The limits of trust-free systems: A literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy

Hawlitschek, Florian; Notheisen, Benedikt; Teubner, Timm

doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2018.03.005

Cited by 581 publications

(332 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

324

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We adhere to Botsman's () description of distributed trust, but want to add that trust can be more or less reflected, and that trust between peers as well as trust between peers and platform are not rock solid. Likewise, we agree with Hawlitschek et al (), as we are dubious that trust‐free transactions of services are possible.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Trust has been described as a social lubricant without which the wheels of society would soon come to standstill (Elster, ). Several academic papers concern conditions for trust in P2P markets (see Hawlitschek, Notheisen, & Teubner, ; Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Weinhardt, ; Huurne et al, ; Möhlmann, ; Möhlmann & Geissinger, ; Warburg, ). One central question is how trust in transactions between strangers matched on digital, nontransparent P2P platforms, outside the regulated economy, are generated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reputation systems reduce the “stranger‐danger‐bias” and make online transactions feel safer. Some even argue that in the near future block chain technology will reduce uncertainty and eliminate the need for trust in computer‐monitored transactions (see Hawlitschek et al, ; Varian, ). We adhere to Botsman's () description of distributed trust, but want to add that trust can be more or less reflected, and that trust between peers as well as trust between peers and platform are not rock solid.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Trust and the don't‐want‐to‐complain bias in peer‐to‐peer platform markets

Berg¹,

Slettemeås²,

Kjørstad

et al. 2020

Int J Consumer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses peer‐to‐peer (P2P) digital platform markets, often associated with the “sharing economy” or the “collaborative economy”. Such digital platforms, facilitating new purchasing channels for consumers by matching P2P supply and demand, can be considered new market places challenging the conventional markets. How are P2P platform markets evaluated by the consumers? Based on a comprehensive survey‐data material, five different P2P service markets are considered by peer buyers and the results compared to consumers’ evaluations from similar conventional service markets according to trust, comparability and consumers’ satisfaction with the transactions. Comparability seems to be one advantage for the platform markets, while trust could become a problem. Conditions for trust in P2P platform markets is particularly interesting to study because contrary to conventional markets P2P transactions cannot rely on governmental laws, regulations and security net. This trust problem has been solved by a trust‐generating rate and review system. Our data material, however, distinguishes a mechanism that we have coined as the don't‐want‐to‐complain bias. More precisely, people do not like to complain, hence buyers of P2P services often hesitate to give negative ratings when they are discontent with a service or a supplier. Therefore, positive ratings become overestimated. If consumers recognize this bias, ratings and reviews will lose credibility and no longer be considered trustworthy. Eventually, this may threaten the well‐functioning of P2P markets.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trust and the don't‐want‐to‐complain bias in peer‐to‐peer platform markets

Berg¹,

Slettemeås²,

Kjørstad

et al. 2020

Int J Consumer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The area of mobility is among the first where organizations and companies have offered services that enable the shift from ownership to temporary access (Prettenthaler and Steininger, 1999), so-called "car sharing services" [1]. Car sharing represents a very successful example of collaborative consumption, and over the past decades has grown considerably in North America and Europe.…”

Section: Mobility Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power versus trust – what matters more in collaborative consumption?

Hofmann¹,

Hartl

Penz

2017

JSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Or rather, are we simply replacing trust in familiar intermediaries with trust in software experts who facilitate and control these alternatives? And how do we know that the latter deserve our trust more than the former (Hawlitschek, Notheisen, & Teubner, 2018)?…”

Section: Trustless Trust?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blockchain and business ethics

Dierksmeier¹,

Seele

2019

Business Ethics: A Eur Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides, from a business ethics perspective, a basic clustering of the morally (a) favorable, (b) unfavorable, and (c) ambivalent dimensions of blockchain technology and its various emergent applications. Instead of proffering specific assessments on particular aspects of blockchain‐based business models, we aim to offer an initial overview that charters the territory so that future research can bring about such moral assessments in an informed and orderly fashion. The main contribution of this paper lies in identifying several morally ambivalent dimensions of blockchain technology, which we finally link to two strands of business ethics research: ethical and legal aspects of legislation as well as a link to Habermasian corporate social responsibility theory arguing for transparent data production and consumption on the blockchain. We conclude that future research is necessary for moral assessment of the ambivalent cases, since their ethical evaluation changes depending on whether one analyzes them through the lenses of utilitarianism, contractarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, respectively.

show abstract

The limits of trust-free systems: A literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy

Cited by 581 publications

References 80 publications

Trust and the don't‐want‐to‐complain bias in peer‐to‐peer platform markets

Trust and the don't‐want‐to‐complain bias in peer‐to‐peer platform markets

Power versus trust – what matters more in collaborative consumption?

Blockchain and business ethics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About