Unlocking the potentials of hybrid business models in the sharing economy: an integrative review and new research agenda

Figures & data

Table 1. Systematic review and protocols adopted.

Review phase	Description	Focus on the review
Purpose	Aim of the literature review.	To review previous studies on the sharing economy (SE), innovation business models (IBMs) hybrid business models (HBMs) and actors in SE.
Search strategy	Plan to inform the search process for the review.	Use of keywords to search specified. Databases informed by screening and exclusion criteria.
Search strings	Combination of keywords used to conduct the search for literature.	‘Sharing economy’, ‘consumption of collaboration’, ‘ innovation business models’, ‘hybrid business models’, ‘digital economy’. A combination of keywords was used in the search to identify relevant studies about SE, such as ‘sharing economy AND Hybrid Business Models’, ‘Sharing Economy AND Innovation Business Models,’ and ‘sharing economy AND Actors.’ ‘Sharing economy AND Innovation business model’
Databases	Independent online database with citation data and indexes of scholarly writings.	A search on Google Scholar and Scopus was performed, as well as investigations on ScienceDirect, JSTOR, Business Source Ultimate, Emerald and Wiley.
Screening and inclusion criteria	Conditions for selecting and including review Sources.	The screening criteria for the review were as follows: Empirical and theoretical peer-reviewed journal articles. Sharing economy studies. Innovation business model studies. HBM studies. Research on ‘actors’ and ‘sharing economy’ concepts and challenges
Exclusion criteria	Conditions for omitting publications during the review process.	The exclusion criteria for the review were as follows: Duplicates Master's dissertations, doctoral theses, textbooks, and unpublished working papers Articles that use the terms ‘sharing economy’ and ‘collaboration consumption’ beyond the scope of HBM, innovation business model criteria

Figure 1. An integrated framework of the intersection between the sharing economy and HBMs.

Table 2. Summary of SE studies reviewed.

Authors	Theoretical lens	Data sources	Key findings
Ritzer et al. (2012)	Social theory.	Conceptual paper.	Social media practices are deployed in the construction of one’s digital identity.
Chandler and Chen (2015)	Development theory.	Data collected from semi-structured interviews with 22 prosumers in the USA.	The content of creative outputs in social motivations directly impacts the production of social capital.
Perren and Grauerholz (2015)	–	Conceptual paper.	SE represents an essential societal change between consumers and platforms.
Böcker and Meelen (2017)	Self-determination theory. Hierarchical needs theory.	Data collected from an online survey.	Featured the different kinds of user groups and their motivations in SE.
Cheng (2016)	Tourism and hospitality literature.	Data collected from online databases and search engines.	Research clusters to five streams or clusters.
Liang et al. (2017)	Rational action theory.	Data collected from Airbnb (Hong Kong database)	Ratings and reviews are critical and can have an impact on online sales.
Dreyer et al. (2017)	Stakeholder theory.	Data collected from semi-structured interviews, documents, press releases, and company website	The socio-economic and institutional context impacts stakeholder value.
Fine et al. (2017)	General marketing literature.	Data collected from a survey of 204 travelers.	The importance of prosumer (provider and consumer) motivations, as these enable influencers to achieve the needed engagement in online eWOM (electronic Word Of Mouth).
Park and Armstrong (2017)	Meta-theory.	Conceptual paper.	Three key relationships hold important consumer behavior insights: consumer – product, consumer – consumer, and consumer – organization.
Lan et al. (2017)	Social identity theory.	Data collected from an analysis of real-life factors (case study MOBIK) and interviews.	Value co-creation behaviors in the SE helps to realize sustainable sharing business opportunities.
Ganapati and Reddick (2018)	Economic theory.	Conceptual paper.	The SE could be viewed as a severe form of capitalism.
Kubli et al. (2018)	Classical random utility theory.	Data collected from a series of choice experiments with 902 actual and potential prosumers of energy.	Prosumers’ preferences should be successfully addressed, as they could lead to potential distributed flexibility.
Jin et al. (2018)	Neo-Marxian theory.	Conceptual paper.	The digital divide problem is not limited to ride-sourcing and the SE but to the intelligent city mentality.
Prayag and Ozanne (2018)	Socio-technical transition theory.	Data collected from articles published online (2010–2016 period).	Critical roles of regime actors which could value niche actors and skills them.
Pouri and Hilty (2018)	–	Conceptual paper.	Life cycle impacts from running ICT by digital sharing.
