Collaborative Economy

El objetivo de este capítulo es demostrar que la economía colaborativa (en adelante EC) puede ser una buena herramienta de apoyo mutuo en entornos de vulnerabilidad social, desarraigo y/o situaciones de dificultad. Sin embargo, no parece ser este el enfoque más común cuando se habla de EC. En este sentido y pariendo de una crítica a las definiciones y enfoques comúnmente aceptados de la EC, se intentará establecer un nuevo marco conceptual que sitúe la EC dentro del marco de la economía social, de la economía de los cuidados y las redes de apoyo mutuo, apostando así por un tipo de investigación transformadora y participativa que permita mejorar la sociedad y la situación de los individuos (Mick, Pettigrew, Pechmann y Ozanne, 2011). La economía colaborativa (y los bancos de tiempo, y las redes de trueque) puede ser una muy buena manifestación de esta relación de apoyo y solidaridad en el contexto de los colectivos a los que nos referimos este capítulo. Las redes de apoyo son formas de relación y sistema de transferencia, y su valor se puede considerar desde su papel en el intercambio de relaciones, pero también de servicios y productos, a partir del cual se puede derivar seguridad primaria (satisfacción de las necesidades básicas), amparo y oportunidad para crecer como persona (Méndez y Cruz, 2008). Mediante estos intercambios, las redes de apoyo contribuyen a la calidad de vida de la población, no solo porque proveen apoyos materiales e instrumentales que mejoran las condiciones de vida, sino también por el impacto significativo en el ámbito emocional. Este capítulo se estructura en cuatro partes. En primer lugar, se hace referencia al concepto de vulnerabilidad, con especial atención a las diferentes perspectivas de las ciencias sociales y, más en concreto, a la económica. La existencia de consumidores vulnerables es básica para explicar nuestra principal tesis: que la EC cobra su sentido más profundo cuando se formaliza en situaciones de fragilidad económica que necesitan de la red, la cooperación y la colaboración entre pares para poder sobrevivir y convivir en este entorno. Una segunda parte, analiza el concepto de EC desde una perspectiva crítica, tratando de comprobar si en las definiciones y conceptualizaciones que se han dado por los diferentes autores se contempla esta perspectiva social o, por el contrario, se identifica la EC con segmentos de consumidores pudientes. Una tercera parte, hace referencia a los diferentes tipos de redes de apoyo, con la idea de colocarlas como el escenario natural de la EC, que la dota de sentido último. La cuarta parte trata de unir todas estas reflexiones, a modo de conclusión.

The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that the collaborative economy (henceforth CE) can be a good tool for mutual support in environments of social vulnerability, uprooting and/or situations of difficulty. However, this does not seem to be the most common approach when talking about CE. In this sense, and based on a critique of the commonly accepted definitions and approaches to CE, an attempt will be made to establish a new conceptual framework that situates CE within the framework of the social economy, the care economy and mutual support networks, thus committing to a type of transformative and participatory research that allows for the improvement of society and the situation of individuals (Mick, Pettigrew, Pechmann and Ozanne, 2011). The collaborative economy (and time banks, and barter networks) can be a very good manifestation of this relationship of support and solidarity in the context of the collectives to which we refer in this chapter. Support networks are forms of relationship and transfer system, and their value can be considered from their role in the exchange of relationships, but also of services and products, from which primary security (satisfaction of basic needs), protection and opportunity to grow as a person can be derived (Méndez and Cruz, 2008). Through these exchanges, support networks contribute to the population's quality of life, not only because they provide material and instrumental support that improves living conditions, but also because of their significant impact on the emotional sphere. This chapter is structured in four parts. First, reference is made to the concept of vulnerability, with special attention to the different perspectives of the social sciences and, more specifically, the economic sciences. The existence of vulnerable consumers is basic to explaining our main thesis: that CE takes on its deepest meaning when it is formalized in situations of economic fragility that require networking, cooperation and collaboration among peers in order to survive and live together in this environment. A second part analyzes the concept of CD from a critical perspective, trying to check whether the definitions and conceptualizations given by the different authors consider this social perspective or, on the contrary, identify CD with segments of wealthy consumers. A third part refers to the different types of support networks, with the idea of placing them as the natural setting for CD, which gives it ultimate meaning. The fourth part attempts to bring all these reflections together, by way of conclusion.

Although still embryonic, collaborative consumption and the sharing economy have become social and economic phenomena in just a few short years, yet there is little consensus on how to define them. The current classificatory schema or typologies of platforms have some weaknesses. Sectoral classifications, technological functionality, and discursive modes of understanding sharing and collaborative economies all provide valuable insights, but when taken individually important gaps are evident, not least in their inter-system isolation, but most particularly when technology, such as platform architecture and user interfaces, is disassociated from wider social and economic conditions of possibility. In order to build on previous research we set out to develop a more complex understanding of collaborative consumption by studying platform architecture, interface, design and informational content to examine how technological affordances of digital platforms’ structure social interaction. In order to carry out the research we designed a netnographic protocol that systematised data collection across four dimensions of platforms’ technological structure and informational content: functionality and usability; trust and virtual reputation; codes of conduct and community footprint. Data was collected on fifty-five platforms, including forty-seven across Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain, as well as eight international platforms. Following factor and cluster analysis, and on the basis of the theoretical understandings of the sharing and collaborative economy, we developed a typology that grouped platforms into three groups: network, transaction and community oriented.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how rating mechanisms encourage emotional labor norms among sharing economy consumers. Design/methodology/approach This study follows a mixed-methods research design. Survey data from 207 consumers were used to quantify the impact of three distinct rating dimensions on a consumer behavioral outcome (emotional labor). In the second step, 18 focus groups with 94 participants were used to investigate the conditioning functions of ratings in more depth. Findings Rating mechanisms condition consumers toward performing socially desirable behaviors during sharing transactions. While consumers accept the necessity of bilateral rating mechanisms, they also recognize their coercive nature. Furthermore, the presence of bilateral rating mechanisms leads to negative outcomes such as annoyance and frustration. Originality/value This study contributes to sharing economy literature by examining bilateral rating mechanisms as a means of behavioral cond...

