IFITTtalk | Surrey Think Tank: Collaborative Economy

34 Pages·2017·1.53 MB·English

IFITTtalk | Surrey Think Tank:
Collaborative Economy

Friday, 29 September 2017
Business Insights Lab, Rik Medlik Building
University of Surrey

Chairs
Sabine Benoit Iis Tussyadiah
Surrey Business School School of Hospitality & Tourism Management
@sbsatsurrey @SHTMatSurrey
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
University of Surrey

Sponsored by
International Federation for Information Technologies and Travel & Tourism (IFITT)
@IFITTorg
AGENDA

09:15 – 09:45 University of Surrey Welcome Graham Miller, Executive Dean, FASS
IFITT Welcome Brigitte Stangl, Board Member, IFITT

09:45 – 10:30 Session 1: Platform Development and the Future of Sharing Economy
“The Future of Shared Transportation: Katrin Merfeld, Mark-Philipp Wilhelms, and Sven
The Case of Carsharing with Shared Henkel, EBS University, Germany
Autonomous Vehicles – An International
Expert Study”
“Unpacking Consumer Entrepreneurship Laura Piscicelli, Utrecht University, The
in the Sharing Economy” Netherlands; Stefan Haefliger and Fleura Bardhi,
City, University of London, UK

10:30 – 11:15 Panel Discussion: Current and Future Developments of the Collaborative Economy
Panellists:
Giana Eckhardt, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
Annabelle Gawer, University of Surrey, UK
Tobias Schaefers, University of Dortmund, Germany
Moderator:
Sabine Benoit, University of Surrey, UK

11:15 – 11:30 Coffee Break

11:30 – 12:30 Session 2: The “Why” of Collaborative Economy
“Access-based Services for the Base of the Tobias Schaefers, TU Dortmund University,
Pyramid” Germany; Roger Moser, University of St. Gallen,
Switzerland; Gopalakrishnan Narayanamurthy,
Indian Institute of Management, India
“Exploring Attitudes and Motivations Nicole Koenig-Lewis, Cardiff University, UK;
towards Access versus Ownership” Adrian Palmer, Keele University, UK; Carmela
Bosangit, Cardiff University, UK
“Why Customers do not Participate in Thijs Zwienenberg, University of Leuven,
Collaborative Consumption?” Belgium; Simon Hazée, University of Liege,
Belgium; Yves Van Vaerenbergh and Tine Faseur,
University of Leuven, Belgium

12:30 – 13:30 Networking Lunch (Sponsored by IFITT)

13:30 – 15:00 Session 3: The “How” of Collaborative Economy
“Consumer Preference for Nonownership Kristina Wittkowski and Maria Jose Del Rio Olivares,
Services: The Effects of Service-Provider Aalto University, Finland; Jaako Aspara and Reza
Type and Pricing” Movarrei, Hanken School of Economics, Finland
IFITTtalk | Surrey Think Tank: Collaborative Economy Page 2
“How to Frame Benefits of Collaborative Adrian Lehr, Marion Büttgen, and Rüdiger Hahn,
Consumption to Increase Attitude, Usage University of Hohenheim, Germany; Sabine
Intention, and Usage” Benoit, University of Surrey, UK
“Positive Effects of Peer Providers?” Katrine Berg Nødtvedt and Helge Thorbjørnsen,
Norwegian School of Economics, Norway
“Decoding the Narratives of Airbnb Agatha Chen and Iis Tussyadiah, University of
Marketing Content: An Analysis of Surrey, UK
Affective Responses”

15:00 – 15:15 Coffee Break

15:15 – 16:15 Session 4: Trust and Collaborative Economy in Emerging Market
“Trust in the Sharing Economy: A Camille Lacan and Béatrice Parguel, University of
Critical Literature Review” Paris-Dauphine, France
“Trust in Access Based Consumption: Car Isabel Arancibia, Mario Campana, and Adele Gruen,
Sharing in Chile” University of London, UK
“Is VFR the forgotten link of the sharing Julio Munoz, University of Surrey, UK
economy? A comparative analysis of VFR,
Airbnb and Couchsurfing experiences”

