Car-sharing: sharing for planet,
people or profit?
Users’ motivations to join car-sharing, and the role of
two platforms in the sharing economy
JÚLIA ONTAÑÓN BENGUEREL 11744413 MSc SOCIOLOGY, SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND SOCIAL POLICY (Track) Supervisor: JOHAN DE DEKEN Monday 9th of July 2018 Amsterdam
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 4
2. Theoretical Framework ... 7
2.1. The sharing economy ... 7
3. Explaining different positions towards the sharing economy ... 12
3.1. Controversy around the sharing economy ... 12
3.2. Debating specific benefits ... 15
3.2.1. Economic benefits ... 15
3.2.2. Environmental Benefits ... 16
3.2.3. Social Benefits ... 17
4. Specific case: Car-sharing... 20
4.1. General overview: ... 20
4.2. Benefits: ... 21
4.3. Different types of business orientation: ... 23
4.4. The Dutch situation: ... 24
4.4.1. Motivations of users: ... 25
5. Methods ... 27
5.1. Introduction to Grounded Theory: ... 27
5.2. How Grounded Theory method has been applied to this thesis: ... 29
5.3. Ethnographic Content Analysis and “how platforms market themselves” 33 5.4. Limitations... 34
5.5. Table of respondents: ... 35
6. Results ... 37
6.1. Economic Motives ... 38
6.1.1. How do platforms portray economic benefits in their public communication? 38 6.1.2. Economic and financial benefits ... 39
6.1.3. Rewarding best renters ... 44
6.1.4. Convenience and Offer ... 45
6.1.5. Role of insurance ... 46
6.2. Environmental Motives ... 47
6.2.1. How do platforms communicate environmental benefits in their public communication? ... 48
6.2.2. Guilt as a motivator ... 49
6.2.4. Rebound effects ... 53
6.3. Social Motives ... 55
6.3.1. How do platforms portray social benefits in their public communication? .... 55
6.3.2. Participants reaction towards community-building ... 56
6.3.3. Altruism ... 58
6.3.4. Social Interactions of car-sharing: emergence of new social ties? ... 59
6.3.5. Role of ratings and evaluations ... 61
6.4. Two transversal issues that contradict platforms’ communication ... 63
6.4.1. Transferring Risk ... 63
6.4.2. Lack of control ... 65
6.5. Users’ perceptions of MyWheels and SnappCar as part of the sharing economy ... 67
6.5.1. SnappCar ... 67
6.5.2. MyWheels ... 69
7. Discussion and Conclusions ... 73
8. Bibliography ... 78
9. Annexes ... 82
9.1. Interview Guide: ... 82
1. Introduction
The sharing economy is a recent phenomenon, which has attracted quite a lot of attention in recent years. From enormous platforms such as Uber or Airbnb, with billionaire benefits, to small start-ups, the sharing economy has been developed in many fields of our economy. Supporters claim it to be a solution for many of the problems derived from capitalism and consumer society – reducing emissions, being an opportunity to empower less advantaged segments of society, and even for reducing production of goods – while critics claim it to be just a new turn of capitalism – that is, just seeking for economic benefits, exploiting participants and resources, but doing so by hiding it with a “sharing” label. Even though the reality is far more complex than these two poles, and sharing economy is a quite new field full of nuances and contradictions in its core, which make it deeply interesting to study and further research. A study made by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2014) showed that in total, sharing economy, supposed a total spending of approximately $15 billion in 2014, which was only about 5% of the total spending. The report also forecasts a possible increase of it, up to $335 billion by 2025, about the 50% of the total spending in the areas sharing economy is actingIn this research, the focus will be on car-sharing. Car-sharing is a key sector, and a quite mature one, within the sharing economy. It is a widespread and global enterprise, that operates in more than 600 cities worldwide, and continues to grow. An indicator of its potential is the broad range of companies from very different sectors that have started to operate car-sharing services: automotive vehicle manufacturers, car rental companies, transport service providers, insurance companies, energy companies, startups… The object of this research will be two peer-to-peer car-sharing platforms which operate in the city of Amsterdam, and with different profit orientations: while one – SnappCar – is a normal for-profit company, the second – MyWheels – is a non-for-profit organization. This way, we will be able to see differences among profit orientations in their role in the sharing economy. The main research question that I am striving to answer in this research is the following:
- Main Question: What are the motivations for people to join the sharing economy, and car-sharing specifically, instead of using traditional means of consumption? Which benefits do they perceive from choosing this option?
- Sub-question 1: To what extent do the motivations and perceived benefits from users of the sharing economy match with platforms’ claims about their benefits (the motivations and values they strive for when marketing themselves)?
And finally,
- Sub-question 2: How do participants perceive the role of different profit-oriented platforms in car-sharing, in relation to the sharing economy?
With these questions my aim is to first, find out about people’s motivations to join car-sharing, and to be able to see if there is something beyond a purely instrumental economic benefit; and second, to study how these platforms market themselves. I want to see to what extent these two elements match, in a way to be able to know if there is any idealistic value within car-sharing, or if contrary, it is only a cheaper option for consumers and a new way for companies to continue growing.
This research is structured into two main parts. First, there is a theoretical synthesis of what has been already said by different scholars (from very different fields of research) in relation to this topic. This will serve two purposes: one, to better frame and define the concepts we are dealing with (based on an important theoretical shared definition of the sharing economy), and two, for developing sensitizing concepts which will allow for better developing the empirical research.
The second part of this paper lays out empirical research of the motivations of people to join the sharing economy – looking at the example of car-sharing – and also offers a critical approach to the discourses of two platforms that are found under the umbrella of car-sharing. First, the motivations of users and their perspectives on these platforms have been approached through in-depth interviews, treated with the methodology of the Straussian Grounded Theory; and second, to study the discourse and how these platforms market themselves as part of the sharing economy, the public communication on their websites have been researched by means of ethnographic content analysis.
What I found, even if it is more complex and better explained in the results and conclusions chapter, is that economic benefits are mainly the first motivator for the participants of these two platforms to join. In the second term, environmental concerns are something that lead users to participate in car-sharing, and in a lesser extent, social aspects are conceived as something positive out of car-sharing, but not a motivation in itself. Differences between the motivations of the users of two platforms have not been found, but instead, users’ perceptions on these two platforms vary substantially. While they
perceive SnappCar as a greedier platform which mainly uses the discourse around sharing-economy to be able to gain more profit; they conceive MyWheels as a much more value-driven platform that actually works towards the common good.
Even though this way of expressing my findings is a quite simplistic and reductionist form of doing it, and many more elements and details have been taken into account, in a way that makes this topic a quite relevant and interesting field of research.
