JID: AMJ

ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;July 8, 2020;10:44]

Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Australasian Marketing Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ausmj

The sharing economy: A marketing perspective

Weng Marc Lim a,b
a
Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia
b
School of Business, Swinburne University of Technology, Jalan Simpang Tiga, Kuching, Sarawak 93350, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Many marketers have struggled to harmonise the disparate and fragmented underpinnings characterising
Received 19 September 2019 the sharing economy under a single umbrella that is not only comprehensive and inclusive but also dis-
Revised 26 May 2020
tinctive enough to account for its unique peculiarities in myriad contexts. This paper adopts an interrog-
Accepted 6 June 2020
ative approach to answer some of the more pertinent questions about the sharing economy, specifically
Available online xxx
those related to its concepts, enablers, opportunities, challenges, current insights, and ways forward. In
Keywords: doing so, it clarifies the unique peculiarities characterising the sharing economy and enriches understand-
Sharing economy ing of the multitude of alternatives on which consumers and organisations can embark to participate in
Concepts and leverage off the sharing economy. Implications to theory, practice, and future research conclude the
Enablers paper.
Opportunities
Challenges © 2020 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction a “new disruptive economic force” (Geron, 2013; Morgan, 2014). In

this constantly growing market, consumers and organisations dis-
The proliferation of diverse sharing practices (e.g. crowdsourc- play a robust appetite to collectively innovate, create value, and en-
ing, online staffing, peer-to-peer lending, home sharing, rideshar- gage in sustainability practices by sharing myriad types of digital
ing) spearheaded by the advancement in information and commu- artefacts (e.g. information, music, photos, videos) and physical as-
nication technologies (e.g. cloud computing, Internet of things, so- sets (e.g. cars, clothes, homes, toys) (Botsman and Rogers, 2011;
cial media, smart devices) and contemporary market forces (e.g. Hellwig et al., 2015). As such, new players (e.g. Airbnb, Uber)
growing demand but limited supply) has stimulated the rise of have emerged in many fields (e.g. accommodation, transportation),
a new economic model popularly known as the “sharing econ- with some topping many older players and others gaining promi-
omy.” This new market is currently valued at US$15 billion glob- nence in their respective fields (Cheng, 2016; PwC, 2015). In ad-
ally, with an estimated US$3.5 trillion worth of idle resources that dition, the sharing economy, with roots in service-dominant logic
can be shared, thus potentially raising its global market value to (Abdul-Ghani et al., 2019; Ertimur and Venkatesh, 2010), has spear-
US$335 billion by 2025 (Matofska, 2015; PwC, 2015). Moreover, a headed new ways for marketing exchanges to be produced and
recent poll by the European Commission (2016) reports that one- consumed in the marketplace (e.g. open innovation, co-creation
third of 25 to 39-year-olds (i.e. an age group that represents one- of value, sustainability practices) (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2014; Bots-
third of the world population) have used a sharing economy ser- man and Rogers, 2011; Hajli et al., 2016).
vice and that they are three times more likely to do so than those Despite its popularity and immense market potential, the shar-
over 55 years of age. There are also emerging signs that the shar- ing economy is a concept that many marketers have struggled
ing economy is influencing wider consumer behaviour, with on- to conceptualise because of the disparate and fragmented under-
demand ride-sharing applications changing the way people move pinnings characterising the notion (Botsman, 2013; Jenkins et al.,
about and peer-to-peer accommodation sites encouraging a new 2014; Möhlmann, 2015). On the one hand, the sharing economy
generation to travel more often and to different places (Bae et al., is a concept that is overused by many marketing professionals,
2017; PwC, 2016; Zervas et al., 2017). More significantly, the shar- who characterise it as encompassing pretty much any and ev-
ing economy has been identified by Time (2011) as “one of the 10 ery single thing that they can think of, which leads to confu-
ideas that will change the world,” hailed by The Economist (2013) sion (Baumann, 2014; Morgan, 2014). On the other hand, the shar-
as a megatrend with “immense potential,” and cited by Forbes as ing economy is relatively underexplored as its study by market-
ing scholars is often narrow and conventional. This is evident
in the extant marketing literature, which largely concentrates on
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected], the digital, but not the physical, aspects of the sharing econ-
[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.06.007
1441-3582/© 2020 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: W.M. Lim, Sharing economy: A marketing perspective, Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ausmj.2020.06.007
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;July 8, 2020;10:44]