Practices and rhetorics of sharing. Operators of the sharing economic and forms of economic, social and normative innovation

The lack of a shared definition of «sharing» is a recurring subject in the academic literature. In this article sharing economy is investigated as an umbrella term that refers to social innovation experiences in the context of the economic crisis that began in 2007-2008. In this framework there was a convergence between several processes: technological (the development of web 2.0 and the availability of apps that disintermediate the relations between producers and consumers), socio-cultural (the emergence of new forms of collaboration based on trust) and economic (in the form of new markets for investors and professional opportunities for individuals and families distressed because of the crisis); this convergence created the premises for the development of the sharing economy as an industry and as a cultural phenomenon.
This contribution critically investigates the way industry operators are building, through their so- cial practices, an operational definition of sharing economy. The sample consists of 47 providers of goods/services belonging to 32 cases of sharing economy, interviewed with non-directive techniques in the frame of a national research that this special issue is devoted to.
The analysis of empirical material draws on the following research question: through what practices and discursive forms do the sharing economy operators shape the theme of sharing? The results highlight the emphasis of operators on the theme of trust as consumer motivation, while economic reasons are underestimated; their self-presentation as carriers of economic, social and normative in- novation; a fideistic attitude towards sharing as a force of socio-economic change; an ideological view of the sharing economy. Criticism in the sharing economy is raised by small-scale service providers, while large platform operators show an acritic attitude towards the many problematic issues related to the sharing economy (tension between relational and commercial aspects, regulation, injunction to share, quality of the innovation produced by the sharing economy).

Las plataformas de economía colaborativa actúan en general poniendo en contacto a usuarios para que intercambien servicios u otras prestaciones entre ellos. En el caso de Uber, por ejemplo, el usuario que quiere un servicio de transporte es puesto en contacto con un conductor, que le presta luego ese servicio gracias a la intermediación de la plataforma, a cambio de un precio. Este trabajo se plantea cómo opera la responsabilidad civil en ese contexto, pongamos por caso en el su-puesto en el que el conductor puesto a disposición por Uber cause un daño al usuario de la plataforma o a un tercero. En particular, conviene determinar si existe o no la dependencia que es presupuesto de la responsabilidad por hecho ajeno según nuestro Derecho civil. Se comparan a este respecto las soluciones del Derecho español y el extranjero.

This chapter examines definitions of the collaborative economy and maps out the landscape of collaborative economy in tourism. We cast a wide inclusive net, acknowledging that the collaborative economy is found in the intersection of two words: " collaborative " and " economy ". Any attempt to narrow its definition to digitally-mediated, monetised transactions limits the potential understandings that we may develop about this phenomenon. We argue that the collaborative economy involves collaboration through which there is an exchange of resources, assets or services. By corollary, researchers should pay attention to the properties of that exchange, the relational qualities of the actors directly and indirectly involved, and the social, economic, political and environmental factors that influence that exchange.

El libro que hoy tiene en sus manos es fruto de la reflexión, pero sobre todo del trabajo cotidiano de miles de millones de personas que entienden la colaboración, el intercambio y la cooperación como medio para mejorar la calidad de vida de las personas. En este marco, los días 11, 12 y 13 de mayo de 2018, se desarrollaron dos importantes eventos en la ciudad de Valencia: El I Congreso Universitario de Economía Colaborativa y Bancos de Tiempo, organizado conjuntamente por el Servicio Jesuita a Migrantes (SJM) de Valencia y la Universidad Católica de Valencia (UCV) y el IV Encuentro Estatal de Bancos de Tiempo organizado por la Red de Intercambios, el Banco de Tiempo dependiente del SJM Valencia, y promovido por la Asociación para el Desarrollo de los Bancos de Tiempo. Este libro de la Colección Economía y Sociología de la Editorial Tirant lo Blanch recoge Las ponencias presentadas en el Congreso sobre Economía Colaborativa y Bancos de Tiempo.

The book you have in your hands today is the result of reflection, but above all of the daily work of billions of people who understand collaboration, exchange and cooperation as a means of improving people's quality of life. Within this framework, on 11, 12 and 13 May 2018, two important events took place in the city of Valencia: The First University Congress on Collaborative Economics and Time Banks, organized jointly by the Jesuit Migrant Service (SJM) of Valencia and the Catholic University of Valencia (UCV) and the Fourth State Meeting of Time Banks organized by the Exchange Network, the Time Bank dependent on SJM Valencia, and promoted by the Association for the Development of Time Banks. This book from the Economics and Sociology Collection of the Tirant lo Blanch Publishing House includes the papers presented at the Conference on Collaborative Economics and Time Banks.

This book is intended as a small contribution to the debate on the future of the economic and social system.
We believe in an ideal of social and technological progress that is based on the innovative power of companies.
Local companies, rooted in their territory, known, responsible, able to balance social, environmental and economic sustainability.
We reject the distracting pessimism of those who see a grey future subjugated to global and sprawling multinationals, but also of those who uncritically superimpose the concept of “enterprise” on the stereotyped image of seventeenth-century steelworks and consider every entrepreneur as a ruthless and predatory subject.
The reality is very different and is made up of innovative and environmentally friendly business models, and new sustainable companies led by a new social class that perceives itself as a driving force for social change and takes up the traits of craftspeople, artists, professionals and entrepreneurs, hybridizing and adapting them to the times.
These pioneers of a new way of doing business are among us and successfully lead companies and projects based on concepts of community, social inclusion, professional exchange, mutual help, and responsibility towards the community.
How did we come to these conclusions?
By exploring, touching, and traveling to discover innovative projects.
Between 2012 and 2018 we visited over 120 different workspaces, travelling across 20 countries and three continents in search of successful models, inspirations and experiences.
We made traveling the core of our research, adopting an ethnographic approach and using many theoretical tools from visual anthropology and participatory anthropology.
To some places we went only once, to others we went back regularly. At some we stayed half a day, at others for months at a time.
We drew important ideas and reflections from all of them and to all of them we owe a debt of gratitude.
The result of this research is the Multifactory Model, a model of intervention designed to be a guide for all those who want to create, from scratch, a shared workspace based on concepts of collaboration, mutual aid, social innovation, sustainability, and the free flow of knowledge.

