Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 19, Issue 1, 2024

The Current State and Future Trajectory of the Sharing

Economy: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective

Dinara Davlembayeva*

Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University

Cardiff, Wales, UK

Email: Davlembayevad@cardiff.ac.uk

Roba Abbas

School of Business, University of Wollongong

Wollongong, Australia

Email: Roba@uow.edu.au

Des Laffey

Kent Business School, University of Kent

Canterbury, Kent, UK

Email: D.j.laffey@kent.ac.uk

Katina Michael

School for the Future of Innovation in Society and School of Computing and Augmented Intelligence, Arizona

State University

Tempe, AZ, USA

Email: Katina.michael@asu.edu

Savvas Papagiannidis

Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle University

Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

Email: Savvas.Papagiannidis@newcastle.ac.uk

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a transformative impact on social and economic value, as well as the role of

mediating technology and regulation driving participation in the sharing economy. Considering the

consequences that such transformations entail, in this paper, we provide a multi-stakeholder perspective of the

pandemic's impact on sharing economy enablers and drivers, and the resulting short and long-term implications

for customers, providers, platform companies, and policymakers. Through the amalgamation and exploration of

these multiple perspectives, we then present a roadmap of the key research themes, considerations, and policy

gaps, supplemented with insights contributing toward the vision for a sustainable sharing economy. The

comprehensive overview provided in this paper offers multiple avenues for future research across social,

economic, technological, and regulatory domains.

Keywords: sharing economy, stakeholders, sharing economy drivers, COVID-19, pandemic, regulation,

roadmap, sustainable

Applied Management under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. Our journal is an open

access resource which means that all content is freely available without charge. Users are allowed to read,

download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful

purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. For more information about this

paper and our journal visit our website.

Submitted: 2024-01-22 / Published: 2024-01-25

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

1 INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a massive impact on the global business landscape. Companies have

accordingly needed to adapt to changing consumer interaction patterns, preferences and demands, while at the

same time ensuring continuity of operations. For many firms, the (increased) digitalisation of business models

and the automation of business processes have become means of keeping up with reshaped customer

expectations about service delivery and ensure improved customer experience (Beanne and Brynjolfsson, 2020;

Saura et al., 2022; Kane et al., 2021). Companies in the sharing economy (SE) sector faced many challenges too.

The sharing economy is “a socio-economic system enabling an intermediated set of exchanges of goods and

services between individuals and organisations which aim to increase efficiency and optimisation of under-

utilized resources in society” (Munoz and Cohen, 2017, p. 21). Unlike the traditional business sector, the

challenges that sharing economy companies experienced were rooted in the service offering itself and not only

the process of its delivery. Consumers’ orientation toward social life has changed and the economic propositions

of a sharing-based model of consumption appear to be less favourable since the COVID-19 pandemic (Das et

al., 2022; Davlembayeva and Papagiannidis, 2021).

From a social and behavioural point of view, shortly after the pandemic outbreak, individuals started

avoiding unnecessary physical contact with strangers (Deloitte, 2020). Non-ownership and social interactions

became a source of risk for service providers and customers (Amit and Kafy, 2022). Safety concerns over shared

goods and restrictions on social interactions put the sharing economy (SE) market on hold (Deloitte, 2020;

Seetharaman, 2020). For instance, the demand for ridesharing services dropped (Conger and Griffith, 2020),

related operations were curtailed, and thousands of workers were laid off across the globe (Preetika Rana, 2020;

Conger and Griffith, 2020). From an economic point of view, employment in platform companies has been

devalued against the backdrop of redundancy risks, market shrinkage and economic uncertainty (Amit and Kafy,

2022). As a result, the increased socio-economic vulnerability of those involved in sharing stimulated

government interventions, such as tax reliefs, payment deferrals and subsidies in an attempt to boost the

economy (Sigala, 2020). The above challenges faded into the background as soon as the social isolation and

travel restriction measures were lifted, leading to the recovery of industries (Statista, 2023). Despite the revival

of the sharing economy, the pandemic has changed the macro-environment in which sharing economy platforms

are situated, thus paving the way for transformations. For example, from a technological point of view, in the

wake of increasing social disconnectedness in physical spaces, the reliance on digital technology has intensified.

To ensure their own survival and that of the sharing economy, platforms had to innovate (Gerwe, 2021).

Innovation resulted in the emergence of new offerings, such as online experiences, virtual tourism and online

tutoring based on shared knowledge (Atsız and Cifci, 2021; Cenni and Vásquez, 2021; Jha et al., 2021). Given

the above, the pandemic has forced stakeholders to re-evaluate SE drivers and enablers - social and economic

value, mediating technology and regulation - entailing various implications for all the stakeholders involved.

Such implications require an analysis of the value drivers underpinning the sharing economy from a multi-

stakeholder perspective, considering customers, providers, platform companies and policymakers.

Although research on the sharing economy after COVID-19 is growing, there is a lack of a comprehensive,

stakeholder-focused overview of the short and long-term implications of the pandemic with respect to the

sharing economy ecosystem. Evidence concerns the consequences of the crisis on supply-side and demand-side

users (Atsız and Cifci, 2021; Amit and Kafy, 2022), and the motivational factors underpinning the usage of

services (Godovykh et al., 2022; Dogerlioglu‐Demir et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2022; Cenni and Vásquez, 2021).

Scholars have probed the future of the sharing economy services in the post-pandemic reality (Jha et al., 2021;

Gossen and Reck, 2021; Zhu and Liu, 2021; Davlembayeva and Papagiannidis, 2021) and discussed platform

responses for navigating the changing business environment (Grieco, 2022; Mont, 2004; Chi et al., 2022;

Gerwe, 2021). Recent studies have covered the “dark side” of the sharing economy, for instance, in the context

of business-to-business interactions (Rana et al., 2023), focusing on: privacy implications and concerns (Chen et

al., 2022); ethical considerations (Behera and Bala, 2023); psychological perspectives (Culiberg et al., 2023);

and challenges to business-to-business stakeholder relationship management in the SE (Davlembayeva and

Papagiannidis, 2023), among other areas. This paper seeks to move beyond dark side perspectives, and into the

realm of a balanced multi-stakeholder treatment of the SE toward consideration of sustainable SE models.

Given the above, the objective of this paper is two-fold. First, it aims to discuss the transformational impact

of the pandemic on SE enablers and drivers in view of the consequent short-term and long-term implications for

customers, service providers, platform companies and policymakers. Second, the paper aims to provide insights

to inform the future trajectory of the sharing economy and related business models, outlining promising areas

for future research that account for and offer a multi-stakeholder assessment of policy gaps and

recommendations toward more sustainable SE models.

The following section (Section 2) maps the SE economy ecosystem inclusive of prominent stakeholders

and discusses the drivers and enablers of participation in sharing pre-pandemic. Section 3 discusses the impact

of the pandemic on the SE drivers and enablers from the perspective of each stakeholder, namely, customers,

providers, platform companies and policymakers. Section 4 presents a discussion of potential future

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

developments in the sharing economy, offering a range of policy gaps and recommendations that encourage a

more sustainable sharing economy. The paper concludes with Section 5 containing a future research agenda in

the form of pertinent questions that highlight pressing research opportunities in support of sustainable SE

models.

2 SHARING ECONOMY ECOSYSTEM

The sharing economy ecosystem (Figure 1) is comprised of multiple stakeholders, inclusive of customers,

providers, platform companies and policymakers. The purpose of this ecosystem is to facilitate the exchange of

goods and services within the context of specific internal and external environments, while supporting

stakeholder interactions. In the SE ecosystem, the interactions between stakeholders are determined by their

social and economic value, the mediating role of technology, and regulation (Davlembayeva et al., 2019;

Davlembayeva and Papagiannidis, 2021; Belk, 2014b). Social value pertains to the social outcomes of relations,

such as co-production and collaborations, peer-to-peer interactions, and peer network development

(Davlembayeva et al., 2019). Economic value refers to the monetary and non-monetary value that platform users

acquire from the provision or the consumption of resources. Customers could potentially enjoy financial benefits

resulting from efficient transactions, and resources and services that were previously unaffordable (Laffey et al.,

2021; Botsman and Rogers, 2011). Providers receive compensation for granting users access to resources that

otherwise remain dormant (Belk, 2014b). Mediating technology refers to information systems connecting

stakeholders, supporting their relations and defining the social and economic value co-produced in those

relations (Rosenblat and Stark, 2016; Heylighen, 2017; Davlembayeva and Papagiannidis, 2021). One such

example is the algorithmic-based price and demand-matching system that determines the costs that users will

bear and profits that they will gain from transactions (Heylighen, 2017). With a higher degree of technology

mediation, the social value of relations becomes smaller as interactions between peers of the platform become

highly automated (Rosenblat and Stark, 2016; Heylighen, 2017). Regulation affects the sharing economy

through policies that create favourable conditions for companies to minimise the costs of labour, to maximise

profits and to compete with incumbent firms (Park et al., 2019; Etter et al., 2019). The policies may include tax

exemptions, limited liabilities, and obligations, and reduced institutional bureaucracy, among other benefits

(Ahsan, 2018; Park et al., 2019; Etter et al., 2019).

Against the backdrop of the pandemic, the avoidance of the collective use of resources and economic

recession have redefined the role of the social value, economic value, mediating technology, and regulation

driving sharing, thereby resulting in corresponding implications and impacts, which are reflected in SE

dynamics, models, and policy. Such changes impact the stakeholders involved in the sharing economy and entail

the involvement of policymakers to regulate the competitive landscape and other facets of the broader SE

ecosystem. For example, when considering social value, peer-to-peer accommodation services were once

popular due to the possibility to connect and develop authentic experiences, while interacting with local hosts

(Kromidha et al., 2021). That value proposition backfired after the pandemic, where the accommodation sharing

sector was the hardest hit (Gössling and Hall, 2019). It disrupted the business model, cut revenues, and left

many providers unemployed (Gerwe, 2021). In terms of economic value, declining interest in non-owned

resources meant increased purchases of new goods (Davlembayeva and Papagiannidis, 2021). The change in

demand implied fewer income opportunities for providers and lower accessibility of some resources for

consumers. From the regulatory perspective, legal interventions (e.g., tax exemptions, payment deferrals) eased

the impact of the pandemic for platforms and improved providers’ job security (Sigala, 2020). As far as

technology is concerned, it largely intermediated relations before COVID-19. However, the reduction in

demand for tangible resources has paved the way toward the introduction of completely online, experience-

based services (Atsız and Cifci, 2021; Cenni and Vásquez, 2021; Jha et al., 2021). New offerings are creating

new consumer experiences and entrepreneurial opportunities. However, the nature of these opportunities, the

corresponding challenges, and the social, economic, technological, and regulatory drivers of the SE since

COVID-19 are not well understood, nor have they been comprehensively reviewed.

The following section offers a comprehensive account of the drivers and enablers, from the perspective of

the major stakeholders in the SE ecosystem inclusive of customers, providers, platform companies and

policymakers, exploring the drivers and enablers before and since COVID-19, as well as the resulting

implications.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Figure 1: Sharing economy stakeholders, the drivers of participation and implications.

3 A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE ON SHARING ECONOMY DRIVERS AND

CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Customers

Customers in the sharing economy are individuals, groups of people, companies or the entities who access

and consume the resources and services they exchange with others through platforms. Depending on the

platform business model, customers can be broadly categorised into individuals (peers), and public and private

sector organisations (Curtis and Lehner, 2019). Individual consumers use platforms to temporarily access firms’

resources, such as commercial carsharing services provided by Zipcar, or the services and products offered by

other peers, such as second-hand goods and casual carpooling services (Piscicelli et al., 2015; Curtis and

Lehner, 2019). Business customers use platforms to leverage on the capital of the crowd, as in the case of

crowdfunding and crowdsourcing platforms; for example, when pharmaceutical firms resort to the crowd to

generate ideas and fuel innovation (Saxton et al., 2013). Business customers can also use platforms, such as

distributed manufacturing systems, to match with other business partners (Okwudire and Madhyastha, 2021). As

SE platforms encourage collaboration and co-creation, individual and business customers may switch their

supply and demand-side roles (Frenken and Schor, 2019). They may engage simultaneously in selling and

External environment

Internal environment

Drivers and

enablers before

COVID-19:

Social

Economic

Technological

Regulatory

Drivers and

enablers since

COVID-19:

Social

Economic

Technological

Regulatory

Customers

Providers

Platform

companies

Policymakers

Section 3

Implications:

Social Economic Technological Regulatory

Section 4 A research roadmap for a sustainable sharing economy

Section 5 Future developments and research opportunities

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

purchasing, driving and riding, hosting and renting, providing experiences and consuming them, or delivering

professional services and using them. As such, the platform technology enables commercial and non-

commercial exchanges between prosumers (i.e., receivers and producers of value).

The COVID-19 pandemic has redefined the value of commercial and non-commercial exchanges.

Customer preferences have been affected, thus stimulating a higher pace of innovation in the digital

environment on a local and global scale. New developments in the industry sector have influenced customers’

rationale for using platforms, which had mainly revolved around social and economic benefits before the

pandemic, for example, experience authenticity, social relationship building, transaction efficiency, and

affordability of and access to goods and services (Davlembayeva et al., 2019). Furthermore, the changes in the

social and market landscapes necessitate a re-evaluation of policymakers' support and control to preserve the

benefits of using platform offerings. This requires a thorough assessment and understanding of the social,

economic, technological, and regulatory considerations as they pertain to the customer perspective.

3.1.1 Social

The main social value drivers in the SE since the pandemic revolve around the ability of stakeholders to co-

create value, develop social relations and trust and preserve consumer rights.

In the SE context, co-creation is the foundation of social innovation emerging from collaborations with

other consumers or companies (Nadeem et al., 2020). Due to the salience of peer-to-peer and business-to-peer

SE platforms, such as Lyft, Airbnb and Zipcar, it has been customary to view individuals as the recipients of

value created through platforms. Examples of social innovation practices include experience co-creation in the

hospitality industry and the exchange of knowledge and content creation in online healthcare communities

(Shahrokh et al., 2022; Shirazi et al., 2021). However, as the pandemic hit, business-to-business models gained

momentum. Business customers started resorting to on-demand marketplaces and supply chain solutions, such

as Xometry, Flexe and Stogwa, seeking ways to alleviate fluctuations in manufacturing demand and supply

post-pandemic (Coppola, 2022b; Leonard, 2021). Co-creation for business customers is based on a combination

of good business ideas and the needs of one partner, and the experiences and solutions to realise the needs of

another. A potential implication of such collaborative practices is a more sustainable value chain, through the

optimisation of resources and the non-ownership usage model, which may yield positive, future environmental

impacts.

