features. A semantic network analysis of the features reveals two distinct categories of sharing organizations: grassroots initiatives and platform-based organizations. By showing how value propositions and business model features are linked in the sharing economy, the findings indicate the different legitimation strategies of grassroots initiatives and platform-based organizations, which we term "sustainability by model" and "sustainability by feature." These findings broaden our understanding of the strategies that organizations apply to cope with societal expectations in the emerging sharing economy.

Sharing Economy, Sharing Responsibility? Corporate Social Responsibility in the Digital Age

“…The results of the study not only highlight the plurality of norms and moral concerns that saturate sharing economy deliberations, but also show how the entanglement of ethics, technology, and social change can be studied by investigating the concrete work of re-organizing socio-material elements during controversies. Wruk, Oberg, Klutt and Maurer's (2019) article "The presentation of self as good and right: How value propositions and business model features are linked in the sharing economy" is an exploration of platforms' self-presentation strategies vis-à-vis social expectations.…”

“…Through their sensitive and pointed analysis of such matters as Uber's destabilization of the Montréal taxi market (Mercier-Roy & Mailhot, 2019), how cities struggle with regulating the sharing economy towards the public good (Vith, Oberg, Höllerer and Meyer, 2019), how sharing platforms try to position themselves towards growing public and regulatory accountability (Berkowitz and Souchaud, 2019;Wruk, Oberg, Klutt and Maurer, 2019), and how value is created and distributed between platforms and providers (Chai & Scully, 2019), the articles here collected help to get us beyond the tendency to oversimplify sharing economy moral matters. They demonstrate that, even when the motivations of actors may be more or less fixed and readily identifiable (e.g., profitability, the social good, stable employment, convenience), nuances always emerge that make it naïve to suggest that the sharing economy, the platforms involved therein, and the consequences that emerge therefrom, could be entirely positive or negative.…”

Don’t Jump on the Bandwagon: Negative Effects of Sharewashing

“…Further, research affirms that companies that introduce access-based services are perceived as more innovative and forward-thinking (Belk 2014b;Baumeister et al 2015). To shed light on the positioning of accessbased service providers, Wruk et al (2019) analyze value propositions and business model features promoted by selected organizations and identify different legitimation strategies. Considering that more and more companies seek to join the sharing trend, there is also an increasing need to clarify what happens when organizations jump on the bandwagon and misleadingly promote their service as a sharing service with the sole aim of achieving positive image effects.…”

Thought Experiments and Philosophy in Organizational Research

“…Much has been made of its potential to address grand challenges, reduce overconsumption and reintroduce a sense of community in economic organization. While empirical studies map the sharing economy in quantitative terms (see Wruk, Oberg, Klutt, & Maurer, 2019), a philosophical inquiry would start by mapping its implication threads: what are the differences and similarities between sharing and other forms of exchange, such as organized by Uber or Wikipedia? How do these forms of exchange configure economic organization, individual preferences and collective behaviours?…”