Is sharing the solution? Exploring public acceptability of the sharing economy
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 measuredTackling 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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science
Jasanoff, S. (2003) · Minerva · doi:10.1023/a:1025557512320 · Cited by 1,004 · see citing works
Grounded theory in psychological research.
Henwood, K., & Pidgeon, N. (2003) · Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. · doi:10.1037/10595-008 · Cited by 320 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- 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.
- 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.
- Chilvers, J., Mcnaghten, P., 2011. The Future of Science Governance -a Review of Public Concerns, Governance and Institutional Response. UEA & Durham University.
- Ertz, M., Durif, F., Arcand, M., 2016. Collaborative consumption: conceptual snap- shot at a buzzword. J. Enterpren. Educ. 19 (2), 1e23.
- Frenken, K., 2017. Political economies and environmental futures for the sharing economy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 375, 20160367.
- Gansky, L., 2010. The Mesh: Why the Future of Business Is Sharing. Penguin.
- 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.
- 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.
- Malhotra, A., Van Alstyne, M., 2014. The dark side of the sharing economy… and how to lighten it. Commun. ACM 57, 24e27.
- Martin, E.W., Shaheen, S.A., 2011. Greenhouse gas emission impacts of carsharing in North America. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 12, 1074e1086.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Wilmshurst, J., Mackay, A., 2010. Fundamentals of Advertising. Routledge.
- Wosskow, D., 2014. Unlocking the Sharing Economy: an Independent Review. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, London.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Consequences of Participating in the Sharing Economy: A Transparency-Based Sharing Framework
C. Köbis, N., Soraperra, I., & Shalvi, S. (2021) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206320967740 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Building trust in the sharing economy: Current approaches and future considerations
Räisänen, J., Ojala, A., & Tuovinen, T. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123724 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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