2 W.M. Lim / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

omy despite acknowledging that the concept is not entirely new essential questions about the sharing economy are created and ex-
(Chen and Wang, 2019; Eckhardt et al., 2019), whilst relying heav- plored.
ily on classical marketing concepts and theories in its explanation
(Kumar et al., 2018; Lamberton and Rose, 2012). The ambiguities
2.1. Concepts: what are the core tenets of the sharing economy?
and juxtaposition of the concept in marketing theory and practice
have therefore led to muddiness of the sharing economy and its
The sharing economy is not a new concept. Instead, it is a
defining characteristics (Ritter and Schanz, 2019).
concept that has recently matured and gained immense popular-
Indeed, what remains missing is a framing of the conceptual
ity as a result of a paradigm shift in marketing thought reflecting
boundaries of the sharing economy that is not only comprehensive
contemporary realities of technology advancement and resource
and inclusive but also distinctive enough to account for its unique
scarcity. More specifically, the dominant marketing paradigm has
peculiarities in myriad contexts. Aiming to fill this gap, this pa-
shifted over time, from the production–product–selling concept in
per adopts an interrogative approach—that is, the creation of es-
the early twentieth century to the 1950s, to the marketing–societal
sential questions about a topic and exploration of their solutions—
marketing1 –relationship marketing concept in the 1960s to the
to frame the conceptual boundaries of the sharing economy. More
1990s, to the collaboration–sharing concept in the early twenty-
specifically, the paper concentrates on answering some of the more
first century (Trompenaars and Coebergh, 2014; see Fig. 1).
pertinent questions about the sharing economy, specifically those
In essence, the sharing economy is rooted in two noteworthy
related to its concepts, enablers, opportunities, challenges, cur-
tenets: sharing and economy (see Fig. 2). Sharing, as a concept, has
rent insights, and ways forward. In doing so, the paper clarifies
two meanings. First, sharing can refer to the act of dividing and
the unique peculiarities characterising the sharing economy and
distributing a given product or resource (Belk, 2010). This form of
thus enriching understanding of the multitude of alternatives on
sharing can be understood through two distinct perspectives: from
which consumers and organisations can embark to participate in
the actual product or resource perspective and from the product
and leverage off the sharing economy both the digital and physical
or resource life-cycle perspective. In the former perspective, shar-
marketplace.
ing can occur as a concrete or an active practice (or a zero-sum
As a result, the paper answers the call for conceptual refine-
game), such as when one gives away some of the actual product or
ment of the sharing economy by Northey and Brodie (2020) in
resource (e.g. when a person gives away some of his or her food,
the Australasian Marketing Journal’s special issue on “Leveraging the
he or she is left with less); it can also occur as an abstract or a
Power of the Sharing Economy”. From a theoretical standpoint, the
passive practice (or a non-zero-sum game), such as when one has
paper offers a clear-cut representation of the sharing economy in
something in common with someone else (e.g. when two people
terms of its theoretical foundation and position in the marketing
share a room, the room belongs to both, though the room itself
discipline. This, in turn, should help future scholars to locate their
remains whole). In the latter perspective, sharing can occur as an
work on the sharing economy within the field of marketing and to
iterative practice when one relinquishes the usage of the product
curate new research agenda that will enrich marketing insights on
or resource for a period over the lifespan of the product or re-
the sharing economy. From a practical standpoint, the paper serves
source (e.g. when a person donates, lends, or recycles a product
as a guide to understand the sharing economy and its relevance for
or resource to someone else). Second, sharing can also be an act
marketing practice. In particular, the paper highlights the opportu-
of communication (John, 2013). This form of sharing can be under-
nities and challenges to harness the benefits of the sharing econ-
stood from the informational perspective. In this perspective, shar-
omy as well as the issues that consumers and marketers will need
ing can occur as a social practice when one sends or imparts in-
to consider when developing and formulating strategies to effec-
formation to others (e.g. audio and visual content, facts, emotions,
tively participate in marketing exchanges in the sharing economy.
thoughts). Indeed, these forms of sharing can be subsequently used
for myriad production (e.g. research) and consumption (e.g. leisure)
purposes. Regardless of its meanings and the perspectives used to
2. What is the sharing economy?
understand them, the value of sharing is apparent—it creates and
regulates social ties and contributes to production and consump-
The sharing economy is a complex concept that many scholars
tion activities in the marketplace. In other words, through shar-
have defined in a variety of ways (Dredge and Gyimothy, 2015)—
ing, two or more entities may enjoy the benefits (e.g. access; op-
it is, to date, a floating signifier for a diverse range of activities
portunity to create, earn and/or save; usage) and/or costs (e.g. ef-
(Schor, 2014; Schor and Fitzmaurice, 2015; Schor et al., 2015, 2016).
fort, money, time) that flow from possessing a product or resource
More specifically, the trajectory of sharing economy definitions in
(Belk, 2007, 2010; Dong et al., 2016; John, 2013).
the marketing literature shows a noticeable shift in its focus, from
Economy, as a concept, is straightforward—it is an ecosystem
one that was previously anchored on temporary access as an al-
that consists of entities (e.g. consumers, organisations) that engage
ternative to permanent ownership of tangible and intangible re-
in the economic activities of production and consumption through
sources (e.g. Kathan et al., 2016; Lamberton and Rose, 2012) to one
marketing exchanges for products and resources in a given mar-
that is now concentrated on technology-mediated systems (e.g.
ketplace or society (Venkatesh et al., 2006). Most countries have a
Chen and Wang, 2019; Perren and Kozinets, 2018) (see Table 1).
market-based economy—that is, an economy that determines what
Such a trajectory tends to be problematic as it often relegates older
types of products and resources are produced and consumed and
definitional anchors in favour of newer ones, which in turn, results
how they are distributed amongst different entities on the basis of
in a plethora of definitions that creates more confusion rather than
demand and supply as well as the perceived value of those prod-
clarity for marketers (Belk, 2010, 2014a, 2014b). The current paper
ucts and resources (Esper et al., 2010). By contrast, in a command
aims to resolve this confusion by framing the conceptual bound-
aries of the sharing economy in a way that accommodates a rea-
sonable level of inclusivity and variety in scope so that the con- 1
Societal marketing, as a marketing orientation (rather than a marketing con-
ceptualisation herein will not be contradictory to existing defini- cept), suggests that marketers have a greater social responsibility than simply satis-
tions but rather complementary and evolutionary in nature so as fying customers and providing them with superior value, and thus, marketing activ-
ities should strive to benefit society’s overall well-being (Kotler, 1971). This differs
to comprehensively reflect the contemporary realities of how mar- from a popular marketing concept (rather than a marketing orientation) called “so-
keting exchanges, predicated on the notion of sharing, are being cial marketing”, which essentially uses marketing principles to drive behaviour for
produced and consumed in the marketplace. To do so, a series of social good (Kotler and Zaltman, 1971).

Please cite this article as: W.M. Lim, Sharing economy: A marketing perspective, Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ausmj.2020.06.007
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;July 8, 2020;10:44]

W.M. Lim / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Table 1
Key definitions of the sharing economy in the marketing literature.

Source Definition

Lamberton and Rose (2012, “Marketer-managed systems that provide customers with the opportunity to enjoy product benefits without ownership.”
p. 109)
Kathan et al., 663) “Characterised by non-ownership, temporary access, and redistribution of material goods or less tangible assets such as
money, space, or time.”
Habibi et al., 277) “An economic system in which assets or services are shared between private individuals, either for free or for a fee,
typically by means of the Internet.”
Narasimhan et al., 93) “The recent phenomenon in which ordinary consumers have begun to act as sellers providing services that were once the
exclusive province of ordinary sellers.”
Perren and Kozinets (2018, p. 21) “A market that is formed through an intermediating technology platform that facilitates exchange activities amongst a
network of equivalently positioned economic actors.”
Eckhardt et al. (2019, p.3) “A scalable socio-economic system that employs technology-enabled platforms that provide users with temporary access to
tangible and intangible resources that may be crowdsourced.”
Chen and Wang (2019, p. 29) “An important type of digital economy that employs data as the key production factor to provide users with temporary
access to tangible and intangible resources to efficiently meet their highly individualised needs.”

Fig. 1. Historical trajectory of marketing ideology.

Fig. 2. Sharing economy.

Please cite this article as: W.M. Lim, Sharing economy: A marketing perspective, Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ausmj.2020.06.007
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;July 8, 2020;10:44]