This workshop addresses the changing nature of work and the important role of exchange platforms as both intermediaries and managers. It aims to bring together interdisciplinary and critical scholars working on the power dynamics of digitally mediated labor. By doing so, the workshop provides a forum for discussing current and future research opportunities on the digital economy, including the sharing economy, the platform economy, the gig economy, and other adjacent framings. Of particular interest to this workshop is the intersection between worker and provider subjectivities and the roles platforms take in managing work through algorithms and software. Our one-day workshop accommodates up to 20 participants.

L’objectif de cette recherche est d’étudier les pratiques sur les médias sociaux dans une optique d’économie collaborative, selon une approche comparative entre les pays du Nord et ceux du Sud. Nous avons ainsi choisi d’étudier le service de covoiturage au Canada et en Tunisie en ayant recours à l’analyse de contenu de trois groupes Facebook dans chaque pays et en lançant une enquête par questionnaire. Partant de la prémisse que l’existence d'une fracture numérique entre la Tunisie et le Canada empêche l'évolution comparable de l'économie du partage en réseaux d’une manière générale et le service du covoiturage en particulier, il s’est plutôt avéré que les pratiques numériques des citoyens se sont adaptées au contexte d’usage des réseaux et des technologies disponibles. Les Tunisiens ont également profité d’Internet et des médias sociaux dans une optique d’économie collaborative selon le contexte existant. Il convient donc de promouvoir les pratiques numériques et encourager les citoyens à repenser leur mobilité.

Mercato, concorrenza regole, vol. 2/2015 (pp. 245-278)

Abstract: The case for regulating the sharing economy (J.e.l.: K)
Despite the great deal of attention and fierce regulatory battles worldwide, the sharing economy is still an overlooked topic in legal studies. This paper aims first at defin- ing «sharing economy» and providing an economic explanation of the wide variety of economic activities mediated by digital platforms that enable «peers» to share private underused assets and to provide services. Further, it investigates the impact of sharing economy on consumer protection, competition, market failures and innovation. In- deed, the disruptive potential of sharing activities goes well beyond ongoing struggles between incumbents and sharing firms, challenging existing laws and regulations in many ways. To conclude, it examines how these practices fit existing legal rules and analyze potential regulatory responses.

Sommario: Nonostante la crescente attenzione dei media e le tante dispute a livello globale sulle regole applicabili, la sharing economy è un fenomeno ancora trascurato dall’analisi giuridica. Questo saggio intende offrire un primo inquadramento delle pra- tiche economiche di condivisione, in cui piattaforme digitali facilitano lo sfruttamento in comune di beni e l’erogazione di servizi tra «pari», per poi valutare le sfide che i cambiamenti descritti presentano per il regolatore. Le ricadute giuridiche dei nuovi modelli di produzione e scambio vanno ben oltre il conflitto in atto tra esponenti dei comparti tradizionali e nuovi attori economici, sollecitando una ridefinizione dei falli- menti del mercato e una nuova divisione delle responsabilità regolative.

"Collaborative economy" normally refers to those new production and consumption systems of goods and services arisen at the beginning of this century facilitated by the advances in information technology. The possibilities to exchange and share those goods and/or services allow to reduce information asymmetries and transaction costs affecting those activities, while increasing the scale and permitting a deviation from traditional ways.
From a legal perspective, the collaborative economy entails uncertainty, both as regards the possibility of applying to this new reality pre-existing provisions dictated to regulate a different way of acting, as for the opportunity or not to advance in a new and specific regulation of the emerged reality. Italy, for example, has already taken a first step on the road to regulation with its "Disciplina delle piattaforme digitali per la condivisione di beni servizi e disponizioni per la promozione dell'cononomia della condivisione" (presented on 27 January 2016). European Institutions have so far limited themselves to highlighting the impact of this new form of action in certain sectors of the market and to underlining the problems arising from the new model (see Communication from the Commission entitled “Uupgrading the single market: more opportunities for people and business”, -COM(2015) 550 final, 28.10.2015). However, the Communication “A European agenda for the collaborative economy”, presented on 2nd June this year, provides guidance on how to apply existing European Union legislation to this fast-moving dynamic sector and clarifies key issues which are faced by market operators and public authorities alike (COM(2016) 356 final, 2.6.2016).
On the other hand, many studies point out that this "collaborative economy" is far from being collaborative, even talking about a "platform capitalism", given that those platforms don't share neither property nor benefits with their users, who are, in fact, the ones generating value within the platforms. Thus, a new movement rises up trying to go back to the roots of the concept of "collaborative" and enable platforms where property, benefits and responsibility are really distributed or shared. This is the case of "platform cooperativism", i.e., those platforms owned by the users who are contributing with their own resources, either their work or their goods, or just as consumers of goods or services, even sharing their benefits between the co-owners producers-consumers. The application of the cooperatives fundamentals to collaborative platforms is, in essence, a new way of "sharing economy".