Ma et al. (2019)	Sustainable consumption and production theory.	Data collected from 50 interviews. Observations from policy forums and workshops.	The great value of increasing hybridization in the new SE.
Leung et al. (2019)	Tourism theory. Economic theory.	Data collected from news media entities in the US.	Sharing should be measured correctly to manage the outer effects of SE.
Dellaert (2019)	Household production theory. Institutional design theory.	Conceptual paper.	Consumer/producer networks can generate significant advantages to consumers when they match supply and demand better.
Eckhardt et al. (2019)	Theory of social production.	Conceptual paper.	SE is relevant to first (consumer behavior and culture) and second (analytic and empirical modeling), and finally (strategy).
Griego et al. (2019)	Production theory.	Data collected from a dataset of 4190 residential buildings.	Knowing the prosumer-to-consumer ratio is more beneficial than knowing the number of the community members.
Simon and Roederer (2019)	Lifespan theory.	Data collected from an online questionnaire.	Customer satisfaction could be damaged by the presence of other sharers.
Hoskins and Leick (2019)	Signaling theory. Marketing theory.	Data collected from the owners on 1,940 rental listings across 97 countries.	Developing countries see higher booking rate gains due to a higher average review value than more developed nations.
Xu (2020)	Social penetration theory. Social exchange theory.	Data collected from textual reviews from consumers (Airbnb & Expedia).	The online review and eWOM effects are influenced by transaction costs.
del Mar Alonso-Almeida et al. (2020)	Social theory.	Data collected from surveys with postgraduate students (384).	The SE contributes to new materialism through significant awareness of consumption through participation.
Gurău and Ranchhod (2020)	Economic theory.	Data collected from reports, books, newspaper articles, videos, blog contributions, and interviews with 256 respondents from France, Italy and the UK.	SE markets lack regulations that are particular to them, which may be helpful in the long run, but increase the challenges in the short term.
Hahnel et al. (2020)	Theory of fundamental individual values. Game theory.	Data collected from a sample of 301 German homeowners.	Prosumers’ willingness to trade self-generated electricity is highly influenced by market prices and the charging states.
Govindan et al. (2020)	Iterative theory.	Data collected from online interviews and workshops with 38 industrial managers.	Industrial SE is hampered by several barriers, including a lack of trust and transparency.
Hossain (2020)	Diverse theories. Social exchange theory. Economic theory.	Data collected from online databases and search engines.	SE firms can be challenging to emulate despite their simple business models.
Sands et al. (2020)	Social exchange theory. Self-determination theory.	Data collected from the US using an online recruitment platform and researcher platforms.	A classification of four types of sharing-economy consumers is provided based on their buying behavior.
Lang et al. (2020a)	Commitment-trust theory.	Data collected from an online survey (Airbnb users).	It is crucial for prosumers to have trust and gratitude.
Zhang (2020)	General system theory.	Data collected from international organization records and scientific research.	In fighting COVID-19, measures related to transportation policy are essential.
Caldwell et al. (2020)	Political theory.	Data collected from online questionnaires.	The maintenance and promotion of new mechanisms designed to promote transparency.
Lim (2020)	Marketing theory.	Conceptual paper.	Due to the SE, consumers may be able to become producers, contributing to increased competition and challenges for producers.
Song et al. (2020)	Economy theory.	Data collected from officially announced information.	As opposed to ‘pure producer’ and ‘prosumer’ models, the P2P ‘peer-to-peer’ trade model has economic advantages.
Shen et al. (2020)	Grounded theory.	Data collected from lectures and interviews with Airbnb and Uber.	In SE, brand value is not about customers but prosumers.
Kozlenkova et al. (2021)	Self determination theory. Social exchange theory.	Meta – analytical approach (collection of SE studies conducted in different countries, with data from these merged with secondary, country-level data from a multitude of sources).	The hedonic value yields the most benefits across different nations, while social and sustainability values have comparatively lower impacts.
Atsız and Cifci (2022)	Grounded theory.	Data collected from 13 interviews with services providers.	Social and cultural motives and the economics motive are the main entrepreneurship motivations in the meal-SE platforms.
Leung et al. (2023)	Theory of planned behavior.	Data collected from questionnaires.	In SE, users tend to exhibit favorable actions towards the use of energy-efficient technologies and processes.