4 W.M. Lim / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

systems economy, economic decision making, such as what and the latter should be relevant amongst communities with a desig-
how many products to produce and for whom to produce them, nated and specialised purpose (e.g. commuters, travellers, print-
is centralised and controlled by the government (e.g. North Korea, ers). Regardless of whether digital platforms are generic or spe-
the former Soviet Union) (Hui, 2005). Moreover, a given economy cialised, these platforms should help improve the connectivity be-
is the result of a set of processes that involve the trajectories in tween global communities (e.g. rural and urban, domestic and in-
natural and social developments in an ecosystem, and thus it sets ternational) (Lim, 2019).
the conditions and parameters under which an economy functions
(Plummer and Armitage, 2007). This suggests that the economy
is a natural and social domain that reflects the advancement of 2.3. Opportunities: what are the opportunities in the sharing
human practices and transactions as well as the scarcity in nat- economy?
ural resources and the products that can be produced and con-
sumed. Today, with the advancement of technology and the contin- Through the sharing economy, consumers and organisations
ued pressure to produce and consume amidst resource scarcities, have opportunities to collectively innovate (or introduce a new
both consumers and organisations are increasingly embracing the idea), create value (or produce a needed or wanted solution), and
idea to collaborate and share in producing and consuming market- engage in sustainability practices (or enhance economic, environ-
ing exchanges in the marketplace (Eckhardt et al., 2019; Chen and mental, and social well-being) across myriad industries and set-
Wang, 2019). Thus, to put the concept of the sharing economy into tings (e.g. automotive, communications, consumer goods, enter-
perspective, a new, inclusive definition that accounts for the tenets tainment, hospitality, media, retailing) (see Table 2).
of sharing and economy is proposed: In particular, the sharing economy allows convenient pooling
The sharing economy is a marketplace that consists of entities (e.g. of resources, such as finance, human capital, and technology, over
consumers, organisations) that innovatively and sustainably shape physical and digital spaces, thus bringing myriad entities together,
how marketing exchanges of valuable products and resources are pro- bridging the gap in resource scarcity, connecting spare capac-
duced and consumed through sharing, which can occur when entities ity and demand, and leveraging advances in physical and digital
take part in (e.g. divide and distribute) the actual or life-cycle use of a design and technology to facilitate collaborative innovation and
product or resource and communicate some form of information, and value creation and to satisfy collective needs, wants, and demands
which can be scaled using technology. (Dellaert, 2019; Eckhardt et al., 2019; Ferrell et al., 2017). More-
However, it is important to note that in the sharing economy, over, a sharing approach to access diverse and disparate resources
no entity assumes complete ownership (or the exclusive legal right reduces duplication and waste (R. Belk, 2014b; Hamari et al., 2016;
to possession) of a product or a resource for the entire life cycle of Pomering, 2017), thus allowing the reduction of economic, environ-
that product or resource. Instead, the act of sharing accentuates mental, and social costs (e.g. open staffing reduces the need to hire
the provision of the right to access a product or resource to two an entire team of specialists, ride-sharing consolidates consumers’
or more entities, in part or as a whole, in a given period over the need to buy and drive as well as carbon emissions on the road).
lifespan of that product or resource (e.g. members can borrow and
read a book from a book club to gain new insights, property own-
ers and travellers can use homestay applications to rent a place 2.4. Challenges: what are the challenges in the sharing economy?
where hostels and hotels are less accessible). Thus, in the shar-
ing economy, the right to access a product or resource is deemed The sharing economy has several challenges, most of which are
of greater importance and relevance than the right to possess a interrelated (see Table 2). In particular, the sharing economy re-
product or resource—the types of marketing exchanges that offer quires critical mass to create the necessary network effect to scale
access over ownership include donating, gifting, lending, renting, sharing practices to a point at which there is reliable and suffi-
reselling, subscribing, and swapping. cient supply and demand for products and resources to be shared
(Forgacs and Dimanche, 2016; Key, 2017). The widespread availabil-
2.2. Enablers: what platforms avail for (or enable) the sharing ity and rapid diffusion of technologies can contribute to addressing
economy? this challenge (Rayna and Striukova, 2016), but a population that
consists of a sizable number of non-tech-savvy entities may make
The sharing economy is made up of marketing exchanges it difficult to overcome this challenge.
enacted through sharing practices in the brick-and-mortar (or Moreover, encouraging a shift to a sharing-based mindset and
physical) and digital marketplaces (see Fig. 3). In the brick-and- behaviour amongst entities in the target market may be complex
mortar marketplace, one-stop physical centers are often used to and thus may impede the success of achieving the critical mass
share information and resources (e.g. information centers, shared required for a vibrant sharing economy. That is, some areas (e.g.
workspaces) (see Askim et al., 2011; Fota et al., 2019; Foo and transportation) of the sharing economy have gained greater accep-
Turner, 2019; Intaratat, 2016). Such platforms are likely to be rele- tance amongst certain types of target markets (e.g. urban, higher
vant when the distance between sharing communities is close (e.g. educational background, tech-savvy, millennials) than other areas
local neighbourhoods) and when the goal is to improve the con- (e.g. accommodation) and types of target markets (e.g. rural, lower
nectivity between local communities (e.g. farming estates and rural educational background, non-tech-savvy, elderly) (Lampinen et al.,
villages). 2015; Wagner et al., 2015). The required shift in mindset and be-
In the digital marketplace facilitated by the Internet and smart haviour may also be affected by the time and effort required to
devices (Kremez et al., 2020; Ratten, 2013; Read et al., 2011), arrange for marketing exchanges and transactions (e.g. if they are
sharing entities in the marketing exchange process can choose too complex and time consuming), but continued improvements
to use generic (e.g. cloud systems, social media sites) or spe- in communications and logistics should contribute to reducing the
cialised (e.g. homestay, ride-sharing, Internet of things applica- required non-monetary investment. Moreover, trust is essential to
tions) sharing platforms (Constantiou et al., 2017; Kenney and Zys- the successful performance and scalability of sharing practices in
man, 2016; Quattrone et al., 2016). The former should be relevant the sharing economy, which may pose a challenge if it is not well-
for intra-organisational settings (e.g. branch offices) and for broad established (e.g. through adequate and appropriate branding and
or generic communities (e.g. multiple products for diverse tar- brand management, visibility of reputation and trustworthiness)
get audiences located at distant and disparate locations), whereas (Griffith et al., 2018; Möhlmann, 2015).

Please cite this article as: W.M. Lim, Sharing economy: A marketing perspective, Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ausmj.2020.06.007
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;July 8, 2020;10:44]

W.M. Lim / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

Fig. 3. Sharing economy platforms.

Table 2
Opportunities and challenges in the sharing economy.

Sharing economy

Opportunities Challenges

1. Brings myriad entities and resources together. 1. Requires critical mass to create the necessary
2. Bridges the gap in resource scarcity. network effect.
3. Connects spare capacity and demand. 2. Non-tech-savvy entities may make it difficult to
4. Facilitates collaborative innovation and value leverage tech-based sharing solutions.
creation. 3. Time and effort required to arrange for marketing
5. Facilitates sustainable production and consumption. exchanges and transactions through sharing may
6. Leverages advances in physical and digital design and limit the potential of sharing solutions.
technology to produce desired, meaningful, and 4. Building and managing trust in sharing solutions.
useful sharing solutions.

2.5. Current insights: what does the academic literature indicate consumer-to-consumer, consumer-to-business, business-to-
about the sharing economy? business, and government-to-consumer market structures
across myriad industries such as consumer goods, entertain-
Academic literature, though scant, has advanced nascent un- ment and media, energy and utilities, food, hospitality, and mo-
derstanding of the sharing economy. More specifically, a rapid re- bility and transport, with new intermediaries emerging such as
view of the extant literature (i.e. journals were identified through a commodity intermediary, wealth redistributor, unique-service
keyword search for “collaborative consumption”, “marketing”, and intermediary, skill redistributor, and decentralised commodity
“sharing economy” on Google Scholar and segmented according to intermediary) (see Acquier et al., 2017; Belk, 2010, 2014a,
themes using an inductive thematic analysis by the author) shows 2014b; Fernandes et al., 2020; Gruszka, 2017; Habibi et al.,
that, to date, research has shed light on: 2016, 2017; Lamberton and Rose, 2012; Mair and Reis-
chauer, 2017; Plewnia and Guenther, 2018; Richardson, 2015;
1. The typologies of sharing (e.g. through access, collaboration, Wittel, 2011);
and community for access/club, closed commercial, open com- 2. The market segmentation for a “sharing” business (e.g.
mercial, and public goods sharing in business-to-consumer, mobility-focused sharer, diverse-platform sharer, power-

Please cite this article as: W.M. Lim, Sharing economy: A marketing perspective, Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ausmj.2020.06.007
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;July 8, 2020;10:44]