2. Theoretical Framework
In this chapter I will first outline some of the most useful definitions found on the literature about sharing economy. Then a typology is put forward for this specific research, followed by the construction of a working definition. Finally, some conceptual clarifications are provided.2.1. The sharing economy
It is important to have a solid definition of the topic, in order to be able to better frame and delimit the research question. This is why a review of the available literature has been undertaken, and the perspectives of different authors and voices across social sciences have been taken into account. This will lead us to a more precise and concrete delimitation of my object of research.
There is a wide range of differences among the companies that are to be found under the label of the so-called “sharing economy”. The main problem encountered when wishing to do research around this topic is the lack of a clear and accepted definition, and the blurriness of its boundaries. “A common definition has been difficult to develop because the sharing economy encompasses tremendous diversity, including profit and non-profits, local and global entities, true asset sharing, and on-demand labor providers” (Schor, 2017, p.5). It is worth mentioning that after years of research, Juliet Schor came to the conclusion that, at the moment, the definitions of the sharing economy “tend to be pragmatic, rather than analytical: self-definition by the platforms and the press defines who is in and who is out” (2014, p.2). However, that is not always the case. After a rigorous review of the literature in the hope of finding definitions and elements of description in order to be able to create a classification model, some definitions have been found. Richardson (2015) describes the sharing economy as “forms of exchange facilitated through online platforms, encompassing a diversity of for-profit and non-for-profit activities that all broadly aim to open access to under-utilised resources through what is termed ‘sharing’” (p. 121). In the same line of thinking, Frenken et al. (2015) define sharing economy as “consumers granting each other temporary access to under-utilized physical assets (“idle capacity”), possibly for money” (as cited by Frenken and Schor 2017, p.4-5). Both these definitions comprise the same elements which, according to these authors, are to be found in the sharing economy: access to goods, mediated by online platforms, with an economic compensation. Belk (2014), a scholar who has studied “sharing” in-depth, encounters two elements which are central in order to be able to label a platform as an actual agent in the sharing economy: “1) their use of temporary access,
non-ownership models of utilizing consumer goods and services and 2) their reliance on the Internet, and especially Web 2.0, to bring this about” (p.1595). Belk’s definition includes the possibility of exchanging services as well as exchanging goods. Nevertheless, Frenken and Schor only consider “consumer-to-consumer interaction (c2c), temporary access and physical goods” (2017, p.5), leaving out the exchange of services. Schor and Attwood-Charles (2017) establish as distinctive the following features: “first, the central role of information technology for structuring transactions via the platform or app. The second is reliance on user-generated ratings and reputational data to reduce risk and increase user trust. The third is a peer-to-peer, or person-to-person structure (rather than business-to-person)” (p.5). This way, they included in the definition the element of ratings and reputational data. Hamari et al. (2016) define it thus: “The peer-to-peer-based activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services” (p.1). These authors take into account, also, the element of “giving”, and not only letting others make use of certain goods or services. The same authors classified the activities within the sharing economy, putting their focus on the possibility of giving or just renting or sharing: 1) companies who allow access over ownership (renting or lending assets) versus 2) companies that offer transfer of ownership (ex. ebay) (Hamari et.al., 2005). Dolvik et.al. (2017), following the aforementioned definition from Belk (2014) put their focus on what is shared, which they say, can be an asset or good, or some form of labour: 1) platforms mediating some form of labour (including those in which products are submitted online or those involving manual and local labour) versus 2) platforms for sharing or renting assets. Some discussion around whether or not to include sharing services has emerged among different scholars, and Frenken and Schor add this element to the discussion: “The notion of the sharing of idle capacity is central to the definition of sharing economy, because it distinguishes the practice of sharing of goods from the practice of on-demand personal services.” (2017, p.5). Therefore, in accordance with this conceptualization Uber would be outside, but BlaBlaCar inside, the realm of sharing. Because BlaBlaCar is a platform where a driver offers the spare seats there will be in a car, for a journey that is anyway going to take place (regardless of the occupation, or not, of those seats). In contrast, when an Uber user orders a ride, that ride will occur solely because of his or her demand; if there is no demand, there will be no ride. This is also the reason why Uber is an on-demand platform, usually framed as ride-hailing, and not as ride-sharing (Frenken and Schor 2017).
All these definitions comprise a wide variety of activities, and all of them contribute to the creation of a shared and accepted definition in the academic literature. As it can be
appreciated, different authors take into account different elements in their definitions of “sharing economy”, some of which have later aroused controversy, in regard to whether they actually belong within the sharing economy. From the literature review around this topic, it is safe to say that access to under-utilized assets and the possibility (only optional) of an economic compensation, are common traits in all these definitions.
As a result of the literature review around the definition of the sharing economy and the need to stick to a single definition for the purposes of undertaking the present research, I used a certain typology to serve as a guage for deciding which platforms to take into account in my empirical research. To be able to establish this typology I used Juliet Schor’s definition in her article “debating the sharing economy”. She classifies companies and platforms by 1) their market orientation (for-profit vs. non-profit) and 2) their market structure (peer-to-peer vs. business-to-peer). “These dimensions shape the platforms’ business models, logics of exchange, and potential for disrupting conventional businesses.” (Schor, 2014, p.4). I will now provide those elements of classification I wish to take into account and their justification:
- I will take into account platforms which allow access over ownership, rather than allowing service delivery or transfer of ownership.
“Access over ownership is the most common mode of exchange and means that users may offer and share their goods and services to other users for a limited time through peer-to-peer sharing activities, such as renting and lending (see Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012).” (as cited in Hamari et al. 2016, p.3). Moreover, and regarding the delivery of services, following what Frenken and Schor (2017) say “(…) if we are dealing with p2p service delivery instead of p2p goods sharing, the term on-demand economy is used” (p.6), and not “sharing-economy” per se. Based around this literature it can be said that there will be further cases, and more interesting ones, to be analyzed among the platforms that allow access over ownership (renting or lending) rather than those which facilitate buying and selling. And finally, it is more accurate in what is commonly accepted in the academia as “sharing economy” not to consider the delivery of services (companies like for example TaskRabbit or DogVacay) as part of the sharing economy.
- I will focus my research on platforms structured as Peer-to-Peer (p2p), rather than Business-to-Peer (b2p).