Table 3. Summary of business model innovation studies reviewed.

Authors	Theoretical lens	Data sources	Key findings
Kathan et al. (2016)	BM theory.	Conceptual paper.	Platforms that facilitate P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing are quick to make their business models successful and need to be recognized by governments.
Antikainen and Valkokari (2016)	Economy theory.	Data collected from interviews and secondary data.	Creating value for all stakeholders is the key to sustainability in SE.
Muñoz and Cohen (2017)	Sociological theory. Management theory.	Conceptual paper.	The lack of SE start-ups can be related to the availability of investors.
Ranjbari et al. (2017)	Entrepreneurship theory.	Data collected from a list of seven companies active in the SE.	Identification of the effects of each of the SE pillars on each business model element.
Richter et al. (2017)	Grounded theory.	Data collected from semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs (qualitative approach).	It is expected that SEs will benefit customers economically and socially. Ultimately, entrepreneurs are motivated by economic gain.
Sutherland and Jarrahi (2018)	Design theory.	Conceptual paper.	Two models of intervention in the SE: one centralized and streamlined; the other decentralized and interdisciplinary.
Toivola (2018)	Society theory. Economy theory. Technology theory.	Data collected from interviews with entrepreneurs.	Consumer behavior is changing, and there is a tendency towards platform-based and people-powered services.
Trenz et al. (2018)	Social exchange theory.	Conceptual paper.	Nine types of sharing practices can be analysed, compared and positioned on the SE.
Andreassen et al. (2018)	Resource dependency theory. Marketing theory.	Conceptual paper.	In a global macro-environment marked by societal and technological advancements, threats to non-renewable natural resources and the population increase.
Grieco and Cerruti (2018)	Marketing theory.	Data collected from secondary data (selected cases) gathered from websites and other documents.	Platforms find ways to make money in any way in order to guarantee themselves a certain level of revenue, while customers take on the majority of the risk.
Fehrer et al. (2018)	PE theory.	Conceptual paper.	The technology agency identified connectivity and engagement as the primary management challenges.
Boons and Bocken (2018)	Transition theory.	Data collected from the Scopus database.	Ecological linkages can be expected to emerge in providing services for various needs and in various cultural contexts.
Ritter and Schanz (2019)	BM theory.	Data collected from reviews that refer to SE in German and English.	A framework covering all business models relevant to the SE is provided by four market segments.
Curtis and Lehner (2019)	Grounded theory.	Conceptual paper.	Indication of which sharing practices in the SE provide a strong emphasis on sustainable consumption.
McLean and Roggema (2019)	Classical utility theory.	Data collected from official documents.	Centralized utilities that do not fit their business models can no longer provide new growth services.
Brown et al. (2019)	Transition theory.	Data collected from in-depth interviews and document analysis.	A licensed third-party supplier is an unavoidable barrier for customers to trade their electricity, an issue which the government should solve.
Ciulli and Kolk (2019)	BM theory.	Data collected from secondary data from a highly regarded international financial newspaper.	Twelve types of business model innovation developed in a framework to engage, highlighting the different ways in which both the situation and the content of business models may change.
Plewnia (2019)	Social theory. Economy theory.	Data collected from an online database.	A vague understanding of the term ‘business model’ accounts for a wide range of activities within the SE energy sector.
Hu et al. (2019)	SBM innovation theory.	Data collected from the SKN architecture design sharing platform case study and semi-structured interviews with the top managers in SKN.	Highlights the practical ways in which architectural design is being changed to achieve industrial sustainability in China.
Abhari et al. (2019)	Self-determination theory.	Data collected from Quirky.com.	The pperating of shared resources is an essential aspect of the innovation process.
Pieroni et al. (2019)	BM theory.	Data collected from current sustainability-oriented and CE-oriented BMI approaches and a search of Scopus and Web of Science.	Reliance on a variety of theories that are different from the traditional views spread by the suggested business model.
Curtis and Mont (2020)	Transaction cost theory.	Data collected from online databases and search engines.	Mediated practice as a part of business activities can help sharing platforms.
Laukkanen and Tura (2020)	Rapidly evolving theory.	Conceptual paper.	The SE cannot be discussed in general terms regarding sustainability impacts; this needs to be more precise.
Chi et al. (2020)	Self-determination theory.	Data collected from an online survey conducted in China of 387 shared-bicycle users.	Bike-sharing services should understand all the elements that affect the sustainability of their users.
Cheng et al. (2020)	Uncertainty reduction theory.	Data collected from documents on the internet, semi-structured interviews, and field observations.	Saving driving costs, in addition to other economic benefits, are two types of economic advantages from ridesharing.
Lang et al. (2020)	Conceptual theory.	Data collected from a literature search of the prosumer literature using the Web of Science and Scopus databases.	At the micro level: enhancing various capitals. At the meso level: firms can utilize prosumers (providers and consumers). At the macro level, the important impact of prosumers in society is facing a crisis.
Gao and Li (2020)	Grounded theory.	Data collected from both primary and secondary data on changes in Mobike’s China and the UK, and from public media.	SEs need proper government oversight to be sustainable and to develop.
Si et al. (2021)	Disruptive innovation theory.	Data collected from a report on China’s sharing economic development in 2018.	Innovation has changed the transportation market structure and how people deal with it.
Cornejo-Velazquez et al. (2020)	Learning and instructional theory.	Data collected learning platform websites.	It is essential to show differences between learning platforms considering elements such as value proposition and customer relationships.

Table 4. Summary of HBM studies reviewed.

Authors	Theoretical lens	Data sources	Key findings
Ibrus and Rohn (2016)	Theory of network effects.	Conceptual paper.	The deserved need for freedom of entrepreneurship and of speech explains why ‘sharing’ will lead to the disappearance of the traditional regulations issued by the European audio-visual media.
Habibi et al. (2017)	Belk’s sharing theory. Economy theory.	Conceptual paper.	The mixture of sharing and exchange is based on the nature of the presentation of each practice.
Murillo et al. (2017)	Belk’s sharing theory.	Data collected from the EBSCO database	The existence of adaptation techniques, such as sponsorship and collaboration, in addition to the new HBMs.
Frenken (2017)	Economic theory.	Conceptual paper.	It is essential to classify the political economy into three future economies. First is the economy led by the market; second is the economy led by the government; and third is the economy led by citizens.
Acquier et al. (2017)	Institutional theory.	Conceptual paper.	Development of an SE framework that articulates the core concepts and the community-based economy.
Ferrell et al. (2017)	Actor-network theory. Political economy theory.	Conceptual paper.	Understanding of how the SE market operates and is changing the general traditional concepts of the marketing path.
Hahn et al. (2018)	Entrepreneur theory.	Data collected from interviews.	Identification of four different design themes and approaches.
Akbar and Tracogna (2018)	Transaction cost theory.	Conceptual paper.	Hybrid forms are adopted by most governments.
Gyimóthy and Meged (2018)	Aspirational class Theory.	Data collected from observations and interviews.	The benefits of analysing the reframing processes and forms of governmental collaborative.
Davies and Doherty (2019)	Sustainable business model theory.	Data collected from a case study (observation, interviews and attendance at corporate events) and secondary data.	Eventual decline in all forms of value acquisition due to the lack of focus on commercial elements.
Dellermann et al. (2019)	Design theory.	Data collected from interviews and secondary data.	Design principles are used to solve real problems and to support the validation decision of the business model.
Grinevich et al. (2019)	Institutional theory.	Data collected from semi-structured interviews with founders and executives of UK sharing platforms, together with secondary data.	New understanding of how to manage the complexities of SE platform practice.
Zhu et al. (2019)	Development theory.	Data collected from Airbnb online review comments.	Customers expect a mix of experiences, with both friendly and professional treatment.
Acquier et al. (2019)	Institutional theory.	Data collected from interviews with 11 managers from established companies, together with secondary data.	The variety of the initiatives that are considered by the SE are identified by four different business models.
Chua et al. (2019)	Social impact theory. Theory of planned behavior.	Data collected from an online survey.	Consumers continue to participate in SE. because of the significant element of trust.
Guan et al. (2020)	Crowdfunding theory.	Data collected from two cases on the valuation of investors.	If customer ratings are different due to different crowdfunding products, the provider should move to different mechanisms.
Wei et al. (2020)	Game theory.	Data collected from surveys.	If the customer ratio is low, the company should consider the pooling service technique.
Pies et al. (2020)	Game theory.	Conceptual paper.	All business models (profit, non-profit, social) can fail or succeed, so it is about the challenges that businesses face.

