Search

Disruptive and paradoxical roles in the sharing economies

PublicationArticle (with peer review)
Christina Öberg, Delningsekonomi, sharing economy

Abstract

The sharing economy could be said to disrupt who does what in exchanges. This paper categorises the roles played by users, providers, and platforms in different interpretations of the sharing economy. It asks: What different roles do the users, providers, and platforms play in the sharing economy? And: How do the roles differ in various interpretations of the sharing economy? The paper classifies the different interpretations based on their market/non-market logic and concludes that roles are more extensive for users and providers in non-market logic interpretations, while market logic suggests that the platform acts more roles. The user is, despite the peer-to-peer connotation of the sharing economy, often quite passive. Contributions are made to the emerging literature on the sharing economy through highlighting its many different interpretations, where roles help to systematise these. The paper furthermore contributes to the literature on roles through highlighting them as transitory and expanding beyond expectations related to digitalisation. Practically, the systematisation of roles helps to navigate among various business model designs and makes informed decisions when launching platforms in the sharing economy. Additionally, the focus on roles raises important questions on risk sharing, resource provisions, and the creation of value for each participating party.

Öberg, C. (2021). Disruptive and paradoxical roles in the sharing economies. International Journal of Innovation Management, 25(4).


Similar content

The identity crisis of sharing: from the co-op economy to the urban sharing economy phenomenon
Book chapterPublication
Geißinger, A., Pelgander, L., & Öberg, C.
Publication year

2021

Published in

In A Modern Guide to the Urban Sharing Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Abstract

This chapter explores the disparities between the two main dimensions of the contemporary Sharing Economy. On the one side, non-market collaborative economy actors are shaping the community orientation. On the other side, the market-oriented platform economy utilizes commercial interest in cities based on the scalability of ‘peer’ users and providers. It is within this tension that the chapter aims to illustrate how today’s sharing economy got into an identity crisis. By drawing on the literature of organizational identity, we utilize five different sharing economy actors across the market/non-market continuum in Sweden to discover who they are and what societal impact they envision. The chapter discusses how over time, sharing economy actors seem to have moved from a co-operative, non-commercial model of sharing to instead focus on a commercial sharing approach in a predominant urban setting. We end the chapter by initiating a general debate about the future of the peer-to-peer sharing idea.

Buy the book here.

Geißinger, A., Pelgander, L., & Öberg, C. (2021). The identity crisis of sharing: from the co-op economy to the urban sharing economy phenomenon. In A Modern Guide to the Urban Sharing Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Open marketing – Conceptualizing external parties’ strategic marketing activities
Article (with peer review)Publication
Öberg, C.
Publication year

2020

Abstract

Open marketing as conceptualized in this paper refers to how external parties take part in strategic, integrative marketing activities. To distinguish this more recent trend in marketing from traditional meanings of marketing, the paper provides a typology on roles and role keepers in marketing. Four types of roles and role keepers are outlined: marketing as 1) solely being performed by actors in the supplier company communicating offerings, 2) an activity shared among functions of the supplier company, 3) external parties communicating offerings, and 4) external parties contributing to strategic marketing. Using the concept of ‘roles’ in marketing helps to structure activities and actors – or roles and role keepers – and provides a basis for understanding that marketing results from what is done, not merely from who performs it. The paper underlines how new ways of conducting business also have implications for a company’s marketing beyond its borders.

Tension in networks
Article (with peer review)Publication
Öberg, C., Dahlin, P. & Pesämaa, O.
Publication year

2020

Abstract

Tension refers to contradictions and mostly implies any two parties disagreeing. This paper extends the lens from tension on dyadic levels to describe it in the smallest of networks: the triad. Adopting a multiple-case study methodology illustrating triadic relationships in three different settings, the paper points to how tension may occur among firms in a triad, relate to two of them, or involve all three parties. In the handling of tension and opposed to the dyadic relationship, a single party cannot easily disconnect from all its network parties, and the network discussion thereby contextualises the discussion on tension, while putting focus on the dynamics of tension. As the findings indicate, the handling may, namely, lead to new tension on a dyadic or triadic level. Compared to studies grasping tension as contradictions between two parties and thereby as a research contribution, this present study indicates how the tension may “move” around the network as initial tension is dealt with. If tension is handled through diffusion specifically, including the connection with new parties, it suggests to without exception lead to new tension, while coalition leads to decreased tension in the triad.

Show more