Another possibility since the pandemic is that customers’ engagement with platforms will produce less

social output (relations) than before. This can result from the greater embeddedness of technology, leading to

the emergence of fully automated services. For example, Xbed, a China-based self-service accommodation

provider, functions on a collaborative business model that was adapted to enable a customer-to-business-to-

customer connection (Du and Chou, 2020). The system is highly centralised and serves as a single platform for

hosts, guests, and keepers to manage accommodation listings on the website and booking processes. Access to

and checking in at the hotel is automated through a smart door lock and facial recognition technology, which

implies zero interaction between visitors and hosts. Studies indicate that the willingness to stay in

accommodation with integrated smart technology is high among prospective customers (Papagiannidis and

Davlembayeva, 2022), and as such the self-service model of hotels is likely to grow. This suggests that

collaborative relations can be supported without personal contact, and this will probably inhibit social capital

creation in relations between providers and customers.

Considering the sharing economy developments to date, the use of technology for monitoring customers

beyond their digital transactions incurs risks. By observing customers’ physical behaviour, companies may

obtain personal data, which may be disclosed both deliberately and inadvertently. This may in turn blur the

boundaries between customers’ private and public domains, which have always been unclear (Ebrahimi et al.

2022) and diminish trust in platforms. Customers may become vulnerable to manipulation by companies, as the

latter become the proprietors of customers’ data and hence they are likely to have the resources and

opportunities to shape customers’ needs. Consequently, since (and to some degree as a result of) the pandemic,

sharing economy models and operational decisions will likely require a stronger emphasis on consumer rights.

3.1.2 Economic

Economic expediency is arguably the strongest driver for purchasing and consuming services and resources

through SE platforms given the changes observed since the pandemic. It is likely that the economic utility of

transactions will define participation on business-oriented and peer-oriented platforms, which may have broader

implications in terms of economic equality.

Despite health-related concerns and privacy risks for consumers, the global socio-economic climate formed

by the reduced economic activities across various sectors contributed to a somewhat speedy recovery of the

sharing economy. Existing economic stagnation accentuates the logic of the non-ownership model of

consumption in the post-pandemic reality. For instance, people will refrain from purchasing apartments, cars,

and equipment, unless owning is necessary (Deloitte, 2020). For individual consumers, accessing resources

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

instead of buying them is a way to reduce costs against the rising inflationary pressure and the shortage of

resources. For business customers, collaborative consumption is a way to balance redundancies and the shortage

of resources in the ecosystem, ensure the continuity of business operations, create new revenue streams, and

ensure the employability of workers. The economic rationale is strong for companies in industries such as

agriculture, energy, mining, heavy production, and manufacturing. This may drive participation and the growth

of the business-oriented platforms in the sharing economy.

The shortage of financial resources experienced by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) after the

pandemic has enhanced business customers’ interest in platforms enabling them to borrow and raise money,

thus pivoting to the growth of the crowdfunding sector (Statista, 2022a; Research & Markets, 2022).

Crowdfunding platforms match multiple unidentified funders with people and SMEs for the latter to receive

financial support (Belleflamme et al., 2015). For example, a related study suggests that the value of the market

is likely to triple by 2025, as there has been an increasing number of newly launched platforms, loans,

donations, and investments aimed at supporting people, communities and small businesses affected by the

COVID-19 pandemic (Research & Markets, 2022). With trends like these, SE platforms promise economic

benefits capturing more strategic value than simply the reduction of transaction costs, including but not limited

to the reduction of time and costs for product/service searching, buying and contracting.

In the long term, there is a risk that the growth of the sharing economy and consequently its economic

benefits will be more stratified in regions with higher digital penetration and literacy. The digital divide

emerging primarily in economically disadvantaged countries could worsen economic conditions even further

(Eichhorn et al., 2022). A highly connected and tech-savvy population will probably progress further ahead,

while people with limited access to digital resources, who thus share economic opportunities that could be

capitalised upon, may receive fewer economic benefits. Fewer barriers to economic resources and benefits

create paradoxical economic conditions, encouraging economic equality in some countries while increasing their

disparity with the rest of the world, where digital resources are much less accessible.

3.1.3 Technological

Since the pandemic, the sharing economy has demonstrated that the digital capabilities of platforms can be

leveraged to address changing customer needs and concerns through new offerings, new applications of existing

platforms, the utilisation of advanced systems and security-enhancing technology.

After the COVID-19 outbreak, individuals received access to new service offerings and new applications of

existing platforms that had not been available or had been largely offered in physical space before the pandemic.

That happened due to SE firms offering substitutions for platform services that declined in demand and that

were irrelevant for the period when health concerns and restrictions were pervasive in society. For example,

people substituted physical visits to doctors with healthcare services made accessible through shared platforms

(Akter et al., 2022). Similarly, Airbnb customers capitalised on the opportunity to connect with people around

the world virtually to share experiences through the newly introduced Online Experience platform (Airbnb,

2020). By being an inherently digital phenomenon, the sharing economy has the flexibility to adapt to new

market realities due to digital resilience (Raj et al., 2020). Hence, although the health crisis impacted on the

value propositions of some platforms, digitally advanced services enabled companies to stay afloat and restore

the users’ and customers’ interest in their offerings after the pandemic.

Due to the intensified pace of digital transformation, the pandemic has also triggered interest in the

application of platforms in urban sustainable development and their wide integration in smart cities (Habitat,

2023). If supported by governments and local institutions, SE initiatives in the transportation and delivery

sectors may help promote digital inclusion among marginalised communities and ensure environmental

sustainability. Consequently, considering the potential social and economic benefits, the integration of platforms

in the infrastructure of cities and regions (e.g., healthcare, education, transportation) holds the potential to

improve quality of life at the local and regional levels.

A drawback of the future ubiquity of SE platforms, however, is the inevitable flow-on effect on customers’

control over personal data. Potential power asymmetries may be introduced and / or reinforced as platforms may

gain enhanced digital surveillance capabilities over a considerable number of customers, resulting in significant

risks to personal data protection, cybersecurity, and the potential mistreatment / exploitation of customers. On

the other hand, new security enhancing technology, such as the blockchain, could mitigate some of the concerns

and challenges stemming from digitisation for demand-side users. Scholars suggest that the capabilities of the

blockchain are underexploited in smart cities (Fiorentino and Bartolucci, 2021). Platform governance tools built

on the basis of blockchain technology can automate and decentralise transactions in the sharing economy (e.g.,

by tracking rent payments, and with bookings record keeping), thus limiting access to personal data by third

parties and improving their traceability and transparency (Fiorentino and Bartolucci, 2021). Although

blockchain-based sharing economy mostly exists as a concept, it could become a fully-fledged business case

given the increasing application of blockchains across industries.

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

3.1.4 Regulatory

The capability of SE platforms to act in the public interest has long been questioned, as regulatory

frameworks are somewhat ineffective in managing platforms and protecting consumers’ rights (Murillo et al.,

2017). Effective regulation is challenging as the digital governance of platforms enables them to circumvent

obligations expected from traditional firms, making it possible to collect and store customer data, thus causing

information asymmetry and undermining data privacy (Cohen and Sundararajan, 2015). However, some

regulatory steps to protect data have been taken towards a more accountable sharing economy.

First, although not yet ubiquitous across the world, data-related policies, such as the General Data

Protection Regulation (GDPR), have been introduced to oblige companies to treat customers’ data fairly. Such a

law prescribes the nature of information and the amount of data that companies can collect, setting penalties for

noncompliance (Albrecht, 2016). The regulation suggests that companies of all “shapes and sizes” without

exception will need to follow and adapt their data handling strategies (Burgess, 2020). For customers, the

regulation promises higher accessibility, data transparency and control over their personal information. The

changes in the legal landscape demonstrate the response of governments to individuals’ privacy concerns, which

is essential to acknowledge. Given the accelerated pace of digitalisation and the growth in platforms since the

pandemic, data protection will be especially important in the future.

Second, during the pandemic, some SE companies had a stronger citizenship role in local communities,

which could potentially benefit customers. Platform companies started sharing data they collect about customers

with local authorities and governments to improve the social conditions of local communities and develop laws

to improve customers’ rights (Meenakshi, 2023). For example, Airbnb launched a number of initiatives in

different countries (e.g., Airbnb Citizen, Airbnb Portal) to increase transparency in their activities and help

governments adapt policies and monitor compliance with them, including tax laws, data processing and fair

competition. Going forward, the (regulatory) interventions of governments could improve service quality from

one perspective. On the other hand, the stringent control of providers’ economic activity could result in higher

costs of service provision and higher prices, leading to a trade-off between service improvement and lower

economic value, that is, a dilemma of benefits. However, the sharing economy has been notoriously famous for

its paradoxical implications for stakeholders, whereby the benefits (e.g., low costs, flexibility) originating from

the SE’s nonconventional governance negate other functions and processes (e.g., control over processes,

organisations’ accountability, the protection of customers’ rights), which are common for traditional firms

(Davlembayeva and Papagiannidis, 2021). Hence, for customers, the sharing economy will probably remain a

system of trade-offs in the future.

3.2 Providers

Providers may be independent contractors, micro-entrepreneurs, or employees. Their respective status

depends on the nature of the contractual agreement upon which providers engage with SE platforms (Dubal,

2017; Kuhn and Maleki, 2017). Providers are responsible for the supply of resources in the sharing-based socio-

economic system, which may come in the form of second-hand goods and equipment (e.g., Craigslist), riding

and professional work services (e.g., TaskRabbit and Uber) and apartments and coworking spaces (e.g., Airbnb

and Couchsurfing) (Davlembayeva et al., 2019). The providers’ participation in sharing has different socio-

economic implications. These implications are largely dependent on digital systems enabling companies to

automate providers’ behaviour tracking, customer experience management, performance evaluation and

workload allocation, which ensure operational and managerial efficiency (Davlembayeva and Papagiannidis,

2021). As the use of digital technologies has changed given the COVID-19 outbreak (Beaunoyer et al., 2020;

Papagiannidis et al., 2020), the implications for providers since the COVID-19 pandemic are different from

those in the pre-pandemic period.

So far, the socio-economic consequences of providers’ participation in sharing were disputable due to the

economic utility of the algorithmic management of platforms, on the one hand, and the unpreparedness of the

regulatory institutions surrounding the sharing economy, on the other. The duality of conditions underpinning

the functioning of platforms brings both benefits (e.g., flexible working, income generation supplementary to a

full-time or other job, and the realisation of entrepreneurial initiatives directed at developing social

communities) and risks (e.g., restriction of providers’ rights and rewards) (Hui et al., 2018, Redfearn Iii, 2016).

This is because the providers’ role in shaping the platform offerings is reduced to a minimum as algorithms

substitute communication between stakeholders and enable excessive control and surveillance over providers

(Redfearn Iii, 2016). Dehumanised communication between stakeholders and the accumulation of digital data by

platform companies are conducive to unfair income distribution and unfavourable work conditions (Etter et al.,

2019; Ahsan, 2018; Redfearn Iii, 2016). However, with the increasing digitalisation of many sectors and higher

accessibility of platform technology for the general public since the pandemic, the trade-off of benefits and risks

needs re-examining. In addition, providers have been affected by the transformation of consumers’ preferences

for services (Deloitte, 2020), lifestyle choices and values (Balog-Way and McComas, 2020). That means that

the social, economic, technological, and regulation-related implications for providers need to be considered.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

3.2.1 Social

The pro-social pattern of relations (i.e., social interaction, social relationship building, social exchange)

was the main condition for the sharing economy to emerge in the first place. In sharp contrast to traditional

economic exchange relations, the exchange of resources through platforms has been the product of the

combined effect of social interaction, informal regulation, and economic rationale (Davlembayeva and

Papagiannidis, 2021). However, the pandemic temporarily removed the social variable from the equation. Due

to the social isolation measures, the transformation of the pro-social patterns of behaviour of those involved in

the exchange deeply affected communities at the base of the economic pyramid. Overall, the social implications

of the pandemic for providers concern trust, ties, and solidarity, as well as the wider impact on providers’ social

inclusion and social security. The manifestation of those implications was different during the pandemic when

social distancing restrictions and health-related concerns were still in place, and after the pandemic, when the

demand for sharing services and resources returned to the pre-pandemic level.

Shortly after the COVID-19 outbreak, providers’ ties with and trust in platform companies were tested. The

reduced social interaction and health-related risks drastically lowered consumers’ demand for platform

offerings, especially in the transportation and accommodation sectors. The rides across major ridesharing

platforms dropped by up to 80% (Conger and Griffith, 2020) and international travel declined by up to 60%

(OECD, 2020). Providers were disconnected from other stakeholders in the SE ecosystem. The ability of

platforms to ensure social security in major cases proved to be weak, following the closure of multiple offices

and the layoff of workers globally (e.g., Uber and Airbnb) (Preetika Rana, 2020; Conger and Griffith, 2020).

Providers were also disconnected from consumers due to the fear of the latter using shared resources and

spaces/rides with strangers. As a result, the providers’ means of developing relations were severely undermined.

Irrespective of the adversities created by the pandemic, the crisis changed the overly commercialised path

of the sharing economy development, instead highlighting more actively the driving force of solidarity in the

sector. Providers’ social insecurity, weak trust in platform companies and changing consumer behaviour have

stimulated their empowerment and initiatives that had never been actioned before. First, providers united in a

collective effort to improve their social status. Against that background, platform cooperatives re-gained

attention as a force to redefine the providers’ position in the socio-economic system. They represent democratic

community-oriented enterprises owned and controlled jointly by their workers (Mannan and Pek, 2021).

Platform cooperatives sell goods and services through mobile apps and websites. However, unlike platform

companies, cooperatives prioritise the generation of prosocial benefits, such as the contribution to society and

equitable work conditions for their workforce (Employee Ownership Association, 2023a). For example, the

Platform Cooperativism Consortium, started in the US (platform.coop), runs educational projects for the people

most affected by the pandemic to help them adapt to the social crisis. Such cooperatives have the potential for

growth. In the UK, the employee-owned sector, which includes platform cooperatives, has doubled since 2020

(Employee Ownership Association, 2023b). Therefore, community-oriented enterprises such as the above are

likely to gain larger exposure worldwide, thus increasing the creation of truly communal forms of peer-to-peer

platforms.