16:15 – 17:00 Panel Discussion and Closing: Research Agenda
Panellists:
Dimitrios Buhalis, University of Bournemouth, UK
Giampaolo Viglia, University of Portsmouth, UK
Rebecca Pera, University of Eastern Piedmont, Italy
Carol Zhang, University of Portsmouth, UK
Moderator:
Iis Tussyadiah, University of Surrey, UK

17:00 – 19:00 Evening Reception

IFITTtalk | Surrey Think Tank: Collaborative Economy Page 3
Abstract 1

THE FUTURE OF SHARED TRANSPORTATION: THE CASE OF CARSHARING
WITH SHARED AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES – AN INTERNATIONAL EXPERT
STUDY

Katrin Merfeld
EBS University, Germany
Email: [email protected]

Mark-Philipp Wilhelms
EBS University, Germany
Email: [email protected]

Sven Henkel
EBS University, Germany
Email: [email protected]

Autonomous driving approaches market readiness and is expected to disrupt the automotive industry as it has
the “power to dramatically change the way transportation systems operate” (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2014).
Practitioners and academics agree on the vast benefits of this technology, such as traffic flow improvements
or increased traffic safety (Kyriakidis, Happee, & de Winter, 2015). Critics argue that this technology has
several adverse effects on society, such as job losses of professional drivers, issues with customer adoption
driven amongst others by safety concerns and high acquisition costs (Bansal & Kockelman, 2017; Souders &
Charness, 2016), and an increase in overall individual traffic (Fox, 2016; Smith, 2012).
To overcome respective issues, industry experts and academics reason that in an era of autonomous driving,
consumers will jointly access a shared fleet of vehicles: carsharing with shared autonomous vehicles (Fagnant
& Kockelman, 2015). An access-based service would not only allow to decrease the number of vehicles on
the street, but also enable the public access to the technology while externalizing the burdens of ownership,
thereby easing consumer adoption. Moreover, obstacles in traditional carsharing participation, such as local
availability, parking, and inconvenient hand-over processes could be overcome by an autonomous fleet.
Existing research on autonomous driving has primarily engaged in a detailed investigation implementation
projections, ethical issues or business model developments (Bonnefon, Shariff, & Rahwan, 2016; Fagnant,
Kockelman, & Bansal, 2015; Greenblatt & Shaheen, 2015; Krueger, Rashidi, & Rose, 2016). However, little
knowledge exists about the drivers, barriers, and future implications of this technology for consumers, the
economy, and society. Nevertheless, such insights are valuable for academia, automotive managers and policy
makers to further steer developments, construct regulations, and ease implementation.
To this end, our study is the first to use the Delphi-methodology, a structured empirical approach, to
understand drivers, barriers, and future developments associated with carsharing with autonomous vehicles
(Hsu & Sandford, 2007). This method has been applied in academia in emerging domains requiring an
IFITTtalk | Surrey Think Tank: Collaborative Economy Page 4
exploratory approach, where knowledge is contained within a comparatively small pool of experts (Hasson,
Keeney, & McKenna, 2000).
40 international experts involved in autonomous driving and carsharing from different disciplines including
automotive, banking, infrastructure, academia, and politics took part in our four stage Delphi study over the
course of eight months. The participants identified 30 factors shaping the future of autonomous carsharing.
To address the future establishment of carsharing with shared autonomous vehicles, we will provide the
audience with an overview of access-based consumption literature in the context of carsharing, provide
insights into the employed methodology and discuss the main drivers, barriers, and future developments of
carsharing with autonomous vehicles identified by the participants. Finally, we will deduce recommendations
for academics, managers and policy makers, aiming at the successful introduction of this novel service.