6 W.M. Lim / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

platform sharer, sharing idealists, sharing opponents, sharing consumers (or market segments) with different goals and socio-
pragmatists, and sharing normatives) (see Davidson et al., 2018; demographic and cultural backgrounds. This, in turn, should help
Hellwig et al., 2015; Sands et al., 2020); advance existing studies, such as Cherry and Pidgeon (2018) and
3. The goals of sharing and participating in the sharing economy Milanova and Mass (2017), whose studies shed light on consumer
(e.g. emotional, cognitive, and material support; relationship acceptance of and motives in the sharing economy, and Liu and
building; resource smoothing; sustainability; task completion; Mattila (2017) and Lutz and Newlands (2018), whose case studies
and hedonic- and utility-driven goals) (see Bajaj et al., 2020; on Airbnb revealed insights into sharing practices in the accommo-
Barnes and Mattsson, 2016; Böcker and Meelen, 2017; Cherry dation industry. Doing so should also help to answer recent calls
and Pidgeon, 2019; Hamari et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2018; for additional insights to motivate and incentivise engagement in
Lamberton, 2016; Lee et al., 2018; Ozanne and Ozanne, 2020; sharing practices (e.g. Breidbach and Brodie, 2017; Prior and Kera-
Parente et al., 2018); nen, 2020).
4. The impacts of the sharing economy (e.g. alleviates social issues Qualitative investigations (e.g. grounded theory and phe-
and improves social welfare; creates competition, economic op- nomenology using individual and focus group interviews) in the
portunities, and unregulated marketplaces; drives sustainable area should also produce fruitful insights to explain the rationales
forms of production and consumption; facilitates innovation behind the cognitive and emotional processes amongst the tar-
and value creation; and lowers prices) in myriad industries get markets of the sharing economy, thereby extending the work
(e.g. hospitality, transportation) (see Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; of Schor (2016) and Schor and Cansoy (2019). Alternative meth-
Benjaafar et al., 2019; Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Cheng, 2016; ods that can be employed for empirical marketing investigation
Cockayne, 2016; Cohen and Muñoz, 2016; Cusumano, 2015; of the sharing economy should also be considered, such as ex-
Forno and Garibaldi, 2015; Greenwood and Wattal, 2017; perimentation (Lim, 2015a; Lim et al., 2019a) and neuroscience
Hartl et al., 2016; Kathan et al., 2016; Martin, 2016; (Lim, 2018a, 2018d). Last, the ethics and regulatory aspects of the
Weber, 2014); and sharing economy are areas that deserve further attention, as most
5. The reasons for continued (e.g. community belonging, cost economies and regulatory bodies continue to search for suitable
savings, economic convenience, familiarity, reciprocity, service mechanisms to regulate sharing-based marketing exchanges in the
quality, satisfaction with a sharing option, and utility) and dis- sharing economy marketplace in a way that promotes collective in-
continued (e.g. lack of expertise and poor support, unpleas- novation, value creation, and sustainability practices (Ganapati and
ant and unprofessional behaviour, unethical behaviour, and Reddick, 2018).
value misrepresentation by service provider) consumption and
continued (e.g. dedicated insurance providers, dedicated third
parties for managing assets, and performance-based compen- 3. What are the implications of the sharing economy for
sation) and discontinued (e.g. dissatisfaction with compensa- marketing theory?
tion, dissatisfaction with consumer behaviour, no asset or in-
surance for service provider, and time constraint) production In terms of theory, the sharing economy holds immense po-
of shared products (see Cheng et al., 2018; Geissinger et al., tential to enrich our understanding of marketing science, specif-
2019; Kumar et al., 2018; Leung et al., 2019; Möhlmann, 2015; ically in the area of marketing exchanges in group settings (e.g.
Paramita et al., 2020; Starr et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019; brand and virtual communities, group buying, social commerce)
Zhang et al., 2018), including that of role extensions (e.g. (e.g. Featherman and Hajli, 2016; Hajli , 2015; Hajli et al., 2014;
from consumers to prosumers due to gratitude and trust) (see N. 2015; Hajli and Lin, 2016; Hajli and Sims, 2015; Hajli et al.,
Lang et al., 2020). 2014,2015; Lim, 2014a, 2014b, 2015b, 2017b, 2017c, 2020; Lim and
Ting, 2014), through the lens of sharing practices (e.g. the ways
2.6. Ways forward: what else should the academic literature sharing practices are produced and consumed). In particular, the
communicate about the sharing economy? sharing economy affords marketers the opportunity to gain fresh
insights into the dynamics, mechanisms, drivers, and impacts of
Notwithstanding the extant contributions (e.g. Chen and shared inputs and outputs on the entities enjoying the fruits of
Wang, 2019; Eckhardt et al., 2019; Zvolska et al., 2019), further re- sharing practices (e.g. a mass market for producers and a right
search on the sharing economy, especially from a marketing per- to access for consumers). To a large degree, the sharing economy
spective, is strongly encouraged (see Fig. 4). Considering that the also adds to the technology aspects of marketing (Chylinski et al.,
concept of the sharing economy is fairly new and in light of this 2020; Esmaeili et al., 2019; Filho et al., 2020; Gupta et al.,
paper’s efforts to coherently and comprehensively frame the con- 2019; Lim, 2018b, 2018c; Moriuchi et al., 2020; Smith, 2020;
ceptual boundaries of the notion, answer some of the more perti- Taghizadeh et al., 2019; Taillon and Huhmann, 2019; Taylor et al.,
nent questions about the concept, and provide a brief review of ex- 2020; Zadeh et al., 2019; Zare et al., 2019), by providing an un-
isting work in the area, further conceptual and review work on the derstanding of how technology can be used to democratise and
topic should only be considered over the longer term—that is, after facilitate the production and consumption of sharing practices.
a substantial point of conceptual novelty is identified and when an More important, the sharing economy extends marketing thought
updated review of the field is called for or considered necessary in the co-creation and co-innovation branch of the marketing
(e.g. Narasimhan et al., 2018; Sutherland and Jarrahi, 2018). literature (Abdul-Ghani et al., 2019; Crick, 2020; Fernandes and
Instead, this paper highly encourages further exploration (e.g. Remelhe, 2016; Mostafa, 2016; Whalen and Akaka, 2016), by help-
case studies) on the possible types of sharing-based business ing marketers understand how producers and consumers can col-
models across various industries (e.g. automotive, communica- lectively innovate, create value, and engage in sustainable market-
tions, consumer goods, entertainment, hospitality, media, and re- ing exchanges in a profitable but inclusive way. Thus, the shar-
tailing) and empirical investigations (e.g. quantitative experiments ing economy holds great promise for advancing understanding of
and surveys, including measures for chronic and primed condi- co-creation and co-innovation interactions between the market-
tions) on what drives innovation, value creation, sustainability, ing organisation and its customers in for-profit and non-profit
trust, and other types of behavioural enablers (or barriers) that and developing and developed economy settings (Esmaeili et al.,
explain initial and continued participation (or non-participation) 2019; Lim et al., 2019b; London and Hart, 2004; Prahalad, 2005;
in the sharing economy from the perspective of producers and Zadeh et al., 2019; Zare et al., 2019).

Please cite this article as: W.M. Lim, Sharing economy: A marketing perspective, Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ausmj.2020.06.007
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;July 8, 2020;10:44]

W.M. Lim / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

Fig. 4. Current insights into and ways forward for academic research on the sharing economy. Note: Solid lines indicate current insights, while dotted lines indicate extant
gaps in and ways forward for academic research on the sharing economy.

4. What are the implications of the sharing economy for in the marketplace (Eckhardt et al., 2019; Sigala, 2018), thus gain-
marketing practice? ing capital advantages and lowering the cost of production. How-
ever, the sharing economy also allows consumers to become pro-
In terms of practice, the sharing economy provides an alterna- ducers (i.e. prosumers; e.g. providers of lodging and transporta-
tive for marketers to encourage desired behaviour amongst their tion services) (Clarke, 2016; Darmody et al., 2017; Lang et al.,
target markets (Mauri et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019). In particu- 2020; Phua, 2019), which may lead to greater competition and
lar, the sharing economy allows marketers to engage in co-creation revenue challenges for traditional producers (e.g. hoteliers, taxis;
and co-innovation of offerings and, as a result, engage in mar- Forgacs and Dimanche, 2016) that do not reinvent themselves to
keting exchanges for products and resources that are likely to be face the contemporary realities in the marketplace—that is, the
mutually beneficial and contribute to the agenda of greater sus- growing trend of marketing exchanges predicated on sharing prac-
tainability (Lim, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a; Plewnia and Guenther, 2018; tices. Finding new ways to offer products by means of sharing
Proserpio et al., 2018). Moreover, the sharing economy gives mar- should lead to greater access to a widening pool of actual and po-
keters the opportunity to leverage the resources of other marketers tential customers, especially for tangible products that are widely