The book titled The Collaborative Economy in Action: European Perspectives is one of the important outcomes of the COST Action CA16121, From Sharing to Caring: Examining the Socio-Technical Aspects of the Collaborative Economy (short name: Sharing and Caring; sharingandcaring.eu) that was active between March 2017 and September 2021. The Action was funded by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology - COST (www.cost.eu/actions/CA16121). The main objective of the COST Action Sharing and Caring is the development of a European network of researchers and practitioners interested in investigating the collaborative economy models, platforms, and their socio-technological implications. The network involves scholars, practitioners, communities, and policymakers. The COST Action Sharing and Caring helped to connect research initiatives across Europe and enabled scientists to develop their ideas by collaborating with peers. This collaboration opportunity represented a boost for the participants' research, careers, and innovation potential. The main aim of this book is to provide a comprehensive overview of the collaborative economy (CE) in European countries with a variety of its aspects for a deeper understanding of the phenomenon as a whole. For this reason, in July 2017, an open call for country reports was distributed among the members of the COST Action Sharing and Caring. Representatives of the member countries were invited to produce short country reports covering: definition(s) of the CE; types and models of the CE; key stakeholders involved; as well as legislation and technological tools relevant for the CE. Submitted reports varied in length and regarding the level of detail included, in accordance with how much information was available in each respective country at the time of writing. Editors of the book have compiled these early reports into a summary report, which was intended as a first step in mapping the state of the CE in Europe. The Member Countries Report on the Collaborative Economy, edited by Gaia Mosconi, Agnieszka Lukasiewicz, and Gabriela Avram (2018) that was published on the Sharing and Caring website, represented its first synergetic outcome and provided an overview of the CE phenomenon as interpreted and manifested in each of the countries part of the network. Additionally, Sergio Nassare-Aznar, Kosjenka Dumančić, and Giulia Priora compiled a Preliminary Legal Analysis of Country Reports on Cases of Collaborative Economy (2018). In 2018, after undertaking an analysis of the previous reports' strengths and weaknesses, the book editors issued a call for an updated version of these country reports. Prof. Ann Light advised the editorial team, proposing a new format for country reports and 4000 words limit. The template included: Introduction, Definition, Key Questions, Examples, Illustration, Context, Developments, Issues, Other Major Players, and Relevant Literature. The new template was approved by the Management Committee in October 2018. The task force that had supported the production of the first series of country reports (Dimitar Trajanov, Maria del Mar Alonso, Bálint Balázs, Kosjenka Dumančić, and Gabriela Avram) acted as mentors for the team of authors in each country. The final reports arrived at the end of 2018, bringing the total number of submissions to 30 (twenty-nine European countries plus Georgia). A call for book editors was issued, and a new editorial team was formed by volunteers from the participants of the COST Action: Andrzej Klimczuk, Vida Česnuityte, Cristina Miguel, Santa Mijalche, Gabriela Avram, Bori Simonovits, Bálint Balázs, Kostas Stefanidis, and Rafael Laurenti. The editorial team organized the double-blind reviews of reports and communicated to the authors the requirements for improving their texts. After reviews, the authors submitted updated versions of their country reports providing up-to-date interdisciplinary analysis on the state of the CE in 2019, when the reports were collected. During the final phase, the chapters were again reviewed by the lead editors together with all editorial team members. At the time, the intention was to update these reports again just before the end of the COST Action Sharing and Caring in 2021 and to produce a third edition. However, the COVID-19 pandemic changed these plans. Thus, this final volume was created by 82 scholars-editors and contributors-and consists of reports on 27 countries participating in the COST Action.

Peer to peer (P2P) accommodation platforms like Airbnb or HomeAway have transformed not only the hospitality industry but they have also created wider economic change in other adjacent industries and in society in general. Because of this, many stakeholders are now trying to proactively shape the evolution of these platforms, as reflected by numerous actions by policymakers, industry representatives, media outlets and the public across the world. This paper reports on the authors’ experience conducting a comparative study over a period of one year and a half researching issues surrounding the sharing economy, by using Airbnb as a case study. The city-based case study (London and Barcelona) examines the experiences and views of relevant stakeholders in the Airbnb sphere: hosts, guests, Airbnb public policy managers, rental apartment companies, council representatives and other local authorities. The barriers and opportunities for ethical practice were also identified and reported acc...

„Coworking as alternative business model and innovation catalyst” is a research addressing the relation between coworking and innovation. Starting with basic definitions of innovation, innovativeness and its selected factors it introduces the reader with the formal background. Second chapter is dedicated to coworking itself – research for its background, principles, objectives and business models based on the input from worldwide coworking community. Three coworking spaces based in Kraków and Ljubljana were examined and compared in third chapter in order to verify hypotheses of the paper. Coworking business models are far beyond sharing desks and space. Research proves that coworking spaces support innovativeness mostly indirectly, through innovative culture and strong emphasis on collaboration and sharing. Following paper is an introduction to coworking in Central & Eastern Europe and Poland in particular.

Written in Polish. Interview with Marko Orel of Poligon was handled in English. Transcript available.

The political conflicts and struggles around urban platforms shape how they are understood and what their implications are. The argument is that more analysis of these struggles is needed, and the chapter takes this task forward, comparing across several platforms in order to identify common patterns and to note the effect of treating platforms as a very broad sector, captured in formulations such as ‘sharing economy’ and ‘collaborative economy’. In the face of criticism, social movement mobilisation and attempts by states to regulate platform businesses, some common legitimation tactics are employed by the businesses. The chapter introduces two of these: platforms’ discursive claims to be vectors of progress which frame states and regulation as backward; and platform sponsored grassroots lobbying, where civil society pressures are created or co-opted to influence public opinion and regulation. I identify three broad approaches to platform sponsored based grassroots lobbying: the direct mobilisation of platform users, the creation of front groups, and partnerships with existing grassroots groups.