The changes in consumers’ preferences and behaviour have had an enduring effect since the pandemic.

Although the demand for shared services and goods declined during the pandemic, the crisis has made people

rethink the value of communal goods. That is illustrated by the shift in demand in favour of local suppliers,

workers, accommodation, and other local offerings (Deloitte, 2020). Considering the increasing demand, it is

expected that there will be more examples of community-driven SE enterprises in the years to come. However,

the development of relations within close communities will affect the geographical scope of social networks.

Hence, it is probable that the sharing economy will foster bonding social ties, in contrast to bridging

connections. Although this trend will make providers’ social networks narrower, the relations resulting from

engaging in community-led sharing platforms are likely to be sustainable over time and resistant to other socio-

economic crises if they arise.

3.2.2 Economic

The role of the sharing economy in establishing an egalitarian society has always been debatable (Langley

and Leyshon, 2017; Fleming et al., 2019; Lang et al., 2020; Gurran et al., 2020). It remains so, even since the

COVID outbreak. On the one hand, there are persistent challenges due to economic instability and uncertainty in

employment status affecting providers’ wellbeing. On the other hand, there is an emergence of new employment

opportunities and initiatives directed at restoring providers’ control in the economy.

The pandemic exposed the fragility of SE enterprises and the implications for providers' vulnerable

economic status. In the first two years after the COVID-19 outbreak, platform companies suffered from

significant economic damage due to the decline in demand (Wang et al., 2023). Consequently, dominant

platforms, such as Uber, Lyft and Airbnb, experienced challenges in ensuring economic security for their

workers. However, when travel restrictions were completely lifted, the industries with a peer-to-peer form of

exchange recovered and gained revenues akin to the pre-pandemic levels (Statista, 2023).

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

Against the backdrop of the decline in certain sectors, the focus of platform companies was reoriented

towards tackling the evolving needs of consumers. Providers received new opportunities to be involved in the

provision of services that had not been previously common. For example, ridesharing had been the dominant

service in the Uber portfolio before the pandemic, accounting for 76% of the total company revenue (Salas,

2022). In contrast, Uber Eats had been a secondary service for the company, which brought in only slightly

more than 10% of the total revenue (Salas, 2022). Travel restrictions and social isolation led to the development

of consumer habits, such as eating at home, that were sustained even after the pandemic. As a result, 2021 was

the first year when revenues from Uber Eats surpassed the revenues of the ridesharing service, thus making up

almost half of the total returns for the company (Salas, 2022). A similar trend was observed for other delivery

companies, such as DoorDash (Coppola, 2022a). Companies also discovered untapped opportunities in new

markets, such as safe transportation, enabling them to respond to the needs of customers for whom sharing

spaces in public transport is still a concern (Meenakshi, 2023). That means that higher fragmentation in the

sharing economy enabled a wider segment of individuals to get involved in the provision of services.

Although the demand for peer-to-peer services has stabilised, the economic challenges (e.g., platform

liabilities, inequitable earning) of employment in the sharing economy are still an open question. Out of all

sectors, ridesharing arguably deserves the strongest scrutiny. The deteriorating conditions after the pandemic

served as a strong impetus for micro-entrepreneurs and workers in the sharing economy to launch the small

provider-owned enterprises mentioned above, thus giving them partial control in the sector. The enterprises can

increase providers’ profits by removing the third-party (i.e., a platform company), mediating relations between

providers and customers. For example, Drivers Cooperative redistributes earnings in a fairer way among all

stakeholders involved in the provision of services (Carnegie, 2022). There are hundreds of similar enterprises

cutting across different sectors, including short-term rental, transformation, care, and domestic work around the

world (Carnegie, 2022). In the long term, the cooperative model could propel the development of an egalitarian

society and sustainable economy through better employment/entrepreneurial opportunities for people. However,

the scaling up in markets with existing dominant platforms may be hindered by insufficient funding. Such a

concern has already been raised among those who govern cooperative platforms (Carnegie, 2022). To stay

communal, cooperatives need support from the institutions that would help platforms avoid the dilemma of

functioning for self-interest versus the public good.

3.2.3 Technological

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to redefining both the applications and implications of digital systems

intermediating relations between SE stakeholders, with providers experiencing a significant impact.

Specifically, the pandemic triggered a faster development of the digital environment, which could potentially

fuel the expansion of cooperative platforms, provider-oriented platforms, and fully automated services.

Following almost two years of isolation, the pace of digital transformation has been accelerated due to the

increasing willingness of companies to deploy online services that would otherwise be delivered offline (Taylor,

2023). Digitalisation was required to meet increasing customer demand for digitally enabled solutions. As the

use of contactless payment systems, e-commerce platforms and web applications have become normalised and

routinised in consumers’ daily lives (Mittal, 2021), it is likely that diverse offerings will be introduced in

markets that have been largely oligopolistic, such as transportation or accommodation. On top of that, we can

witness the expansion of platforms functioning within a system that is more conducive to addressing the needs

of providers. For example, the Xooox platform (Heathman and Martin, 2022), launched before the pandemic,

currently connects almost 400 000 independent licenced drivers and drivers working for taxi operators in the

UK. Unlike other ride-hailing companies, Xooox is available for taxi firms that want to supplement traditional

booking systems with real-time ride requests through the app. Such technology empowers drivers as it enables

them to set their own prices, select the journeys they want, and avoid paying commission. With the wider

adoption of applications like this in all spheres of life, providers in the sharing economy are likely to have more

options for contractual or non-contractual employment at platform companies, which puts them in control of

their work conditions.

Furthermore, the cooperative model of SE platforms would not have been possible if software and digital

technology had not been sufficiently advanced and popularised to make platform systems and applications more

accessible for people. Digital systems at the providers’ disposal enabled them to build platforms addressing the

pitfalls of the job defined by algorithms. Workers can circumvent the problems created by algorithmic

management, including arbitrary dismissal, unfair ranking, and the unwillingness to resolve provider-customer

conflicts to ensure customer satisfaction (Carnegie, 2022). Since the pandemic, worker-owned apps have been

able to compete with Silicon Valley companies, thus increasing the chances for the challenges of the sharing

economy to be resolved.

On the negative side, however, the reliance on and advancement of digital technologies has reached a point

where the need for human providers in certain sectors of the sharing economy may be declining. For example, in

countries such as China, the UK and USA, laws are being considered and the viability of autonomous vehicles is

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

being tested for their mass deployment in the ridesharing industry (Fannin, 2022; UK Parliament, 2023).

Considering the digital race and governmental support to realise the practical use of autonomous technology and

fully automated services, future scenarios concerning sharing practices void of human involvement are not very

far away (e.g., Waymo) (Templeton, 2024). Another example is the increasing use of drones for commercial

deliveries (Cornell et al., 2023). As the delivery market provides jobs for a vast segment of the population, the

widespread deployment of autonomous delivery technology may deprive people of the means of potential

income. In the given scenario, the sharing economy will not be about sharing at all, but simply about service

delivery.

3.2.4 Regulatory

The operations of platforms have been unregulated in many aspects, such as workforce management,

platform liabilities, fair competition and taxation, entailing challenges in platform-provider relations (Ahsan,

2018; Laurell and Sandström, 2017; Etter et al., 2019). Such challenges had not been sufficiently tackled pre-

pandemic. Additionally, the pandemic has brought more complexity to the regulatory environment against the

backdrop of the changing market landscape and health-related concerns in society.

For instance, the health crisis necessitated governments to introduce health and safety policies that were

obligatory for all businesses to follow, especially in the hospitality and transportation industries. Although

platform companies are not subject to strict regulation compared to traditional businesses (Ferreri and Sanyal,

2018), they had to introduce health and safety requirements and rules to retain customers (e.g., disinfection of

surfaces, a 24-hour gap between guests, installation of protecting shields in cars etc). The responsibility to

follow new protocols and costs were passed on to hosts and drivers. After safety restrictions were lifted in the

post-pandemic period, customers’ expectations about hygiene standards continue to remain high. For example, a

study conducted in 2022 found that only 6% of travellers in the UK have not adapted their travel behaviour due

to the pandemic, and almost half of the travellers stay away from crowds (Statista, 2022b). Given the current

state of regulatory mechanisms, it is the provider's responsibility to meet customers’ expectations and navigate

changes in the market.

Most importantly, the deregulation of the sharing economy in relation to labour conditions remains almost

unchanged after the pandemic. Providers are largely contractual workers. This results in uncertainty because the

current regulation is flawed in defining prescriptions for platform companies and their workers. Independent

contractors are neither autonomous of platforms’ policies nor protected by platforms in social and financial

emergency situations (Wentrup et al., 2019). Platform companies take advantage of this regulatory gap. They

aim to minimise their accountability for the people they employ when it comes to the provision of social

security packages (e.g., health insurance, pensions), and extend their rights when it comes to encroaching on

providers’ privacy through control and surveillance (Murillo et al., 2017). Ineffective labour law enables

companies to profit from the reduction of labour-related costs while holding the right to fire and performance

manage providers at any given time (Parwez, 2022). While these problems had been largely prevalent in

ridesharing companies, they have extended to burgeoning sharing economy sectors since the pandemic, such as

food delivery services.

The passive stance of legal institutions in regulating the activities of big platform firms does not bode well

for the providers in the future. As governments encourage innovation in all spheres of life, deregulation of the

sharing economy paves the way for the faster advancement of the technology to the degree where the provider’s

active role in the provision of services will no longer be required. An example of that is Uber's self-driving cars,

where drivers are treated like human dummies (Michael, 2022). If this service sector is growing, such

developments will potentially perpetuate the vicious cycle whereby the drivers would have little incentive to

develop skills that they will not require, thus adding more to the economic vulnerability of the population

engaged in the sharing economy. These challenges are industry specific. Still, they set precedents and make one

ponder about the potential implications for other sectors in the sharing economy. Therefore, while the

importance of automation and the need to create favourable legal conditions are undeniable, policymakers need

to strike the right balance between the welfare of the labour force and innovation in the sharing models

themselves.

3.3 Platform companies

Sharing economy firms such as Uber, Airbnb and Didi are seen as platforms (Cusumano, et al., 2020), with

the majority, but not all, being transaction platforms that create value as intermediaries by bringing together

otherwise unconnected parties and enabling an exchange to take place. This can be queried with property

sharing economy platforms as properties are simultaneously available on other accommodation platforms (e.g.,

Booking.com and Airbnb). For commercially orientated activities, the platform handles the exchange of funds,

and this naturally leads to the common revenue model of levying a commission on at least one of the

participants. There are also non-commercial platforms such as Couchsurfing, which facilitate the sharing of

accommodation but do not charge a fee. The platforms also maintain trust and handle disputes between their

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

participants (He et al., 2021) and effectively fulfil the traditional roles of a market intermediary (Bailey and

Bakos, 1997).

Platforms connect at least two distinct types of participants, who are attracted by the presence of the other

participant, for example, hosts (providers) and guests/receivers (customers) in Airbnb. In the case of online food

delivery services, such as Deliveroo, Uber Eats or Just Eat, there are three types of participants, such as

restaurants (providers), delivery staff (providers) and receivers (customers). For market entrants, this creates the

chicken and egg problem (Hagiu and Rothman, 2016). For example, potential guests for a property platform

want to see a wide choice of accommodation, whilst hosts want a ready supply of potential guests, neither of

which is likely to be easily attracted to a new platform. When this challenge is overcome, the platform starts to

exhibit strong indirect network effects. Indirect network effects may then become a powerful barrier to entry, as

the different types of participants are in ready supply. For instance, in a major city, Uber drivers may be more

likely to accept fares which originate and end in busy locations, as they are likely to end a ride close to other

potential rides. The scenario of a driver turning down a fare to a quiet location further illustrates the importance

of indirect network effects and shows that platforms are multi-sided markets as all participants can choose

whether to participate.

With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, big sharing economy firms, which had seen rapid growth

due to indirect network effects, started experiencing an imbalance in the supply and demand as their

stakeholders had high expectations for hygiene measures and social support. To compensate for the decrease in

demand, platform companies started engaging in social responsibility initiatives and innovation in offerings

across the food delivery, transportation, and accommodation sectors. Discussed in the following sections are the

ensuing social, economic, technological, and regulatory implications.

3.3.1 Social

Proponents of the sharing economy have long focused on its ability to bring benefits to society and making

use of existing assets which are underutilised, such as accommodation, which can reduce overall production,

offer providers an income and widen choice and innovation for receivers. The incomes offered through many

sharing economy platforms were removed as pandemic restrictions were imposed, raising questions about their

financial sustainability for providers.

Many have also queried the sustainable credentials of platforms and whether they achieve sustainability

and benefit society overall. For example, Palgan et al. (2017) highlighted that the sharing economy can extend

the life of products through second hand markets. However, consumption may be increased as receivers or

customers can gain access to products previously beyond their purchasing power. Brydges et al. (2021), looking

at the clothes sector, explain that whilst such platforms offer another option to owning an item of clothing, there

is no clear evidence around sustainability.

When it comes to the transportation sector, researchers found that in the United States, Uber trips created

69% more pollution than the journeys they replaced (Transport and Environment, 2020). Whilst ride hailing

vehicles are newer and overall more environmentally friendly, the problem is the additional time drivers spend

driving or waiting without a passenger, which was estimated at 42% of an Uber driver’s time (Transport and

Environment, 2020). This will cause a problem until all ride-hailing becomes electric. In contrast to ride hailing,

pool sharing is the most environmentally friendly manner of car travel and will also address congestion issues.

However, pool sharing makes the matching process more difficult by adding a 3

participant to the transaction.

A study in Toronto found that only 15% of Uber rides were pooled, and of this proportion only 52% were

actually matched, meaning the UberPool service was then taking a single passenger (Young et al., 2000). The

pandemic led to the suspension of pooling services, a backward step for sustainability, by Uber and Lyft though

they were later reinstated. Increasing the proportion of rides using pool sharing is a major challenge for such

providers to claim they are focused on sustainability.

In contrast, Mont et al. (2021) noted that bike sharing services grew in the pandemic, a positive

development in terms of sustainability, which is something that has continued. Data from Statista (2022)

supports this, with year-on-year growth in bike sharing from 2017, estimated to continue to at least 2027, with

the largest percentage increase in 2020. Looking forward, Mont et al. (2021) also argue that ride-hailing services

will be promoted as part of moves to make transport systems more sustainable, though it seems hard to see how

this is credible unless the number of journeys overall is reduced, e.g., through more use of pooling services.