According to Frenken and Schor (2017), renting out goods from a company instead of from another consumer is considered a “product-service economy”. This can be further
understood as companies owning products to which they give consumers access or possibility of use. (Frenken and Schor 2017). Instead, the focus on this research will be on peer-to-peer exchange. Westerbeek et al. define this form of exchange as follows: “digital platforms where providers meet with users in order to execute a 1-on-1 transaction with a physical world component, where no transfer of ownership takes place” (p.223). Since it was necessary to delimit a concrete topic in order to undertake the research, p2p car-sharing was chosen, since it is believed to provide much more nuanced and richer insights than simply renting a car from a “sharing economy” platform; which is quite similar to traditional car rental companies. Even so it would be interesting to compare both business models in a larger research study.
- I will take into consideration both for-profit oriented and non-profit oriented organizations.
Remane et al. (2016) in their taxonomy of car-sharing business models, use, as one of their elements of distinction, the organizational ownership: “Who owns the car-sharing operator and thus determines the profit motive? Car-sharing organizations can be owned by private companies (for profit), cooperatives (serving its members), or the government (serving the citizens)” (p.10). This element is going to be the basic element for comparison between the two platforms which will be analyzed in this research. I imagine it will be an interesting element of comparison between two platforms which offer almost the same service, but with different profit orientation.
I believe, and therefore I wish to research to corroborate, that different revenue models (for-profit and non-profit organizations) have different values, motivations and business orientation. These two models act as a counterpoint to each other, and I expect to give different and varied interesting insights. The non-profit ones are believed to represent the “original” or more initial goal of the sharing economy (MyWheels); while the for-profit companies allow for more discussion on their nature and values (SnappCar). I believe leaving out one of the two types would imply leaving out too much information.
Taking all the above into account, I will attempt to create a working definition, specific to the present research. The activities that are going to be understood as “sharing economy” are: 1) consumer-to-consumer (or peer-to-peer) exchange, 2) mediated by an on-line platform, in which 3) physical goods are temporarily accessed. The definition I will use as a frame for my research, is the following: Sharing Economy encompasses forms of peer-to-peer exchange facilitated by an on-line platform, based on temporary access to under-utilized physical assets,
including for-profit and non-profit platforms (see Frenken and Schor 2017, Richardson 2015, Schor 2014).
As a conceptual clarification, Schor’s (2014) definitions about participants in the sharing economy will be used in this research. The terms “provider”, “consumer”, “participant” and “user” are framed as follows: “Consumers are those who are buying services, while providers, or suppliers, are offering them. Participants can be on either side of a transaction. Users is also often employed this way.” (Schor, 2014, p.4). As an example, in Airbnb the consumer would be the guest, the provider is the host, and both of them are participants and users indistinctively.
3. Explaining different positions towards the
sharing economy
3.1. Controversy around the sharing economy
The sharing economy, without a doubt, is an economic and social sector that has grown (and continues to grow) exponentially in recent years. Bothun et al. (2015) show that in the USA “sharing economy in the sectors travel, car sharing, finance, staffing, as well as music and video streaming is supposed to increase its revenues from USD 15 billion today to USD 335 billion within the next years” (as cited in Puschmann and Alt, 2016, p.94). Some authors believe that it will bring about a drastic change in how societies understand ownership: “Shaking loose of the former wisdom that, “You are what you own” and converting to a new wisdom, “You are what you share,” indicates that we just may be entering the post-ownership economy.” (Belk, 2014, p.1599). Bostman and Rogers (2010) even suggested that collaborative consumption “could be as important as the Industrial Revolution in terms of how we think about ownership.” (as cited in Belk, 2014, p.1599). Puschmann and Alt (2016) attribute this proliferation to three drivers: Firstly, to changing consumer behaviours, in which temporary use of certain goods – as opposed to owning them - has become more common. Secondly, the social networks and electronic markets from which enterprises can draw benefits; users usually get connected via pre-existing social networks or platforms. And thirdly, they say, the fact that almost everyone owns a mobile device or other electronic service, enables the use of app’s crucial for these kinds of companies. According to Belk (2014), another factor in play in the growth of these modes of consumption, is the world economic crisis which set in around 2008 and from which “Many of the sharing and collaborative consumption organizations that currently exist benefitted from the economic collapse (…) that caused some consumers to lose their homes, cars, and investments and made almost everyone more price sensitive” (Belk, 2014, p.1599).
In its beginnings the sharing economy was portrayed as an alternative to a consumer society and as a possible way of organizing the economy that could balance some of the devastating effects that capitalism has on society at the moment. “Sharing economy promises to transcend capitalism in favour of community” (Ravenelle, 2017). It has also been portrayed as a way to improve social cohesion and to reduce the human footprint in favour of greener innovations (see Heinrichs 2017).
However, not all voices within the academic literature understand the “sharing economy” as something completely new. Belk (2009) has researched “sharing” extensively in all its
forms, and according to him, there is nothing new about sharing goods or services. Human beings have always shared goods with others. What is new, according to Schor (2014) is “stranger sharing”. Traditionally, sharing took place within one’s social network, and the chances of sharing outside your personal network seemed difficult. What the sharing economy incorporates, is the possibility of sharing goods and/or services with strangers. Belk (2014) also points to what is new in the sharing economy: “The Internet and especially Web 2.0 has brought about many new ways of sharing as well as facilitating older forms of sharing on a larger scale” (p.1596). More precisely, Puschmann and Alt (2016) state that the only thing that can be framed as actually new in this way of exchanging goods is peer-to-peer consumption: “It has recently received a proliferation to consumer-to-consumer (C2C) transactions and resulted in new business models” (p.93).
The rapid growth of the sharing economy sectors has raised some critical voices or suspicious discussions around it. Even though it is a quite recent phenomenon, more and more scholars are doing research around the topic from diverse fields and from many different points of interest. Belk (2014) in his anthropological analysis of the diverse acts of sharing, writes the following when observing online sharing: “Within this maze of terms, it is sometimes difficult to discern where sharing ends and commerce begins. It is argued that some of the different phenomena now flying under the banner of sharing are not sharing at all, but merely appropriations of this socially desirable term.” (p.7). The focus of the author in his research is to understand and make sense of the “shades of sharing” which comprise “the various terms of sharing and pseudo-sharing (practices masquerading as sharing) [that] have proliferated in the digital age” (Belk, 2014, p.10). In this line of thought I find quite useful - even though it has been criticized for being too simplistic a dichotomy (see Böcker and Meelen, 2017) - the definition Belk (2014) uses in his work to define pseudo-sharing: “Pseudo-sharing is a business relationship masquerading as communal sharing” (2014, p.11). The author does not deny that this kind of commercial relationship can be beneficial for anyone engaged in it, also that it can also be good for the environment, but he points out the misuse of the term in a case where it is not sharing, despite promoters usually using this vocabulary. In this light, enterprises such as Airbnb or Zipcar would be perfect examples of pseudo-sharing, or other commercial enterprises marketed with the language of sharing. Following the research done on the use -or misuse- of this concept, Richardson (2015) points out that the label “sharing” leads to conflicting ideas: it can be understood as an opportunity for collaboration and community, or a response to a mass consumer society, therefore as an alternative to the current capitalist economy. But at the same time it
can be framed as the opposite: While using the rhetoric of sharing, this vocabulary can serve to “masking new forms of inequality and polarisations of ownership” (2015, p.121). Schor and Attwood-Charles (2017) have moved one step further and used the term “sharewashing”, which is highly relevant to this topic, in pointing to the misuse of the term “share” for activities that differ greatly from what is originally understood as actual sharing. Even stronger critics can be found across the social sciences: “Morozov (2013) argues that it is a form of ‘neo-liberalism on steroids’ which commercialises aspects of life previously beyond the reach of the market” (As cited in Martin, 2016).