The sharing economy continues to evolve in the tourism sector as a convenient - and even personalised - choice in the search for more authentic experiences by tourists with a wide range of disposable incomes (Paulauskaite et al., 2017). This breakthrough innovation has changed the tourism ecosystem as well as tourism destinations at all levels. New players have arrived, redefining relationships among stakeholders and creating new impacts in tourism cities or exacerbating existing ones, including the contested phenomenon of overtourism (see, for instance Koens et al., 2018; or Szromek et al., 2019, among others). Examples of these newcomers can be found in online platforms that range from accommodation (e.g. Airbnb, HomeAway, CouchSurfing) to transport (e.g. Uber, BlaBlaCar), and also include customer reviews (e.g. TripAdvisor), general information (e.g. Wikipedia, Wikitravel), travel guiding (e.g. Tours by Locals) and food & beverage (e.g. EatWith), among others. In fact, the advent of the sharing economy has had a profound impact on the hospitality and tourism ecosystem over the last decade, affecting almost every single one of its components (Almeida-Santana and Moreno-Gil, 2017). The rapid development of the sharing economy and particularly some of its more negative impacts have led to a number of global tourism destinations taking measures to regulate it and, in some cases, limit it considerably. These have included Barcelona (Spain), where local government stopped issuing new licenses for short-term rental accommodation nearly three years ago (Burgen, 2017). Since then, key tourism destinations globally have sought to limit the expansion of Airbnb and other short-term accommodation service platforms (Guttentag, 2018). In Europe global tourism cities such as Krakow, Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris and Vienna, among others, have also sought help from the European Union to tighten up existing regulatory frameworks in this respect (Henley, 2019). However, this reaction by tourism cities is not limited to the accommodation sector. London, for instance, revoked Uber’s license to operate as a private transport provider in November 2019 as a result of irregularities found in its service provision – a decision that is currently subject to appeal by Uber (Topham, 2019). One of the issues this situation inevitably raises is the extent to which the initial ethical principles of the sharing economy have evolved over time and what role can operators such as Fairbnb play in today’s sharing economy spectrum of services and operators (Petruzzi et al., 2019).

This book<em> </em>is one of the important outcomes of the <em>COST Action CA16121, From Sharing to Caring: Examining the Socio-Technical Aspects of the Collaborative Economy </em>(short name: <em>Sharing and Caring</em>; sharingandcaring.eu) that was active between March 2017 and September 2021. The Action was funded by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology – COST (cost.eu). The main aim of this book is to provide a comprehensive overview of the collaborative economy (CE) in European countries with a variety of its aspects for a deeper understanding of the phenomenon as a whole. The book includes 27 country reports providing up-to-date interdisciplinary analysis on the state of the CE in 2019, when the reports were collected. Each country report went through a thorough peer review process. <strong>Lead Editors: Andrzej Klimczuk, Vida Česnuitytė, and Gabriela Avram </strong> <strong>Associate Editors: Cristina Miguel...

This chapter aims at reconstructing the debate around collaborative economy and environmental sustainability. Even though this model - based on sharing goods and services - was initially greeted from different perspectives as a sustainable alternative to the capitalistic economy, in the last years several scholars have put in question this optimistic interpretation. In parallel with authors that support that collaborative economy is a more sustainable model able to reduce consumption, other scholars argue that it has become a driver of hyperconsumption. The following dissertation tries, in a first part, to present the current debate around the environmental sustainability of collaborative economy, a debate still open. In this part, we also discuss the purpose of some scholars to address collaborative model with a real ecological approach (such as through a legal framework or a pivotal role of social movements linked with the issue of the sustainable consumption) in opposition to the companies that use the sustainability arguments as a brand to attract more people, making a greenwashing operation. In the second part, we show the analysis of the tools proposed in academic literature in order to measure, in a more systematic way, the environmental impact of collaborative business models.

Esta pesquisa revela como as organizações definem, propõem e capturam valor na economia colaborativa, um movimento multidimensional que favorece acesso sobre posse, redefine ecossistemas de negócios e relações pessoais. Um modelo, baseado na Lógica Dominante de Serviço, articula abordagens gerenciais e operacionais centradas no ator para analisar processos de cocriação de valor ilustrados no ambiente da Airbnb com suporte de entrevistas qualitativas e observação participante. A empresa, líder na economia colaborativa, conecta globalmente viajantes a anfitriões através de uma plataforma baseada na internet. O modelo ilustra com sucesso como a Airbnb cria propostas de valor relevantes e efetivas, mediando relações, engajando e permitindo que atores projetem suas soluções de serviço ideais, minimizando objeções e maximizando bem-estar. Atores transformam-se em empreendedores com colaboração incorporada à cultura do ecossistema, beneficiando organizações e seus ecossistemas colaborativos, que crescem a partir do efeito contínuo e contagioso resultante de experiências de serviço positivas.

This thesis aims to connect traditional and collaborative businesses, exploring why and how traditional organizations could adopt collaborative economy´s strategies and tools to be in sync with the complex and ever-changing economic and social scenario. It also relates collaborative players to a Service-Dominant Logic (SD Logic) mindset, which suggests a new management model, oriented to services (GUMMESSON, 2010; LAMBERTI, 2013; VARGO and LUSCH, 2004) where value is always cocreated. SD Logic´s premises and its multilevel ecosystem vision are embedded in collaborative players´ culture (LAVAQUIAL, 2015). The research narrows down the scope to take a closer look at the Healthcare sector, for its global and local relevance, traditional profile and readiness for disruption. It also sheds some light on the fundamental role of collaboration, technology and leadership as change enablers, in an industry that needs to reframe its value creation cycle from being disease-centered to embracing a health-centered perspective. It contributes to reveal some important challenges of the Healthcare industry seen through collaborative lenses, suggesting a new set of competences, strategies and tools to equip its actors to effectively and efficiently integrate resources. They will be needed to build collaborative advantages, especially as macro, meso and micro levels of the ecosystem evolve in a very different pace when innovative insurgents threaten the status quo. It also shows how collaborative strategies and tools can help align purposes, fostering an environment that enable collaboration and value cocreation, capturing and sharing, reflecting on the uncertainties regarding who will lead this process and its implications. The title provokes that if the Collaborative Economy is here to transform the “traditional” economy´s champions from leaders into laggards, than the icons of the past didn´t see it coming…