Table 5. Summary of SE actor studies reviewed.

Authors	Theoretical lens	Data sources	Key Findings
Martin (2016)	Socio-technical transitions theory.	Online data containing framings of the SE niche.	SE can be seen as a niche linked to the process that integrates digital and social technology.
Mair and Reischauer (2017)	Institutional theory.	Conceptual paper.	Emphasis of the value of the structure of the relationships between entities and individuals.
Chung (2017)	Social network Theory.	Social network data from CouchSurfing.org.	Destination Marketing Organisations (DMOs) are a group of companies that can market their events by showing people on the internet places.
Miralles et al. (2017)	Organization theory.	Data collected from a comparative case study of 18 AFNs.	Participants share resources on a wider range of activities.
Camilleri and Neuhofer (2017)	Practice theory.	Data collected from an online content analysis of Airbnb user-generated reviews in Malta.	Some behavior that is common in business and social settings can lead to reduced value for all involved.
Laurell and Sandström (2017)	Institutional theory.	Data collected from a social media dataset covering all publicly-posted user-generated content published on the dominant social media outlets.	Tensions between market and non-market logic are seen as an emergent and fluid field that creates a state of instability.
Breidbach and Brodie (2017)	Midrange theory.	Conceptual paper.	Understanding of how ICTs can be used to co-create value and interact between actors in an ecosystem of services.
Future of Money Research Collaborative et al. (2018)	Social theory.	Data collected from collaborative research.	The SE interacts with the registration of various political terms.
Ma et al. (2018)	Collaborative governance theory.	Data collected from interviews and stakeholder workshops.	Highlighting of the SE in relation to urban sustainability.
Kumar et al. (2018)	Social exchange theory.	Data collected from the popular press; interviews with members of the triad in the SE.	The reasons for the loss of customers should be investigated first, and the value of the learned knowledge should be to regain valuable customers.
Mauri et al. (2018)	Social comparison theory. Signaling theory.	Data collected from a sample from the Airbnb database.	Managers can help sellers to configure how to embed additional aspects in their profiles to improve their credibility.
Richards and Hamilton (2018)	Economy theory.	Data collected from observations of transactions on the surplus food platform over 60 weeks.	Prices and attribute management are essential to help consumers to get the best of what is offered.
Gössling and Michael Hall (2019)	Ecological modernization theory.	Data collected from online platforms.	The SE is increasingly turning into a neoliberal model.
Parente et al. (2018)	Transaction costs Theory.	Conceptual paper.	The global market is seen as a ‘collection of hundreds of hyperlocal marketplaces,’ in which each local marketplace has its ecosystem configuration.
Hong and Lee (2018)	Theory of economic regulation.	Data collected from datasets and reports.	Political competition at the top-level is more responsive to the regulation of short-term rentals.
Geissinger et al. (2019)	Economy theory.	Data collected from a dataset of social media platforms.	The meta level of the SE impacts neither resilience nor imbalance.
Wirtz et al. (2019)	Social exchange theory.	Conceptual paper.	The convergence of business models has fundamentally altered sharing in the economy.
Geissinger et al. (2020)	Marketing theory.	Data collected from the Swedish media landscape (social media data and datasets).	The ability to manage emerging technologies is a significant capability, and the related skills needed are becoming more important in the sectors where SE is growing.
Pereira and Silva (2020)	Socio-technical transitions theory.	Data collected from interviews.	Public-private initiatives that work together help to create a new type of transportation model.

Table 6. Directions for future research.

