It is crucial to classify SE initiatives to better understand such a multifaceted phenomenon. However, previous attempts to classify SE initiatives seem not to contemplate the full SE complexity. Therefore, this study proposes a new classification using a broad taxonomic approach. It started by systematically selecting a set of initiatives. Then, an intensive search on secondary data about the initiatives selected was conducted in order to identify relevant attributes. Next, the attributes identified were successively aggregated resulting in four attribute groups. In the end, each initiative was analysed from the perspective of each attribute group, resulting in five SE categories: commodity intermediary, wealth redistributor, unique-service intermediary, skill redistributor, and decentralized commodity intermediary. Findings suggest that generalizations from studies focused on specific initiatives might be problematic, entrepreneurs should consider the characteristics of different SE categories to design appropriate platforms, and policymakers should avoid regulating all SE initiatives in a homogeneous manner.
AllenJ.A., BeckT., ScottC.W., RogelbergS.G., 2014. Understanding workplace meetings: a qualitative taxonomy of meeting purposes. Manag. Res. Rev.37, 791–814. 10.1108/MRR-03-2013-0067
2.
AlrawadiehZaid, AlrawadiehZiad, 2018. Exploring entrepreneurship in the sharing accommodation sector: empirical evidence from a developing country. Tour. Manag. Perspect.28, 179–188. 10.1016/j.tmp.2018.09.001
3.
BaileyK.D., 1994. Typologies and taxonomies: an Introduction to Classification Techniques. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019. Business employment dynamics. Retrieved from www.bls.gov
5.
CarboneV., RouquetA., RoussatC., 2017. The rise of crowd logistics: a new way to co-create logistics value. J. Bus. Logist.38, 238–252. doi: 10.1111/jbl.12164
6.
CarboneV., RouquetA., RoussatC., 2018. A typology of logistics at work in collaborative consumption. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.48, 570–585. 10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2017-0355
7.
ChengM., 2016. Sharing Economy: a review and agenda for future research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.57, 60–70. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.003
8.
CohenB., KietzmannJ., 2014. Ride On! Mobility business models for the Sharing Economy. Organ. Environ.27, 279–296. 10.1177/1086026614546199
9.
CohenB., MuõzP., 2016. Sharing cities and sustainable consumption and production: towards an integrated framework. J. Clean. Prod.134, 87–97. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.133
10.
Crunchbase, 2019. Crunchbase database. Retrieved from www.crunchbase.com
11.
DinizE.H., SiqueiraE.S., van HeckE., 2016. Taxonomy for understanding digital community currencies: digital payment platforms and virtual community feelings, in: globDev2016.
12.
FangB., YeQ., LawR., 2016. Effect of Sharing Economy on tourism industry employment. Ann. Tour. Res.57, 264–267. 10.1016/j.annals.2015.11.018
13.
Fuentes-BracamontesR., 2016. Is unbundling electricity services the way forward for the power sector?Electr. J.29, 16–20. 10.1016/j.tej.2016.10.006
14.
GuttentagD., SmithS., PotwarkaL., HavitzM., 2018. Why tourists choose Airbnb: a motivation-based segmentation study. J. Travel Res.57, 342–359. 10.1177/0047287517696980
15.
HartlB., SabitzerT., HofmannE., PenzE., 2018. “Sustainability is a nice bonus” the role of sustainability in carsharing from a consumer perspective. J. Clean. Prod.202, 88–100. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.138
16.
HawlitschekF., NotheisenB., TeubnerT., 2018a. The limits of trust-free systems: a literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the Sharing Economy. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl.29, 50–63. 10.1016/j.elerap.2018.03.005
17.
HawlitschekF., TeubnerT., GimpelH., 2018b. Consumer motives for peer-to-peer sharing. J. Clean. Prod.204, 144–157. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.326
18.
HwangJ., GriffithsM.A., 2017. Share more, drive less: millennials value perception and behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services. J. Consum. Mark.34, 132–146. 10.1108/JCM-10-2015-1560
19.
KamK., SoF., OhH., MinS., 2018. Motivations and constraints of Airbnb consumers: findings from a mixed-methods approach. Tour. Manag.67, 224–236. 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.01.009
20.
KatzV., 2015. Regulating the sharing economy. Berkeley Technol. Law J.30, 1067–1126. 10.15779/Z38HG45
21.
KumarV., LahiriA., BahadirO., 2018. A strategic framework for a profitable business model in the Sharing Economy. Ind. Mark. Manag.69, 147–160. 10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.021
22.
LaamanenM., WahlenS., LorekS., 2018. A moral householding perspective on the Sharing Economy. J. Clean. Prod.202, 1220–1227. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.224
23.
LimW.M., 2020. Sharing Economy: a marketing perspective. Australas. Mark. J.28.
24.
MairJ., ReischauerG., 2017. Capturing the dynamics of the Sharing Economy: institutional research on the plural forms and practices of Sharing Economy organizations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.125, 11–20. 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.023
25.
MaoZ., LyuJ., 2017. Why travelers use Airbnb again? An integrative approach to understanding travelers’ repurchase intention. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 29, 2464–2482. 10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0439
26.
MilanovaV., MaasP., 2017. Sharing intangibles: uncovering individual motives for engagement in a sharing service setting. J. Bus. Res.75, 159–171. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.002
27.
MorrisonA.M., PaulauskaiteD., PowellR., StefaniakJ.A.C., 2017. Living like a local: authentic tourism experiences and the Sharing Economy. Int. J. Tour. Res.19, 619–628. 10.1002/jtr.2134
28.
MuñozP., CohenB., 2017. Mapping out the Sharing Economy: a configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.125, 21–37. 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.035
29.
PappasN., 2017. The complexity of purchasing intentions in peer-to-peer accommodation. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.29, 2302–2321. 10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0429
30.
ParenteR.C., GeleilateJ.G., RongK., 2018. The Sharing Economy globalization phenomenon: a research agenda. J. Int. Manag.24, 52–64. 10.1016/j.intman.2017.10.001
31.
PazaitisA., FilippiP.D., KostakisV., 2017. Blockchain and value systems in the Sharing Economy: the illustrative case of Backfeed. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.125, 105–115. 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.025
32.
PerrenR., KozinetsR.V., 2018. Lateral exchange markets: how social platforms operate in a networked economy. J. Mark.82, 20–36. 10.1509/jm.14.0250
RaynaT., StriukovaL., 2016. Involving consumers: the role of digital technologies in promoting “prosumption” and user innovation. J. Knowl. Econ.1–20. 10.1007/s13132-016-0390-8
35.
RichardsL., 1999. Using NVivo in Qualitative Research. Sage, London & Los Angeles.
36.
SandsS., FerraroC., CampbellC., KietzmannJ., AndonopoulosV., 2020. Who Shares? Profiling consumers in the Sharing Economy. Australas. Mark. J.28.
37.
TäuscherK., KietzmannJ., 2017. Learning from failures in the Sharing Economy. MIS Q. Exec.16, 253–263.
38.
TäusherK., LaudienS.M., 2018. Understanding platform business models: a mixed methods study of marketplaces. Eur. Manag. J.36, 319–329. 10.1016/j.emj.2017.06.005
39.
TeubnerT., HawlitschekF., DannD., 2017. Price Determinants on Airbnb: how reputation pays off in the sharing economy. J. Self-Governance Manag. Econ.5, 53–80. 10.22381/JSME5420173
40.
TussyadiahI.P., 2016. Factors of satisfaction and intention to use peer-to-peer accommodation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.55, 70–80. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.03.005
41.
TussyadiahI.P., PesonenJ., 2018. Drivers and barriers of peer-to-peer accommodation stay – an exploratory study with American and Finnish travellers. Curr. Issues Tour.21, 703–720. 10.1080/13683500.2016.1141180
42.
Van De VenA.H., 2007. Engaged scholarship: a Guide For Organizational and Social Research. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
43.
WuJ., ZengM., XieK.L., 2017. Chinese travelers’ behavioral intentions toward room-sharing platforms: the influence of motivations, perceived trust, and past experience. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.29, 2688–2707. 10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0481
