CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 554Sharing Economy and PlatformsService and Product InnovationDigital Platforms and Economics

A triadic framework for collaborative consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors

Open access
Benoit, Sabine, Baker, Thomas L., Bolton, Ruth N., Gruber, Thorsten, Kandampully, Jay·2017·Journal of Business Research
DOI 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Collaborative consumption (CC) is an increasingly prevalent form of exchange. CC occurs within a triangle of actors: a platform provider (e.g., Uber), a peer service provider (e.g., an Uber driver) and a customer. The platform provider's main role is matchmaking, so that a customer can access assets of a peer service provider. This paper has three objectives. First, this article identifies three criteria to delineate CC from related constructs such as access-based consumption, sharing or renting. Second, it introduces a literature-based framework explicating the roles of the actors in the CC triangle along three dimensions: motives, activities and resources and capabilities. Third, it highlights areas for further research, such as the dynamics of CC, context-dependent motives and the emergence of professional (peer) service providers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.004

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior studies of peer-to-peer markets have focused only on particular manifestations such as access-based consumption or collaborative consumption, leaving little knowledge about the breadth and diversity of the general phenomenon or how generalizable conclusions from one type of consumption are to other types.

    “Because only particular manifestations of these markets, such as those involving access-based consumption or collaborative consumption, have been studied, we still know very little about the breadth and diversity of the general phenomenon or about how generalizable conclusions gained studying one type of consumption might apply to other types.”

    From Lateral Exchange Markets: How Social Platforms Operate in a Networked Economy (2018) · cites this paper as Benoit et al. (2017, 219)

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • This flexibility allows service providers to gain income for assets and resources they already own and are underutilized, and let them use these underutilized assets and resources when and how they wish rather than being restricted by traditional job positions.

    “This flexibility allows service providers to gain income for assets and resources they already own and are underutilized, and let them use these underutilized assets and resources when and how they wish rather than being restricted by traditional job positions (Benoit et al., 2017).”

    From Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy (2019) · cites this paper as Benoit et al., 2017

  • Benoit et al.'s classification of Uber as a Matchmaker accords with the authors' typing of Uber as a Matchmaker, but the authors' findings contradict Benoit et al.'s generalization that the value for all platforms in all forms of collaborative consumption lies solely in matchmaking.

    “Their classification accords perfectly with our typing of Uber as a Matchmaker.”

    From Lateral Exchange Markets: How Social Platforms Operate in a Networked Economy (2018) · cites this paper as Benoit et al. 2017

  • The quadripartite typology reveals limitations in prior research that generalized findings from just one LEM type, such as access-based consumption or collaborative consumption, to all types.

    “First, our quadripartite typology reveals limitations in prior research that generalized findings from just one LEM type, such as access-based consumption (Bardhi and Eckahrdt 2012) or collaborative consumption (Benoit et al. 2017), to all types.”