Key themes	What we know	What we need to know
Relationships between trust, gratitude, and SE user intentions to become prosumers (providers and consumers) could enable users and platform operators to capitalize on the power of the SE (Lang et al., 2020b).	This issue is facing significant barriers: the lack of trust, the lack of transparency, and the lack of a business model. These barriers have contributed to encouraging some SE consumers to act as providers, leading to the term ‘prosumer.’	What is the real impact of the prosumer on the size of SE markets?
Design innovation, communication channels and customer relationships (Cornejo-Velazquez et al., 2020).	Increased sustainabilty is a significant element in any business model that can make real differences between platforms.	What are the needs for business model innovation development, and how are these needs related to the SE?
The type of possibilities for new ways to promote commercial and societal value capture (Davies & Doherty, 2019).	These need to be managed in order to achieve sustainable growth, while compromising with the required sacrifice of business profits. It is essential to generate value from actors by integrating more technological support.	How can the development of HBMs grow business on SE platforms?
An empirical exploration and validation of ICT in the context of sharing platforms (Akbar & Tracogna, 2018).	Actors are powerful enough to establish marketplaces even in the smallest communities. They have enough influence to change price policy in a specific industry. Therefore, platform managers need to create value from actors by integrating more technological support.	How can technology be utilized to generate value co-creation and engagement among actors on SE platforms?

Table

Authors	Definition
Lamberton and Rose (2012, p. 109)	‘Marketer-managed systems that provide customers with the opportunity to enjoy product benefits without ownership’
Belk (2014, p. 1597)	‘ … temporary access rather than ownership of resources for a fee or compensation’
Frenken et al. (2015, p. 245)	‘ … when consumers (or firms) grant each other temporary access to their under-utilised physical assets (idle capacity), possibly for money’
Peña-López (2015, p. 53)	‘Online platforms specialised in matching demand and supply in specific markets, enabling peer-to-peer (p2p) sales and rentals’
Tussyadiah and Pesonen (2016, p. 156)	‘The well-established form of resource exchanges in our socio-economic system.’
Hamari et al. (2016, p. 2047)	‘a peer-to-peer-based activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services.’
PwC (2015, p. 3)	‘Uses digital platforms to allow customers to have access to, rather than ownership of, tangible and intangible assets.’
Kathan et al. (2016, p. 663).	‘Characterised by non-ownership, temporary access, and redistribution of material goods or less tangible assets such as money, space, or time.’
Habibi et al. (2016, p. 277).	‘An economic system in which assets or services are shared between private individuals.’
Rinne (2017, p. 4).	‘The focus is on the sharing of underutilised assets, monetised or not, in ways that improve efficiency, sustainability and community.’
Narasimhan et al. (2018, p. 93).	‘The recent phenomenon in which ordinary consumers have begun to act as sellers providing services that were once the exclusive province of ordinary sellers.’
Perren and Kozinets (2018, p. 21).	‘A market that is formed through an intermediating technology platform that facilitates exchange activities.’
Chen and Wang (2019, p. 29)	‘An important type of digital economy that employs data as the key production factor to provide users with temporary access to tangible and intangible resources.’

Ritzer, G., Dean, P., & Jurgenson, N. (2012). The coming of age of the prosumer. American Behavioural Scientist, 56(4), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211429368

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chandler, J., & Chen, S. (2015). Prosumer motivations in service experiences. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 25(2), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-09-2013-0195

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Perren, R., & Grauerholz, L. (2015). Collaborative consumption. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences, 4, 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.64143-0

 Google Scholar

Böcker, L., & Meelen, T. (2017). Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analyzing motivations for intended sharing economy participation. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cheng, M. (2016). Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liang, S., Schuckert, M., Law, R., & Chen, C. C. (2017). Be a “Superhost”: The importance of badge systems for peer-to-peer rental accommodations. Tourism Management, 60, 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.01.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dreyer, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hamann, R., & Faccer, K. (2017). Upsides and downsides of the sharing economy: Collaborative consumption business models’ stakeholder value impacts and their relationship to context. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.036

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fine, M. B., Gironda, J., & Petrescu, M. (2017). Prosumer motivations for electronic word-of-mouth communication behaviours. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 8(2), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-09-2016-0048

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Park, H., & Armstrong, C. M. J. (2017). Collaborative apparel consumption in the digital sharing economy: An agenda for academic inquiry. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(5), 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12354

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lan, J., Ma, Y., Zhu, D., Mangalagiu, D., & Thornton, T. (2017). Enabling value co-creation in the sharing economy: The case of Mobike. Sustainability, 9(9), 1504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091504

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ganapati, S., & Reddick, C. G. (2018). Prospects and challenges of sharing economy for the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 35(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.01.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kubli, M., Loock, M., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2018). The flexible prosumer: Measuring the willingness to co-create distributed flexibility. Energy Policy, 114, 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.044

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jin, S. T., Kong, H., Wu, R., & Sui, D. Z. (2018). Ridesourcing, the sharing economy, and the future of cities. Cities, 76, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prayag, G., & Ozanne, L. K. (2018). A systematic review of peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodation sharing research from 2010 to 2016: Progress and prospects from the multi-level perspective. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(6), 649–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2018.1429977

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pouri, M. J., & Hilty, L. M. (2018). Conceptualizing the digital sharing economy in the context of sustainability. Sustainability, 10(12), 4453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124453

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ma, Y., Rong, K., Luo, Y., Wang, Y., Mangalagiu, D., & Thornton, T. F. (2019). Value Co-creation for sustainable consumption and production in the sharing economy in China. Journal of cleaner production, 208, 1148–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.135

