Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: Institutional research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy organizations

Mair, Johanna; Reischauer, Georg

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.023

Cited by 273 publications

(203 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

192

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Monte (2015) states that these platforms are secure and transparent for the transactions regarding assets [52]. In this way, online platforms can be considered as the main infrastructure of the SE [4,70]. Also, Welsum (2016) introduces the technology platform and apps as the cause of the primary innovation that takes place in the SE business model [109].…”

Section: Online Platforms the Intermediary Role And Convenience Of Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Depending on the nature of tangible or intangible asset, SE contains many types of compensation including renting, swapping, bartering, and other similar activities. Mair and Reischauer (2017) even consider trading, gift-giving, and payment as other various forms of compensation in the SE [70]. Nevertheless, when explaining the SE, Rahim et al (2017) point out "digital platforms and applications (apps) that enable people or businesses to share, sell, or rent property, resources, time, or skills" [29] (p. 3).…”

Section: Temporary Access Collaborative Form Of Consumption and Idlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, 67 definitions of the SE were extracted from the scientific sources, which allowed the identification of 11 main features that define the concept. Among these features, digital or online platforms are considered to be the main infrastructure for such change [4,70], being the most important feature found in this research. Putting all the information and analysis together, a comprehensive definition and a framework has been presented for the SE.…”

Section: Conclusion Implications Limitations and Avenues For Furtmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conceptualizing the Sharing Economy through Presenting a Comprehensive Framework

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In recent years, through the advances in technology and highlighting the sustainability concepts in different aspects of human lives, the sharing economy has become an interesting topic for researchers, and also, many businesses claim to be active in this environment. However, a comprehensive definition, which is generally accepted, does not yet exist in the literature. In this paper, through a systematic literature review, analysis, and coding, a comprehensive definition, and also, an inclusive framework is presented for the sharing economy. This can help scientists and businesses to clarify which companies or parts of their activities fall into the SE category, and which do not. Such clarification in a small scale is done for five companies at the end of the paper.

show abstract

Section: Online Platforms the Intermediary Role And Convenience Of Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Temporary Access Collaborative Form Of Consumption and Idlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conclusion Implications Limitations and Avenues For Furtmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conceptualizing the Sharing Economy through Presenting a Comprehensive Framework

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, this paper responds to multiple recent calls for more research on the sharing economy (Barczak, ; Gerwe and Silva, ; Luchs et al, ; Uzunca et al, ), in particular from an institutional perspective (Mair and Reischauer, ). Sharing economy research has thus far largely focused on the sharing economy platforms as new forms of organizing (e.g., Hinings et al, ) or value creation architectures (e.g., Cohen and Kietzmann, ; Muñoz and Cohen, ; Vaskelainen and Münzel, ), the motivation of individuals to join such platforms (e.g., Hamari, Sjöklint, and Ukkonen, ; Wilhelms, Henkel, and Falk, ), and their social and environmental impact (e.g., Parguel, Lunardo, and Benoit‐Moreau, ).…”

Section: Theoretical and Managerial Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 64%

Institution‐Infused Sensemaking of Discontinuous Innovations: The Case of the Sharing Economy

Weber

Lehmann

Graf‐Vlachy

et al. 2019

J of Product Innov Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper adopts an institutionalist perspective to develop a better understanding of why incumbent organizations struggle to respond to discontinuous innovations. Based on a case study of the hotel industry’s early response to the emergence of “sharing economy” businesses, it identifies three patterns of “institution‐infused interpretation” in incumbent managers’ sensemaking—i.e., interpretations that are triggered by decision makers’ perceptions of the ways in which discontinuous innovations challenge established rules, norms, and taken‐for‐granted assumptions. First, as incumbent managers perceive new entrants that introduce the innovation as violating regulative and normative rules, they develop a sense of unfairness regarding the new competition enabled by the discontinuous innovation. Second, as new entrants deviate from normative and cognitive institutions, they cause collective confusion among incumbents. Third, perceiving discontinuous innovations as challenging regulatory and cognitive institutions, incumbent managers cognitively marginalize new entrants and their offerings as illegitimate and substandard niche phenomena. Interestingly, these institution‐infused interpretive patterns not only contribute to early incumbent inertia, but also motivate incumbents to question established rules and engage in institutional work. Overall, this paper adds to the emergent conversation on the role of institutions in organizational adaptation to discontinuous innovations by revealing the importance of institutional violations for managerial sensemaking and responses in this context.

