Power versus trust – what matters more in collaborative consumption?

Abstract

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. Abstract Purpose -Collaborative consumption, such as car sharing, specifically implicates customer-to-customer interaction, which must be regulated by service providers (companies, peers and self-regulating communities), comprising different challenges for business organizations. While in conventional business relations, consumers are protected from undesirable customer behavior by laws, regulations (power) in the context of collaborative consumption are rare, so that trust becomes more relevant. It is the purpose of the study to investigate possible mechanisms to prevent undesirable customers in collaborative consumption. Design/methodology/approach -In between subject designs, samples of 186 and 328 consumers filled in experimental online questionnaires with vignettes. Analyses were made of differences among car sharing companies, private persons and car sharing communities in terms of the power of providers, trust in providers and trust in other users of the shared goods, undesirable customer behavior and consumer-provider relations. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.Findings -Companies, private persons and self-regulating communities differ in terms of perceived power and trust. Participants specifically perceive mainly coercive power with the car sharing company, but with the private person and the community, reason-based trust in other users is perceived as prevalent. Nevertheless, undesirable customer behavior varies only marginally over the models. Originality/value -The present study is the first to investigate measures to prevent undesirable customer behavior over different collaborative consumption models. This enables appropriate identification of market segments and tailoring of services. The study identifies opportunities for companies in contrast to private persons and self-regulating communities and, in doing so, provides important stimulation for marketing strategy and theory development.

Preventing Conflicts in Sharing Communities as a Means of Promoting Sustainability

“…Participants in the focus groups also mentioned that rules should be well defined and arranged together including all community members to ensure compliance. These results indicate that the type of regulation, especially soft forms, are crucial and other factors such as trust should be considered as moderating factors for cooperation [13]. In the focus group, discussions regarding trust were an important factor for joining sharing communities, and therefore, only forms of regulation that do not undermine initial trust in other group members should be used.…”

“…Afterwards, participants had to fill in the first part of closed questions assessing implicit trust and reason-based trust in the community of the garden, as well as perceived harsh forms of regulation, soft forms of regulation, and the reward power of the community (adapted from Hofmann, Hartl, and Penz [13]), using Likert scales, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Furthermore, scales were used assessing relationship conflicts, task conflicts, and conflict resolution within the garden community (adapted from Jehn [71]).…”

“…In the literature, several sources of regulation can be distinguished. We use the definition of Hofmann, Hartl and Penz [13], who already used these concepts of social regulation in a sharing economy setting. In their definition, a sharing economy activity can use several types of regulation at the same time, such as for instance sanction systems for controlling and punishing unwanted behavior (coercive power), but also the use of rewards for wanted behavior (reward power) [89], comparable to operant conditioning [90].…”

“…In their definition, a sharing economy activity can use several types of regulation at the same time, such as for instance sanction systems for controlling and punishing unwanted behavior (coercive power), but also the use of rewards for wanted behavior (reward power) [89], comparable to operant conditioning [90]. Additionally, sharing economy activities have the possibility of focusing on legitimacy and justice [91]; they try to support consumers, provide a professional service as an expert, hand out relevant information, and act as a representative for the sharing economy activity to ensure cooperative behavior (legitimate power) [13]. Therefore, an entity in the sharing economy can use regulations such as controls and punishment (harsh forms) and/or legitimate forms (soft forms) of regulation to ensure cooperation [92].…”

“…Harsh regulation adapted from coercive power [13] The garden community pursues its members with penalties and checks.…”