Fairness, legitimacy and the regulation of home-sharing platforms

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to contribute to current hospitality and tourism research on the sharing economy by studying the under-researched aspects of regulatory desirability, moral legitimacy and fairness in the context of home-sharing platforms (e.g. Airbnb). Design/methodology/approach Three separate 2×1 between-subjects experimental vignette surveys are used to test the effects of three types of fairness (procedural, interpersonal and informational) on two outcomes: moral legitimacy and regulatory desirability. Findings The results of the research show that high perceived fairness across all three types increases moral legitimacy and reduces regulatory desirability. Respondents who perceive a fictional home-sharing platform to be fair consider it to be more legitimate and want it to be less regulated. Research limitations/implications Following established practices and reducing external validity, the study uses a fictional scenario and a fictional company for the experimental vignette. The data collection took place in the UK, prohibiting cultural comparisons. Practical implications The research is useful for home-sharing platform managers by showing how they can boost moral legitimacy and decrease regulatory desirability through a strong focus on fairness. It can also help policymakers and consumer protection advocates by providing evidence about regulatory desirability and how it is affected by fairness perceptions. Originality/value The study adds to hospitality and tourism research by offering theoretically meaningful and practically relevant conclusions about the importance of fairness in driving stakeholder opinions about home-sharing platforms.

How does discrimination occur in hospitality and tourism services, and what shall we do? A critical literature review

“…There remains a need to examine the dynamic manifestation of discrimination in the field as activated by trends in the COVID-19 pandemic (Liu et al , 2021; Tse and Tung, 2020). With the use of big data and the diminishing boundaries of online privacy, digital discriminatory behaviours may become increasingly subtle, inviting more systematic and cutting-edge theorization and knowledge generation (Newlands and Lutz, 2020). The present review represents the most comprehensive assessment of the research on discrimination in H&T services and can serve as a valuable baseline for future reviews of discrimination research in the “new norm”.…”

A global perspective on the impact of COVID-19 on peer-to-peer accommodation: human mobility, case number and lockdown policies

“…The rapid growth of Airbnb in the last decade has been phenomenal, making Airbnb.com an extremely attractive marketplace for trading spaces before COVID-19 (Dolnicar, 2021). Airbnb's business model operates on the premises of the concept of peer-to-peer sharing where individuals trade their spaces on the digital platforms for a fee, which presents a number of distinctive features that differ from traditional accommodation providers (Mody et al, 2021;So et al, 2022) First, Airbnb business model has the traditional boundary between commercial and private space increasingly blurred (Cheng and Foley, 2018;Newlands and Lutz, 2020). While Airbnb hosts are a crucial part of the Airbnb network, they are not formal employees of Airbnb (Sundararajan, 2014).…”

Ethical judgments in the sharing economy: When consumers misbehave, providers complain

“…Similar constructs can be found in the business ethics literature, such as organizational justice/fairness, which considers two types of perceptions, i.e., (a) the fairness of outcome distributions or allocations and (b) the fairness of the procedures used to determine outcome distributions or allocations (Colquitt et al, 2011, p. 425). Organizational fairness/ justice has been used in the literature on the sharing economy to primarily evaluate the (un)ethical dealings and procedures of platforms (Davlembayeva et al, 2021;Newlands & Lutz, 2020;Tie et al, 2021).…”

“…Schwepker (1999, p. 304) defined ethical judgment as “an individual's decision as to whether something is ethical or unethical, right or wrong.” Similar constructs can be found in the business ethics literature, such as organizational justice/fairness, which considers two types of perceptions, i.e., (a) the fairness of outcome distributions or allocations and (b) the fairness of the procedures used to determine outcome distributions or allocations (Colquitt et al, 2011, p. 425). Organizational fairness/justice has been used in the literature on the sharing economy to primarily evaluate the (un)ethical dealings and procedures of platforms (Davlembayeva et al, 2021; Newlands & Lutz, 2020; Tie et al, 2021). Conversely, our paper considers ethical judgment in order to (1) focus on the activities of consumers, not platforms and (2) present the evaluations of the misbehavior itself, rather than the outcomes or procedures that lead up to it.…”