Please cite this article as: W.M. Lim, Sharing economy: A marketing perspective, Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ausmj.2020.06.007
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;July 8, 2020;10:44]

8 W.M. Lim / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

distributed, that involve high fixed costs but low marginal costs, Cheng, M., 2016. Sharing economy: a review and agenda for future research. Int. J.
and that are often underutilised (e.g. automotive and hospitality Hosp. Manag. 57, 60–70.
Cheng, X., Fu, S., de Vreede, G.J., 2018. A mixed method investigation of sharing
products), as well as intangible products (e.g. brands, brainpower, economy driven car-hailing services: online and offline perspectives. Int. J. Inf.
intellectual property) (Wagner et al., 2015). Manage 41, 57–64.
Cherry, C.E., Pidgeon, N.P., 2018. Is sharing the solution? Exploring public accept-
ability of the sharing economy. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 939–948.
5. Conclusion
Chylinski, M., Heller, J., Hilken, T., Keeling, D.I., Mahr, D., de Ruyter, K., 2020. Aug-
mented reality marketing: a technology-enabled approach to situated customer
In short, the sharing economy involves creating new opportuni- experience. Austr. Mark. J..
ties for marketing exchanges and empowering producers and con- Clarke, R., 2016. Practicable backup arrangements for small organisations and indi-
viduals. Austr. J. Inf. Syst. 20.
sumers to do so, not limiting them. Notwithstanding the limita- Cockayne, D.G., 2016. Sharing and neoliberal discourse: the economic function of
tions of a non-empirical paper (e.g. absence of data and analyses), sharing in the digital on-demand economy. Geoforum 77, 73–82.
it is hoped that the articulation provided herein has shed greater Cohen, B., Munoz, P., 2016. Sharing cities and sustainable consumption and produc-
tion: towards an integrated framework. J. Clean Prod. 134, 87–97.
light on the conceptual boundaries and practices of the sharing Constantiou, I., Marton, A., Tuunainen, V.K., 2017. Four models of sharing economy
economy. Moreover, the discussion in this paper should help mar- platforms. MIS Q. Execut. 16 (4), 231–251.
keting academics and practitioners better understand the multi- Crick, J.M., 2020. The dimensionality of the market orientation construct. J. Strat.
Mark..
tude of alternatives that consumers and organisations can choose Cusumano, M.A., 2015. How traditional firms must compete in the sharing economy.
to undertake to participate in and leverage off the sharing econ- Commun. ACM 58 (1), 32–34.
omy. Darmody, A., Yuksel, M., Venkatraman, M., 2017. The work of mapping and the
mapping of work: prosumer roles in crowdsourced maps. J. Mark. Manag. 33
(13–14), 1093–1119.
Acknowledgement Davidson, A., Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M., 2018. Materialism and the sharing econ-
omy: a cross-cultural study of American and Indian consumers. J. Bus. Res. 82,
The author conveys his sincere appreciation to the editors and 364–372.
Dellaert, B.G., 2019. The consumer production journey: marketing to consumers as
reviewers who provided constructive comments to improve the co-producers in the sharing economy. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 47 (2), 238–254.
quality of this paper. The author also thanks the Government of Dong, T.P., Hung, C.L., Cheng, N.C., 2016. Enhancing knowledge sharing intention
Malaysia for awarding a generous research grant—i.e. Fundamen- through the satisfactory context of continual service of knowledge management
systems. Inf. Technol. People 29 (4), 807–829.
tal Research Grant Scheme (FRGS)—to support his research on the Dredge, D., Gyimothy, S., 2015. The collaborative economy and tourism: critical per-
sharing economy. spectives, questionable claims and silenced voices. Tour. Recreat. Res. 40 (3),
286–302.
References Ertimur, B., Venkatesh, A., 2010. Opportunism in co-production: implications for
value co-creation. Austr. Mark. J. 18 (4), 256–263.
Abdul-Ghani, E., Hyde, K.F., Marshall, R., 2019. Conceptualising engagement in a con- Esper, T.L., Ellinger, A.E., Stank, T.P., Flint, D.J., Moon, M., 2010. Demand and sup-
sumer-to-consumer context. Austr. Mark. J. 27 (1), 2–13. ply integration: a conceptual framework of value creation through knowledge
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., Pinkse, J., 2017. Promises and paradoxes of the sharing management. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 38 (1), 5–18.
economy: an organizing framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 1–10. Esmaeili, L., Hashemi, G., S, A, 2019. A systematic review on social commerce. J.
Askim, J., Fimreite, A.L., Moseley, A., Pedersen, L.H., 2011. One-stop shops for so- Strat. Mark. 27 (4), 317–355.
cial welfare: the adaptation of an organizational form in three countries. Public European Commission. (2016). The use of collaborative platforms. Available
Adm. 89 (4), 1451–1468. at http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/
Bae, S.J., Lee, H., Suh, E.K., Suh, K.S., 2017. Shared experience in pretrip and experi- getSurveyDetail/instruments/FLASH/surveyKy/2112
ence sharing in posttrip: a survey of Airbnb users. Inf. Manag. 54 (6), 714–727. Featherman, M.S., Hajli, N., 2016. Self-service technologies and e-services risks in
Bajaj, N., Steel, M., Ogden, S., Rahman, K., 2020. Consumer motivations to create social commerce era. J. Bus. Ethics 139 (2), 251–269.
alternative consumption platforms. Austr. Mark. J. 28 (3). Fernandes, B., Chimenti, P., Nogueira, R., 2020. Taxonomy of initiatives at work in
Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G.M., 2012. Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. sharing economy. Austr. Mark. J. 28 (3).
J. Consum. Res. 39 (4), 881–898. Fernandes, T., Remelhe, P., 2016. How to engage customers in co-creation: cus-
Barnes, S.J., Mattsson, J., 2016. Understanding current and future issues in collabora- tomers’ motivations for collaborative innovation. J. Strat. Mark. 24 (3–4),
tive consumption: a four-stage Delphi study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 104, 311–326.
200–211. Ferrell, O.C., Ferrell, L., Huggins, K., 2017. Seismic shifts in the sharing economy:
Baumann, G., 2014. The most loathsome business words of 2014: ‘Sharing economy’ shaking up marketing channels and supply chains. J. Mark. Channels 24 (1–2),
… Hah!. Silicon Valley Bus. J.. Available at http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/ 3–12.
news/2014/12/10/the- most- loathsome- business- words- of- 2014- sharing.html . Filho, E.J.M.A., Gammarano, I.D.J.L.P., Barreto, I.A., 2020. Technology-driven consump-
accessed March 1, 2020. tion: digital natives and immigrants in the context of multifunctional conver-
Belk, R., 2010. Sharing. J. Consum. Res. 36 (5), 715–734. gence. J. Strat. Mark..
Belk, R., 2007. Why not share rather than own. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 611 (1), Foo, H.Y., Turner, J.J., 2019. ‘Entrepreneurial learning’– The role of university led
126–140. business incubators and mentors in equipping graduates with the necessary
Belk, R., 2014a. Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. Anthropologist 18 (1), skills set for Industry 4.0. Int. J. Education 4 (30), 283–298.
7–23. Forgacs, G., Dimanche, F., 2016. Revenue challenges for hotels in the sharing econ-
Belk, R., 2014b. You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption omy: facing the Airbnb menace. J. Rev. Pricing Manag. 15 (6), 509–515.
online. J Bus Res 67 (8), 1595–1600. Forno, F., Garibaldi, R., 2015. Sharing economy in travel and tourism: the case of
Benjaafar, S., Kong, G., Li, X., Courcoubetis, C., 2019. Peer-to-peer product sharing: home-swapping in Italy. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 16 (2), 202–220.
implications for ownership, usage, and social welfare in the sharing economy. Fota, N., Furtunescu, F., Negraru, A., Zahorka, M., 2019. Community integrated care
Manage Sci. in rural Romania-the role of community centres. Int. J. Integr. Care 19 (1), 1–8
Blasco-Arcas, L., Hernandez-Ortega, B., Jimenez-Martinez, J., 2014. The online pur- A250.
chase as a context for co-creating experiences. Drivers of and consequences for Ganapati, S., Reddick, C.G., 2018. Prospects and challenges of sharing economy for
customer behavior. Internet Research 24 (3), 393–412. the public sector. Gov. Inf. Q. 35 (1), 77–87.
Böcker, L., Meelen, T., 2017. Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motiva- Geissinger, A., Laurell, C., Öberg, C., Sandström, C., 2019. How sustainable is the shar-
tions for intended sharing economy participation. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 23, ing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms.
28–39. J. Clean. Prod. 206, 419–429.
Botsman, R. (2013). The sharing economy lacks a shared definition. Avail- Geron, T., 2013. Airbnb and the unstoppable rise of the share economy.
able at http://www.fastcoexist.com/3022028/the- sharing- economy- lacks- a- Forbes. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/
shared-definition (accessed March 1, 2020). airbnb- and- the- unstoppable- rise- of- the- share- economy . accessed March 1,
Botsman, R., Rogers, R., 2010. Beyond zipcar: collaborative consumption. Harv. Bus. 2020.
Rev. 88 (10), 30. Greenwood, B.N., Wattal, S., 2017. Show me the way to go home: an empirical in-
Botsman, R., Rogers, R., 2011. What’s Mine is yours: The rise of Collaborative Con- vestigation of ride-sharing and alcohol related motor vehicle fatalities. MIS Q.
sumption. Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY. 41 (1), 163–187.
Breidbach, C.F., Brodie, R.J., 2017. Engagement platforms in the sharing economy: Griffith, D.A., van Esch, P., Trittenbach, M., 2018. Investigating the mediating effect
conceptual foundations and research directions. J. Service Theory Practice 27 of Uber’s sexual harassment case on its brand: does it matter. J. Retail. Consum.
(4), 761–777. Serv. 43, 111–118.
Chen, Y., Wang, L., 2019. Commentary: marketing and the sharing economy: digital Gruszka, K., 2017. Framing the collaborative economy—Voices of contestation. Envi-
economy and emerging market challenges. J. Mark. 83 (5), 28–31. ronmental Innov. Soc. Trans. 23, 92–104.