Against the backdrop of increasing environmental concerns, platforms often claim that they aim to negate

the negative environmental impact that they create and encourage more sustainable practices. For instance, Uber

argued in 2020 that they were using the pandemic as an opportunity to change their environmental impact and

address climate change (Khosrowshahi, 2020), and, as such, several initiatives were introduced. Uber is aiming

to become an electric only car service in North American and major global cities by 2030 (Uber, no date given),

with its aim for London being 2025. Uber introduced a series of initiatives to incentivise its drivers to adopt

electric vehicles, including its zero emissions incentive, which gave North American drivers $1 extra per ride

for a limited period, specialised rental agreements for their drivers with Hertz and subsidised charging for

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

electric vehicles (Uber, no date given). These initiatives started to bear fruit, as in 2022 Uber announced that

90% of drivers joining them in the UK used electric vehicles (Uber, 2022).

Apart from the environmental sustainability agenda, during Covid-19 there were examples of sharing

economy companies engaged in social responsibility initiatives by supporting various stakeholders (Mont et al.,

2021). These included Uber providing 10 million rides and food deliveries to essential workers and vulnerable

groups globally for free (Polman et al., 2020). Mont et al., (2021) also note how Uber Eats enabled restaurants

to stay in business through adding a delivery option and that Uber Eats paid restaurants on a daily instead of a

weekly basis to help with cashflow. Similarly, Airbnb announced in 2020 that it would waive fees to

accommodate 100,000 healthcare professionals, relief workers, and first responders globally (Airbnb, 2020a). Its

hosts could allow guests to stay free of charge through Airbnb’s well-established Open Homes, which offers

emergency housing. This programme was given a boost by the COVID initiative, and it was spun off as

Airbnb.org in December 2020 (Airbnb, 2020b). Katta et al. (2020) cited in Mont et al. (2021) argue that there is

a need for the support the sharing economy platforms introduced in the pandemic to be institutionalised, though

there is no evidence that this is yet the case.

Despite the platforms’ initiatives mentioned above, Chen et al., (2022) highlight concerns around the

impact of the sharing economy on achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals, specifically tourism and

decent work (SDG 8), as well as reduced inequalities (SDG 10). Whilst Meenakshi (2023) notes that Airbnb

compensated hosts and guests for cancelled stays in the pandemic, Chen et al.’s (2022) study, which analysed

data in Sydney, Australia in 2020, shows how the financial burden of COVID-19 affected the hosts more

seriously than Airbnb. It was stated that the financial losses born by Airbnb hosts are approximately 6.5 times

greater than the losses of the Airbnb platform (Chen et al., 2022). They also noted that many Airbnb hosts were

not able to obtain government support, which highlights the precarious nature of income derived from sharing

economy activities. This also certainly goes against the UN Sustainable Development Goal of reduced

inequality (SDG 10) as the losses fell more heavily on providers than the platform.

3.3.2 Economic

Given the pandemic rendered close human contact illegal, or at least undesirable, this severely reduced the

revenues for car riding and accommodation services, resulting in significant economic implications for

platforms. This is demonstrated by the fall in revenue for Airbnb from $4.8 billion in 2019 to $3.4 billion in

2020, about a 30% reduction (Airbnb, 2021). Comparably, Uber’s mobility revenue segment declined from

$10.4 billion in 2019 to $7.9 billion in 2020, about a 25% reduction (Business of Apps, 2023). As these services

involve close contact between people, any event such as the pandemic or a future event with similar

consequences, will prevent these sharing economy firms from operating, or require that they operate under

restricted conditions.

Additionally, the costs incurred by firms increased, as even once local regulations permitted activity, there

were requirements/expectations for hygiene measures to be in place. There were also increased costs of business

with general shortages, which has become an ongoing feature since the pandemic. The sharing economy’s

revenues recovered after the pandemic, with Uber’s 2022 revenues surpassing 2019 (Business of Apps, 2023)

and Airbnb surpassing its 2019 revenues in 2021 by over $1 billion (Statista, 2023). To quote the CEO of Uber,

Dara Khosrowshahi, “We ended 2022 with our strongest quarter ever, with robust demand and record margins”

(Uber, 2023). This is evidence that the pandemic did not lead to a permanent change in consumer behaviour, but

rather led to overreactions in certain sectors.

Meal delivery is a segment that increased in value both during and after the pandemic (Meena and Kumar,

2022). To illustrate this, Uber’s delivery segment increased from $1.3 billion revenue in 2019 to $4.8 billion in

2020, and then by 2022 had reached $10.9 billion (Business of Apps, 2023). A challenge facing the meal

delivery sector is to turn revenues into profits as the focus had previously been on the growth of the customer

base (Nott, 2023).

Uber also grew its Uber Freight business, originally founded in 2017, which connects companies that need

to transport goods with those who can provide such transportation, during the pandemic. Historically, freight

brokers would connect these parties whilst Uber Freight replaces the broker and allows the drivers to view the

available jobs (Petrova, 2019). Revenues grew from $0.7 billion in 2019, to $0.9 billion in 2020 as Uber Freight

was able to take advantage of the need to move COVID-related medical supplies, as well as the boom in online

shopping brought on by the pandemic. In the aftermath of the pandemic, revenues grew, reaching $6.9 billion in

2022 (Business of Apps, 2023), which showed this could be a new growing market for Uber and the sharing

economy. This is an interesting development as twenty years earlier, during the dot com boom, the same idea

had been developed by several firms, for example, National Transportation Exchange (Song and Regan, 2001)

and Uber’s brand, resources and the impact of the pandemic enabled it to grow this area.

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

3.3.3 Technological

In response to the growth of remote working, partly because of the pandemic and through other trends,

such as digital nomads, accommodation sharing platforms innovated their offerings. Airbnb introduced its Split

Stay feature in May 2022. Split Stays uses algorithms to enable users to book two separate properties splitting

their stay between them, instead of manually managing two separate bookings (Vinod, 2022). Another example

of innovation is Airbnb Online Experiences, which was launched in 2020 as a substitute for Airbnb Experiences.

The latter offered competition to tour companies by offering conventional tourist trips and activities, e.g.,

cookery classes, along with a wide range of events through its hosts. However, it was pitched as more authentic

than conventional tourist activities by Airbnb as they argued guests could “live like a local” and be immersed in

their host's world (Airbnb, no date). Airbnb Experiences, however, fell victim to lockdown, and to help their

hosts recover lost revenues, Airbnb Online Experiences was launched (Zhu and Cheng, 2022). These are

interactive events hosted over Zoom, which not only made up for the lost opportunities of lockdown but also

introduced a new opportunity whereby learning about a location’s culture and history could be separated from

travelling to the location itself. As travel resumes, such online experiences may stimulate trips to the locations

themselves, and complement the traditional tourist industry, or fulfil the needs of some travellers who do not

feel the same need to visit a place in person. Whilst virtual tourism, a term without agreement, has been

discussed for some time (Mura et al., 2017), the necessity of the pandemic, which led Airbnb to launch its

Online Experiences, brought the idea to a much wider audience.

As to other sectors, Papagiannidis and Davlembayeva (2022) argue there is a need for property providers

participating in the sharing economy to differentiate themselves. They looked at the integration of smart home

technology in sharing accommodation and found that such integration can improve guests’ services and

experiences. This is something the platforms could try to facilitate and offer their providers financial support. It

could also contribute to accommodation becoming more sustainable, for example, if the technology encouraged

efficient use of heating systems.

Further innovations came in online food delivery services. The boost to this market through the pandemic

did not lead to profitability. However, this COVID-led growth underlined the potential in this segment. For

instance, Uber is piloting autonomous delivery pilots in California (Bellan, 2022) with Deliveroo experimenting

as well (Gapper, 2021), which could address some of the cost issues.

The last few years have also seen more interest in self-driving cars for taxi services. This is something

which would provide an alternative, allowing normal business to continue in response to other future crises.

Although Uber sold its self-driving car division in 2020 to Aurora, this was to raise finance, with Uber taking a

stake (Kollewe, 2000). San Francisco has already seen self-driving car apps in the form of Cruise and Waymo

and Uber announced it would continue its pilots in this area in 2022. However, the development of autonomous

vehicles presents its own challenges (Michael, 2022) and the problems should be managed.

3.3.4 Regulatory

The varying levels of restrictions imposed during the pandemic are largely diminishing in certain contexts;

however, for many years there have been ongoing regulatory battles between some SE firms, for example, Uber

and Airbnb, and governments and regulators. Meenakshi (2023) explains that such firms could avoid the much

more onerous regulations and costs of doing business (i.e., taxes and administrative charges) that the old

economy firms they were competing with had to comply with. Regulation was also impeded by the barriers to

regulating fitting sharing economy firms in specific regions, and also the problems of fitting them into

traditional legal classifications.

Evasive entrepreneurship is used to describe companies, such as the SE firms Uber, Lyft and Airbnb,

which operate in grey areas facilitated by advances in technology (Elert and Henrekson, 2016) and where

governments and regulators are struggling to catch up. For example, platform firms have caused concerns

regarding workers' rights, as previously stated in this paper. Whilst Möhlmann and Henfridsson (2017) note that

Uber drivers make themselves available when they want to work, the drivers had concerns about surveillance,

lack of transparency and dehumanisation. Ahsan (2020), in an analysis of Uber, argues that the platform

provider has reduced workers' rights and that the drivers operate in a situation of power imbalance and

information asymmetries.

Liang et al. (2021), in a study in Hong Kong, found that Airbnb had increased the cost of long-term rentals

and was making housing unaffordable for citizens. Such concerns have led to restrictions being imposed on

Airbnb properties in cities such as Barcelona and London. The inflationary pressures the world now faces and

the housing crisis, which existed pre-COVID, may lead to regulation against the sharing accommodation sector,

as it reduces the traditional housing stock, or alternatively governments may not want to introduce controls that

limit the entrepreneurial spirit as economies recover.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

3.4 Policymakers

Policies are designed to provide guidance that can ideally inform organisational and governmental

approaches to decision-making and governance. They can take the form of well-defined plans, rules, and/or

practices regarding a given issue and a commitment to a corresponding course of action within a particular

system. The policymaking landscape since COVID-19 in the context of the sharing economy is complex. It

encompasses persistent pre-COVID policy challenges that remain unaddressed or unresolved subsequently, in

addition to considerations and implications that emerged in response to the pandemic. The complexity stems

from many factors, including but not limited to the number of stakeholders in the SE ecosystem that may

consequently provide policy input and therefore influence policymaking processes and decisions. Even though

stakeholders belong to the same SE ecosystem they may have divergent views and perspectives and, in some

cases, have conflicting interests. This is understandable given disagreement surrounding the definition and aims

of the “sharing economy” and the myriad non-profit and for-profit business strategies and models that have been

instituted (Gerwe 2021; Fors et al. 2021). This is particularly evident when diverse stakeholder representation is

garnered across industry, government, academia, and the third sector. As such, a detailed understanding of

policymakers’ positionality and relationships as they pertain to the sharing economy since the pandemic requires

a thorough exploration of the recent shifts in stakeholder dynamics and the very nature and evolution of the

ecosystem itself. It is thus vital to articulate the drivers, prospects, roles, and responsibilities of policymakers,

pointing to suitable responses and strategies to accommodate the resulting social, economic, technological, and

regulatory opportunities and challenges.

3.4.1 Social

COVID-19 has significantly affected the social sphere, specifically policy relevant to health and safety;

privacy, security, and other socio-technical implications; consumer perceptions of risk and trust; human rights;

and the wellbeing of stakeholders in the SE ecosystem.

A major social shift initiated by the pandemic relates to the health and safety policies that were

implemented on platforms and enforced by providers, in response to government mandates and health

directives. From a practical perspective, health, safety, and hygiene requirements were introduced to contain the

transmission of COVID-19, resulting in a redefinition of what constitutes health and safety in the SE context.

This demanded the rapid institution of policies to accommodate the altered conditions, combined with an

assurance from SE organisations that health and safety obligations were being fulfilled. Changes to the health

and safety situation seemingly tipped the scale toward traditional providers in some sectors, such as

accommodation, which were perceived to support comparatively more stringent health and safety requirements

and policies (Gerwe 2021). To extend the accommodation sharing example as a case in point, “the peer-to-peer

nature of accommodation sharing changed overnight from an asset to a liability. What looked like a source of

authenticity in the pre-Covid-19 world, and a gateway to a local experience and personal connection, became a

potential health hazard during the pandemic” (Gerwe 2021, page 4). As there could be no guarantees with

respect to compliance with new personal hygiene and safety measures, the peer-to-peer business model that

touted itself as foregoing mainstream accommodation overheads, suddenly fell short of achieving standard

expectations. This posed significant risks to disintermediated supply chain stakeholders. Despite the global

reach of COVID-19, the policy challenges were amplified given the distinctive policies set by organisations and

governments in response to the state of the pandemic in their respective contexts (Meenakshi 2023). As a result

of changes to public perceptions of health and safety due to the pandemic, it is expected that the competitive

landscape may also be affected, in favour of traditional organisations. That could require SE organisations to

revisit existing business and economic models (see the following section on economic considerations).

Additional social challenges to consider on the part of policymakers relate to the introduction of COVID-

19 fixed and mobile technology solutions. These caused citizens to query the privacy, security, and other socio-

technical implications of bio-surveillance SE platforms and applications for public health. For instance, digital

contact tracing and tracking applications implemented in a largely reactionary fashion for health monitoring

purposes during the pandemic, to augment existing manual contact tracing activities, significantly swayed public

perceptions of privacy, security, and trust (Abbas and Michael 2020; Michael and Abbas 2020). This caused

citizens to question the function and necessity of such technological interventions, and the corresponding mass-

scale data collection that continued post-pandemic (Michael and Abbas 2022). When combined with the general

growth in usage of online platforms during the pandemic and the increased frequency of cybersecurity breaches,

it is understandable that there might have been a feeling of unease due to risks associated with the use and

disclosure of personal information among citizens, consumers, and workers alike. The fear harboured by some

end-users was that government or third-party digital application suppliers were legitimising human

identification, location and condition monitoring, and physical social network relationship mapping through

surveillance mechanisms (Michael et al. 2020), and that this very data, which is relied upon by organisations in

the sharing economy for their daily business operations (e.g., distribution and order fulfilment), was being

misused for a dual purpose or subject to retrospective use, foregoing informed consent.