Belk (2009) points to one of the dimensions of sharing to be further explored in the research around sharing: utilitarianism. In this dimension sharing is only apparent and the core motivation of it mainly a pragmatic and economic one. After analyzing several cases of sharing, Belk says that in the case of a utilitarian use of the concept, “what appears to be sharing is more of a self-interested commodity exchange” (2010, p.728). This is an important concept since it establishes a difference between what can be originally considered as sharing and what cannot be considered as such. Derived from that, Belk (2009) also establishes a useful conceptual difference in between sharing in and sharing out. The author observes different types of sharing that happen outside of the immediate family and establishes two kinds: Firstly, sharing in is more similar to sharing within the members of the family “in that it involves regarding ownership as common, such that the others are included within the aggregate extended self” (p.725). Examples of this could be sharing food with friends or neighbors while making a barbecue in the communal backyard. In second place, there is sharing out, which “involves giving to others outside the boundaries separating self and other” (p.725). The latter case is more commonly found in cases of gift giving and commodity exchanges, such as giving clothes to charity. Belk (2009) himself takes the example of car sharing, to illustrate this conceptual difference: “Sharing a car within a couple or family is generally a case of sharing in, while sharing a car within a large-scale commercial car-sharing organization is more a case of sharing out” (p.726). Following Belk’s definition, then, the case of car sharing is identified as commodity exchange rather than actual sharing. In his famous article on sharing, Belk (2009) lists certain characteristics to differentiate between “sharing”, “gift giving” and “commodity exchange”. What seems to me a crucial difference between sharing and commodity exchange is the role of monetary exchange. The author establishes “money irrelevant” as one of the characteristics of sharing, while it being “monetary” was the equivalent characteristic for commodity exchange.
3.2. Debating specific benefits
In this section, there will be a division of the apparent benefits from the sharing economy, divided into three major benefits: economic, environmental and social benefits. For each benefit I will provide an overview of what advocators say in its favour, followed by how those with a critical view approach it. Even if Frenken and Schor (2017) claim that there is still not enough research on the environmental, economic and social effects of the sharing economy, it is true that there is some incipient body of knowledge about it.
3.2.1. Economic benefits
On one side, the advocators of the sharing economy claim that its rapid growth is believed to create benefits for consumers, providers and intermediaries. It offers convenience for consumers because they can choose a specific product to cover their necessity instead of having just a limited range of options. It also offers an economic benefit to these consumers due to the low cost of renting access goods as compared to the price of having to purchase it (Puschmann and Alt, 2016). Hamari et al. (2016) also state that through saving money, facilitating access to resources and free-riding, individuals benefit from the sharing economy. It is claimed that providers and intermediaries can also benefit from these new business models that comprise the sharing economy. They can become platforms themselves where people can enroll for sharing goods or services, or they can provide these platforms with off-shoot services, such as insurance or payment services (Puschmann and Alt, 2016). It also offers the option of monetizing idle assets, such as drills, cars, rooms, or entire apartments, and therefore it allows an extra income on goods that previously were not productive at all. In a more macro-economic perspective, advocators of the sharing economy also state that it can be beneficial on a larger scale, for example, for groups of unemployed people. Dillahunt and Malone (2015) sustain that a digital-sharing economy presents opportunities to disadvantaged groups of people to find temporary employment, enhance social interaction (therefore increasing the chances of finding employment through social connections), and access resources which would not be attainable without a sharing economy, permitting the generation of extra income and increasing reciprocity.
On the other side, from the critical perspective, while it seems obvious that the sharing economy increases the volume of transactions, it might very well be that the distributional effects are not that significant (in home sharing, well-off owners will profit most, and vice-versa). Frenken and Schor (2017) argue that, despite the fact that participating in the
sharing economy usually increases the consumer’s welfare due to lower prices and a wider range of offers, it is also true that those who most benefit from the transactions on these platforms are firstly, the platforms themselves, and secondly, the owners of the assets (providers). Since those consumer goods – which are commonly concentrated among groups of well-off people – can now be turned into capital assets, the wealth generated stays in the hands of those who were originally already wealthy (Frenken and Schor, 2017). These circumstances are more present on home sharing and car sharing platforms. It has also been observed that participants in the sharing economy are highly educated, often professionals, and they are using these platforms to offer certain tasks (for example through TaskRabbit) that were traditionally undertaken by less educated, working classes. This activity is “crowding out, at least to some extent, less advantaged, lower educational attainment workers who have traditionally done much of manual work that more privileged sharing providers are now doing” (Schor, 2017, p.32-33). The most qualified sectors are taking advantage of this market opportunity, where the less qualified sectors are not. This phenomenon leads to an increase in inequality and a decrease in income distribution, far from what the advocators of the sharing economy said about it being an opportunity to redistribute wealth among society.
Another widely discussed and dangerous consequence of the sharing economy, especially in the case of home sharing, is the effect on supply and cost of housing. Neighbors are experiencing significant increases in rent, especially where home sharing is popular, in cities like Amsterdam, Barcelona or New York. In the city of New York during 2016, the decrease of available long-term rented property in favor of the short-term rental market through Airbnb, resulted in a €380 rent increase for the average NY tenant looking for an apartment (Reid, 2018).
3.2.2. Environmental Benefits
From the defenders or advocators of the sharing economy, it is said that the fact that a sharing economy accesses already existing goods will reduce the acquisition of new goods, without affecting consumers’ welfare. Needing fewer goods will imply a reduction in energy and therefore a reduction of the emissions of greenhouse gases produced by the production and demolition of goods (Frenken, 2017). Over and above that, the rise of the sharing economy can also benefit the optimization and efficiency in use of energy and space in urban areas, translating as the need for fewer parking spaces and using empty accommodation buildings (Frenken, 2017). The environmental benefits of the sharing
economy have been widely studied in the field of car-sharing (Chen and Kockelman 2016, Shaheen and Cohen 2007, Katzev 2003), since this sector has a quite direct effect on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions compared to other sectors of the sharing economy.
