Cited by 167Sharing Economy and PlatformsTransportation and Mobility InnovationsCollaborative and Sustainable Housing Initiatives

Is sharing the solution? Exploring public acceptability of the sharing economy

Open access
Cherry, C.E., Pidgeon, N.F.·2018·Journal of Cleaner Production

Abstract

Advocated as a solution to a range of economic, environmental and social problems, the sharing economy has grown rapidly in recent years. However, despite rising up the political agenda, the concept has been increasingly critiqued in relation to unintended economic and social consequences. Whilst existing research has explored the motivations of existing participants in sharing-based practices and business models, little is yet known about wider public perceptions of the sharing economy. Investigating public discourses, this paper explores how citizens may respond to attempts to mainstream the sharing economy, discussing wider desires and concerns surrounding the concept. In a series of four two-day workshops (n = 51), we utilised deliberative research methods to engage participants in discussion surrounding the sharing economy and its role within a more sustainable, resource efficient future. Overall, positive perceptions dominated discussions, with participants independently highlighting reduced waste and resource use, increased access to unaffordable goods, and increased community cohesion as key benefits of sharing. However, echoing existing critiques, a number of concerns were also raised. Our findings suggest that, in addition to personal interests (such as affordability, convenience, and hygiene), public acceptability of the sharing economy was contingent on it meeting a number of broader social values. These include desire to: foster social equality, in relation to both the opportunity and benefits promised by the sharing economy; encourage and support the development of strong and independent local communities; and ensure that business practices operate fairly in the shared interest of business, consumers and the environment. Given the implications for everyday life and consumption practices, we argue public perspectives need to be given consideration within the debate surrounding which aspects of the sharing economy should, and should not, be fostered.

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.jclepro.2018.05.278

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?

  • Distrust of companies in the sharing economy (and their services/products) hinders its positive effect and may lead to failures.

    “The reasons for these failed projects have led several authors to suggest that distrust of companies in the sharing economy (and their services/products) hinders its positive effect and may lead to failures (Chasin et al., 2018; Cherry and Pidgeon, 2018).”

    From Building trust in the sharing economy: Current approaches and future considerations (2021) · cites this paper as Cherry and Pidgeon, 2018

    The Discussion (section 5; page unavailable) says general distrust of businesses may hinder participation and inhibit a positive sharing-economy discourse. It does not link that distrust to the failure of specific projects, so the failure claim goes beyond what this paper establishes. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Tackling trust issues should be noted when designing sharing economy concepts and delivery.

    “In addition, Cherry and Pidgeon (2018) suggest that tackling trust issues should be noted when designing sharing economy concepts and delivery.”

    From Building trust in the sharing economy: Current approaches and future considerations (2021) · cites this paper as Cherry and Pidgeon (2018)

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: 15

  1. Bellotti, V., Ambard, A., Turner, D., Gossmann, C., Demkova, K., Carroll, J.M., 2015. A muddle of models of motivation for using peer-to-peer economy systems. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 1085e1094.
  2. B€ ocker, L., Meelen, A., 2016. Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing moti- vations for intended sharing economy participation. In: Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) Working Paper Series 16, pp. 1e22.
  3. Chilvers, J., Mcnaghten, P., 2011. The Future of Science Governance -a Review of Public Concerns, Governance and Institutional Response. UEA & Durham University.
  4. Ertz, M., Durif, F., Arcand, M., 2016. Collaborative consumption: conceptual snap- shot at a buzzword. J. Enterpren. Educ. 19 (2), 1e23.
  5. Frenken, K., 2017. Political economies and environmental futures for the sharing economy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 375, 20160367.
  6. Gansky, L., 2010. The Mesh: Why the Future of Business Is Sharing. Penguin.
  7. Hawlitschek, F., Teubner, T., Gimpel, H., 2016. Understanding the sharing economyedrivers and impediments for participation in peer-to-peer rental, system sciences (HICSS). In: 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE, pp. 4782e4791.
  8. Camic, P.M., Rhodes, J.E., Yardley, L. (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Psychology: Expanding Perspectives in Methodology and Design. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 131e155.
  9. Malhotra, A., Van Alstyne, M., 2014. The dark side of the sharing economy… and how to lighten it. Commun. ACM 57, 24e27.
  10. Martin, E.W., Shaheen, S.A., 2011. Greenhouse gas emission impacts of carsharing in North America. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 12, 1074e1086.
  11. Pidgeon, N., Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K., Spence, A., 2014. Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 111, 13606e13613.
  12. Schor, J.B., Fitzmaurice, C.J., 2015. Collaborating and connecting: the emergence of the sharing economy. In: Reisch, L., Thogersen, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
  13. Tussyadiah, I.P., 2015. An Exploratory Study on Drivers and Deterrents of Collabo- rative Consumption in Travel, Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism. Springer, pp. 817e830.
  14. Wilmshurst, J., Mackay, A., 2010. Fundamentals of Advertising. Routledge.
  15. Wosskow, D., 2014. Unlocking the Sharing Economy: an Independent Review. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, London.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cherry, C. E., & Pidgeon, N. F.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Cherry, C.E.
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
195
Pages
939-948
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2806477399
Cited by
167
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4
FWCI
33.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Research Councils UK (EPSRC-EP/M008053/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Sharing Economy and Platforms
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Collaborative and Sustainable Housing Initiatives
Keywords
sharing economy, public acceptance, public perception, social values, resource efficiency, sustainable consumption, social equality, local communities, waste reduction, community cohesion

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