This chapter analyses the right to data portability and its peculiarities in the platform economy, where this right is fundamental for competition law, users’ protection and privacy, because of the presence of strong direct and indirect network effects and consequent high switching costs. In particular, it analyses the right to data portability as settled out in the GDPR, together with the interpretation given by the Article 29 Working Group, and the other “porting rights” in the Digital Single Market strategy and in the European Commission Proposals “for a Regulation on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the European Union”, “for a Regulation on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services” and in the proposed “Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content”.
It underlines six critical issues related to the right to data portability: 1) a privacy issue, due to the huge sharing of data of other individuals; 2) the need to establish also the portability of non-personal data; 3) the need to establish the portability also for professional users that are not natural person; 4) the need to protect the rights of the controller and his investment when the data are not merely collected but also reworked; 5) the risk of decreased competition with a strong and non-scalable regulation; 6) the necessity to pay attention at the technical solutions available in order to assure practicable application methods, in particular considering the needs of smaller operators.

The “sharing economy”, a term often used interchangeably with the “collaborative economy” and “collaborative consumption”, is a recurrent topic both in public and academic debate on new Web-based services characterized by forms of peer-to-peer or business-to-peer sharing. This paper investigates it theoretically as an “anti-concept”, that is, an unnecessary and rationally unusable label forged to replace a concept endowed with greater legitimacy. A critique of the sharing economy as a common-sense construct is carried out in order to suggest its rejection as an analytical and interpretative category and to question any unconditioned cultural legitimacy of the sharing economy under its promoters’ economic interests. Four main critical issues are discussed: (a) the contradiction between the relational and the commercial dimension; (b) regulatory challenges related to the dimensions of labour, trust, risk and agency; (c) the injunction to share; and (d) the consequences of the sharing economy in terms of social change. The notion of neoliberal entanglement economy is proposed to replace that of sharing economy.

Contents

1. Introduction
2. “I think we’re in the midst of a revolution”
3. Genesis of a successful subject
4. Discussion: Critical issues
5. Breaking with common sense
6. Conclusion

G. NOTO LA DIEGA, Uber law and awareness by design. An empirical study on online platforms and dehumanised negotiations, in "Revue européenne de droit de la consummation", 2016, II, 383-413.

This article sheds light on the main consumer law aspects of the sharing economy through an empirical analysis of online platforms. Given the recent European consultation with the purpose of understanding (whether, or, more likely) how to regulate platforms, it is critical that consumer law considerations will be part of future regulations. For instance, it is hardly acceptable that the consumer acts in the belief that the contractual party (thus the potentially liable party) is the platform, but in reality the former disclaims any responsibility and claims to be a mere intermediary , which only seldom actually is. After a critical analysis of the Italian legislative proposal on platforms and collaborative economy, the articles moves on to illustrate the use case of Uber, the $60 billion ride-hailing platform, which is acting at the margin of existing laws, thus giving rise to protests and debate around the world. After an assessment of the Italian ruling preventing Uber to provide the UberPop service in Italy, the use case is the perfect tool to show the main reasons for concern of consumers is the lack of awareness of their rights and obligations. This articles deals with two factors of the said lack: the contractual quagmire and the corporate labyrinth. In the conclusions, it is presented an ambitious, albeit feasible, practical proposal. It is suggested the development of a mobile app that helps the consumers to assess the legal quality of the contracts they are entering in order to access the services offered through the platform. At the same time, this app, called 'Awareness by Design', should contribute to raise awareness in consumers, thus creating critical mass and making platforms understand that trust, transparency, and accountability are competitive advantages.

Cet article met en lumière les principaux aspects de droit de la consommation de l'écono-mie de partage à travers une analyse empirique des plates-formes en ligne. Compte tenu de la consultation européenne récente dans le but de comprendre (si, ou, plus probablement) la façon de réglementer les plates-formes, il est essentiel que les considérations de droit de la consommation fassent partie des futurs règlements. Par exemple, il est difficilement acceptable que le consommateur agisse dans la conviction que le cocontractant (donc la partie potentiel-lement responsable) est la plate-forme, alors qu'en réalité, celle-ci décline toute responsabilité et prétend être un simple intermédiaire. Après une analyse critique de la proposition législative italienne sur les plates-formes et de l'économie collaborative, les articles illustrent le cas d'uti-lisation de Uber, la plate-forme de covoiturage à 60 milliards de dollars, qui agit à la marge des lois en vigueur, ce qui donne lieu à des protestations et des débats autour du monde. Après une évaluation de la décision italienne empêchant Uber de fournir le service de UberPop en Ita-lie, l'examen de ce régime est l'outil idéal pour exposer que le principal motif de préoccupation des consommateurs concerne la connaissance de leurs droits et obligations. Cet article traite de deux facteurs qui sont à la base de cette difficulté : la multitude des contrats et le labyrinthe des entreprises. Dans les conclusions, il sera présenté une proposition pratique ambitieuse, mais réalisable. Il sera suggéré de développer une application mobile qui aide les consommateurs évaluer la qualité juridique des contrats qu'ils souscrivent dans le but d'accéder aux services offerts par la plate-forme. Dans le même temps, cette application, appelée « conscience by Design », devrait contribuer à sensibiliser les consommateurs, créant ainsi une masse critique et à faire comprendre aux plates-formes que la confiance, la transparence et la responsabilité sont des avantages concurrentiels.