References
Bansal, P., & Kockelman, K. M. (2017). Forecasting Americans’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous
vehicle technologies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 95, 49-63.
Barnes, S. J., & Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A four-
stage Delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 200-211.
Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293),
1573-1576.
Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. M. (2014). The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles,
using agent-based model scenarios. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 40, 1-13.
Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. M. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and
policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167-181.
Fagnant, D. J., Kockelman, K. M., & Bansal, P. (2015). Operations of Shared Autonomous Vehicle Fleet for Austin,
Texas, Market. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board(2536), 98-106.
Fox, S. (2016). Planning for Density in a Driverless World. Available at SSRN 2735148.
Greenblatt, J. B., & Shaheen, S. (2015). Automated Vehicles, On-Demand Mobility, and Environmental Impacts.
Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, 2(3), 74-81.
Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of advanced
nursing, 32(4), 1008-1015.
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi Technique: Making Sense Of Consensus. Practical Assessment, Research
& Evaluation, 12(10), 1-8.
Krueger, R., Rashidi, T. H., & Rose, J. M. (2016). Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research
Part C: Emerging Technologies, 69, 343-355.
Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., & de Winter, J. C. (2015). Public opinion on automated driving: results of an international
questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 32, 127-
140.
Smith, B. W. (2012). Managing autonomous transportation demand. Santa Clara L. Rev., 52(4).
Souders, D., & Charness, N. (2016). Challenges of Older Drivers’ Adoption of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems and
Autonomous Vehicles. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged
Population.

IFITTtalk | Surrey Think Tank: Collaborative Economy Page 5
Abstract 2

UNPACKING CONSUMER ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE SHARING ECONOMY

Laura Piscicelli
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Stefan Haefliger
Cass Business School – City, University of London, UK

Fleura Bardhi
Cass Business School – City, University of London, UK

In recent years, the sharing economy has come to the fore as an emerging pattern of consumption based on
individuals granting each other temporary access to underutilised physical assets (e.g. spare rooms, empty
seats in cars) for monetary or non-monetary benefits (Frenken and Schor, 2017). These peer-to-peer (P2P)
transactions are often facilitated by digital platforms, such as short-term accommodation site Airbnb or long-
distance carpooling service BlaBlaCar.
A novel aspect of these online marketplaces is that their users are more than simple ‘consumers’. When
individuals list a spare room on Airbnb or post a ride on BlaBlaCar, they become the ‘providers’ of the goods
and services offered on the platform. By creating opportunities to commodify (and capitalise on) the excess
capacity of privately owned possessions, sharing economy platforms allow consumers to fulfil new roles and
tasks that were typically conducted by businesses (Darvojeda et al., 2013). As such, scholars and
commentators alike have speculated about the advent of consumers acting as ‘micro-entrepreneurs’ that make
and save money by supplying their existing assets or services to other people (Botsman, 2015; Kane, 2016).
To date, however, little empirical research has explored how ordinary people and amateurs turn themselves
– more or less accidentally – into micro-entrepreneurs by means of different sharing economy platforms.
Moreover, there is a dearth of knowledge on whether and how these entrepreneurial consumers acquire the
necessary competences to successfully operate in a variety of P2P online marketplaces. This study aims to
shed light on the emergence of consumer entrepreneurship by investigating: 1) what drives entrepreneurial
consumers to enter and operate in the sharing economy; 2) how their participation (e.g. practices,
motivations, skill sets and ‘career’ paths) evolve overtime; and 3) how the platform design (e.g. platform-
specific features and business model) influence their entrepreneurial activities.
The study adopts narrative inquiry, a relatively new qualitative methodology, to uncover the real-life
experiences of individuals participating in the sharing economy as told through their own stories (Kim, 2016).
In-depth, semi-structured interviews facilitated by a series of visual props were conducted with a purposive
sample of people serving as providers for various sharing economy platforms. All interviews were recorded,
transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis (Robson, 2011; Miles and Huberman, 1994).
While data collection and analysis are still ongoing, this paper presents preliminary results from Airbnb users.
First, we revisit and expand the concept of consumer entrepreneurship (Huefner and Hunt, 1994) by showing
how Airbnb hosts learn over time how to engage in economic transactions in a quasi-professional way, while
IFITTtalk | Surrey Think Tank: Collaborative Economy Page 6
also becoming increasingly concerned with financial investments and the need to effectively promote their
listings. In particular, we examine the type of participation, level of commitment and ‘career’ paths of
different Airbnb hosts to unpack how consumer entrepreneurship comes about and develops. Second, we
discuss how the trajectories of consumer entrepreneurship identified are variously shaped by the platform
environment, the personal circumstances of each Airbnb host, and the broader sociocultural and regulatory
contexts in which they happen to operate. Finally, we consider to what extent the entrepreneurial activities
of Airbnb hosts redefine their work-life balance and the boundaries between professional and private (or
leisure) spheres.
By uncovering how digital platforms enable non-professional, yet entrepreneurial consumers to become
active market actors, this study contributes to the emerging body of research on unconventional
entrepreneurship (Guercini and Cova, forthcoming). It also provides empirical evidence on the dynamics of
consumption in digitally mediated markets and the growing commercialisation of everyday life, thereby
advancing extant knowledge in the fields of marketing and consumer research. Finally, findings offer new
insights for the strategic management of multi-sided platforms and their underlying business models.