As mentioned above, it has been claimed that the sharing economy has a direct and positive impact on the environment since it is supposed to be a more sustainable way of consuming. Nevertheless, Frenken (2017) points out that there have been few studies on the environmental impact of sharing economy platforms, and instead, most of the available information around this topic comes from reports commissioned by the sharing platforms themselves. Needless to say, the methodology and transparency of these reports is far from desirable (Frenken, 2017). This same author points out an exception in that car sharing is one of the most researched sectors in this regard. Going by the available literature on the environmental impacts of the sharing economy at large, we can say these are believed to be positive, but not as positive as some have claimed. This is due to the lack of research on rebound effects – such as if the earnings from renting a property are used to buy new, highly-polluting goods- and because the existing literature looks mainly at first round effects (Franken and Schor, 2017).
3.2.3. Social Benefits
Many of the advocators of the sharing economy claim it to be a great means to increase social connection between people – usually strangers – and therefore a useful way to create new social ties. Some authors have written about the social aspect of the sharing economy, and most conclude that it is a beneficial aspect of this way of consuming. Participants of the sharing economy might be willing to encounter more genuine and human connections in their economic exchanges (Fitzmaurice et. al., 2016). Even so, research undertaken by Fitzmaurice et. al. found that “for our informants (…) personal interaction is not a means to reduce risk, but an end in itself” (2016, p.10). This might be a consequence of the trend to envision sharing with strangers as something desirable and appealing. Franken and Schor (2017) state that the sharing economy might have desirable social consequences, since it can lead to social mingling: house and car providers are probably older and economically wealthier than their consumers, denying the possibility of the sharing economy being causing social stratification. On some platforms, providers and consumers have real face-to-face interactions, and new social ties are thought to emerge. Meal-sharing and other sharing economy forms with highly personal interactions are areas in which the social aspect is more likely to motivate its participants (Bröcker and Meelen 2017). Schor
(2015) shows that Airbnb is the platform which has been most successful at creating new social ties, and Parigi et al. (2013) have found in a large-scale study of Couchsurfing, that participation in this platform resulted, often, in new friendships.
Finally, the critical view claims that even if the social effects are complex and still quite unexplored, it seems that more inclusion is not a clear consequence of the rise of the sharing economy (Frenken and Schor, 2017). Parigi (2014) also revealed that, unlike the case of early adopters, the more people enter the platform for economic reasons, the less valuable these interactions become, leading to a decline in social interaction. This is the case with small and locally based sharing platforms that started with a strong sense of community, and that later, with growth and expansion, inevitably lost their social value. This is one of the consequences of the rankings and ratings of the participants on these kind of online platforms, in which “trust is codified” (Frenken and Schor, 2017, p.7), and where subsequently face-to-face interaction loses its value.
Another negative consequence that leads to questioning the supposed social benefit of the sharing economy, is the discrimination that exists in peer-to-peer platforms. Edelman et. al. demonstrated in a case study of Airbnb how racial discrimination is a systemic element in its functioning: “applications from guests with distinctively African-American names are 16% less likely to be accepted relative to identical guests with distinctively White names” (2016, p.1), in line with the fact that male Afro-American members of the same platform earn 12% less in sum than other hosts with different ethnic and racial characteristics, but with the same type of house and location (Edelman and Luca, 2014). This is quite a worrying effect about how Airbnb functions, and it is no coincidence that it occurs. It has to do with the kind of information that Airbnb asks the user to provide, such as profile photos, for example. As a reaction to racial discrimination on platforms such as Airbnb, different enterprises have emerged to try to alleviate these consequences. Noirbnb is a black-oriented platform for home sharing and Fairbnb is a platform owned and managed by a cooperative of users and neighbors who collectively decide how to reinvest part of the profits in local projects (fairbnb.coop). A study in the field of transport network companies demonstrates that companies such as UberX and Lyft discriminate in terms of race both in cancellation rates and average waiting time before each ride (Ge et. al., 2016). For these reasons, and following what Frenken and Schor (2017) defend in their article, it is viable to affirm that peer-to-peer platforms in the sharing economy tend to increase discriminative behaviors present in society.
4. Specific case: Car-sharing
An investigation of the sharing economy as a whole would be far too wide an object of research. For this reason, the focus here will be on car-sharing, as a means of undertaking a more feasible research project. In this chapter an overview of the available literature around car-sharing will be provided, followed by its apparent benefits and the different business models that are present within car-sharing. I will then outline the issue in the Dutch context in an attempt to ground it and make it even more concrete. Finally, the motivations of users for joining car-sharing platforms will be examined.4.1. General overview:
The desire to share cars between individuals instead of owning them has been a recurrent idea for many years. In a historical overview, the most pioneering enterprise in this field was Sefage, a Swiss car-sharing cooperative that operated from 1958 to 1998. Other shared-car experiments took place in France, The Netherlands and Sweden during the 70’s and 80’s, all with the purpose of providing individuals with access to cars who could not afford to purchase one.
Especially in urban areas the difficulty of finding good parking spaces, the fluctuating – and usually rising – price of fuel and the expenses associated with car ownership, have led people, often, to choose sharing a car over owning one themselves. Many regions and countries worldwide have embraced car-sharing enterprises as means of reducing private transport, and its negative effect – in congestion, on the environment, inefficient land use, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption – derived from its widespread use (Shaheen and Cohen, 2007). Many authors from very different fields of research (from engineering to anthropology) have studied the rise of car-sharing.
Shaheen and Cohen (2007) claim that the principal of car-sharing is that: “individuals gain the benefits of a private vehicle without the costsand responsibilities of ownership” (p.81). Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) frame car-sharing within a growing societal trend in which, they say, the ultimate desire is less related to having property over objects, and more related to exchanging experiences and temporarily accessing goods. Thus, they situate car-sharing in the expanding economic logic of access-based consumption, which they define as “transactions that may be market mediated in which no transfer of ownership takes place. The consumer is acquiring consumption time with the item, and, in market-mediated cases of access, is willing to pay a price premium for use of that object” (Bardhi and Eckhardt,
2012, p.881). This is in line with what Rifikin (2000, as cited in Katzev 2002) has called the Age of Access. He suggests that we are moving from a market-based economy to one where private ownership over goods is no longer as important as having access to them. This is why, in light of this belief, car-sharing appears to these authors as a perfect example of the growing number of alternatives to private ownership of property.