Here is the summary of the issue http://editionslarcier.larciergroup.com/titres/134650_2_0/revue-europeenne-de-droit-de-la-consommation-european-journal-of-consumer-law-r-e-d-c-2015-2.html

This chapter reflects on the relationship between coworking spaces as a type of creative hub, and the practices of networking that are often described as typical of the creative economy. Elaborating on ethnographic research conducted by the authors in the UK and Italy, we argue that coworking spaces can be seen as heterotopic spaces (Foucault, 1986) in which a certain vision of the world is produced and reproduced. This vision acts as a symbolic dimension that expands the practices of 'network sociality' (Wittel, 2001) by adding to them an imaginary communitarian element. This is characterised by the enactment of a specific disposition that we call 'collaborative individualism'. With this term we want to capture the ambivalence of coworkers' sociality and point at the compresence of an entrepreneurialised and individualised conduct with an ethics of sharing and collaborating.

El imparable avance del trabajo en plataformas está poniendo en el centro del debate laboral diversos temas relacionados con esta nueva realidad económica. La Comisión Europea publicó un importante documento en el que hablaba de la existencia de una " Agenda Europea para la Economía Colaborativa " ; y aunque desde algunos sectores se defienda la autorregulación del sector, hoy se acepta que existe una necesidad clara de adaptar el Derecho de la economía para ofrecer una respuesta adecuada a esta nueva realidad. Hay una " agenda reguladora " para la economía colaborativa; y dentro de ésta, una " agenda laboral " , porque es en las prestaciones de servicios que se realizan con estos soportes donde se identifican algunas de las mayores carencias, fruto de la obsolescencia del Derecho del Trabajo tradicional. Desde varias instancias se han realizado contribuciones, identificando las materias prioritarias para esta nueva regulación. A juicio del autor, esta identificación debe guiarse por dos parámetros: la existencia de problemas reales en la situación actual; y el cumplimiento de las finalidades tradicionales del Derecho del Trabajo. Siguiendo estos criterios se señalan este trabajo los siguientes riesgos de los trabajadores digitales que deben ser confrontados: los peligros de informalidad; la delimitación del empleo asalariado y del autónomo; la calidad del empleo; la protección social; y la situación de los trabajadores en el mercado de trabajo digital. ABSTRACT The unstoppable progress of the work on platforms is putting at the center of the labor debate various issues related to this new economic reality. The European Commission published an important document in which the existence of a "European Agenda for the Collaborative Economy" was declared; notwithstanding the fact that some sectors defend self-regulation of the sector, it is now accepted that there is a clear need to adapt the law of the economy to provide an adequate response to this phenomenon. There is a "regulatory agenda" for the collaborative economy; within it there is a "labour agenda", because it is in the services provided through these digital channels that major shortcomings are found, resulting from the obsolescence of traditional labor law. Several actors have contributed to this debate, identifying these priority areas for the new regulation. According to the author, two guidelines should guide this task: the existence of real problems in the current situation; and the fulfillment of the traditional purposes of Labor Law. Following these criteria, the following risks of the digital workers are pointed out: the problem of informal economy; the delimitation of dependent employment and self-employment; quality of employment; social protection; and the situation of workers in the digital labor market.

Las ideas básicas de esta comunicación pueden resumirse como sigue: en primer lugar, Airbnb da cobertura a una serie de operaciones económicas de las cuales una parte pueden considerarse una economía colaborativa genuina (el arrendamiento una habitación que forme parte de la vivienda habitual del arrendador) y otra parte, no (el arrendamiento de habitaciones fuera de la vivienda habitual, o de viviendas completas). Desde la perspectiva del arrendador, los problemas tributarios en uno y otro caso son diferentes. En el primero, orbitan en torno al mantenimiento de la condición de vivienda habitual y la solución parece ir en la línea de considerar que a efectos fiscales es “vivienda habitual” sólo una parte de la unidad habitacional correspondiente. En el segundo, los problemas son fundamentalmente extrafiscales: nos referimos a los efectos perniciosos del arrendamiento de viviendas particulares para fines turísticos. Tales efectos pueden paliarse reduciendo el margen de beneficio que implica el arrendamiento vacacional, algo que puede hacerse a partir de dos cuestiones. La primera es supresión de la exención de IVA existente; la segunda, garantizar que las operaciones se declaran de manera correcta. Para que pueda emplearse el sistema tributario con la finalidad extrafiscal que se propone, es necesario garantizar su correcta aplicación. A tales efectos, entendemos que puede aprobarse normativa específica que configure a la plataforma –en este y otros casos análogos– como alguna de las figuras de obligado tributario que la LGT prevé para facilitar la gestión de los tributos (de entre las que hemos analizado, la fundamental, por su alcance, sería la de retenedora en el ámbito del IRPF) y establecer obligaciones de información por suministro que permitan a la Administración realizar adecuadamente su tarea de control tributario.

This chapter charts diverse approaches to conceptualizing the cultures of connection characterizing the collaborative economy. To decode the "we-conomy" , we revisit classic notions of coexistence, collaboration and bonding in communities. Informed by a multidisciplinary review (touching upon human ecology, sociology, anthropology and cultural theory), the chapter identifies distinct theoretical frameworks to describe the constitution of communities and discusses their relevance to the collaborative economy. These frameworks explain the drivers of communitarian behavior and resource circulation, and together open up for multidimensional interpretations of social exchange in the collaborative economy. The chapter concludes with a critical reflection on the challenges of understanding the collaborative economy in tourism, particularly when discourses are dominated by a communitarian logic that overshadows the presence of other capitalist logics.