References
Botsman, R., 2015. The Sharing Economy: Dictionary of commonly used terms [online]. Available at:
https://medium.com/@rachelbotsman/the-sharing-economy-dictionary-of-commonly-used-terms-
d1a696691d12#.r03s91k8u [Accessed 1 February 2017].
Darvojeda, K., Verzijl, D., Nagtegaal, F., Lengton, M., Rouwmaat, E., Monfardini, E. and Frideres, L., 2013. The
sharing economy: Accessibility based business models for peer-to-peer markets [online]. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/13413 [Accessed 1 February 2017].
Frenken, K. and Schor, J., 2017. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions.
Guercini, S. and Cova, B., forthcoming. Sources of unconventional entrepreneurship: Passion and consumption. Journal
of Business Research.
Huefner, J. C. and Hunt, H. K., 1994. Broadening the concept of entrepreneurship: Comparing business and consumer
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 61-75.
Kane, G. C., 2016. Crowd-Based Capitalism? Empowering Entrepreneurs in the Sharing Economy. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 57(3).
Kim, J., 2016. Understanding narrative inquiry. The crafting and analysis of stories as research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M., 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Robson, C., 2011. Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings 3rd ed. West Sussex:
John Wiley & Sons.

IFITTtalk | Surrey Think Tank: Collaborative Economy Page 7
Abstract 3
ACCESS-BASED SERVICES FOR THE BASE OF THE PYRAMID

Tobias Schaefers
Assistant Professor, TU Dortmund University, Germany
Email: [email protected]

Roger Moser
Assistant Professor, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Email: [email protected]

Gopalakrishnan Narayanamurthy
Doctoral Student, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, India
Email: [email protected]

One key challenge for consumers at the base of the pyramid (BoP) is affordability of products that could
transform their livelihood, leading to non-consumption as a dominating pattern. Extant literature has claimed
that non-consumption could be addressed with services offering access to goods, as these reduce the so-called
burdens of ownership. As Lovelock and Gummesson (2004, p. 36) explain, “in developing economies,
prospects for improved quality of life may revolve around finding creative ways of sharing access to goods
[…] in ways that bring the price down to affordable levels.” Extant research, however, has exclusively
investigated access-based services in the context of developed economies. Empirical evidence for the
applicability of access-based services at the BoP and their potential for reducing non-consumption, however,
is currently missing.
Addressing this research gap, we investigate the opportunities of providing BoP consumers with access to
goods they could not afford to own in two experimental studies among consumers in rural India.
Furthermore, based on a utility maximization framework, we examine whether perceptual differences
between ownership and access explain BoP consumers’ assumed access preference. Analyzable data were
collected from 266 (Study 1) and 245 (Study 2) respondents based on paper-and-pencil questionnaires used
in personal interviews. The challenge of recruiting respondents was met by cooperating with a local non-
governmental organization (NGO), which has been involved in government projects for survey-based data
collection.
In Study 1, which included one manipulated between-subjects factor (access availability: no vs. yes) and one
measured variable (monthly household income), we examine stated preferences for non-consumption,
ownership, and access for a product category that may improve BoP consumers’ livelihood (i.e., solar-
powered air coolers). The results show that the availability of an access-based service decreases non-
consumption among low-income (i.e., BoP) consumers. Moreover, their preference for access is explained
by their perception of it entailing less financial risk and being more affordable than ownership.
In Study 2, we investigate how access temporality, as a key distinction between access and ownership,
influences choice. The study, which comprised one manipulated between-subjects factor (short-term vs.
long-term access) and household income as measured variable, reveals that among BoP consumers, longer
temporality makes access more similar to ownership, which impedes its potential to reduce non-
IFITTtalk | Surrey Think Tank: Collaborative Economy Page 8
consumption. At higher income levels, however, even BoP consumers favor long-term access due to its
reduced risk of products being unavailable.
Overall, the results suggest that access-based services represent a viable alternative for addressing non-
consumption at the BoP. Service providers should be aware that short-term access enhances acceptance
among BoP consumers but may impede market success at higher income segments.