It is worth saying that today, car-sharing is a widespread and global enterprise that operates in more than 600 cities worldwide and continues to grow. Litman (1999) estimated that car-sharing is an economically efficient option for cars that are driven less than around 10.000 km per year.
Within the sharing economy car-sharing is a key sector and much more mature, diverse and professionalized than most other segments (PWC 2014, as cited in Remane et al. 2016). One can see as an indicator of its potential that a broad range of companies from very different sectors have started to operate car-sharing services: automotive vehicle manufacturers, car rental companies, transport service providers, insurance companies, energy companies, startups… (Remane et al., 2016). Among this varied range of providers operating we find diverse kinds of organizations and business models that will later be discussed.
4.2. Benefits:
It is surprising that in the available academic literature on car-sharing, most of it situates it in a highly positive framework, stressing its benefits and highlighting its potential and opportunities. Possibly due to the fact that it is still a niche economy and its growth is still relative, very few articles have been found that treat possible problems or the downsides that may emerge from car-sharing.
According to Shaheen et al. (2004) the benefits associated with car-sharing are the following: transport, environmental, land use and social effects. According to Shaheen and Cohen (2007) car-sharing vehicles reduce the need for privately owned cars. It also improves the problem of parking space saturation in most urban cities, where the average European member-to-vehicle ratio was approximately 28:1 in 2007 (Shaheen and Cohen, 2007). Furthermore, not possessing a car and using car-sharing instead, reduces the number of kilometers travelled and therefore reduces the amount of greenhouse emissions. This is due to the fact that many car-sharing platforms use electric or hybrid cars and some of the trips made by car before entering a car-sharing platform are now made by train, bike or on foot. Katzev (2002) in revising various experiments and initiatives of introducing
car-sharing models in certain areas and communities, observes that the adoption of car-car-sharing has a very direct benefit in this sense. People who join car-sharing immediately drive fewer kilometers by car than they would if they owned one. This is because car-sharing raises awareness of the true cost of each automobile trip: with car-sharing, they are required to pay for both the duration and the distance of each trip and due to this, consumers make a more rational and conscious use of those cars. The actual transparency in the cost of a trip by car that car-sharing platforms provide, leads to an economical use of the car and to taking full advantage of alternatives such as public transport or the bicycle (Muheim 1998 as cited in Katzev, 2002). Nevertheless, and according to Nijland and van Meerkerk (2017), research on the environmental impacts of car-sharing has focused mainly on business-to-consumer (b2c) organizations. These authors claim that, possibly, peer-to-peer (p2p) car-sharing has different outputs in environmental impacts as compared to b2c car-car-sharing, since it attracts different types of users with different mobility patterns and behaviors. They claim that p2p platforms are lately growing even faster than b2c organizations. However, the environmental impact of p2p car-sharing is not a widely researched subject (Nijland and van Meerkerk, 2017). They contributed to it with a comparative study in The Netherlands, where they found that b2c car-sharing represented the most significant decrease in CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions, while c2c did not represent a great impact. This might be due to the fact that b2c cars are usually newer and more fuel-efficient, while c2c cars are any kind of car (including highly polluting ones). According to research undertaken in North America, if a candidate for the car-sharing industry joined, instead of using his or her own car, the predicted decrease of the transport energy and greenhouse gas emissions would be by 51% (Chen and Kockelman, 2016). A less optimistic research study, which nevertheless still pointed to the overall environmental benefits of car-sharing, came from the aforementioned authors Nijland and van Meerkerk (2017), who found in their research in The Netherlands that, despite the fact that car-sharing reduces the ownership of cars, it can increase the use of a car for mobility purposes, where trains or other more sustainable means of transport were previously chosen. Nevertheless, in short, both car ownership and kilometers driven by car, ended up as “between 240 and 390 fewer kilograms of CO2 per person, per year.” That is, between 13% and 18% of the CO2 emissions per person related to car ownership and car use (2017, p.90).
Shaheen and Cohen (2007) also claim social benefits are linked to the availability of car-sharing in urban and sub-urban spaces, due to the accessibility to personal mobility. This is a consequence of the reduced cost of accessing a car through a car-sharing platform as
compared with car ownership. Because of this, low-income households and groups of people with fewer economic resources – such as students or pensioners – can now have access to a vehicle in case of need, they claim. As a result of the analysis of these benefits, Shaheen and Cohen (2007) claim that a wide range of literature has shown that car-sharing can be used to “increase mobility by serving as a missing link, reducing dependence on private vehicle ownership, lowering vehicle emissions and energy consumption, and encouraging active lifestyles by interfacing with bicycle and pedestrian modes” (p.82). All these reasons contribute to the fact that car-sharing has been framed as a possible alternative or a plausible option to overcome the well-known problems stemming from private transport in urban areas. Nevertheless, in the course of the present research, these benefits will not be taken as a given, and therefore possible problems arising from this model will be analyzed in relation to the empirical research.
4.3. Different types of business orientation:
Regarding the business models that are most common in car-sharing, it is important to mention that even though these platforms usually started as small car clubs or quite local organizations, the general trend is that the growth of this business model has become more and more concentrated in the hands of very few actors. Shaheen and Cohen (2007) have distinguished three trends of growth: 1) a transformation from grassroots operations to more formal organizational structures; 2) mergers that end up in fewer and larger organizations; and 3) differing growth rates among new, developing, and maturing markets around the globe. These authors also point out an interesting element, which is that growth-oriented organizations will continue to have the largest number of members and fleets deployed. I would like to mention that their analysis leaves little room for the possibility of continuity and relative expansion of more local and cooperatively based enterprises within car-sharing. This is something which will be assessed in the light of the results of the present research in a later section of this thesis.
Cooperative or less commercial organizational models have received very little attention in the academic literature, and information about it is scant at present. Remane et al, (2016), one of the few scholars to research this cooperative business model within car-sharing, created seven archetypes, out of a taxonomy, to classify the different business models existing within car-sharing. They established a cluster formed by “cooperative car-sharing operators that exclusively offer roundtrip car-sharing” (Remane et al., 2016, p.11). Usually these are smaller and quite locally situated platforms that operate in a specific urban area.
These platforms do not usually cover expenses but ask their members to do so. An important element of this cluster is that they are cooperative, meaning that making a profit is not the first priority of this platform. Offering a service to its members is the primary goal. In addition, and as a characteristic of this kind of cooperative platform, the monthly fee their members pay, unlike most platforms, can fluctuate depending on that month’s income.
