Initial steps towards a research agenda for the sharing economy and socio-technical transitions

A friend of mine suggested as academics we could be more open about our unsuccessful publications; listing them and making them publicly available. I liked the idea, so below is a short viewpoint article that I unsuccessfully submitted to Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions this Summer. I am still very much interested in developing a research agenda around the sharing economy and sustainability transitions, so just thinking about how to shape and develop the ideas below.

Initial steps towards a research agenda for the sharing economy and socio-technical transitions

1. Introduction

There is rapidly growing interest in the nature and impacts of the sharing economy amongst entrepreneurs, innovators, incumbent businesses, policy-makers, media commenters and academic researchers alike. The sharing economy is often framed by advocates as a disruptive and transformative field of innovation which enables peer-to-peer (P2P) forms of economic activity at an unprecedented scale. Perhaps, the dominant definition of the sharing economy has been offered by Botsman (2013), as an economic model built upon online P2P platforms and “based on sharing, swapping, trading, or renting products and services, enabling access over ownership”. Following this definition, the sharing economy encompasses a diverse field of market-based and grassroots innovations including: P2P platforms for renting or sharing short-term accommodation (e.g. Airbnb and Couchsurfing); P2P car rental and sharing services (e.g. EasyCarClub); P2P ridesharing services (e.g. Uber and Lyft); and, P2P platforms for sharing or gifting resources within local communities (e.g. Peerby, Streetbank and Freecycle). The scale of the sharing economy remains under researched, however by the estimates of PWC (2014) current global revenues are $15bn, potentially growing to $335bn by 2025. Furthermore, the social and environmental impacts of the sharing economy remain a fiercely contested topic. At one extreme Botsman and Rogers (2010) argue that the sharing economy possesses the potential to disrupt the culture of hyper-consumption prevalent in market economies, bringing about a transition to more sustainable consumption practices. Whilst at the other, Morozov (2013) offers a scathing critique claiming that the sharing economy is a form of “neo-liberalism on steroids”. In the next two sections I further explore the contestation of the sharing economy, and then based on the insight developed offer an initial outline of a research agenda for the sharing economy and socio-technical transitions.

2. The contestation of the sharing economy

Three factors driving the contestation of the impacts and scope of the sharing economy can be readily identified. First, the sharing economy is built upon a general purpose technology, the online P2P platform, which enables a diverse range of values and institutional logics to be enacted (Martin and Upham, 2015). For example, using Airbnb (Ravenelle, 2015): citizens can rent out rooms in their homes to strangers and build social relationships in the process – enacting, amongst others, the value of sociability and the logic of community; and, commercial actors can rent out vacant properties solely for profit – enacting, amongst others, the value of economic efficiency and the logic of entrepreneurship. Hence, each platform and the sharing economy as a whole, possesses the potential to create a mix of positive and negative impacts (Selinger, 2008) from the perspective of social and environmental sustainability. Secondly, much of the innovation within the sharing economy is misaligned with the common sense meaning of the term ‘sharing’; as a form of exchange in which economic benefits are not accrued. For example, for-profit P2P platforms that enable citizens to share (i.e. rent) access to resources (such as Airbnb) are easily critiqued for appropriating the term ‘sharing’ to benefit from its positive associations (i.e. sharing-washing). Thirdly, a diverse cast of commercial, social enterprise and grassroots actors are seeking to define the nature and scope of the sharing economy in such a way that favours and furthers particular interests (as elaborated upon below).