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leung, X. Y., Xue, L., & Wen, H. (2019). Framing the sharing economy: Toward a sustainable ecosystem. Tourism Management, 71, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dellaert, B. G. (2019). The consumer production journey: Marketing to consumers as co-producers in the sharing economy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(2), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0607-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eckhardt, G. M., Houston, M. B., Jiang, B., Lamberton, C., Rindfleisch, A., & Zervas, G. (2019). Marketing in the sharing economy. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919861929

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Griego, D., Schopfer, S., Henze, G., Fleisch, E., & Tiefenbeck, V. (2019). Aggregation effects for microgrid communities at varying sizes and prosumer-consumer ratios. Energy Procedia, 159, 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.004

 Google Scholar

Simon, F., & Roederer, C. (2019). When social intrusiveness depletes customer value: A balanced perspective on the agency of simultaneous sharers in a commercial sharing experience. Psychology & Marketing, 36(11), 1082–1097. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21258

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hoskins, J. D., & Leick, R. (2019). Fraud abroad: GDP per capita, online customer reviews and vacation rental unit booking rates in the sharing economy. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 13(2), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-10-2018-0126

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xu, X. (2020). How do consumers in the sharing economy value sharing? Evidence from online reviews. Decision Support Systems, 128, 113162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113162

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M., Perramon, J., & Bagur-Femenias, L. (2020). Shedding light on sharing ECONOMY and new materialist consumption: An empirical approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 101900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101900

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gurău, C., & Ranchhod, A. (2020). The sharing economy as a complex dynamic system: Exploring coexisting constituencies, interests and practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245, 118799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118799

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hahnel, U. J., Herberz, M., Pena-Bello, A., Parra, D., & Brosch, T. (2020). Becoming prosumer: Revealing trading preferences and decision-making strategies in peer-to-peer energy communities. Energy Policy, 137, 111098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111098

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Govindan, K., Shankar, K. M., & Kannan, D. (2020). Achieving sustainable development goals through identifying and analyzing barriers to industrial sharing economy: A framework development. International Journal of Production Economics, 227, 107575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107575

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hossain, M. (2020). Sharing economy: A comprehensive literature review. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, 102470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102470

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sands, S., Ferraro, C., Campbell, C., Kietzmann, J., & Andonopoulos, V. V. (2020). Who shares? Profiling consumers in the sharing economy. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 28(3), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.06.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lang, B., Botha, E., Robertson, J., Kemper, J. A., Dolan, R., & Kietzmann, J. (2020a). How to grow the sharing economy? Create Prosumers! Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 28(3), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.06.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, J. (2020). Transport policymaking that accounts for COVID-19 and future public health threats: A PASS approach. Transport Policy, 99, 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.09.009

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Caldwell, M., Elliot, S., Henry, P., & O'Connor, M. (2020). The impact of political ideology on consumer perceptions of their rights and responsibilities in the sharing economy. European Journal of Marketing, 54(8), 1909–1935. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2018-0529

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lim, W. M. (2020). The sharing economy: A marketing perspective. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 28(3), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.06.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Song, P., Zhou, Y., & Yuan, J. (2020). Peer-to-peer trade and the economy of distributed PV in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124500

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shen, L., Qin, C., & Luo, C. (2020). A grounded theory approach to brand value networks: The prosumption logic standpoint. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 10(04), 841–860. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2020.104057

 Google Scholar

Kozlenkova, I. V., Lee, J. Y., Xiang, D., & Palmatier, R. W. (2021). Sharing economy: International marketing strategies. Journal of International Business Studies, 1–29.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Atsız, O., & Cifci, I. (2022). Exploring the motives for entrepreneurship in the meal-sharing economy. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(6), 864–873. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1908239

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kathan, W., Matzler, K., & Veider, V. (2016). The sharing economy: Your business model's friend or foe? Business horizons, 59(6), 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.06.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Antikainen, M., & Valkokari, K. (2016). A framework for sustainable circular business model innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(7), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1000

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2017). Mapping out the sharing economy: A configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.035

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ranjbari, M., Morales-Alonso, G., Carrasco-Gallego, R., & Grijalvo, M. (2017, June). Business model innovation in sharing economy: a benchmark approach. Proceedings of the 2nd International conference on new business models–Exploring a changing view on organizing value creation: Developing New Business Models, Graz, Austria (pp. 20–23).

 Google Scholar

Richter, C., Kraus, S., Brem, A., Durst, S., & Giselbrecht, C. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Innovative business models for the sharing economy. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(3), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12227

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sutherland, W., & Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). The sharing economy and digital platforms: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Toivola, T. (2018). Sharing economy start-ups: New wave of networked business models in the changing world. Marketing, 3(4), 12–19.

 Google Scholar

Trenz, M., Frey, A., & Veit, D. (2018). Disentangling the facets of sharing. Internet Research, 28(4), 888–925.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Andreassen, T. W., Lervik-Olsen, L., Snyder, H., Van Riel, A. C., Sweeney, J. C., & Van Vaerenbergh, Y. (2018). Business model innovation and value-creation: The triadic way. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 883–906.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grieco, C., & Cerruti, C. (2018). Managing co-creation in innovative business models: The case of sharing economy. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 36(May–August).