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

As such, consumers, and workers in the sharing economy are likely to question the extent to which their

privacy is maintained upon disclosing their personal information to digital platform providers, considering

COVID-related challenges, changes, and experiences. Explicitly, a wealth of data and information of a

potentially sensitive, personal, geographic, and other nature is being collected by platforms to facilitate desired

transactions in a suitable fashion, allowing for efficacious peer-to-peer communication. Application providers

offer their services inclusive of privacy policies that are intended to disclose data and information related

practices affecting collection, storage, and dissemination. However, it has been asserted that these policies are

often incomplete, complex, lengthy, and presented in a manner that is inaccessible to end-users due to their

ambiguous and somewhat technical nature (Ebrahimi et al. 2022). This adversely impacts user comprehension

of the policies and generates a sense of uncertainty with respect to the signed agreement. Ebrahimi et al. (2022)

maintain that users accordingly have become vulnerable to a range of privacy, security, and other associated

risks. The outcome may well be an end user’s lack of willingness to share and engage in future transactions if

the perceived risks outweigh the benefits. A potential path forward is the annotation of privacy policies that may

aid readability by end-users to better understand the content, meaning and implications (Ebrahimi et al. 2022).

Further to the perceived threats to privacy, customer perceptions of risk and trust in the SE context warrant

further and meticulous consideration, as does the development of risk management approaches and policies that

integrate trust as a principal value and consider the impact of COVID-19 and potential future crises. A

fundamental consideration in this regard is the recognition of the contextual and cultural elements that influence

both definitions and perceptions of trust in providers and organisations, which need to be reflected in existing

and or new organisational and governmental policies. For instance, in an article focused on customer

perceptions of risk and trust, Gu et al. (2021) present four factors that influence such perceptions and the link

with security. These include establishing rapport among customers, providers and communities; facility quality;

transaction platform reliability; and share of value (Gu et al. 2021). While these factors are probably not the

direct product of the pandemic, they are expected to be applicable to customers’ willingness to engage with SE

organisations given pandemic-related changes and experiences. As a result, there is a need for a balanced and

proportionate approach to regulation in which any governmental regulations that are introduced would protect

consumers’ rights while simultaneously enabling them to use platforms to satisfy their needs (Davlembayeva et

al. 2020).

In addition to customer perceptions and protections, organisations in the sharing economy will be required

to consider their labour policies from a range of perspectives, inclusive of human rights. This ensures that any

technological and other policy changes are not adversely impacting on gig economy workers and employees in

competing operations, rendering them vulnerable on multiple fronts. For instance, using ridesharing as an

illustrative example, the social consequences include “limited or no worker rights, low wages and the

accumulation of major debts that cannot be repaid, unforeseen supply and demand issues, corporate

irresponsibility, rapid deregulation, [and] poor public policy responses…” (Michael 2022, page 37). To build

on this example, and with increased levels of automation in the form of Uber’s self-driving program, many

questions emerge regarding policy, regulation and establishing liability when autonomous vehicles are

introduced by ride-sharing organisations. It has been suggested that human drivers would be utilised as backups

to counteract liability, and that those drivers will likely be victims of human rights abuses such as modern

indentured servitude (Michael 2022). To further exacerbate these issues is the notion of “corporate personhood”,

which effectively grants organisations the ability to evade responsibility, when compared to a “natural person”

(Michael 2022, page 31). The wellbeing implications for a multitude of stakeholders in the SE ecosystem are yet

to be fully understood and must further be researched with a view to ensuring that the derived insights can be

transformed into suitable policies.

In relation to other aspects of wellbeing, additional social implications, some of which pertain to the

deregulated nature of the sharing economy, will need appropriate policy and regulatory responses, tailored to the

environmental changes due to the pandemic, among other factors. These include addressing challenges such as

the disproportionate distribution of benefits among SE stakeholders, lack of employee support and

accountability, and lack of compliance with insurance (Davlembayeva and Papagiannidis 2021) and more

broadly, labour laws (Ahsan 2018). The employment of digital technology leads to the creation of information

asymmetry, which is used by platforms to maximise their gains and undermine fair revenue distribution

(Sinclair, 2016). The gaps in the labour law and other regulatory frameworks may be taken advantage of by big

platforms to establish employment policies and conditions, such as platforms’ liability for traffic incidents,

health insurance, social security package and pensions, with little accountability for platform workers (Murillo

et al., 2017, Perritt Jr, 2019, Ravenelle, 2019). Other concerns include those relevant to algorithmic bias, such as

discrimination against SE workers (Barzilay 2019) and the protection of consumers (Rosenblat et al. 2017). For

example, algorithms enable an automatic evaluation and ranking of drivers in systems, which may not be

reflective of their actual performance. The ranking is not subject to objection as feedback is anonymous to

protect consumers’ privacy.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

3.4.2 Economic

From an economic perspective, the pandemic generated an uncertain environment for SE stakeholders,

requiring a reorientation of sorts to ensure recovery and the minimisation of loss (Meenakshi 2023), including

financial, monetary and fiscal. Policies relevant to economic considerations since the pandemic relate largely to

business model transformation from those favouring only expansion and reach to a new model of collaborative

consumption, striving for a balance between growth and profit and simultaneously profit and sustainability.

Sustainability-based models can be enacted in general and in the context of sharing cities, whereby partnership

as opposed to power will be emphasised. From a policy perspective, supporting sustainability in SE ecosystems

will necessitate municipal level initiatives reinforced by government regulations, in addition to mechanisms that

would ensure a level playing field relevant to SE organisations and incumbent firms, and other stakeholders.

While a universally accepted definition and model of the sharing economy is not available (e.g.,

collaborative economy, platform economy, gig economy and crowdsourcing economy, and the specificities and

models proposed and encapsulated in each of these terms), some are proposing and supporting a new model of

collaborative consumption and production that advocates a balance between growth and profit. Prior to the

pandemic, the economic policies and models of SE organisations often privileged or sought market domination

as the main driver. The outcome of these strategies was principally the displacement of existing or traditional

models of consumption in some sectors with collaborative, peer-to-peer based models. That has resulted in

largely unopposed expansion and thereby unchallenged market power (Meenakshi 2023). An additional

outcome was that the dominance of expansion-based strategies was even becoming frowned upon by analysts

and investors alike. They were expressing their concern about sharing companies choosing growth over

profitability while incurring massive operational losses (Gerwe 2021). SE organisations will now be forced to

rethink their operations and business strategies and focus on profitability and cashflow rather than growth

(Gerwe 2021).

It is also anticipated that policymakers will have to move beyond a profitability focus to concurrently

concentrate on balancing the traditional economic or profitability accounts with sustainability considerations

(Barile et al. 2021), in the broadest sense of the term. This includes sustainability policies that encompass more

than just economic viability to those that embrace community flourishing, inclusive of people and place

considerations. The resulting business models would specifically strive for a levelling of commercial and

communal interests through the sharing city concept, whereby co-creation and engagement are central themes.

According to Barile et al. (2021), sharing cities are about the sharing economy integrated with urban sustainable

development. As such, this shifts the emphasis with respect to how policymakers will respond to contemporary

sustainability challenges in a local community or city-based context. It is anticipated that the nature of this

response will impact on the viability and continuity of SE organisations.

Furthermore, a key feature of this response will be the emphasis on partnership-based models, which will

to some degree address the power-risk imbalance that has been observed in specific sectors and that requires

careful consideration from theoretical and practical perspectives (Gerwe 2021). This shift in policy direction is

essential in compelling a reassessment of perceptions regarding power and control, among other considerations,

particularly given the reliance of organisations on local suppliers, assets, and resources in specific markets.

It may also require municipal governance and broader government regulations to ensure a level playing

field, in addition to SE organisations re-evaluating their internal business development policies and business

models. Failure to do so may also affect the survival of organisations, as follows: “While [sharing economy]

brands could succeed in the pre-COVID period despite opposition, and by building on their size and power, the

post- COVID period has brought in the harsh realities of declining investor support and low demand”

(Meenakshi 2023, page 461). The latter is demonstrated in the ride sharing industry, resulting with an

oversupply of drivers who had purchased vehicles they could not afford to pay back and low fare costs. The

distance covered and the time it took to reach an originating point of a customer (let alone a destination), could

not be recouped in terms of the cost of the gasoline, labour, insurance, and other operating expenditure.

The outcome over time resulting from initial supply chain disintermediation was that the market hit a cross-

over point between a hybrid environment of traditional suppliers who had to play by traditional rules, and

individual new entrants who were effectively self-employed as opposed to employees. Both types of operators

found themselves in a saturated market, with the traditional suppliers shifting models to emulate what was

perceived to be a successful business model. That is, traditional taxi suppliers sought to mimic the same

strategies adopted by ride sharing companies (e.g., the utilisation of location-based smartphone applications),

but were unable to compete save for government pre-determined contracts that were linked to guaranteed fares

for traditional taxi companies. This was exacerbated during the COVID-19 lockdowns when drivers saw a steep

reduction in callouts, for example, and continued to work because they had to repay prohibitive loans and for

reasons of livelihood, despite the risks of contracting COVID-19.

SE organisations now appear to realise their predicament. The challenges are great, and many firms are

seeking to enter mutually beneficial relationships to partner with a variety of stakeholders in the SE ecosystem.

These include government agencies who can offer specialist but repeat contracts; service providers that may

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

carry some of the costs in the supply chain but also receive commensurate gains; and the community at large,

with the hope of raising consumer trust in SE brands particularly with respect to safety, the provision of reliable

services and equal access (Meenakshi 2023). As such, partnership-based policies, reinforced by municipal-level

collaborative initiatives and government regulations are likely to feature as priorities for policymakers.

This is imperative given that the economic impacts of the pandemic were not equally felt by stakeholders in

the sharing economy ecosystem, as noted in select literature on commercial sharing platforms (Gerwe 2021).

Thus, new policies and regulations are also required to ensure equitability and a level playing field relative to SE

organisations and incumbent firms, and other stakeholders.

3.4.3 Technological

Shaping technological policy from an organisational and governmental perspective given the challenges

that emerged during and after the pandemic is expected to entail consideration of a mix of incremental and

radical technological innovations, likely to be applied selectively across sectors, communities, and societal

contexts. Some of these technologies emerged prior to the pandemic, while others were necessary because of the

shifts across the social and economic spheres. Policies pertaining to privacy and technology; rapid digitisation

and automation; digital hubs / community-based portals; and reinstating the link between virtual and physical

spaces, will inevitably introduce both intended and unintended consequences and ecosystem dynamics that

policymakers will have to contend with.

In the first instance, the privacy, security, and other socio-technical implications presented earlier will be

key policy agenda items informing the management of end-user privacy risks, both in online and physical

spaces. End-users, in this context, refer to both service providers and consumers, who are required to divulge

their personally identifiable information in a digital environment in exchange for access to platforms and

corresponding services. While privacy policies are available, end-users face challenges in comprehending their

content and implications. As such, annotation techniques are required to assist both developers in the creation of

more intelligible privacy policies, and end-users in engaging with more accessible policies to make possible

informed decisions when interacting with SE organisations (Ebrahimi et al. 2022).

Accessibility of privacy and other policies relevant to the role of technology will become progressively

important. This is due to both the centrality of technology in mediating and facilitating relations, and the

complexities originating from increased digitisation and automation. It will involve reviving pre-COVID policy

discussions, while also addressing challenges emerging because of the pandemic. Such challenges may be

general and recognised issues stemming from the incompatible pace of technological developments against the

introduction of suitable regulatory mechanisms, often referred to as the pacing problem (Marchant 2011), in

addition to more specific discussions that are unique to the SE context. For example, traditional companies are

less agile than SE stakeholders because their business models require physical presence, asset management, and

stockpiles of inventory. In contrast, stakeholders in the sharing economy might be small-scale players with an

international footprint. The asymmetry in the capability to innovate at the service level means that policies and

regulations almost always lag behind the technological innovation. It has been maintained that governments’

investment in creating new jobs through rapid digitalisation is imperative to capitalise on the opportunities

presented by COVID-19 (Dabija et al. 2022). However, it is also important to reflect on the social and

regulatory implications of technological solutions and of automation, and the manner in which the deployment

of such solutions alters the very nature of the SE ecosystem and the policymaking landscape. For instance,

Michael (2022) cautions about the dangers of innovation and automation in the context of the ridesharing

organisations, drawing on the example of Uber’s deployment of autonomous vehicles and the ensuing

undesirable consequences, ranging from diminished worker rights through to loss of life. Although technologies,

such as artificial intelligence (AI), will inevitably be embedded within the SE ecosystem, proactive approaches

to governance are necessary (Michael 2022). This is so as, with the integration and deployment of AI-based and

other sophisticated (and automated) technological systems, third party providers emerge as critical actors in the

SE ecosystem. Current organisational and governmental policies are ill-equipped to accommodate these actors

and determine liability in certain cases. These may include, but are not limited to, cases resulting in damage,

accidents or even pedestrian or driver fatality, as has been previously demonstrated with respect to autonomous

vehicles in ridesharing applications (Michael 2022).

The above example points to the serious ramifications of introducing breakthrough technologies void of a

fitting policy or regulatory response. However, there are other examples that detail the potential benefits of

introducing incremental technological changes to support collaboration in the interest of fostering deeper

customer relationships and community building. These approaches tend to be geared toward improving trust by

utilising technology to create a forum for capturing customer experiences, through collaborative platforms,

online spaces, digital hubs and or community-based portals, which will be a crucial change particularly with

respect to the SE after the COVID-19 outbreak. For instance, and relevant to the tourism sector, “[t]his change

is made possible by offering consumers online space to present their experience of a platform, raising consumer

awareness regarding the use of collaborative platforms, and facilitating users’ access to such platforms. The

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

COVID-19 restrictions have the power to force sharing economy platforms to improve their services, not only

by recovering lost profits but also by becoming more customer-oriented” (Dabija et al. 2022, page 14). These

improvements can also be achieved by platforms through enabling communication to enhance the understanding

of consumer interests and preferences, increase a sense of community belonging and therefore the likelihood of

reciprocity in stakeholder relationships (Davlembayeva et al. 2021).