Remane et al. also differentiate between two modes of operating peer-to-peer (p2p) structured platforms: those with manual access, and those with automatic access. In the first classification, they distinguish those platforms which do not possess their own fleet – the cars are owned by the users (the providers in this case)–. They classify this p2p model in brief with the fact that they only offer manual access, and therefore providers and consumers must meet up personally to hand in and hand out the keys in a face-to-face interaction. P2p car-sharing with automatic access comprises a new cluster in this taxonomy, due to the fact that with this system vehicles can be rented by the hour since the inconvenience of having to hand over and return keys disappears; the vehicles can be automatically booked (without the provider’s approval); and the platform can charge an extra cost to the providers for supplying them with the automatic access technology. In regard to this thesis, these are the 3 clusters, out of a typology of 7, that most relate to the observed cases in the present research. Nevertheless it is important to mention that I advance possibilities of cross-linking between the clusters discussed, which may result in new typologies.
4.4. The Dutch situation:
Some researchers have focused on the situation of car-sharing in The Netherlands. Nijland and van Meerkerk (2017) explain that in The Netherlands, concretely in Amsterdam, car-sharing first appeared in 1974 with a project called Witkar. This project lasted until 1988. Around 1990 the former Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, started stimulating and enforcing car-sharing programs with the hope that it would contribute to the policy goals of reducing both toxic gas emissions and the use of cars itself. The expectations about the possible reduction in the number of cars thanks to car-sharing were too high at that time. In 1993 they believed car-sharing would reduce 3.5-4 billion car kilometers, with 3.5-40% of the 10 million Dutch drivers participating in car-sharing programs. In 2016 it appeared to be that car-car-sharing is still only a niche market (Nijland and van Meerkerk, 2017). Even so, the city of Amsterdam continues to strive for
car-sharing as a possible solution to certain problems related to neighborhood welfare, air pollution or traffic density.
The Dutch Government, together with 29 Dutch organizations (public sector and private enterprises) has signed the Green Deal on Car Sharing. The goal of the project is to increase car sharing to 100.000 cars by the year 2018.
It is surprising to see the rapid growth of peer-to-peer car-sharing in The Netherlands in the period 2012 to 2016 in this graph from Nijland and van Meerkerk (2017).
Figure 1: Number of shared cars in the Netherlands per type of car sharing organization, between 2008 and 2016 (Retreived from Nijland and van Meerkerk, 2017)
According to Böcker & Meleen (2017), one of the main reasons attributed to the rapid growth of the sharing economy is the fact that it is based on an existing capacity that is under-utilised, which may very well explain why it is precisely p2p car-sharing which has been the fastest-growing sector.
4.4.1. Motivations of users:
Regarding the motivations of users, I will stick to the distinction of Hamari et al. (2015). In their research about users’ motivations for joining in with collaborative consumption, they make an interesting and useful distinction between motivations: Intrinsic motivations, where we find “enjoyment derived from the activity itself” and “value-derived from acting appropriately - conforming to norms (sustainability)”; and extrinsic motivations, in which there are “economic benefits” and “reputation” (Hamari et al. 2015)
These are what they find to be the main drivers for people joining the sharing economy. In their research they conducted a quantitative study with a large sample to define the relationship between these motivations and the actual use of collaborative consumption (CC from here on). They found out, aside from other results, that “Perceived sustainability is an important factor in the formation of positive attitudes towards CC, but economic benefits are a stronger motivator for intentions to participate in CC.” (Hamari et.al. 2015,
p.9). According to Schor, the main motivations for people to join and participate in the sharing economy are the following: “beyond novelty and the pull of new technologies, participants tend to be motivated by economic, environmental, and social factors.” (Schor, 2014, p.5).
Some other authors researched the intentions and motivations that lead people to join car-sharing, even though this remains a quite unexplored area of research. In line with the three factors suggested by Schor (2014), Böcker and Meelen (2017) conducted quantitative research on the importance of economic, social and environmental motivations to participate in p2p sharing and they found out that, in the case of car-sharing, motivation differs between providers and consumers. Even if for both parties the economic factor is the most relevant, it is much more so, in the case of consumers than for providers. They also state that environmental factors are more present and social factors less relevant, in car-sharing, than in other p2p sharing activities. Balck and Cracau (2015) studied three different sectors of the sharing economy in Germany and they found out that economic reasons (low prices) are one of the primary motivators for joining, by far. They also found out that after the consideration of low cost, motives changed depending on the sector of the sharing economy. In the case of car-sharing they found that environmental reasons and easy access to shared cars are strong motivations after low prices. “Saving the environment is relevant to consumers and thus companies can use this aspect to convince new customers to use their service” (p.7).