 Google Scholar

Fehrer, J. A., Benoit, S., Aksoy, L., Baker, T. L., Bell, S. J., Brodie, R. J., & Marimuthu, M. (2018). Future scenarios of the collaborative economy: Centrally orchestrated, social bubbles or decentralized autonomous? Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 859–882.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Boons, F., & Bocken, N. (2018). Towards a sharing economy–Innovating ecologies of business models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137(C), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.031

 Google Scholar

Ritter, M., & Schanz, H. (2019). The sharing economy: A comprehensive business model framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.154

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Curtis, S. K., & Lehner, M. (2019). Defining the sharing economy for sustainability. Sustainability, 11(3), 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030567

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McLean, L., & Roggema, R. (2019). Planning for a prosumer future: The case of Central Park, Sydney. Urban planning, 4(1), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i1.1746

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brown, D., Hall, S., & Davis, M. E. (2019). Prosumers in the post-subsidy era: An exploration of new prosumer business models in the UK. Energy Policy, 135, 110984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110984

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ciulli, F., & Kolk, A. (2019). Incumbents and business model innovation for the sharing economy: Implications for sustainability. Journal of cleaner production, 214, 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.295

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Plewnia, F. (2019). The energy system and the sharing economy: Interfaces and overlaps and what to learn from them. Energies, 12(3), 339. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030339

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hu, H., Huang, T., Cheng, Y., & Lu, H. (2019). The evolution of sustainable business model innovation: Evidence from a sharing economy platform in China. Sustainability, 11(15), 4207. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154207

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abhari, K., Davidson, E. J., & Xiao, B. (2019). Collaborative innovation in the sharing economy. Internet Research.

 Google Scholar

Pieroni, M. P., McAloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. (2019). Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of cleaner production, 215, 198–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Curtis, S. K., & Mont, O. (2020). Sharing economy business models for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121519

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Laukkanen, M., & Tura, N. (2020). The potential of sharing economy business models for sustainable value creation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 120004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chi, M., George, J. F., Huang, R., & Wang, P. (2020). Unraveling sustainable behaviours in the sharing economy: An empirical study of bicycle-sharing in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 120962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120962

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cheng, X., Su, L., & Yang, B. (2020). An investigation into sharing economy enabled ridesharing drivers’ trust: A qualitative study. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 40, 100956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100956

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gao, P., & Li, J. (2020). Understanding sustainable business model: A framework and a case study of the bike-sharing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 267, 122229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122229

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Si, S., Chen, H., Liu, W., & Yan, Y. (2021). Disruptive innovation, business model and sharing economy: The bike-sharing cases in China. Management Decision, 59(11), 2674–2692.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cornejo-Velazquez, E., Clavel-Maqueda, M., Perez-Lopez-Portillo, H., & Lyubimova, E. (2020). Business model of learning platforms in sharing economy. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(1), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.1.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ibrus, I., & Rohn, U. (2016). Sharing killed the AVMSD star: The impossibility of European audio-visual media regulation in the era of the sharing economy. Internet Policy Review, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.2.419

 Google Scholar

Habibi, M. R., Davidson, A., & Laroche, M. (2017). What managers should know about the sharing economy. Business Horizons, 60(1), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.09.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Murillo, D., Buckland, H., & Val, E. (2017). When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: Unravelling the controversies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.024

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frenken, K. (2017). Political economies and environmental futures for the sharing economy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 375(2095), 20160367. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0367

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. (2017). Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ferrell, O. C., Ferrell, L., & Huggins, K. (2017). Seismic shifts in the sharing economy: Shaking up marketing channels and supply chains. Journal of Marketing Channels, 24(1-2), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2017.1346973

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hahn, R., Spieth, P., & Ince, I. (2018). Business model design in sustainable entrepreneurship: Illuminating the commercial logic of hybrid businesses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.167

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Akbar, Y. H., & Tracogna, A. (2018). The sharing economy and the future of the hotel industry: Transaction cost theory and platform economics. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 71, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.12.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gyimóthy, S., & Meged, J. W. (2018). The Camøno: A communitarian walking trail in the sharing economy. Tourism Planning & Development, 15(5), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2018.1504318

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Davies, I. A., & Doherty, B. (2019). Balancing a hybrid business model: The search for equilibrium at Cafédirect. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(4), 1043–1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3960-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dellermann, D., Lipusch, N., Ebel, P., & Leimeister, J. M. (2019). Design principles for a hybrid intelligence decision support system for business model validation. Electronic Markets, 29(3), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0309-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grinevich, V., Huber, F., Karataş-Özkan, M., & Yavuz, Ç. (2019). Green entrepreneurship in the sharing economy: Utilizing multiplicity of institutional logics. Small Business Economics, 52(4), 859–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9935-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhu, Y., Cheng, M., Wang, J., Ma, L., & Jiang, R. (2019). The construction of home feeling by Airbnb guests in the sharing economy: A semantics perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 75, 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.12.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Acquier, A., Carbone, V., & Massé, D. (2019). How to create value (s) in the sharing economy: Business models, scalability, and sustainability. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(2), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1215

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chua, E. L., Chiu, J. L., & Bool, N. C. (2019). Sharing economy: An analysis of Airbnb business model and the factors that influence consumer adoption. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 8, 19.

