Promises and perils of sharing economy. A success business model?

1. 15/02/2017
Carmen Dibut
Michaela Rojkovicova
Promises & Perils
Sharing Economy

2. History: Sharing Economy
● Benefitted from the financial crisis in 2008.
● The necessity of reduce costs combined with digital innovation.
● Customer become more price sensitive after have lost their houses, cars and
investments.
● Create a new business model.
● Based on p2p network communication on the internet.
● Called today “Sharing Economy”, “Gig Economy”...etc.
Russell Belk, 2013; Hamari et al, 2016

3. Concepts: Sharing Economy
Mohamad et al, 2017; Defined P2P as a new business model. Separated Non ownership from collaborative
consumption.
Hamari et al, 2016; Defined Collaborative Consumption/’Sharing Economy” as a P2P-based business model of
obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online
services.
Russell Belk, 2014; Make a distinction of sharing practices. Non-ownership and the Internet as main traits.
Separated Sharing from CC via p2p. While in Sharing there is not ownership involved, in CC is people coordinating
the acquisition and distribution of good for a fee or other compensation. Ex: swapping, trading, etc. vs Airbnb or
Threadless.
Juliet Schor, 2014; Sustained that a solid definition of sharing economy is impossible. She separate P2P economic
activity in two classes: For-profit and Non-profit. Identifying a non-profit model of sharing economy as a powerful
tool for building a new social movement centred on genuine practices of sharing and cooperation in the production
and consumption of goods and services.
Mark Johnson (The Economists, 2013): The use of technology to reduce the transaction costs to renting, sharing
things to other people over the internet.
In term of ownership, CC could be as important as the IR. (Bostman & Rogers, 2010)

4. Non-profitFor-Profit
Why to buy if I can I use it for
the time by & save money?
What do you have to
share?
Data & goods
Codes
(Software,hardware,AI,ML)
Music
Information
Video
Reviews
Feelings
Personal to shared ownership
“Ride Sharing”
“Aim to serve needs and solved
social problems at local, community
level”
Extra income and save money
“Stay Sharing”
Sharing

6. Promises
• Ecological effect of “stay sharing“
Staying in existing homes decrease the demand for new hotels
• “Bike sharing” reduce carbon emission →
• The use of “digital technology” reduce transaction costs, bring
opportunities globally in real time and crowdsource information.
• “Retail sharing” allow the customisation of products and services,
rather than mass production of goods.

7. Airbnb Case Study
● Staying in existing homes decrease the demand for new hotels.
● Extra income to house ownership and save money for final users.
● High level of governance of the platforms seems free to distort property prices and create
unregulated market for short-term accommodation.
● Strong community culture. Users (host or guest) provide each other with a great deal of
mutual support and share their knowledge and experience.
● Promote responsible home sharing to make city stronger; Airbnb request that NYC alters its
laws to allow Airbnb to collect taxes on rental.

8. • Conflicts: professional, political, commercial, geographic, generational, etc.
• Decline in full-time employment
• UBER -- > Decreasing price of car-sharing -- > Ecological impact -- > People use less public transport
-- > Pollution increased
• Grey Market: no regulations
• Regulations:
• Distort the market and disregard important regulations
• Uber: reluctant to face regulations that apply to taxis
• Airbnb: Fire-escape plan map inside apartment, Hotel taxes
• States could be embroiled for years in political, legal, commercial and environmental battles
related to sharing
Perils

9. Airbnb Case Study
● Weak local governments can’t deal with all the new planning, zoning, licensing
and regulatory questions posed by this new economic model. Courts are already
too crowded to handle basic functions—much less a host of new claims sparked
by sharing enterprises.
● Amsterdam: occasional rent 60 days per year -- > including tourist tax -- > renting
only when they are away (Sharing Economy) -- > rather than permanent renting
(Not Sharing Economy)
● London: occasional rent 90 days per year (from 2017)
● Paris: occasional rent 120 days per year
● Without regulations, Airbnb would create incentive for illegal renting with
negative consequences for the economy.

10. Conclusion
● Sharing economy companies are extending the market - we have to
confront the ways they’re distorting it
● The philosophy of policy is important
● Try to regulate it in such way that it becomes part of sharing economy
● Occasional rather than permanent
● Legal & doesn’t disrupt other businesses and economy

11. Thank you!