Reference
Lovelock, Christopher H. and Evert Gummesson (2004), "Wither Services Marketing? In Search of a New Paradigm
and Fresh Perspectives," Journal of Service Research, 7 (1), 20-41.

IFITTtalk | Surrey Think Tank: Collaborative Economy Page 9
Abstract 4

EXPLORING ATTITUDES AND MOTIVATIONS TOWARDS ACCESS-BASED
CONSUMPTION VERSUS OWNERSHIP-CONSUMPTION

Nicole Koenig-Lewis
Cardiff University, UK

Adrian Palmer
Keele University, UK

Carmela Bosangit
Cardiff University, UK

“You are what you share” (Belk 2014:1599).
There has been increasing recognition that resource efficiency, energy and resource security are critical to
sustain future economic competitiveness of countries and businesses (Preston, 2012). One particular area
which has gained recent attention is the notion of sharing economy which emphasises alternative ways to
consumption over buying new goods. Whilst the idea of reusing and sharing goods is not new, internet based
platforms have considerably lowered the transaction costs of sharing and reusing products. Websites such as
eBay and Gumtree facilitate the development of markets for reused products, and platforms such as ‘The
Library of Things’ and ‘We love bricks’ facilitate the sharing of goods and toys. Buying, selling and renting
pre-owned goods is becoming more socially acceptable (Mont & Heiskanen, 2015) and this phenomena will
inevitably affect many industries and companies reshaping the current marketplace. Furthermore, there is
some evidence that a new generation of customers are shifting away from standard models of ownership to
valuing access to goods and skills (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2015). Ownership has become less central to
identities (Kathan, Matzler & Veider, 2016) as well as less attainable and precarious (Cheshire, Walters &
Rosenblatt, 2010). With sharing economy, consumers have access without ownerships and are allowed to
pool resources; withdraw when necessary and reduce waste if there is excess (Lamberton, 2016).
Although there is comprehensive research on sharing in sociology and anthropology, studies addressing
sharing in the context of consumption are scarce (Hellwig, Morhart, Girardin, & Hauser, 2015). There is
relatively little knowledge on how consumers perceive these alternative consumption models (Edbring,
Lehner, & Mont, 2016; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2016). The limited studies are either conceptual
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017; Belk, 2014) or examine attitudes towards specific modes of collaborative
consumption such as car-sharing, toy libraries or phone minute sharing (Albinsson & Yasanthi Perera, 2012;
Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Lamberton & Rose, 2012; Ozanne & Ballantine, 2010). Studies which explored
motivations for participating in sharing economy have reported: self-oriented motivations, materialism
indulgence/hedonic; economic motives, environmental and moral concerns, social community; reducing
risks and responsibilities (Kathan et al 2016; Benoit et al 2017; Parguel et al 2017). However, sharing and
exchange are highly context specific; and most empirical studies conducted are on consumption modes that
are more similar to what Belk (2013) refer to as “pseudo sharing” (Habibi,Kim and Laroche 2016). Empirical
IFITTtalk | Surrey Think Tank: Collaborative Economy Page 10