The paper offer a first reflection about the governance models applied in two cities that are trying to support the sharing economy in reply to  common urban problems like urbanization, pollution, social inequality,
isolation. Thanks to the massive diffusion of the information and communication technologies people are always connected and interact in a peer-to-peer way. The Internet of Things and billions of sensors that
connect people, objects and data, allow using what they need for the time that they need, reducing the waste of resources. In this context have emerged new, resilient and adaptive answers almost inconceivable
few years ago: practices more open, transparent and participatory based on sharing and collaboration; new service models that enable people to exchange and share goods, space and skills, promoting lifestyles based
on saving, redistribution of money and socialization. The practices are many and varied: from share workplaces (co-working), sharing mobility (car and bike sharing, carpooling), shared hospitality (couchsurfing, housing swap…) to co-housing and welfare services (like Social Street), from co-designing, co-production (makerspaces, FabLab), shared urban gardens, to the finance sector (peer-to-peer lending, alternative currencies, collaborative insurance, crowdfunding ...), and the education (collaborative learning, open courses...). Practices are so many that is difficult find a common, univocal definition (Botsman, 2013), in addition many limitations and distortions of the original concept of sharing generated doubts about the nature, the perspectives and the impacts of the sharing economy itself. Citizens wonder about the concrete
usefulness of these practices, big companies are uncertain about the real hidden opportunities and governments seem perplexed among regulation, promotion and prohibition.
The level of the Public Administration is the focus of the paper,  considering that PA represents a key player of the system, able to regulate, guide and transform into reality the ideas of collaborative initiatives and to define innovative strategies for the local development. PA can be an enabling actor, a platform, to promote the potential of the collaborative services, spread awareness among citizens and regulate without suffocate the phenomenon. Luckily, PA are more and more  interesting in the topic (as demonstrated during the last FORUM PA and in general in the current debate): reflections, experimentations, new tools created ad hoc for public authorities are spreading.
This paper provides a glimpse of what are doing two cities, different and distant, but both interested in supporting services and platforms of sharing for the benefit of their citizens: Milan and Seoul. These cities
adopted two different approaches, almost opposed: in Milan the reflection has emerged spontaneously from the bottom and has found in the public administration an attentive listener and then a clear supporter;
in Seoul the initial push came from the Mayor, Park Won-Soon, who has launched a wave of innovation that is generating a real ecosystem of sharing.
The research was conducted adopting the approach of participant observation (especially for the Italian case), monitoring the development of the public discussion and taking part in panels, round table, public
meetings, local initiatives, as well as deepening the institutional, popular and scientific materials. In addition, the key players of ‘Milan Sharing City’ and ‘Sharing City Seoul’ has been interviewed in order to
retrace the origin of the process, its general framework, current outcomes and future possibilities. The goal is understand the features of the governance models adopted and in what extent we can talk of Collaborative Governance in Iaione words (LUISS “Guido Carli” – LabGov).

The sharing economy is an emerging niche for innovation capable of disrupting established socio-technical and economic regimes. Because of this potential to cause radical changes in a wide array of domains, research in multiple disciplines addressing various aspects entailing this phenomenon is proliferating. In this emerging body of literature, the understanding and framing of the sharing economy are often different. Without knowledge about the current state of the research related to the sharing economy, delineating research trends, gaps, and needs for directing effectively primary research are not possible. This study aimed to synthesize the state and distribution of existing publications related to the sharing economy in multiple disciplines. We used the systematic mapping technique to scope, identify, and classify the publications at a fine level of granularity. We reviewed 589 journal articles (published from 1978 to 2017), and 454 met the selection criteria. The journal articles reviewed were published in 284 different journals. Intriguingly, 15 journals published five to 13 publications each and 221 journals had a single article about the topic. Journals belonging to the subject areas “business, management and accounting” (42.1%) and “social sciences” (35.2%) published more than 70% of the reviewed publications. Accommodation (19.8%) and car and ridesharing (17.2%) were the two most prominent sectors; 50.2% of the publications addressed C2C transactions (10.6% B2C, 24.4% more than one type); 62.3% were about accessing resources, and 5.1% concerned transfer of ownership (i.e., second-hand or donation); and 19.2% covered access and transfer of ownership simultaneously. While empirical studies were the majority (53.1%, when comparing with conceptual ones), qualitative approaches were most common (51.5% against 24.9% quantitative and 17.4% mixed methods). Literature review (22.9%), survey (13.2%), case study (7.3%) and interview (7%) were the most frequently used methods. User behavior (26.4%), business models and organizational aspects (22.7%), institution and governance system (18.7%), conceptualization matters (17%), and sustainability evaluation (15.3%) are research clusters identified from a grounded approach. The link between user behavior and net environmental impacts of sharing options was the largest gap found in the research needing attention from a sustainability perspective. Accordingly, multidisciplinary investigations quantifying behavioral root causes, magnitude, and likelihood of environmental rebound effects using real-world data are strongly encouraged.

Over the past few years the sharing economy has grown tremendously, driven in part by traveler desires for authentic and unique experiences. In response to these modern changes, peer-to-peer (P2P) marketplaces (e.g. Airbnb) are seeking additional revenue streams, expanding beyond room rentals into guided tours, recreational, and cultural experiences. Rather than act solely as sharing economy lodging establishments, in the near future providers will increasingly supply authentic and immersive vacation experiences, acting as a host, guide, concierge and travelling companion to their guests. This paper explores the ability of P2P providers to command premium pricing for authentic and immersive P2P offerings. The paper details this possibility, listing drivers of change before positing a scenario that helps envision a future in which P2P providers seize this opportunity. Finally, the paper closes with limitations, practical implications and future research recommendations.

Conditions in the sharing economy are often favourably designed for consumers and platforms but entail new challenges for the labour side, such as substandard social-security and rigid forms of algorithmic management. Since comparatively little is known about how providers in the sharing economy make their voices heard collectively, we investigate their opinions and behaviours regarding collective action and perceived solidarities. Using cluster analysis on representative data from across twelve European countries, we determine five distinct types of labour-activists, ranging from those opposed to any forms of collective action to those enthusiastic to organise and correct perceived wrongs. We conclude by conjecturing that the still-ongoing influx of new providers, the difficulty of organising in purely virtual settings, combined with the narrative of voluntariness of participation and hedonic gratifications might be responsible for the inaction of large parts of the provider base in collectivist activities.