With reference to the role of policymakers in this situation, policymakers will also be increasingly required

to work in a collaborative sense with a range of SE stakeholders. To some degree, larger SE organisations have

attempted to increase broader community engagement and interaction through portals such as

https://www.airbnb.com.au/cityportal, which is intended to facilitate partnership through insights, regulatory

compliance opportunities, communication, and other forms of support (Airbnb Inc., 2023). It is expected that

such engagement opportunities will be indispensable across the SE ecosystem into the future, if not mandatory

to retain customers and attract new ones.

The emphasis on virtual engagement mediated by technological applications must also be extended to

physical spaces, as during the pandemic the link between the virtual and physical was fractured in some

instances, and dissolved in others, potentially creating hybrid spaces. To summarise, the use of mandated

lockdown measures, in some markets extreme, resulted in the elimination of non-essential travel, and acted to

sever the link between the physical and the digital in the sharing economy. While it was business-as-usual for

online stakeholders who relied on digital interfaces for participation, what was unravelling in the physical world

was in stark contrast. Movement was halted, and individuals were unable to congregate in groups, requiring

special provisions to enter warehouses, supplier premises and more. The restrictions during the height of

COVID-19, in some instances, meant that meeting stakeholders in the supply chain was prohibited if not

impossible (Gerwe 2021, page 4). This indicates that presently and, in the future, policymakers need to

concentrate on reinstating the link between virtual and physical spaces, in addition to becoming more self-

sustaining in local contexts, in cases where national or international linkages are interrupted.

3.4.4 Regulatory

In terms of the regulatory perspective and considerations, we can revert to the lack of a universally

accepted definition of the sharing economy as introducing a level of convolution that will inexorably impact on

policymaking endeavours at the individual, organisational, municipal, national, and international levels. When

combined with the inertia and other complications resulting from the pandemic, complexities are amplified and

the need for proportionate regulation is evident. Regulatory considerations are largely related to addressing risks

in context while countering homogeneity, shifting from the global to the local through a focus on sharing cities,

recognising the power of different modes of governance, displacing reactionary approaches with proactive

governance, introducing robust frameworks for municipal governance, and assuming a multi-stakeholder

perspective for regulatory reform.

Risks are prevalent in the SE ecosystem, and have often been flagged, but not always reflected in policy.

This may be due to many factors, aggravated by the pandemic. This may also be attributed to the lack of

consistent definition concerning the sharing economy and corresponding activities and practices which are

diverse, difficult to regulate and require a balance between two conceivable extremes, that is, promoting the

sharing economy and therefore contributing to its growth, and regulating the sharing economy and potentially

inhibiting its growth. Furthermore, SE policies are contextual, and usually dependent on and driven by the

nation-state in question and its unique socio-political context, as evidenced in a study of the policies and politics

of Japan and Sweden (Fors et al. 2021). Fors et al. (2021) state that the idea of policymaking and indeed

regulation cannot be treated as a uniform activity, as they may be created for potentially different concepts of

the sharing economy and related practices.

While covering nation-state level policies and politics is important, there is also an increased recognition of

the significance of the local city context, which emerged as an important consideration during the pandemic and

is likely to continue. This awareness pre-dates COVID-19 and was initially in response to the largely

unrestrained growth of select commercial organisations and their consequent impact on existing marketplaces.

Those developments in marketplaces resulted in “a potential negative backlash of [the] sharing economy on

cities and its inhabitants, in terms of unfair competition, labor exploitation, rising housing prices, gentrification,

and so on” (Barile et al. 2021, citing Martin 2016; Scholz 2014; Schor 2016; Zvolska et al. 2019), all scenarios

which require regulatory reform. To counter these repercussions, some are calling for increased emphasis on the

sharing city, in sectors such as accommodation for instance, moving from a global to local focus (Gerwe 2021).

This change in focus would ideally support, across all sectors, policymaking efforts that privilege local

communities and would inspire community- or city-based growth opportunities. Additionally, the city would be

central to targeted laws and policymaking processes, whereby local government bodies (that is, municipalities)

would play a major role in facilitating and or inhibiting sharing through incentivisation schemes and

coordination / governance systems, respectively, toward urban sustainability transitions (Barile et al. 2021).

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

These transitions will probably advance beyond traditional policy settings and regulatory mechanisms to

consider other forms of governance, incorporating a broader perspective. This perspective requires a proactive

philosophy and may involve consideration of different modes of governance, inclusive of novel analytical

frameworks and the displacement of current reactionary approaches to governance (Palgan et al. 2021). The

potential benefits of this approach include proportionately regulating various aspects relevant to consumers,

competition, and technology and innovation, among other areas. Policymakers will thus need to facilitate a shift

in focus, as currently governance and regulation models tend to be targeted at the major, transnational

organisations (e.g., DHL), and well-known international SE brands (e.g., Uber), though select activities remain

unregulated, if they fall outside of this scope. The consequence of this is (inadvertently) disregarding other

stakeholders. This requires immediate attention and can be bolstered by better governing the sharing economy at

the municipal level and integrating additional stakeholders (e.g., users and employees) in legal and policy

deliberations to offset the current prominence of the organisational view. For instance, in terms of approaches to

governing the sharing economy, both locally and globally, policies can realistically be (and are typically)

instituted at the municipal level.

Policies must be supported by robust municipal level governance frameworks that clearly articulate the

required regulating mechanisms and roles. For instance, an analytical framework for municipal governance of

the sharing economy has been proposed in the literature by Palgan et al. (2021). The framework was developed

through a literature analysis and tested by way of mobile research labs in Berlin and London and proposes a

series of municipal governance mechanisms: regulating, providing, self-governing, collaborating and enabling.

The roles relevant to these mechanisms, for instance, include the role of regulator when considering the

“regulating” mechanisms, and the roles of “communicator” and “matchmaker” when considering the “enabling”

mechanism. From both a general and regulatory perspective, such frameworks would involve the identification

of a range of government roles, namely, government as regulator, as enabler, as provider and as consumer.

These roles range from a given municipality’s role in introducing and enforcing formal regulation; to supporting

and incentivising sharing practices; to facilitating sharing through the provision of the necessary infrastructure;

and finally, to self-governance activities in view of consumption (refer to Barile et al. 2021 and Palgan et al.

2021 for a detailed overview of these roles).

In these diverse roles, municipalities must seek to harmonise the benefits and challenges associated with

SE practices (and organisations), either through proactive, collaborative approaches or by enforcing measures

intended to limit any adverse effects of SE practices and organisations (Palgan et al. 2021). There are, however,

a range of challenges, which are well documented in the literature, specifically with respect to the introduction

of regulatory mechanisms in response to prominent platform providers and their (lack of) observance with local

regulations and city-specific constraints (Barile et al. 2021). These challenges are magnified given the lack of

user-based research concerning legal considerations and challenges (e.g., rights and protections), as was

reported in a bibliometric analysis (Nawi et al. 2022). According to Nawi et al. (2022), regulatory reform will be

required in relation to consumers, end-users, and employees from the perspective of employment / labour laws,

discrimination, and ethics, among other issues.

This points to collaborative regulatory reform processes, which would enable clarity as to the nature of the

policy setting, legal considerations and the multitude of roles that can be assumed by government, and indeed

other stakeholders, in the SE context. Importantly, stakeholders such as organisations will be required to assume

a more active role in policymaking processes. As a result of COVID-19, SE organisations have been actively

interacting with governments and the community in the provision of relevant data, and it is expected that such

relationships will be nurtured post-pandemic by these organisations through the establishment of public-private

collaborations, and for purposes such as shaping regulation, and encouraging positive government and public

perceptions (Meenakshi 2023). This regulation may take several forms. For example, in a paper that investigates

the paradoxes and contradictions of the sharing economy, Davlembayeva and Papagiannidis (2021) compare

paradoxes prior to and post pandemic, and their relative impact on social, economic, and environmental

sustainability. The authors call for future research to address the paradoxes by exploring the applicability of

informal and formal regulatory mechanisms, that is, soft and hard laws that may serve to constrain and or

support social, economic, and environmental developments in the SE.

4 TOWARDS A MORE SUSTAINABLE SHARING ECONOMY

The COVID-19 pandemic was predicted to be the end of the sharing economy. The concepts and practices

(i.e., non-ownership, redistribution of underutilised resources, social sharing) that were at the heart of the socio-

economic system did not align with changing societal expectations and needs. During the pandemic, the sharing

economy slowed down to a point where its revival seemed to be a long process, and in some instances almost

impossible, requiring the overhaul of many functions of platform companies and the reorientation of their

services. Other stakeholders were equally challenged, also needing to understand, adapt and respond to altering

social, economic, technological, and regulatory conditions. Consequently, when we consider the future of the

SE, the long-term impact of these transformations is uncertain. On the one hand, it is certain that all stakeholders

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

have been experiencing challenges, such as human rights infringement, reduced social interaction, a decline in

trust, economic insecurity, lack of protection, and physical and information security risks among others. On the

other hand, it is also certain that the emerging gaps in the socio-economic and political domains stimulated a

range of developments aimed at filling those gaps, which may promise a better future for the sharing economy

and all stakeholders involved.

This paper presents, as the outcome of the comprehensive multi-stakeholder review above, a roadmap,

identifying key research themes, considerations and policy gaps that would ideally support, and provide

recommendations to, multiple stakeholders in the SE ecosystem to shift toward sustainable models and practices

(Figure 2). This roadmap takes the form of a synoptic table, where timeframes for implementation can be

applied by a given stakeholder given their specific context. The table highlights the interrelated and overlapping

areas that warrant strategic, tactical, and operational attention, as SE stakeholders navigate an increasingly

complex environment after the COVID-19 outbreak.

Figure 2: A roadmap of research themes, considerations and policy gaps

A preliminary evaluation of Figure 2 suggests numerous insights when considering a sustainable SE. In the

first instance, the themes, opportunities, and challenges observed across social, economic, technological, and

regulatory domains are interrelated. For example, when considering the policymakers' perspective, perceptions

of trust and risk (social driver) are heavily influenced by the deployment (at times in a reactionary fashion) of

certain technologies (technical driver) during the pandemic. It is therefore important to understand the nature of

these linkages as an immediate first step to operationalising the roadmap in Figure 2. Secondly, there is a

blurring of boundaries in terms of attribution of a theme or themes to a particular driver / consideration,

especially when comparing thematic priorities of SE stakeholders. As an example, consider the legal dimensions

of health and safety in the context of providers, compared with the social dimensions of health and safety in the

context of policymakers. The main implication here is that the application of the proposed roadmap of

considerations and policy gaps must include an integrated treatment of themes, which are prioritised relative to

SE stakeholders, rather than focusing on the social, economic, technological, and regulatory considerations and

drivers in isolation. Significantly, the proposed roadmap provides the integrated perspective that multiple and

diverse stakeholders may build upon. Thirdly, all themes can directly be associated to a policy and a regulatory

basis, gap, or recommendation. As such, moving toward a sustainable sharing economy will require a detailed

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

policy and regulatory investigation, inclusive of multi-stakeholder consultation, in both the local and global

contexts. Lastly, it is evident from this multi-stakeholder assessment that a sustainable SE necessitates shared

responsibility for a sustainable outcome, supported by suitable multi-level policies. Future developments and

research opportunities relevant to multiple stakeholders need to be thoroughly appreciated. A selection of these

developments and corresponding questions are provided in the following section.

5 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

The proposed multi-stakeholder roadmap and comprehensive assessment of the social, economic,

technological, and regulatory drivers offer countless areas for future development and research, ideally

informing and influencing policymaking processes in a positive sense toward a sustainable SE across the

respective drivers. Future research opportunities are presented below, relative to each driver.

5.1 Social

To advance research on the social value drivers of the sharing economy for providers and customers (and

indeed other stakeholders in the SE ecosystem), future research needs to explore how the tendency towards

reduced social interactions and the shift in consumers’ preferences towards local offerings redefine the social

benefits (i.e., social ties, trust, belonging to communities) of the participation in the sharing economy. It is worth

examining how and what social capital is created in different SE sectors. Relevant questions to frame future

research related to social considerations include:

• What constitutes value co-creation from the perspective of customers in sustainable SE models?

• Is there a way to support relationship building and nurture existing relationships among SE

stakeholders?

• How can trust, human rights and social rights infringements be addressed?

• How can social ties be rehabilitated relative to multiple SE stakeholders?

• How can SE firms balance their responsibilities to their investors and shareholders with their

responsibilities to other stakeholders in the SE ecosystem?

• Can SE firms satisfy the demand/s of shareholders while benefiting society through, for example,

moving to sustainable business models?

• How do the challenges SE firms face compare to other types of firms?

• What are the challenges in encouraging platform participants to behave more sustainably?

• Are government and industry-based incentivisation schemes required to support the development and

nurturing of sustainable SE models?

• How can privacy, security and other social-technical challenges be managed?

• How can wellbeing be both defined and attended to, relative to sustainability and multi-stakeholder

interests and requirements?

5.2 Economic

The transformation of the economic value propositions of platforms requires empirical insights into long-

term implications for customers and providers in terms of their economic security. The corresponding policy

implications must also be pronounced, and suitable policy and regulatory mechanisms developed. Relevant

questions to frame future research with respect to economic considerations include:

• Are provider-oriented and cooperative platforms economically sustainable?

• Will the model of community-oriented platforms survive the competition with big platform companies?

• What can motivate consumers to engage with community-oriented platforms to ensure their growth?

• Can balance be achieved in underlying business models that focus on balancing growth versus profit

and profit versus sustainability?

• Is it realistic to expect a balancing of profit and sustainability?

• Will SE firms be able to use their brands and assets to enter new markets?

• How can a transition to partnership-based models (as opposed to those that privilege power) be

encouraged?

• What shape or form will incentivisation schemes take to ensure economically sound, municipal level,

sustainability-based SE models and practices are considered viable options for stakeholders,

specifically platform companies?

5.3 Technological

To further the understanding of the impact of technological developments on stakeholders, researchers

need first-hand evidence about the opportunities and risks resulting from the introduction and further

development of digital technologies / capabilities and SE service automation. Among the potential challenges

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

and risks are security and privacy concerns and their role in driving participation. The areas that need further

investigation include the impact of provider-owned platforms on the redistribution of income among providers

and the improvement of work conditions. Relevant questions to frame future research regarding technological

drivers include:

• Can the development of autonomous technology make ride-sharing and online meal delivery

profitable?

• How will such developments conflict with the needs of other participants in the SE ecosystem?