    From Lateral Exchange Markets: How Social Platforms Operate in a Networked Economy (2018) · cites this paper as Benoit et al. 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Akaka, M. A., Corsaro, D., Kelleher, C., Maglio, P. P., Seo, Y., Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). The role of symbols in value cocreation. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 311-326.
  2. Auer-Srnka, K. J., & Koeszegi, S. (2007). From words to numbers: how to transform qualitative data into meaningful quantitative results. Schmalenbach Business Review, 59(1), 29-57.
  3. Banks, J., & Humphreys, S. (2008). The labour of user co-creaters: Emergent social network markets? Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(4), 401-418.
  4. Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881-898.
  5. Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715-734.
  6. Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595-1600.
  7. Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 128-137.
  8. Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling, problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141-163.
  9. Blazevic, V., Hammedi, W., Garnefeld, I., Rust, R. T., Keiningham, T., Andreassen, T. W., ... Carl, W. (2013). Beyond traditional word-of-mouth: An expanded model of customer-driven influence. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 294-313.
  10. Bolton, R. N., & Saxena-Iyer, S. (2009). Interactive services: A framework, synthesis and research direction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 91-104.
  11. Botsman, R., & Capelin, L. (2016). Airbnb: Building a revolutionary travel company. Said Business School Case. Said Business School. University of Oxford.
  12. Chan, N. D., & Shaheen, S. A. (2012). Ridesharing in North America: past, present, and future. Transport Reviews, 32(1), 93-112.
  13. Chesbrough, H., & Spohrer, J. (2006). A research manifesto for services science. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 35-40.
  14. Cohen, B., & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organization and Environment, 27(3), 279-296.
  15. Cravens, D. W., & Piercy, N. F. (1994). Relationship marketing and collaborative networks in service organizations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(5), 39-53.
  16. Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37-52.
  17. Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 183-195.
  18. Durgee, J. F., & O'Connor, G. C. (1995). An exploration into renting as consumption behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 12(2), 89-104.
  19. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(10).
  20. Fryberg, A., & Jüriado, R. (2008). What about interaction? Networks and brands as integrators with service-dominant logic. Journal of Service Management, 20(4), 420-432.
  21. Haase, M., & Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2011). Property rights design and market process: Implications for market theory, marketing theory, and s-d logic. Journal of Macromarketing, 31(2), 148-159.
  22. Habibi, M. R., Kim, A., & Laroche, M. (2016). From sharing to exchange: An extended framework of dual modes of collaborative nonownership consumption. The Journal of the Association for Customer Research, 1(2), 277-294.
  23. Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047-2059.
  24. Hanson, D., & Grimmer, M. (2007). The mix of qualitative and quantitative research in major marketing journals, 1993-2002. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1/2), 58-70.
  25. Hartl, B., Hoffmann, E., & Kirchler, E. (2015). Do we need rules for what's mine is yours? Governance in collaborative consumption communities. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2756-2763.
  26. Hill, J. A., & Wellman, M. P. (2012). Peer-to-Peer Tangible Goods Rental, AAMAS-12 Workshop on Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce (AMEC) and Trading Agent Design and Analysis (TADA).
  27. Kimpakorn, N., & Tocquer, G. (2010). Service brand equity and employee brand commitment. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(5), 378-388.
  28. Kinard, B. R., & Capella, M. L. (2006). Relationship marketing: The influence of consumer involvement on perceived service benefits. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(6), 359-368.
  29. Laamanen, M., Wahlen, S., & Campana, M. (2015). Mobilising collaborative consumption lifestyles: A comparative frame analysis of time banking. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(5), 459-467.
  30. 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.
  31. Lawson, S. J., Gleim, M. R., Perren, R., & Hwang, J. (2016). Freedom from ownership: An exploration of access-based consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2615-2623.
  32. Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., & Baedeker, C. (2013). Collaborative consumption: Towards a resource-saving consumption culture. Resources, 2(3), 184-203.
  33. Lusch, R. F., & Webster, F. E. (2011). A stakeholder-unifying, cocreation philosophy for marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 31(2), 129-134.
  34. Matzler, K., Veider, V., & Kathan, W. (2015). Adapting to the sharing economy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(2), 71-77.
  35. Moehlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 14(3), 193-207.
  36. Moeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: Reasons for preferring renting. Managing Service Quality, 20(2), 176-191.
  37. Ozanne, L., & Ozanne, J. (2011). A child's right to play: the social construction of civic virtues in toy libraries. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 30(2), 264-278.
  38. Penaloza, L., & Mish, J. (2011). The nature and processes of market creation in triple bottom line firms: Leveraging insights from consumer cultural theory and services dominant logic. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 9-43.
  39. Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two-sided markets: A progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 645-667.
  40. Rudmin, F. (2016). The customer science of sharing: A discussant's observations. The Journal of the Association for Customer Research, 1(2), 198-209.
  41. Schaefers, T., Wittkowski, K., Benoit, S., & Ferraro, R. (2016). Contagious effects of customer misbehaviour in access-based services. Journal of Service Research, 19(1), 3-21.
  42. Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21-39.
  43. Skålen, P., Pace, S., & Cova, B. (2015). Firm-brand community value co-creation as alignment of practices. European Journal of Marketing, 49(3/4), 596-620.
  44. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004a). Evolving to a new dominant logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17.
  45. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004b). The four service marketing myths: Remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model. Journal of Service Research, 6(4), 324-335.
  46. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5-23.
  47. Weber, T. (2014). Intermediation in a sharing economy: Insurance, moral hazard, and rent extraction. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(3), 35-71.
  48. Wittkowski, K., Moeller, S., & Wirtz, J. (2013). Firms' intentions to use nonownership services. Journal of Service Research, 16(2), 171-185.
  49. Zhang, T., Kandampully, J., & Bilgihan, A. (2015). Motivations for customer engagement in online co-innovation communities (OCCs): A conceptual framework. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 6(3), 311-328.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Benoit, S., Baker, T. L., Bolton, R. N., Gruber, T., & Kandampully, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Benoit, Sabine
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Business Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
79
Pages
219-227
ISSN
0148-2963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.004
OpenAlex
W2613341922
Cited by
554
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 5
FWCI
81.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Business Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge (InK) (Singapore Management University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Sharing Economy and Platforms
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
Keywords
collaborative consumption, peer-to-peer platforms, platform providers, access-based consumption, sharing economy, renting, resources and capabilities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review