The contestation of the sharing economy is manifested in diverse and divergent visions and expectations for the niche (Martin, Under Review), each emphasising and aligning with different values and institutional logics. When the concept of sharing economy emerged it tended to be framed as a new and better form of capitalism with the potential to promote sustainable consumption and create economic, social and environmental value in concert (Botsman and Rogers, 2010); hence aligning with the institutional logic of social enterprise. My recent observations of the Ouishare 2015 Fest^[1] – attended by approximately 1000 activists, social innovators, entrepreneurs and innovation intermediaries – suggest that many niche actors are distancing themselves from the concept of the sharing economy.  Here, a broader vision of a collaborative economy was offered incorporating socio-digital innovations including the sharing economy (as defined above), digital currencies (e.g. Bitcoin), open digital government and grassroots digital fabrication (e.g. the maker movement). Such visions appeared to be driven by concerns about the unsustainable nature of the prevailing centralised capitalist economic paradigm, and to be aligned with the values of citizen empowerment and the logics of community and the social movement.  Furthermore, actors within the media, including the Telegraph (Cave, 2015) in the UK and the New York Times (Singer, 2014) in the USA, have presented a rather different vision; focussing on the potential of the sharing economy to increase the flexibility of the labour market and erode workers’ rights. Hence, offering a vision aligned with values and logics including economic empowerment and the market respectively.

3. Initial steps towards a research agenda for the sharing economy and socio-technical transitions

Given such diverse and divergent expectations for the sharing economy’s development, the transitions research community can view the sharing economy from two distinct perspectives. First, the sharing economy can be viewed as a niche of socio-digital experiments, with the paradoxical potential to: promote more sustainable consumption and production practices; and, to reinforce the current unsustainable economic paradigm. Secondly, the sharing economy can also be viewed as a transformative niche aligned with ongoing processes integrating digital technologies into the socio-technical structures of the regime. Furthermore, these processes have important consequences for sustainability transitions (Hilty and Aebischer, 2015) across the energy, mobility, water, food regimes. However, the socio-technical transitions research community, alongside many other research communities^[2], is struggling to keep pace with the rapid development of the sharing economy. Although, there have been promising signs of engagement with: the emergence of empirical research focussed on sharing and collaborative economies (Smith et al., 2013, Martin and Upham, 2015); and, the inclusion of a transitions stream at the First International Workshop on the Sharing Economy.  Hence, much work is needed to establish and pursue a research agenda for the sharing economy and socio-technical transitions. To conclude this article, and as a starting point for further discussion, I offer an outline of some of the topics a research agenda might address.

The sharing economy represents a new and potentially important field of empirical study within socio-technical transitions, and research is needed to understanding the nature of, and processes within, the sharing economy niche. Initial research might focus on mapping the sharing economy niche and engaging in a preliminary assessment of the sustainability impacts of those innovations identified. Such research would be complemented by investigations focused on the dynamics of power and politics at play within the discourse contesting the sharing economy. Furthermore, there may be considerable value in exploring how the sharing economy can be governed; both as a niche in its own right, and within the broader context of efforts to govern transitions (Schot and Geels, 2008) in the energy and mobility systems. 

Studying the sharing economy also offers extensive opportunities to develop greater understanding of the processes of socio-technical transitions. Perhaps the most prominent opportunity lies in research developing understanding of the role of the web and other digital technologies in the dynamics of transitions. For example, research might investigate how digital technologies have enabled sharing economy platforms (such as Airbnb^[3]) to rapidly established a presence (i.e. socio-digital experiments) across many cities and countries, to an extent outpacing the processes of regime resistance. Furthermore, as the sharing economy offers affordances to enact diverse and potentially conflicting values, there is a considerable opportunity for studies developing much needed understand of the role of values in socio-technical transitions (Martin and Upham, 2015). Whilst, the processes by which niches interact with multiple regimes (Seyfang et al., 2014) might be better theorised by research exploring the interrelationships between the sharing economy and the energy, mobility and consumer goods regimes. Additionally, the sharing economy niche spans the for-profit, social enterprise and non-profit sectors, and hence presents an interesting empirical context in which to further develop and integrate theories of market-based and grassroots innovation. Finally, I suggest that sharing economy offers fertile ground for research focused on how innovative economic practices emerge and shape the socio-technical structures of the regime. In particular, research might assess the degree to which established theories of the dynamics of technological and social innovation (e.g. Smith et al., 2010, Haxeltine et al., 2013) might be helpful in explaining the dynamics of innovative economic practices.

References

Airbnb. 2015. About Us [Online]. Available: https://www.airbnb.co.uk/about/about-us [Accessed 26th June 2015].

Botsman, R. 2013. The Sharing Economy Lacks a Shared Defintion [Online]. Available: http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/2013/11/22/the-sharing-economy-lacks-a-shared-definition/ [Accessed 8th January 2015].

Botsman, R. & Rogers, R. 2010. What's mine is yours: how collaborative consumption is changing the way we live, London, UK, Collins.

Cave, A. 2015. The future of the sharing economy: why we'll all be doing odd-jobs [Online]. The Telegraph. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11427099/The-future-of-the-sharing-economy-why-well-all-be-doing-odd-jobs.html [Accessed 26th June 2015].

Haxeltine, A., Wittmayer, J. & Avelino, F. 2013. Transformative social innovations: A sustainability transition perspective on social innovation. Social Frontiers: The next edge of social innovation research. London.

Hilty, L. M. & Aebischer, B. 2015. ICT for Sustainability: An Emerging Research Field. In: Hilty, L. M. & Aebischer, B. (eds.) ICT Innovations for Sustainability. Springer International Publishing.

Martin, C. J. Under Review. The role of narratives in the contestation of the sharing economy: taking a multi-level perspective. Ecological Economics.

Martin, C. J. & Upham, P. 2015. Grassroots social innovation and the mobilisation of  values in collaborative consumption: a conceptual model The Journal of Cleaner Production.

Morozov, E. 2013. The 'sharing economy' undermines workers rights [Online]. Available: http://evgenymorozov.tumblr.com/post/64038831400/the-sharing-economy-undermines-workers-rights [Accessed 8th January 2015].

Ouishare. 2015. Ouishare Fest 2015 [Online]. Available: http://2015.ouisharefest.com/ [Accessed 29th June 2015].

Pwc. 2014. The sharing economy: how will it disrupt your business? Megatrends: the collisions. Available: http://pwc.blogs.com/files/sharing-economy-final_0814.pdf [Accessed 22nd April 2015].

Ravenelle, A. 2015. Microentrepreneur or Precariat? Exploring the Sharing Economy through the Experiences of Workers for Airbnb, Taskrabbit, Uber and Kitchensurfing. The First International Workshop on the Sharing Economy. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Schot, J. & Geels, F. W. 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20, 537-554.

Selinger, E. 2008. Does Microcredit “Empower”? Reflections on the Grameen Bank Debate. Human Studies, 31, 27-41.

Seyfang, G., Hielscher, S., Hargreaves, T., Martiskainen, M. & Smith, A. 2014. A grassroots sustainable energy niche? Reflections on community energy in the UK. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 13, 21-44.

Singer, N. 2014. In the Sharing Economy, Workers Find Both Freedom and Uncertainty [Online]. The New York Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/technology/in-the-sharing-economy-workers-find-both-freedom-and-uncertainty.html?_r=1 [Accessed 26th June 2015].

Smith, A., Hielscher, S., Dickel, S., Soderberg, J. & Van Oost, E. 2013. Grassroots digital fabrication and makerspaces: reconfiguring, relocating and recalibrating innovation. Available: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2013-02-swps-aps-sh-gdf-working-paper.pdf&site=25 [Accessed 8th January 2015].

Smith, A., Voß, J.-P. & Grin, J. 2010. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39, 435-448.

---

^[1] The theme of Ouishare Fest was “Lost in Transition?” which the organisers expanded upon as follows: “Transition, transformation, shift: these are words we hear a lot lately to express how the economy, environment, politics and business are changing. What exactly are we transitioning to? What direction would we like to go in? What could a collaborative society look like?” (Ouishare, 2015)

^[2] A search of the Scopus database of academic literature for the term “sharing economy” returns 39 results as of 22^nd May 2015.

^[3] Airbnb was launched in August 2008 (Botsman and Rogers, 2010), as of June 2015 Airbnb (2015) claims to be active in more than 34,000 cities across more than 190 countries.