• How would such a transition best be managed, in terms of safety and the impact on other participants?

• How will the opportunities, challenges and risks associated with new technological driven offerings be

managed in a manner that benefits multiple stakeholders in the SE ecosystem?

• How do we define a sustainable SE where innovation is not stifled, whilst ensuring that potential risks

to stakeholders are appropriately managed?

• In moving toward a sustainable sharing economy, how do we think about sustainability across virtual

and physical spaces to ensure the sustainability of both people and places?

5.4 Regulatory

When considering the legal, policy and regulatory considerations and drivers, future studies should

contemplate how a deep awareness of the SE ecosystem, as it is likely to emerge in an environment shaped by

COVID-19, and from a multi-stakeholder perspective, can be generated in a manner that will guide and inform

policymaking at multiple levels and in a range of contexts. It is evident that a central feature of current and

future policymaking processes will be the relationship and collaboration focus, oriented toward the capturing

and communication of the values of SE stakeholders. As such, qualitative studies that identify these diverse

stakeholder values and express them in a way that will enable policy co-creation are crucial. Relevant questions

to frame future research that accounts for legal, policy and regulatory considerations include:

• Will some jurisdictions feel emboldened to place restrictions on the sharing economy in the still fragile

economy?

• What, if anything, will change about the relationship between governments, regulators, and SE firms in

different jurisdictions in the years ahead?

• Will regulators assess the power of the platforms and their financial relationships with the providers?

• How will the global to local emphasis and dynamic best be managed in the complex SE ecosystem?

• What are the defining features of sustainable sharing cities?

• How can current governance models, including municipal governance frameworks, be evaluated with a

view to their redevelopment in the context of a sustainable SE?

• Are new governance models required?

• What proactive regulatory mechanisms are suitable for encouraging a shift to a sustainable SE, and

(how) can these models work in a real-world context?

Many other specific recommendations for future research can be drawn; however, it is vital also to step

back and seek answers to a series of broader questions. For example: Has the pandemic compelled a transition to

more sustainable sharing models that can deal with future uncertainty and potentially black swan events? Is it

possible to build SE ecosystems that are antifragile (Taleb 2012; Abbas and Munoz 2021) in the face of such

future events? And specific to policymakers, and the broader SE ecosystem stakeholders, is it reasonable to

expect dynamic policy that can readily adapt to current and future disruption and uncertainty?

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

REFERENCES

Abbas, R., & Michael, K. (2020). COVID-19 contact trace app deployments: Learnings from Australia and

Singapore. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 9(5), 65-70.

Abbas, R., & Munoz, A. (2021). Designing antifragile social-technical information systems in an era of big

data. Information Technology & People, 34(6), 1639-1663.

Ahsan, M. (2020). Entrepreneurship and ethics in the sharing economy: A critical perspective. Journal of

Business Ethics, 161(1): 19-33.

Airbnb Inc. (2023). A safer return to travel. Available at: https://www.airbnb.com.au/d/covidsafety.

Airbnb. (2020a). Hosts to help provide housing to 100,000 COVID-19 Responders, 26 March. Available at

https://news.airbnb.com/airbnb-to-help-provide-housing-to-100000-covid-19-responders/

Airbnb. (2020b). Introducing Airbnb.org, 7 December. Available at https://news.airbnb.com/airbnborg.

Airbnb. (2021). Airbnb fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results, 25 February. Available at

https://news.airbnb.com/airbnb-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2020-financial-results.

Airbnb. (2022). Airbnb corporate sustainability update. corporate emissions footprint and progress against goals,

September. Available at

https://s26.q4cdn.com/656283129/files/doc_downloads/governance_doc_updated/2022/Airbnb-Corporate-

Sustainability-Update_September-2022.pdf.

Airbnb. (no date). How-to - an introduction to Airbnb experiences

https://www.airbnb.co.uk/help/article/1581#:~:text=Airbnb%20Experiences%20are%20in%2Dperson,in%

20a%20Host's%20unique%20world.

Akter S, Babu MM, Hossain MA, et al. (2022) Value co-creation on a shared healthcare platform: Impact on

service innovation, perceived value and patient welfare. Journal of Business Research 140: 95-106.

Albrecht JP (2016) How the GDPR will change the world. Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev. 2: 287.

Amit S and Kafy A-A (2022) A content-based analysis to identify the influence of COVID-19 on sharing

economy activities. Spatial Information Research 30(2): 321-333.

Atsız O and Cifci I (2021) Can we imagine the meal-sharing economy without service providers? The impact of

COVID-19. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 49: 172-177.

Bailey, J.P. and Bakos, Y. (1997). An exploratory study of the emerging role of electronic

intermediaries. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1(3): 7-20.

Balog-Way DH and McComas KA (2020) COVID-19: Reflections on trust, trade-offs, and preparedness.

Journal of Risk Research 23(7-8): 1-11.

Barile, S., Ciasullo, M. V., Iandolo, F., & Landi, G. C. (2021). The city role in the sharing economy: Toward an

integrated framework of practices and governance models. Cities, 119, 103409.

Barzilay, A. R. (2019). The technologies of discrimination: how platforms cultivate gender inequality. The Law

& Ethics of Human Rights, 13(2), 179-202.

Beanne M and Brynjolfsson E (2020) Working with robots in a post-pandemic world. MIT Sloan Management

Review 62(2).

Bellan, R. (2022) Uber Eats pilots’ autonomous delivery with Serve Robotics, Motional, 16 May. Available at

https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/15/uber-eats-pilots-autonomous-delivery-with-serve-robotics-motional/

Beaunoyer E, Dupéré S and Guitton MJ (2020) COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and

mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior. 106424.

Behera, R. K., & Bala, P. K. (2023). Unethical use of information access and analytics in B2B service

organisations: The dark side of behavioural loyalty. Industrial Marketing Management, 109, 14-31.

Belk R (2014a) Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. The Anthropologist 18(1): 7-23.

Belk R (2014b) You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of

Business Research 67(8): 1595-1600.

Belleflamme P, Omrani N and Peitz M (2015) The economics of crowdfunding platforms. Information

Economics and Policy 33: 11-28.

Böcker L and Meelen T (2017) Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations for intended sharing

economy participation. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 23: 28-39.

Botsman R and Rogers R (2011) What's mine is yours: how collaborative consumption is changing the way we

live. Collins London.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Brydges, T., Heinze, L., Retamal, M. and Henninger, C.E. (2021). Platforms and the pandemic: A case study of

fashion rental platforms during COVID‐19. The Geographical Journal, 187(1): 57-63.

Burgess M. (2020). What is GDPR? The summary guide to GDPR compliance in the UK. Available at:

https://www.wired.co.uk/what-is-gdpr-uk-eu-legislation-compliance-summary-fines-2018

Business of Apps. (2023). Uber revenue and usage statistics (2023), 20 February. Available at

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics.

Carnegie M (2022) Worker-owned apps are redefining the sharing economy. Available at:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/gig-economy-worker-owned-apps.

Cenni I and Vásquez C (2021) Early adopters’ responses to a virtual tourism product: Airbnb’s online

experiences. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research.

Chen, G., Cheng, M., Edwards, D. and Xu, L. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic exposes the vulnerability of the

sharing economy: a novel accounting framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(5): 1141-1158.

Chen, S. J., Tamilmani, K., Tran, K. T., Waseem, D., & Weerakkody, V. (2022). How privacy practices affect

customer commitment in the sharing economy: A study of Airbnb through an institutional

perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 107, 161-175.

Chi HR, Ho HP and Lin PK (2022) Survival strategies of the sharing economy from the pandemic to a new

normal: A dynamic capabilities approach. Managerial and Decision Economics.

Cohen M and Sundararajan A (2015) Self-regulation and innovation in the peer-to-peer sharing economy. U.

Chi. L. Rev. Dialogue 82: 116.

Conger K and Griffith E (2020) The results are in for the sharing economy. They are ugly. The New York

Times.

Coppola D (2022a) Annual revenue of DoorDash from 2019 to 2021. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|:

Institution|.

Coppola D (2022b) Total number of active buyers on Xometry from the 4th quarter of 2020 to the 4th quarter of

2021. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

Cornell A, Kloss B, Presser D, et al. (2023) Drones take to the sky, potentially disrupting last-mile delivery.

Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/future-air-mobility-

blog/drones-take-to-the-sky-potentially-disrupting-last-mile-delivery.

Culiberg, B., Abosag, I., & Čater, B. (2023). Psychological contract breach and opportunism in the sharing

economy: Examining the platform-provider relationship. Industrial Marketing Management, 111, 189-201.

Curtis SK and Lehner M (2019) Defining the sharing economy for sustainability. Sustainability 11(3): 567.

Cusumano, M.A., Yoffie, D.B. and Gawer, A. (2020). The future of platforms. MIT Sloan Management Review:

26-34.

Dabija, D. C., Csorba, L. M., Isac, F. L., & Rusu, S. (2022). Building trust toward sharing economy platforms

beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic. Electronics, 11(18), 2916.

Das D, Sarkar A and Debroy A (2022) Impact of COVID‐19 on changing consumer behaviour: Lessons from an

emerging economy. International Journal of Consumer Studies 46(3): 692-715.

Davlembayeva, D., & Papagiannidis, S. (2023). Platform-provider relationship dynamics in the sharing

economy: Challenges and implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 111, 242-256.

Davlembayeva D and Papagiannidis S (2021) Paradoxes of the sharing economy: A pandemic perspective.

International Review of Entrepreneurship 19(1): 5-32.

Davlembayeva D, Papagiannidis S and Alamanos E (2019) ’Mapping the economics, social and technological

attributes of the sharing economy. Information Technology & People. DOI: 10.1108/ITP-02-2018-0085.

Davlembayeva, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2021). Sharing economy platforms: An equity theory

perspective on reciprocity and commitment. Journal of Business Research, 127, 151-166.

Deloitte (2020) Impact of the COVID-19 crisis on short- and medium-term consumer behavior.

Dogerlioglu‐Demir K, Akpinar E and Ceylan M (2022) Combating the fear of COVID‐19 through shared

accommodations: Does perceived human presence create a sense of social connectedness? Journal of

Consumer Behaviour 21(2): 400-413.

Du P and Chou H-H (2020) Sociomaterial practices for value co-creation in the sharing economy: evidence

from Xbed's access-based accommodation service. Information Technology & People.

Dubal VB (2017) Wage slave or entrepreneur? Contesting the dualism of legal worker identities. California Law

Review. 65-123.

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

Ebrahimi, F., Tushev, M., & Mahmoud, A. (2022). Annotating Privacy Policies in the Sharing Economy. arXiv

preprint arXiv:2210.14993.

Eichhorn T, Jürss S and Hoffmann CP (2022) Dimensions of digital inequality in the sharing economy.

Information, Communication & Society 25(3): 395-412.

Elert, N. and Henrekson, M. (2016). Evasive entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 47: 95-113.

Employee Ownership Association (2023a) What the evidence tells us. Available at:

https://employeeownership.co.uk/resources/what-the-evidence-tells-us/.

Employee Ownership Association (2023b) UK employee-owned sector grows by 37% in just 12 months to over

1,400 businesses. Available at: https://employeeownership.co.uk/resources/uk-employee-owned-sector-

grows-by-37-in-just-12-months-to-over-1400-businesses/.

Etter M, Fieseler C and Whelan G (2019) Sharing economy, sharing responsibility? Corporate social

responsibility in the digital age. Journal of Business Ethics 159(4): 935-942.

Fannin M. (2022) Where the billions spent on autonomous vehicles by US and Chinese giants is heading.

Available at https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/05/21/why-the-first-autonomous-vehicles-winners-wont-be-

in-your-driveway.html

Ferreri M and Sanyal R (2018) Platform economies and urban planning: Airbnb and regulated deregulation in

London. Urban Studies 55(15): 3353-3368.

Fiorentino S and Bartolucci S (2021) Blockchain-based smart contracts as new governance tools for the sharing

economy. Cities 117: 103325.

Fleming P, Rhodes C and Yu K-H (2019) On why Uber has not taken over the world. Economy and Society

48(4): 488-509.

Fors, P., Inutsuka, Y., Majima, T., & Orito, Y. (2021). Is the meaning of the “sharing economy” shared among

us? Comparing the perspectives of Japanese and Swedish policymakers and politicians. The Review of

Socionetwork Strategies, 15, 107-121.

Frenken K and Schor J (2019) Putting the sharing economy into perspective. A research agenda for sustainable

consumption governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gapper, J. (2021) Opinion Driverless vehicles - The robots are coming for Deliveroo’s riders, 24 April. The

Financial Times. Available at https://www.ft.com/content/c895c9ef-ebec-4fa1-a048-082382194c70

Gerwe O (2021) The Covid-19 pandemic and the accommodation sharing sector: Effects and prospects for

recovery. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 167: 120733.

Godovykh M, Back RM, Bufquin D, et al. (2022) Peer-to-peer accommodation amid COVID-19: the effects of

Airbnb cleanliness information on guests’ trust and behavioral intentions. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management. (ahead-of-print).

Gossen J and Reck F (2021) The end of the sharing economy? Impact of COVID-19 on Airbnb in Germany.

Economic Research Guardian 11(2): 255-269.

Gössling S and Hall MC (2019) Sharing versus collaborative economy: how to align ICT developments and the

SDGs in tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27(1): 74-96.

Grieco C (2022) Sharing at social distance: “clay-footed giants” coping strategies for navigating the pandemic.

Journal of Strategy and Management. (ahead-of-print).

Gu, H., Zhang, T., Lu, C., & Song, X. (2021). Assessing trust and risk perceptions in the sharing economy: An

empirical study. Journal of Management Studies, 58(4), 1002-1032.

Gurran N, Zhang Y and Shrestha P (2020) ‘Pop-up’ tourism or ‘invasion’? Airbnb in coastal Australia. Annals

of Tourism Research 81: 102845.

Habitat U (2023) People-Centered Smart Cities. Available at: https://unhabitat.org/programme/people-centered-

smart-cities.

Hagiu, A. and Rothman, S. (2016). Network effects aren’t enough. Harvard Business Review, 94(4), 64-71.

He, M., Qin, J., Wen, M. and Chen, W. (2021). Sustaining consumer trust and continuance intention by

institutional mechanisms: an empirical survey of DiDi in China. IEEE Access, 9: 158185-158203.