5. Methods
In this chapter I am going to frame the methodological approach that has been used in this research. First, there is a brief summary of Grounded Theory and the specific trend I am going to use: Straussian Grounded Theory. Then, I am going to explain how its application in this research has been undertaken. Later, Ethnographic Content Analysis is theoretically explained, and later, I will explain how it has been used and articulated in the present research. Finally, the limitations of this research are going to be taken into account, and the chapter finishes with a table of summary of the respondents of this research.5.1. Introduction to Grounded Theory:
“Grounded theory is a general methodology for developing theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered and analyzed. Theory evolves during actual research, and it does this through a continuous interplay between analysis and data collection” (Strauss and Corbin, 1994). Charmaz adds that this kind of methodological approach towards the data aims to capture “the worlds of people” (Charmaz, 1996, p.30) by providing a description of their thoughts, feelings, situations, and actions by listening to their voices and observing their lives. Grounded theory appeared as a solid methodology in social research during the 1960s through the collaboration of the sociologists Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss (as cited in Charmaz, 1996). Another central feature of this analytical approach is “a general method of constant comparative analysis” (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p.vii). The focus of grounded theory is in generating theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1994), based on empirical evidence. Glaser points out that grounded theory’s difference from the rest of the methodological approaches is that it lets new theory emerge from data without theoretical preconceptions. As Timmermans and Tavory (2012) synthesize, the original idea of grounded theory was to analyze and study social reality, without any prior theoretical perspective in mind, and avoiding any form of literature review before entering the field, in order not to force or impose any old categories on the data. This purely inductive approach for constructing new theory was in defiance of the ways in which social science was studied up to then, based much more on functionalist and positivist approaches. Nevertheless, it had its share of critics, and Wacquant, for example, rejects it for being “an epistemological fairytale” (as cited in Timmermans and Tavory, 2012, p.168). The critics insist on the difficulty of creating new theories with a methodology based only on induction. Glaser and Strauss later also noted that some theoretical sensitivity was needed but with an explicit focus on not letting theory kill creativity and avoiding narrow perspectives. Among other
critics surrounding this methodological dilemma, is the contribution of the logical positivism, which states that “observation is necessarily theoretically informed” (as cited in Timmermans and Tavory, 2012, p.170) as a way of deconstructing the quite naïve idea that is possible to observe social reality without any theoretical views on it. had
Strauss later departed from the original idea which he himself, together with Glaser, proposed in 1967, and in cooperation with Corbin, contributed to a new version of the grounded theory. While Glaser remained a defender of the original idea of grounded theory as an eminently inductive methodology, Strauss and Corbin (1990) introduced some new nuances towards the use of theory in empirical research. The new formulation by Strauss and Corbin (1990) ended up being labeled Straussian grounded theory and is, in some regards, opposed to the original Glaserian grounded theory. Heath and Cowley (2004) in a detailed comparison between the two methods, point to the Straussian version as responding to the chimerical idea of bracketing or holding preconceptions when undertaking empirical research, as suggested by the Glaserian grounded theory. Strauss and Corbin (1994) suggest that, besides theory being generated from the data (similar to the Glasserian conception of grounded theory), related theories may be elaborated and modified and meticulously played against data. These authors also suggest that previous research can carry into current studies, if relevant, by matching theory against data rigorously (Strauss and Corbin, 1994). In relation to this new version of the grounded theory methodology, Ashworth (1997) said: “analysis will always be filtered through one’s tradition and cultural position” (as cited in Heath and Cowley, 2004, p.143). In relation to this critique, and in line with the Straussian grounded theory methodology, Cutcliffe (2000) suggests that prior reading may be required if the researcher wishes to clarify concepts and build an emergent theory on these (as cited in Heath and Cowley, 2004, p.143). In this way, applying this Straussian grounded theory approach, some revision of literature and previous theories is encouraged, in order to be able to revise them and build upon that. Following the Straussian grounded theory methodology in my research, the literature review and theoretical clarifications were carried out before undertaking the empirical research. In this way and as an example, clarifications and definitions of the sharing economy made by Frenken and Schor (2017), theory around users’ motivations by Hamari et al. (2015), or Belk’s (2009) definition of sharing were treated as sensitizing concepts: “whereas definite concepts provide prescriptions of what to see, sensitizing concepts merely suggest directions along which to look.” (Blumer, 1954, p.7). In this way they served to provide direction about where to look, while there was an explicit intention in not letting
these concepts interpret reality or force categories on the data. According to what has been mentioned, in the orientation of the present empirical research, the Straussian grounded theory came to be the most appropriate methodology for this research.
Corbin and Strauss (1990), conscious of the many times variants of grounded theory were applied in extremely abstract or inaccurate ways, created very detailed and rigorous guidelines in order to teach new researchers how to construct research based on grounded theory method in a rigorous way.
In their article “Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria” (1990), Corbin and Strauss establish different procedures which any researcher should undertake in order to be able to properly integrate this methodology. I will now briefly summarize the main procedures indicated by these authors. In grounded theory the analysis starts when data collection begins. Unlike other qualitative methods the analysis of the first interview will guide the second one and so on, repeatedly. In this fashion the researcher ensures the process is based on discovery and the theory is actually grounded in reality. “Grounding concepts in the reality of data thus gives this method theory-observation congruence or compatibility” (p.7). Corbin and Strauss describe the grounded theory method outlining the following steps: when analyzing interviews the researcher labels data with codes or concepts which are later clustered into categories or focused codes on a more abstract level. Each new category or new incident that appears in the data must be compared with other similar incidents or situations to avoid bias and for challenging data with newer data. Patterns and variations on the data must be taken into account because in this way we can give order to it and allow more integral understandings. The writing of memos must be present throughout the process: “Memos are not simply about ‘ideas’. They are involved in the formulation and revision of theory during the research process” (p.10). Memos become more complex and integrated as research goes on and provide a solid and detailed base for later reports. They also point to peer-review as an essential way to find new insights and avoid biases.
5.2. How Grounded Theory method has been applied to this thesis:
For this thesis I draw my data from 11 in-depth qualitative interviews with 5 members of MyWheels, 4 members of SnappCar, and 2 members of both platforms1. These two platforms were chosen because they respond to two different profit-oriented business
models. Moreover, they are both fall within peer-to-peer car-sharing, offering almost the same service and both operating out of the city of Amsterdam. That is, both platforms offer temporary access to idle capacities (cars or vans) structured as peer-to-peer sharing (rather than business-to-peer), and both operating in Amsterdam (though they both operate in other regions, only the Amsterdam Metropolitan area will be taken into account). The main difference between the two platforms, and which is the justification for studying both cases and not just one case, is their profit orientation. Remane et al. (2016), who made a taxonomy of business models within car-sharing, organized in 7 clusters, situate SnappCar as “p2p Manual Access” and define it thus: “The sixth cluster consists of companies which do not possess their own fleet. These companies act as intermediaries between customers who rent their vehicles to each other, i.e., p2p car-sharing (…) The renter and the owner must then meet in person to hand over the keys. After the rental the renter must return the vehicle to the same location and hand the keys back” (p.12).
According to this taxonomy MyWheels would better fit in the “Cluster 3: Roundtrip, Cooperative. The third cluster covers cooperative car-sharing operators that exclusively offer roundtrip car-sharing” (Remane et al. 2016, p.11). Nevertheless, even if these authors claim that most of these car-sharing cooperatives charge monthly fees, it is not the case for MyWheels. “Finally, all operators from this cluster are cooperatives, i.e., their purpose is not to make profits but to serve their members” (p.11). Even though this is the cluster where MyWheels fits more accurately in regard to their profit orientation, this definition does not take into account the p2p way of sharing (even if the platform owns some cars, p2p sharing is their main asset), nor the fact that they provide both manual and automatic access for consumers.
With the juxtaposition of the two platforms, which offer a similar service with the same peer-to-peer structure, the differences between their profit orientation will be better observed and their contraposition will be more meaningful. Beyond my object of study, both these platforms offer other (and quite marginal) services: SnappCar offers car leasing, and MyWheels owns some cars, which work as their own fleet (for a business-to-peer sharing system). Nevertheless, I am not going to take into account these extra services, nor discuss them, since it comprises a very modest and limited part of their global activity, and because my focus on this thesis is to study peer-to-peer exchanges.
Participant recruitment went through diverse phases, which lasted from April 14th, when I made the first Facebook post, until May 30th, when the last person I messaged through MyWheels replied (in this case refusing to be interviewed). First, several posts (8) were