Please cite this article as: W.M. Lim, Sharing economy: A marketing perspective, Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ausmj.2020.06.007
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;July 8, 2020;10:44]

W.M. Lim / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 9

Gupta, S., Polonsky, M., Lazaravic, V., 2019. Collaborative orientation to advance Lim, W.M., 2017b. Online group buying: some insights from the business-to-busi-
value co-creation in buyer–seller relationships. J. Strat. Mark. 27 (3), 191–209. ness perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 65, 182–193.
Habibi, M.R., Davidson, A., Laroche, M., 2017. What managers should know about Lim, W.M., 2017c. Untangling the relationships between consumer characteristics,
the sharing economy. Bus. Horiz. 60 (1), 113–121. shopping values, and behavioral intention in online group buying. J. Strat. Mark.
Habibi, M.R., Kim, A., Laroche, M., 2016. From sharing to exchange: an extended 547–566.
framework of dual modes of collaborative nonownership consumption. J. Ass. Lim, W.M., 2016a. A blueprint for sustainability marketing: defining its conceptual
Consum. Res. 1 (2), 277–294. boundaries for progress. Mark. Theory 16 (2), 232–249.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., Ukkonen, A., 2016. The sharing economy: why people partic- Lim, W.M., 2016b. Creativity and sustainability in hospitality and tourism. Tour.
ipate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67 (9), 2047–2059. Manag. Perspect. 18, 161–167.
Hajli, N., 2015a. Social commerce constructs and consumer’s intention to buy. Int. J. Lim, W.M., 2015a. Enriching information science research through chronic disposi-
Inf. Manage. 35 (2), 183–191. tion and situational priming: a short note for future research. J. Inf. Sci. 41 (3),
Hajli, N., 2015b. The role of social support on relationship quality and social com- 399–402.
merce. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 87, 17–27. Lim, W.M., 2015b. The influence of internet advertising and electronic word of
Hajli, N., Lin, X., 2016. Exploring the security of information sharing on social net- mouth on consumer perceptions and intention: some evidence from online
working sites: the role of perceived control of information. J. Bus. Ethics 133 group buying. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 55 (4), 81–89.
(1), 111–123. Lim, W.M., 2014a. Sense of virtual community and perceived critical mass in online
Hajli, N., Sims, J., 2015. Social commerce: the transfer of power from sellers to buy- group buying. J. Strat. Mark. 22 (3), 268–283.
ers. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 94, 350–358. Lim, W.M., 2014b. Understanding the influence of online flow elements on hedonic
Hajli, N., Shanmugam, M., Powell, P., Love, P.E., 2015. A study on the continuance and utilitarian online shopping experiences: a case of online group buying. J.
participation in on-line communities with social commerce perspective. Tech- Inf. Syst. 28 (2), 287–306.
nol. Forecast. Soc. Change 96, 232–241. Lim, W.M., Ahmed, P.K., Ali, M.Y., 2019. Data and resource maximization in busi-
Hajli, N., Lin, X., Featherman, M.S., Wang, Y., 2014. Social word of mouth: how trust ness-to-business marketing experiments: methodological insights from data
develops in the market. Int. J. Mark. Res. 56 (5), 673–689. partitioning. Ind. Mark. Manag. 76, 136–143.
Hajli, N., Bourlakis, M., Giazitzoglu, A., Kimmitt, J., 2016. Open innovation and co- Lim, W.M., Lim, A.L., Phang, C.S.C., 2019b. Toward a conceptual framework for social
creation of value: linking entrepreneurship and marketing in the social com- media adoption by non-urban communities for non-profit activities: insights
merce era. J. Strat. Mark.. Available at http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/bes/ from an integration of grand theories of technology acceptance. Austr. J. Inf.
open- innovation- and- creation- of- value/ . Syst. 23.
Hartl, B., Hofmann, E., Kirchler, E., 2016. Do we need rules for “what’s mine is Lim, W.M., Ting, D.H., 2014. Consumer acceptance and continuance of online group
yours”? Governance in collaborative consumption communities. J. Bus. Res. 69 buying. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 54 (3), 87–96.
(8), 2756–2763. Liu, S.Q., Mattila, A.S., 2017. Airbnb: online targeted advertising, sense of power, and
Hellwig, K., Morhart, F., Girardin, F., Hauser, M., 2015. Exploring different types of consumer decisions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag 60, 33–41.
sharing: a proposed segmentation of the market for “sharing” businesses. Psy- London, T., Hart, S.L., 2004. Reinventing strategies for emerging markets: beyond the
chol. Mark. 32 (9), 891–906. transnational model. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 35 (5), 350–370.
Hui, Q., 2005. Command vs. planned economy: "Dispensability" of the economic Lutz, C., Newlands, G., 2018. Consumer segmentation within the sharing economy:
systems of Central and Eastern Europe and of pre-reform China. Chin. Econ. 38 the case of Airbnb. J. Bus. Res. 88, 187–196.
(4), 23–60. Mair, J., Reischauer, G., 2017. Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: insti-
Intaratat, K., 2016. Women homeworkers in Thailand’s digital economy. J. Int. Wom- tutional research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy organi-
ens Stud. 18 (1), 87–103. zations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 11–20.
Jenkins, R., Molesworth, M., Scullion, R., 2014. The messy social lives of objects: in- Martin, C.J., 2016. The sharing economy: a pathway to sustainability or a nightmar-
ter-personal borrowing and the ambiguity of possession and ownership. J. Con- ish form of neoliberal capitalism. Ecol. Econ. 121, 149–159.