Heathman A and Martin A (2022) From Bolt to Ola: The next-generation taxi apps to know. Available at:

https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/apps-london-taxis-cabs-bolt-kapten-viavan-wheely-a4357906.html.

Heylighen F (2017) Towards an intelligent network for matching offer and demand: From the sharing economy

to the global brain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114: 74-85.

Hui J, Toyama K, Pal J, et al. (2018) Making a living my way: necessity-driven entrepreneurship in resource-

constrained communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2(CSCW): 1-24.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

IATA. (2022) Air passenger numbers to recover in 2024, 1 March. Available at

https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2022-releases/2022-03-01-01.

Jha A, Sindhwani R, Dwivedi A, et al. (2021) Sustainable recovery for digital entrepreneurs with shared

resources: enablers, challenges and solutions. Journal of Asia Business Studies.

Kane GC, Nanda R, Phillips A, et al. (2021) Redesigning the post-pandemic workplace. MIT Sloan

Management Review 62(3): 12-14.

Katta, S., Badger, A., Graham, M., Howson, K., Ustek-Spilda, F. and Bertolini, A. (2020). (Dis) embeddedness

and (de) commodification: COVID-19, Uber, and the unravelling logics of the gig economy. Dialogues in

Human Geography, 10(2): 203-207.

Khosrowshahi, D. (2020). Driving a green recovery, 8 September. Available at

https://www.uber.com/newsroom/driving-a-green-recovery

Kollewe, J. (2000) Uber ditches effort to develop own self-driving car. The Guardian, 8 December. Available at

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/08/uber-self-driving-car-aurora.

Kromidha E, Gannon M and Taheri B (2021) A profile-based approach to understanding social exchange:

authentic tour-guiding in the sharing economy. Journal of Travel Research. 00472875211062616.

Kuhn KM and Maleki A (2017) Micro-entrepreneurs, dependent contractors, and instaserfs: Understanding

online labor platform workforces. Academy of management Perspectives 31(3): 183-200.

Laffey D, Durkin M, Cummins D, et al. (2021) A shift in power? Value co-creation through successful

crowdfunding. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 172: 121035.

Lang B, Botha E, Robertson J, et al. (2020) How to grow the sharing economy? Create Prosumers! Australasian

Marketing Journal (AMJ) 28(3): 58-66.

Langley P and Leyshon A (2017) Capitalizing on the crowd: The monetary and financial ecologies of

crowdfunding. Environment and Planning A 49(5): 1019-1039.

Laurell C and Sandström C (2017) The sharing economy in social media: Analyzing tensions between market

and non-market logics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 125: 58-65.

Leonard M (2021) How the pandemic drove retailers to on-demand warehousing. Available at:

https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/pandemic-covid-on-demand-warehouse-flowspace-flexe-

inventory/598150/.

Liang, C., Yeung, M.C.H. and Au, A.K.M. (2022). The impact of Airbnb on housing affordability: Evidence

from Hong Kong. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 49(3): 1048-1066.

Mannan M and Pek S (2021) Solidarity in the sharing economy: The role of platform cooperatives at the base of

the pyramid. Springer.

Marchant, G. E. (2011). The growing gap between emerging technologies and the law (pp. 19-33). Springer

Netherlands.

Martin, C. J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal

capitalism?. Ecological economics, 121, 149-159.

Meena, P. and Kumar, G. (2022). Online food delivery companies' performance and consumers expectations

during Covid-19: An investigation using machine learning approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, 68: 103052.

Meenakshi, N. (2023). Post-COVID reorientation of the Sharing economy in a hyperconnected world. Journal

of Strategic Marketing 31(2): 446-470.

Michael K (2022) Modern indentured servitude in the gig economy: A case study on the deregulation of the taxi

industry in the United States. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 41(2): 30-41.

Michael, K., & Abbas, R. (2020). Behind COVID-19 contact trace apps: The Google–Apple partnership. IEEE

Consumer Electronics Magazine, 9(5), 71-76.

Michael, K., & Abbas, R. (2022). What happens to COVID-19 data after the pandemic? Socio-Technical

Lessons. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 3(4), 242-247.

Michael, K., Michael, M. G., Perakslis, C., & Abbas, R. (2020). Uberveillance and the rise of last-mile

implantables: Past, present and future. Embodied Computing: Wearables, Implantables, Embeddables,

Ingestibles, 97-130.

Mittal M (2021) Software trends in the post-pandemic world. Available at:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/09/08/software-trends-in-the-post-pandemic-world/.

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

Möhlmann, M. and Henfridsson O. (2019). What people hate about being managed by algorithms, according to

a study of Uber drivers. Harvard Business Review, 30 August. Available at: https://hbr.org/2019/08/what-

people-hate-about-being-managed-by-algorithms-according-to-a-study-of-uber-drivers.

Mont O (2004) Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use. Ecological

Economics 50(1-2): 135-153.

Mont, O., Curtis, S.K. and Palgan, Y.V. (2021). Organisational response strategies to COVID-19 in the sharing

economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28: 52-70.

Mura, P., Tavakoli, R. & Pahlevan Sharif, S. (2017) ‘Authentic but not too much’: exploring perceptions of

authenticity of virtual tourism. Information Technology & Tourism, 17(2): 145–159.

Murillo D, Buckland H and Val E (2017) When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids:

Unravelling the controversies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 125: 66-76.

Nadeem W, Juntunen M, Shirazi F, et al. (2020) Consumers’ value co-creation in sharing economy: The role of

social support, consumers’ ethical perceptions and relationship quality. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change 151: 119786.

Nawi, N. F., Anuar, A., Manshor, N. M., & Latif, R. A. (2022). Policy, legal and regulation research in the

sharing economy: A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. IIUMLJ, 30, 1.

Nott, G. (2023). Orders are tumbling at Deliveroo and Just Eat but profitability beckons. How come?, 29

January. Available at https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/online/orders-are-tumbling-at-deliveroo-and-just-eat-

but-profitability-beckons-how-come/675725.article

OECD (2020) Tourism policy responses to the coronavirus (COVID-19).

Okwudire CE and Madhyastha HV (2021) Distributed manufacturing for and by the masses. Science 372(6540):

341-342.

Palgan, Y. V., Mont, O., & Sulkakoski, S. (2021). Governing the sharing economy: Towards a comprehensive

analytical framework of municipal governance. Cities, 108, 102994.

Palgan, Y.V., Zvolska, L. and Mont, O. (2017). Sustainability framings of accommodation

sharing. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23: 70-83.

Papagiannidis S and Davlembayeva D (2022) Bringing smart home technology to peer-to-peer accommodation:

Exploring the drivers of intention to stay in smart accommodation. Information Systems Frontiers 24(4):

1189-1208.

Papagiannidis S, Harris J and Morton D (2020) WHO led the digital transformation of your company? A

reflection of IT related challenges during the pandemic. International Journal of Information Management

55: 102166.

Parente RC, Geleilate J-MG and Rong K (2018) The sharing economy globalization phenomenon: A research

agenda. Journal of International Management 24(1): 52-64.

Park SK, Kwak KT and Lee BG (2019) Policy compliance and deterrence mechanism in the sharing economy.

Internet Research 29(5): 1124-1148.

Parwez S (2022) COVID-19 pandemic and work precarity at digital food platforms: A delivery worker's

perspective. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 5(1): 100259.

Petrova, M. (2019). Uber Freight is making trucking more efficient and could help Uber turn a profit, 14

September. Available at https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/14/uber-freight-makes-trucking-more-efficient-

could-aid-profit.html

Piscicelli L, Cooper T and Fisher T (2015) The role of values in collaborative consumption: insights from a

product-service system for lending and borrowing in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production 97: 21-29.

Polman, P., Sisodia, R. and Tindell, K. (2020). What good business look like. Harvard Business Review, 13

May. Available at https://hbr.org/2020/05/what-good-business-looks-like.

Preetika Rana (2020) Uber cuts 3,000 more jobs, shuts 45 offices in coronavirus crunch The Wall Street

Journal.

Raj, M., Sundararajan, A. and You, C. (2020). COVID-19 and digital resilience: Evidence from Uber

Eats. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07204.

Rana, N. P., Kar, A. K., Gupta, M., Pappas, I. O., & Papadopoulos, T. (2023). Unravelling the dark side of

sharing economy–Managing and sustaining B2B relationships on digital platforms. Industrial Marketing

Management.

Redfearn Iii RL (2016) Sharing economy misclassification: employees and independent contractors in

transportation network companies. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31: 1023-1056.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Research & Markets (2022) Crowdfunding market - growth, trends, COVID-19 impact, and forecasts (2022 -

2027). Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

Rosenblat A and Stark L (2016) Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s

drivers.

Rosenblat, A., Levy, K. E., Barocas, S., & Hwang, T. (2017). Discriminating tastes: Uber's customer ratings as

vehicles for workplace discrimination. Policy & Internet, 9(3), 256-279.

Sadiq, M., Moslehpour, M., Qiu, R., Hieu, V.M., Duong, K.D. and Ngo, T.Q. (2023). Sharing economy benefits

and sustainable development goals: Empirical evidence from the transportation industry of Vietnam.

Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(1):100290.

Salas EB (2022) Revenue of Uber from 2017 to 2021, by segment. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|:

Institution|.

Saura JR, Ribeiro-Soriano D and Saldaña PZ (2022) Exploring the challenges of remote work on Twitter users'

sentiments: From digital technology development to a post-pandemic era. Journal of Business Research

142: 242-254.

Saxton GD, Oh O and Kishore R (2013) Rules of Crowdsourcing: Models, issues, and systems of control.

Information Systems Management 30(1): 2-20.

Scholz, T. (2014). Platform cooperativism vs. the sharing economy. Big Data & Civic Engagement, 47, 47-52.

Schor, J. (2016). Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 4(3),

7-22.

Seetharaman P (2020) Business models shifts: Impact of Covid-19. International Journal of Information

Management 54: 102173.

Shahrokh ZD, Nasehifar V, Ghaderi E, et al. (2022) The model of customer co-creation experience in peer-to-

peer hospitality industry: Meta-synthetic approach. Tourism Management 17(59): 9-38.

Shirazi F, Wu Y, Hajli A, et al. (2021) Value co-creation in online healthcare communities. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change 167: 120665.

Sigala M (2020) Tourism and COVID-19: Impacts and implications for advancing and resetting industry and

research. Journal of Business Research 117: 312-321.

Song, J. and Regan, A.C. (2001). Transition or transformation? Emerging freight transportation

intermediaries. Transportation research record, 1763(1), pp.1-5.

Statista (2022a) Total crowdfunding volume worldwide from 2015 to 2020. Report Number|, Date. Place

Published|: Institution|.

Statista (2022b) Travel & Tourism: United Kingdom. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

Statista (2023) Revenue of Airbnb worldwide from 2017 to 2022. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|:

Institution|.

Statista. (2022). Bike-sharing, December. Available from https://www.statista.com/outlook/mmo/shared-

mobility/shared-rides/bike-sharing/worldwide

Statista. (2023). Revenue of Airbnb worldwide from 2017 to 2022 (in billion U.S. dollars), 2 March. Available

at https://www.statista.com/statistics/1193134/airbnb-revenue-worldwide/?locale=en, 2023.

Statista. (2023). Revenue of the rental apparel market worldwide from 2019 to 2026 (in billion U.S. dollars), 28

January. Available from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1195613/rental-apparel-market-revenue-

worldwide/

Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: how to live in a world we don't understand (Vol. 3). London: Allen Lane.

Tan KP-S, Yang Y and Li XR (2022) Catching a ride in the peer-to-peer economy: Tourists’ acceptance and use

of ridesharing services before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Research 151:

504-518.

Taylor P (2023) Digital transformation - statistics & facts. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

Templeton, B. (2024) Waymo Plans Massive Robotaxi Service Area, But Not Massive Enough. Available at

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2024/01/22/waymo-plans-massive-robotaxi-service-area-but-

not-massive-enough/?sh=44a4b99648ca

Transport and Environment. (2020). Uber pollutes more than the cars it replaces – US scientists, 19 March.

Available at https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/uber-pollutes-more-cars-it-replaces-us-

scientists.

Uber (2022). Uber’s fully electric option expands to all of London, 5 April. Available at

https://www.uber.com/en-GB/newsroom/ubers-fully-electric-option-expands-to-all-of-london

Dinara Davlembayeva, Roba Abbas, Des Laffey, Katina Michael and Savvas Papagiannidis

Uber (no date given). Together on the road to zero emissions. Available at

https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/services/electric/#:~:text=Drivers%20of%20fully%20electric%20vehicl

es,in%20the%20US%20and%20Canada.

Uber. (2023). Uber Announces Results for Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2022, 8 February. Available at

https://investor.uber.com/news-events/news/press-release-details/2023/Uber-Announces-Results-for-

Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2022/

UK Parliament (2023). Inquiry Launch: Transport committee to investigate development and deployment of

self-driving vehicles. 11 July, Available at https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/153/transport-

committee/news/171744/inquiry-launch-transport-committee-to-investigate-development-and-deployment-

of-selfdriving-vehicles

Vinod, B. (2022). Revenue Management in the Lodging Industry: Origins to the Last Frontier. Switzerland,

Springer Nature.

Wang, X., Xu, Z., Xiao, A. and Skare, M., 2023. Measuring short-and long-run impacts of COVID19 on the

sharing economy and business models. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, pp.1-26.

Watanabe C, Naveed K, Neittaanmäki P, et al. (2017) Consolidated challenge to social demand for resilient

platforms - Lessons from Uber's global expansion. Technology in Society 48: 33-53.

Wentrup R, Nakamura HR and Ström P (2019) Uberization in Paris–the issue of trust between a digital platform

and digital workers. Critical Perspectives on International Business 15(1): 20-41.

Young, M., Farber, S. and Palm, M. (2020). The true cost of sharing: A detour penalty analysis between

UberPool and UberX trips in Toronto. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87:

102540.

Zhu X and Liu K (2021) A systematic review and future directions of the sharing economy: business models,

operational insights and environment-based utilities. Journal of Cleaner Production 290: 125209.

Zhu, J. and Cheng, M. (2022). The rise of a new form of virtual tour: Airbnb peer-to-peer online experience.

Current Issues in Tourism, 25(22): 3565-3570.

Zvolska, L., Lehner, M., Voytenko Palgan, Y., Mont, O., & Plepys, A. (2019). Urban sharing in smart cities:

The cases of Berlin and London. Local Environment, 24(7), 628-645.