show abstract

“…An increasing number of studies have been brought to light helping to document and analyze how SE manifests and evolves across economic systems, thus, contributing to refine and recast existing management theory (Mair & Reischauer, 2017). Nevertheless, there still is a lack of a common understanding of SE and its underlying mechanisms (Knote & Blohm, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing Economy: The Establishment of Organizational Identity Overtime, Considering Identify Claims and Legitimacy Granting

Cotrim

Nunes²

2017

Eur. j. econ. bus. stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Sharing Economy (SE) has been growing at an impressive rate across the globe (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014) and emerging as an innovative and rapidly growing sector of the economy (Hira & Reilly, 2017), which attracted the attention of the scientific community. An increasing number of studies have been brought to light helping to document and analyze how SE manifests and evolves across economic systems, thus, contributing to refine and recast existing management theory (Mair & Reischauer, 2017). Nevertheless, there still is a lack of a common understanding of SE and its underlying mechanisms (Knote & Blohm, 2016). As an emergent category, SE has been contoured by being a mutant process, as it has been crafted by multiple and distinct temporal identity and legitimacy events, mechanisms and claims. Showing signs of being an on-going process of evolution, there is a constant need for further research to identify developments in the evolution of SE considering both identify claims (self-referential) and legitimacy (granted by stakeholders), which would offer additional comprehension about the SE phenomenon. The research addresses it by studying what is the role of SE in establishing the identity of organizations belonging to the field, considering both identify claims (selfreferential) and legitimacy (granted by stakeholders)? To answer the research question, the research was designed involving two components inspired on category creation studies (Durand & Paolella, 2013;Glynn & Navis, 2013;Navis & Glynn, 2010;Kennedy & Fiss, 2013;Kennedy et al., 2010;Lounsbury & Rao, 2004;and Wry et al., 2014): 1) four prototypical SE organizations were selected, each of them belonging to Schor's (2014) four SE archetypes of activities: (i) Airbnb -peer-to-peer, for-profit activity -, (ii) Zipcar -business-to-peer, forprofit activity -, (iii) TimeBanks -peer-to-peer, non-profit -and (iv) Make: makerspaces -business-to-peer, non-profit. The content of the evolution of their identity claims was analyzed, using data from their public available reports, as well as, other secondary data available on-line; and 2) considering the same set of SE organizations, legitimacy evolution was analyzed considering how scientific community, investors, customers, media, other analysts and other interested audiences have been constructing category meaning to them, conferring the formation of SE categorical and organizational identities, and perceptions about the viability of their business models (Tripsas, 2009, as cited in Navis & Glynn, 2010. In short, it was analyzed how stakeholders assess the viability of SE categories and organizations and can grant or withhold legitimacy to SE organizations (Zuckerman, 1999, as cited in Navis & Glynn, 2010. This research presents a new layer on framing a detailed understanding of the SE field in its maturing dimension, thus, meeting Mair's and Reischauer's (2017) call for studying the SE, unpack and make sense of an inspiring and complex phenomenon and thereby advancing and sophisticate the existing theo...

show abstract

Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: Institutional research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy organizations

Cited by 273 publications

References 60 publications

Conceptualizing the Sharing Economy through Presenting a Comprehensive Framework

Conceptualizing the Sharing Economy through Presenting a Comprehensive Framework

Institution‐Infused Sensemaking of Discontinuous Innovations: The Case of the Sharing Economy

Sharing Economy: The Establishment of Organizational Identity Overtime, Considering Identify Claims and Legitimacy Granting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About