sum. Behav. 13 (2), 131–139. Matofska, B. (2015). What we know about the global shar-
John, N.A., 2013. The social logics of sharing. Commun. Rev. 16 (3), 113–131. ing economy? Available at http://www.compareandshare.com/
Kathan, W., Matzler, K., Veider, V., 2016. The sharing economy: your business what- we- know- about- the- global- sharing- economy/ (accessed March 1, 2020).
model’s friend or foe. Bus. Horiz. 59 (6), 663–672. Mauri, A.G., Minazzi, R., Nieto-García, M., Viglia, G., 2018. Humanize your business.
Kenney, M., Zysman, J., 2016. The rise of the platform economy. Issues Sci. Technol. The role of personal reputation in the sharing economy. Int J Hosp Manag 73,
32 (3), 61–69. 36–43.
Key, T.M., 2017. Domains of digital marketing channels in the sharing economy. J. Milanova, V., Maas, P., 2017. Sharing intangibles: uncovering individual motives for
Mark. Channel. 24 (1–2), 27–38. engagement in a sharing service setting. J Bus Res 75, 159–171.
Kotler, P., 1971. What consumerism means for marketers. Harv. Bus. Rev. 50 (3), Möhlmann, M., 2015. Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and
48–57. the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 14
Kotler, P., Zaltman, G., 1971. Social marketing: an approach to planned social change. (3), 193–207.
J. Mark. 35 (3), 3–12. Morgan, J., 2014. Why the collaborative economy is changing everything.
Kremez, Z., Frazer, L., Thaichon, P., 2020. The effects of e-commerce on franchising: Forbes. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/10/16/
practical implications and models. Austr. Mark. J. press. why- the- collaborative- economy- is- changing- everything . accessed March 1,
Kumar, V., Lahiri, A., Dogan, O.B., 2018. A strategic framework for a profitable busi- 2020.
ness model in the sharing economy. Ind. Mark. Manag. 69, 147–160. Moriuchi, E., Landers, V.M., Colton, D., Hair, N., 2020. Engagement with chatbots
Lamberton, C.P., 2016. Collaborative consumption: a goal-based framework. Curr. versus augmented reality interactive technology in e-commerce. J. Strat. Mark..
Opin. Psychol. 10, 55–59. Mostafa, R.B., 2016. Value co-creation in industrial cities: a strategic source of com-
Lamberton, C.P., Rose, R.L., 2012. When is ours better than mine? A framework petitive advantages. J. Strat. Mark. 24 (2), 144–167.
for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. J. Narasimhan, C., Papatla, P., Jiang, B., Kopalle, P.K., Messinger, P.R., Moorthy, S., Pros-
Mark. 76 (4), 109–125. erpio, D., Subramanian, U., Wu, C., Zhu, T., 2018. Sharing economy: review of
Lampinen, A., Huotari, K.J.E., Cheshire, C., 2015. Challenges to participation in the current research and future directions. Customer Needs Sol. 5 (1–2), 93–106.
sharing economy: the case of local online peer-to-peer exchange in a single par- Northey, G., Brodie, R.J., 2020. Leveraging the power of the sharing economy. Austr.
ents’ network. Int. Des. Architect. J. 24, 16–32. Mark. J. 28 (3).
Lang, B., Botha, E., Robertson, J., Kemper, J., Dolan, R., Kietzmann, J., 2020. How to Ozanne, L., Ozanne, J.L., 2020. The power of sharing to support consumers through
grow the sharing economy? Create prosumers. Austr. Mark. J. 28 (3). liminality. Austr. Mark. J. 28 (3).
Lee, Z.W., Chan, T.K., Balaji, M.S., Chong, A.Y.L., 2018. Why people participate in the Paramita, W., Septianto, F., Winahjoe, S., Purwanto, B., Candra, I.D., 2020. Sharing
sharing economy: an empirical investigation of Uber. Int. Res. 28 (3), 829–850. is (not) caring? The interactive effects of power and psychological distance on
Leung, X.Y., Xue, L., Wen, H., 2019. Framing the sharing economy: toward a sustain- tolerance of unethical behaviour. Austr. Mark. J. 28 (3).
able ecosystem. Tour. Manag. 71, 44–53. Parente, R.C., Geleilate, J.M.G., Rong, K., 2018. The sharing economy globalization
Lim, W.M., 2020. An equity theory perspective of online group buying. J. Retail. Con- phenomenon: a research agenda. J. Int. Manag. 24 (1), 52–64.
sum. Serv. 54. Perren, R., Kozinets, R.V., 2018. Lateral exchange markets: how social platforms op-
Lim, W.M., 2019. To what degree is the Fourth Industrial Revolution an opportunity erate in a networked economy. J Mark 82 (1), 20–36.
or a threat for the ASEAN community and region? Modern Appl. Sci. 13 (9), Phua, V.C., 2019. Perceiving Airbnb as sharing economy: the issue of trust in using
105–106. Airbnb. Curr. Issues Tour. 22 (17), 2051–2055.
Lim, W.M., 2018a. Demystifying neuromarketing. J Bus Res 91, 205–220. Plewnia, F., Guenther, E., 2018. Mapping the sharing economy for sustainability re-
Lim, W.M., 2018b. Dialectic antidotes to critics of the technology acceptance model: search. Manag. Dec. 56 (3), 570–583.
conceptual, methodological, and replication treatments for behavioural mod- Plummer, R., Armitage, D., 2007. A resilience-based framework for evaluating adap-
elling in technology-mediated environments. Austr. J. Inf. Syst. 22. tive co-management: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex
Lim, W.M., 2018c. Revisiting concepts and theories in information systems and tech- world. Ecol. Econ. 61 (1), 62–74.
nology. Austr. J. Inf. Syst. 22. Pomering, A., 2017. Marketing for sustainability: extending the conceptualisation of
Lim, W.M., 2018d. What will business-to-business marketers learn from neuro– the marketing mix to drive value for individuals and society at large. Austr.
marketing? Insights for business marketing practice. J. Bus.-Bus. Mark. 25 (3), Mark. J. 25 (2), 157–165.
251–259. Prahalad, C.K., 2005. The Fortune At the Bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty
Lim, W.M., 2017a. Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: critical Through Profits. Wharton School of Publishing, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
concepts for sustainability, consumption, and marketing. J. Bus. Res. 78, 69–80.