 Google Scholar

Guan, L., Mu, Y., Xu, X., Zhang, L., & Zhuang, J. (2020). Keep it or give back? Optimal pricing strategy of reward-based crowdfunding with a hybrid mechanism in the sharing economy. International Journal of Production Research, 58(22), 6868–6889. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1685711

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wei, X., Nan, G., Dou, R., & Li, M. (2020). Optimal business model for the monopolistic ride-hailing platform: Pooling, premier, or hybrid? Knowledge-Based Systems, 204, 106093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106093

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pies, I., Hielscher, S., & Everding, S. (2020). Do hybrids impede sustainability? How semantic reorientations and governance reforms can produce and preserve sustainability in sharing business models. Journal of Business Research, 115, 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.024

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martin, C. J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecological economics, 121, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mair, J., & Reischauer, G. (2017). Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: Institutional research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy organisations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.023

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chung, J. Y. (2017). Online friendships in a hospitality exchange network: A sharing economy perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(12), 3177–3190.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miralles, I., Dentoni, D., & Pascucci, S. (2017). Understanding the organisation of sharing economy in agri-food systems: Evidence from alternative food networks in Valencia. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(4), 833–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9778-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Camilleri, J., & Neuhofer, B. (2017). Value co-creation and co-destruction in the Airbnb sharing economy. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(9), 2322–2340.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Laurell, C., & Sandström, C. (2017). The sharing economy in social media: Analyzing tensions between market and non-market logics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.038

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Breidbach, C. F., & Brodie, R. J. (2017). Engagement platforms in the sharing economy: Conceptual foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(4), 761–777.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Future of Money Research Collaborative, Nelms, T. C., Maurer, B., Swartz, L., & Mainwaring, S. (2018). Social payments: Innovation, trust, Bitcoin, and the sharing economy. Theory, Culture & Society, 35(3), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276417746466

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ma, Y., Lan, J., Thornton, T., Mangalagiu, D., & Zhu, D. (2018). Challenges of collaborative governance in the sharing economy: The case of free-floating bike-sharing in Shanghai. Journal of cleaner production, 197, 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.213

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kumar, V., Lahiri, A., & Dogan, O. B. (2018). A strategic framework for a profitable business model in the sharing economy. Industrial Marketing Management, 69, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mauri, A. G., Minazzi, R., Nieto-García, M., & Viglia, G. (2018). Humanize your business. The role of personal reputation in the sharing economy. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 73, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Richards, T. J., & Hamilton, S. F. (2018). Food waste in the sharing economy. Food Policy, 75, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.01.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gössling, S., & Michael Hall, C. (2019). Sharing versus collaborative economy: How to align ICT developments and the SDGs in tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(1), 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1560455

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Parente, R. C., Geleilate, J. M. G., & Rong, K. (2018). The sharing economy globalisation phenomenon: A research agenda. Journal of International Management, 24(1), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2017.10.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hong, S., & Lee, S. (2018). Adaptive governance, status quo bias, and political competition: Why the sharing economy is welcome in some cities but not in others. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.02.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Geissinger, A., Laurell, C., Öberg, C., & Sandström, C. (2019). How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.196

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wirtz, J., So, K. K. F., Mody, M. A., Liu, S. Q., & Chun, H. H. (2019). Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy. Journal of Service Management, 30(4), 452–483.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Geissinger, A., Laurell, C., & Sandström, C. (2020). Digital disruption beyond uber and Airbnb—Tracking the long tail of the sharing economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 155, 119323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pereira, C. H. T., & Silva, M. E. (2020). Understanding the integration of socio-technical actors for sharing and sustainable urban mobility. BBR. Brazilian Business Review, 17(6), 706–724. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2020.17.6.6

 Google Scholar

Lang, B., Dolan, R., Kemper, J., & Northey, G. (2020b). Prosumers in times of crisis: Definition, archetypes and implications. Journal of Service Management.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of marketing, 76(4), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0368

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frenken, K., Meelen, T., Arets, M., & Van de Glind, P. (2015). Smarter regulation for the sharing economy. The Guardian, 20, 2015.

 Google Scholar

Peña-López, I. (2015). OECD digital economy outlook 2015.

 Google Scholar

Tussyadiah, I. P., & Pesonen, J. (2016). Impacts of peer-to-peer accommodation use on travel patterns. Journal of Travel Research, 55(8), 1022–1040.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

PwC, U. K. (2015). The sharing economy–sizing the revenue opportunity. Acessado em outubro/2017. https://www pwc.co.uk/issues/megatrends/collisions/sharingeconomy/outlook-for-thesharing-economy-in-the-uk-2016.html

 Google Scholar

Habibi, M. R., Kim, A., & Laroche, M. (2016). From sharing to exchange: An extended framework of dual modes of collaborative nonownership consumption. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(2), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1086/684685

 Google Scholar

Rinne, A. (2017, December). What exactly is the sharing economy. World Economic Forum, 13.

 Google Scholar

Narasimhan, C., Papatla, P., Jiang, B., Kopalle, P. K., Messinger, P. R., Moorthy, S., Proserpio, D., Subramanian, U., Wu, C., Zhu, T., & Zhu, T. (2018). Sharing economy: Review of current research and future directions. Customer Needs and Solutions, 5(1-2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-017-0079-6

 Google Scholar

Perren, R., & Kozinets, R. V. (2018). Lateral exchange markets: How social platforms operate in a networked economy. Journal of Marketing, 82(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0250

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, Y., & Wang, L. (2019). Commentary: Marketing and the sharing economy: Digital economy and emerging market challenges. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 28–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919868470

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar