Consumers' choice among peer-to-peer sharing platforms: The other side of the coin

Many peer-to-peer sharing platforms are transforming their business model from sharing for free to renting with or without in-person interactions. How will these changes affect consumers’ participation in peer-to-peer sharing of personal items? The work studies consumers’ choice among three business models that vary on two dimensions: “free versus renting” and “with or without in-person interactions.” The novelty is to consider that consumers’ choice can be driven by their perceptions of relationships among peers, which are shaped by the business models of sharing platforms. Perceptions of communal sharing (CS) relationships among peers are found to differ across business models and to predict consumers’ choice among the platforms above and beyond the economic and social benefits that consumers seek. Interestingly, perceptions of CS are not only found to explain the choice of a sharing for the free business model over the two others, but also the choice of renting with in-person interactions over renting without in-person interactions. For managers of peer-to-peer sharing platforms, this means that renting does not make sharing completely similar to traditional market exchanges as long as in-person interactions are involved. For scholars, this calls for more work on the factors that bring about perceptions of CS

When Do Powerful Stakeholders Give Managers the Latitude to Balance All Stakeholders’ Interests?

Research in instrumental stakeholder theory often discusses the benefits of a stakeholder strategy that balances all stakeholders’ interests as if the firm’s managers were not constrained much in choosing a strategy. Yet, through their value appropriation behavior, stakeholders with high bargaining power can significantly constrain managers’ choices. Our objective is, therefore, to understand when powerful stakeholders give managers the latitude to balance all stakeholders’ interests, rather than forcing them to satisfy primarily their own interests. Building on enlightened self-interest and the justice literature, we identify five motivational drivers that help explain powerful stakeholders’ value appropriation behavior. We next explore the endogenous relationship between the stakeholder strategy adopted by the firm and its effect on powerful stakeholders’ value appropriation behavior. This article complements instrumental stakeholder theory by looking at powerful stakeholders’ motivation to exercise their bargaining power, and in so doing brings powerful stakeholders’ moral responsibility in the treatment of weak stakeholders to the forefront

When do powerful stakeholders give managers the latitude to balance all stakeholders’ interests?

textabstractResearch in instrumental stakeholder theory often discusses the benefits of a stakeholder strategy that balances all stakeholders’ interests as if the firm’s managers were not constrained much in choosing a strategy. Yet, through their value appropriation behavior, stakeholders with high bargaining power can significantly constrain managers’ choices. Our objective is, therefore, to understand when powerful stakeholders give managers the latitude to balance all stakeholders’ interests, rather than forcing them to satisfy primarily their own interests. Building on enlightened self-interest and the justice literature, we identify five motivational drivers that help explain powerful stakeholders’ value appropriation behavior. We next explore the endogenous relationship between the stakeholder strategy adopted by the firm and its effect on powerful stakeholders’ value appropriation behavior. This article complements instrumental stakeholder theory by looking at powerful stakeholders’ motivation to exercise their bargaining power, and in so doing brings powerful stakeholders’ moral responsibility in the treatment of weak stakeholders to the forefront

A relational-models view to explain peer-to-peer sharing

textabstractThe growth of peer-to-peer sharing is crucially dependent on continued participation of current platform members and on them behaving prosocially towards other participants who are usually strangers. We propose a relational-models view that revolves around the idea that how members perceive the relationships among participants on a sharing platform significantly affects these behavioural outcomes. We test this idea with a survey where we capture participants’ perceptions of sharing relationships using Fiske’s (1991) relational models ‒ communal sharing, market pricing, and equality matching. We show that communal sharing and equality matching foster prosocial behaviour (which we label sharing citizenship behaviour) and the willingness to continue participating, whereas market pricing does not have the negative effects we expected. Our work advances relational models theory in addition to contributing to the literature on the sharing economy