Please cite this article as: W.M. Lim, Sharing economy: A marketing perspective, Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ausmj.2020.06.007
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;July 8, 2020;10:44]

10 W.M. Lim / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Prior, D.D., Keränen, J., 2020. Revisiting contemporary issues in B2B marketing: it’s Taylor, M., Reilly, D., Wren, C., 2020. Internet of things support for marketing activ-
not just about artificial intelligence. Austr. Mark. J. press. ities. J. Strat. Mark. 28 (2), 149–160.
Proserpio, D., Xu, W., Zervas, G., 2018. You get what you give: theory and evidence The Economist. (2013). The rise of the sharing economy. Available at
of reciprocity in the sharing economy. Quan. Mark. Econ. 16 (4), 371–407. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104- internet- everything-
PwC. (2016). Future of the sharing economy in Europe. Available at hire- rise- sharing- economy (accessed March 1, 2020).
http://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/megatrends/collisions/sharingeconomy/ Time. (2011). 10 ideas that will change the world. Available at http://content.time.
future- of- the- sharing- economy- in- europe- 2016.html (accessed March 1, com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0, 29569, 2059521, 00.html.
2020). Trompenaars, F., Coebergh, P.H., 2014. 100+ Management models: How to Under-
PwC. (2015). The sharing economy. Available at https://www.pwc.com/us/ stand and Apply the World’s Most Powerful Business Tools. Infinite Ideas, Ox-
en/technology/publications/assets/pwc- consumer- intelligence- series- the- ford, OX.
sharing-economy.pdf (accessed March 1, 2020). Venkatesh, A., Penaloza, L., Firat, A.F., 2006. The market as a sign system and the
Quattrone, G., Proserpio, D., Quercia, D., Capra, L., Musolesi, M., 2016. Who benefits logic of the market. In: Lusch, R., Vargo, S.L (Eds.), The Service-Dominant Logic
from the sharing economy of Airbnb? In: Proceedings of the 25th International of Marketing. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 251–265.
Conference On World Wide Web. International Conference on World Wide Web, Wagner, T., Kuhndt, M., Lagomarsino, J., Mattar, H., 2015. Listening to Sharing Econ-
Montréal, Québec, Canada, pp. 1385–1394. omy Initiatives. Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Produc-
Ratten, V., 2013. Cloud computing: a social cognitive perspective of ethics, en- tion, Wuppertal, Germany.
trepreneurship, technology marketing, computer self-efficacy and outcome ex- Wang, Y., Xiang, D., Yang, Z., Ma, S.S., 2019. Unraveling customer sustainable con-
pectancy on behavioural intentions. Austr. Mark. J. 21 (3), 137–146. sumption behaviors in sharing economy: a socio-economic approach based on
Rayna, T., Striukova, L., 2016. Involving consumers: the role of digital technologies social exchange theory. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 869–879.
in promoting ‘prosumption’ and user innovation. J. Knowl. Econ. 1–20. Whalen, P.S., Akaka, M.A., 2016. A dynamic market conceptualization for en-
Read, W., Robertson, N., McQuilken, L., 2011. A novel romance: the technology ac- trepreneurial marketing: the co-creation of opportunities. J. Strat. Mark. 24 (1),
ceptance model with emotional attachment. Austr. Mark. J. 19 (4), 223–229. 61–75.
Richardson, L., 2015. Performing the sharing economy. Geoforum 67, 121–129. Weber, T.A., 2014. Intermediation in a sharing economy: insurance, moral hazard,
Ritter, M., Schanz, H., 2019. The sharing economy: a comprehensive business model and rent extraction. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 31 (3), 35–71.
framework. J. Clean. Prod. 213, 320–331. Wittel, A., 2011. Qualities of sharing and their transformations in the digital age. Int.
Sands, S., Ferraro, C., Campbell, C., Kietzmann, J., Andonopoulos, V., 2020. Who Rev. Inf. Ethics 15 (9), 3–8.
shares? Profiling consumers in the sharing economy. Austr. Mark. J. 28 (3). Zadeh, A.H., Zolfagharian, M., Hofacker, C.F., 2019. Customer–customer value co-cre-
Schor, J.B., 2014. Debating the sharing economy. Great Trans. Initia- ation in social media: conceptualization and antecedents. J. Strat. Mark. 27 (4),
tive. October 2014Available at http://greattransition.org/publication/ 283–302.
debating- the- sharing- economy. Zare, S., Bettiga, D., Lamberti, L., 2019. Does one design fit them all? Study of drivers
Schor, J.B., 2016. Debating the sharing economy. J. Self-Govern. Manag. Econ. 4 (3), of co-creation interest along different consumer segments. J. Strat. Mark. 27 (7),
7–22. 630–650.
Schor, J.B., Cansoy, M., 2019. The sharing economy. In: Wherry, F.F, Woodward, I Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., Byers, J.W., 2017. The rise of the sharing economy: estimat-
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Consumption. Oxford University Press, New ing the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. J. Mark. Res. 54 (5), 687–705.
York, NY, pp. 51–73. Zhang, T.C., Gu, H., Jahromi, M.F., 2019. What makes the sharing economy suc-
Schor, J.B., Fitzmaurice, C., 2015. Collaborating and connecting: the emergence of a cessful? An empirical examination of competitive customer value propositions.
sharing economy. In: Reisch, L., Thogersen, J. (Eds.), Handbook on Research On Comput. Human Behav. 95, 275–283.
Sustainable Consumption. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 410–425. Zhang, T.C., Jahromi, M.F., Kizildag, M., 2018. Value co-creation in a sharing econ-
Schor, J.B., Fitzmaurice, C., Carfagna, L.B., Attwood-Charles, W., Poteat, E.D., 2016. omy: the end of price wars. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 71, 51–58.
Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy. Poetics 54, Zvolska, L., Palgan, Y.V., Mont, O., 2019. How do sharing organisations create and
66–81. disrupt institutions? Towards a framework for institutional work in the sharing
Schor, J.B., Walker, E.T., Lee, C.W., Parigi, P., Cook, K., 2015. On the sharing economy. economy. J. Clean. Prod. 219, 667–676.
Contexts 14 (1), 12–19.
Sigala, M., 2018. Market formation in the sharing economy: findings and implica- Weng Marc Lim is an Adjunct Professor of Swinburne Business School at Swin-
tions from the sub-economies of Airbnb. In: Barile, S., Pellicano, M., Polese, F. burne University of Technology’s home campus in Australia and a Full Professor and
(Eds.), Social Dynamics in a Systems Perspective. Springer, New York, NY, the Head of the School of Business at Swinburne University of Technology’s interna-
pp. 159–174. tional branch campus in Malaysia. Both campuses offer AACSB-accredited business
Smith, K.T., 2020. Marketing via smart speakers: what should Alexa say. J. Strat. degrees. His-research interests include marketing exchanges in the sharing econ-
Mark. 28 (4), 350–365. omy. He also holds a doctorate in business and economics from Monash University
Starr, R.G., Zhu, A, Frethey-Bentham, C, Brodie, R.J, 2020. Peer-to-peer interactions in and several post-doctorate certificates in leadership and pedagogy from Cornell Uni-
the sharing economy: exploring the role of reciprocity within a Chinese social versity and Harvard University. To date, Marc has published in European Journal of
network. Austr. Mark. J. 28 (3). Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business Research, Journal of
Sutherland, W., Jarrahi, M.H., 2018. The sharing economy and digital platforms: a Business and Industrial Marketing, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Journal of
review and research agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 43, 328–341. Retailing and Consumer Services, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Marketing Intelligence
Taghizadeh, S.K., Rahman, S.A., Marimuthu, M., 2019. Idea generation leveraged from and Planning, and Marketing Theory, amongst others. He has also presented his work
value co-creation process enhances new service development performance. J. at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the World
Strat. Mark. 27 (6), 483–504. Economic Forum. Contact: @limwengmarc on Instagram and Twitter or his personal
Taillon, B.J., Huhmann, B.A., 2019. Strategic consequences of self-service technology homepage at https://www.wengmarc.com.
evaluations. J. Strat. Mark. 27 (3), 268–279.

Please cite this article as: W.M. Lim, Sharing economy: A marketing perspective, Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ausmj.2020.06.007