Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A conceptual perspective on collaborative consumption

  • Theory/Conceptual
  • Published:
AMS Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While considerable investigative work has focused on collaborative consumption (CC) from a managerial standpoint, the concept still lacks the conceptual groundwork necessary to categorize and fully understand its scopes and limits. In this article, the authors draw upon past research to delineate the construct, discuss its dimensionalities, and propose a conceptualization of CC. The CC concept is based on six key thrusts: (1) the consumer’s ability to switch sides; (2) the collaboration intensity; (3) the manner in which consumers partake in CC; (4) the transfer of ownership and use; (5) the channels used; and (6) the extended range of stakeholders in collaborative exchanges. This analytical endeavour brings to the fore the multidimensional aspect of CC, the centrality of a two-sided instead of a one-sided consumer role, and the extent to which both CC (collaborative consumption) and conventional consumption (conventional economy) are tightly interrelated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. (2017). Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Airgrain P (2012). Sharing: Culture and the economy in the internet age. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University press.

  • Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, Y. B. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building community through sharing events. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(4), 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alchian, A. A. (1965). Some economics of property rights. Il Politico, 30(4), 816–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1973). The property right paradigm. The Journal of Economic History, 33(1), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnould, E. J., & Rose, A. S. (2016). Mutuality: Critique and substitute for Belk’s sharing. Marketing Theory, 16(1), 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arsel, Z., & Dobscha, S. (2011). Hybrid pro-social exchange systems: The case of freecycle. Advances in Consumer Research, 39, 66–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bajde, D. (2013). Marketized philanthropy Kiva’s utopian ideology of entrepreneurial philanthropy. Marketing Theory, 13(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhi, F., & Arnould, E. J. (2005). Thrift shopping: Combining utilitarian thrift and hedonic treat benefits. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(4), 223–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2012). Liquid relationship to possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 510–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (1985). Productivity policy and the service sector. In R. P. Inman (Ed.), Managing the service economy: Prospects and problems (pp. 301–316). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauwens, M. (2015). The political economy of peer production. CTheory, 12–1. Retrieved 14 February 2016 from http://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/view/14464/5306.

  • Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W., Sherry Jr., J. F., & Wallendorf, M. (1988). A naturalistic inquiry into buyer and seller behaviour at a swap meet. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 449–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behaviour: An integrative framework for promotional planning. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergadaà, M. (2006). Le don d’objet: l’exploration de ses dimensions et des profils de donneurs aux œuvres de bienfaisance [Object donation : exploration of its dimensions and profiles of charity donors]. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 21(1), 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binninger, A. S., Ourahmoune, N., & Robert, I. (2015). Collaborative consumption and sustainability: A discursive analysis of consumer representations and collaborative website narratives. Journal of Applied Business Research, 31(3), 969–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böckers, L., & Meelen, T. (2016). Motivations for participation in different forms of the sharing economy. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on the Sharing Economy. ESCP Europe, 28–29 January, Paris.

  • Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. New York: Harpers Collins.

  • Chapman, A. (1980). Barter as a universal mode of exchange. L’Homme, 20(3), 33–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and access: Consumer desires and value perceptions regarding contemporary art collection and exhibit visits. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 925–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherrier, H. (2009). Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, H., & Liao, S. (2007). Exploring consumer resale behavior in C2C online auctions: Taxonomy and influences on consumer decisions. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 11(3), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, H., & Liao, S. (2010). Buying while expecting to sell: The economic psychology of online resale. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 1073–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corciolani, M., & Dalli, D. (2014). Gift-giving, sharing and commodity exchange at Bookcrossing.com: New insights from a qualitative analysis. Management Decision, 52(4), 755–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M.H., & Rochberg-Halton, E.E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Dalli, D., & Corciolani, M. (2008). Collective forms of resistance: The transformative power of moderate communities. Evidence from the BookCrossing case. International Journal of Market Research, 50(6), 757–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F. (2013). After the corporation. Policing and Society, 41(2), 283–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisend, M. (2015). Have we progressed marketing knowledge? A meta-meta-analysis of effect sizes in marketing research. Journal of Marketing, 79(3), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • eMarketer. (2017). Total retail sales worldwide, 2013–2018. Retrieved March 20, 2018 from http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1011765.

  • Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R., & Kollat, D.T. (1978). Consumer behavior. Hinsdale: Dryden Press.

  • Ertz, M., Durif, F., & Arcand, M. (2015). Online product disposition on the rise — The specific case of online resale. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 32(5), 66–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertz, M., Durif, F., & Arcand, M. (2017). An analysis of the origins of collaborative consumption and its implications for marketing. Journal Entrepreneurship Education, 21(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertz, M., Durif, F., François-Lecompte, A., & Boivin, C. (2018). Does “sharing” mean “socially responsible consuming”? Exploration of the relationship between collaborative consumption and socially responsible consumption. Journal of Consumer Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-09-2016-1941.

  • European Parliament (2016). The cost of non-Europe in the sharing economy: Economic, social and legal challenges and opportunities. Retrieved June 11, 2018 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/558777/EPRS_STU(2016)558777_EN.pdf

  • Felson, M., & Spaeth, J. L. (1978). Community structure and collaborative consumption: A routine activity approach. The American Behavioral Scientist, 21(4), 614–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreth, M. R., Ghosh, B., & Shor, M. (2012). Social sharing of information goods: Implications for pricing and profits. Marketing Science, 31(4), 603–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gansky, L. (2010). The mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. New York: Portfolio.

  • Giesler, M. (2006). Consumer gift systems. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 283–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godbout, J., & Caillé, A. (1992). L’esprit du don [the world of the gift]. Paris : Éditions La Découverte.

  • Gregson, N., & Crewe, L. (2003). Second-hand cultures. London: Berg Publishers.

  • Guiot, D., & Roux, D. (2010). A second-hand shoppers’ motivation scale: Antecedents, consequences, and implications for retailers. Journal of Retailing, 86(4), 383–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, G. D., & McConocha, D. M. (1992). Personal factors related to consumer product disposal tendencies. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 26(2), 397–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J., Golightly, D., & Smith, A. (2014). Giving and sharing in the digitally-mediated economy. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 905–906.

  • Hawkins, D., Coney, K., & Best, R. (1980). Consumer behavior: Implications for marketing strategy. In Dallas: Business publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig-Thurau, T., Henning, V., & Sattler, H. (2007). Consumer file sharing of motion pictures. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, G. M., & Soiffer, S. M. (1984). For fun and profit: An analysis of the American garage sale. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 12(4), 397–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 50–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, C., & Hugh-Jones, S. (Eds.). (1992). Barter, exchange and value: An anthropological approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J., Berning, C. K., & Dietvorst, T. F. (1977). What about disposition? Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, N. A. (2013). The social logics of sharing. The Communication Review, 16(3), 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson, P. (2006). Capturing the elusive simplifier. Göteborg: Göteborg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karrman, M. (2011). The rise of collaborative consumption on the example of couchsurfing, Norderstedt: Grin Verlag.

  • Katsev, R. (2003). Car sharing: A new approach to urban transportation problems. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kijiji. (2015). The Kijiji second-hand economy index 2015 report. Retrieved February 14, 2016 from http://secondhandeconomy.kijiji.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Kijiji-Index.pdf.

  • Koene, P., Köbler, F., Esch, S., Leimeister, J.M., & Kromar, H. (2012). Design and evaluation of a service-oriented collaborative consumption platform for the elderly. Paper presented at the CHI 2012, 5–10 may, Austin, Texas.

  • Lafontaine, T. (2016). Le stand-up comme espace de résistance et de transformation [Stand-up as a space of resistance and transformation]. Unpublished master’s thesis. Montreal : Université du Québec à Montréal.

  • Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lastovicka, J. L., & Fernandez, K. V. (2005). Three paths to disposition: The movement of meaningful possessions to strangers. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 813–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, D. R., & Parker, J. R. (2017). Disadoption. Academy of Marketing Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-017-0093-8.

  • Lévi-Strauss, C. (1961). The elementary structures of kinship. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, S., & Chu, H. (2013). Influence of consumer online resale awareness on purchase decisions: A mental accounting perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 47(10), 1576–1597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecological Economics, 121, 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlexander, J. H. (1991). Divorce, the disposition of the relationship, and everything. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 43–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2000). A world of abundance. Interfaces, 30(3), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meeker, M. E., Barlow, K., & Lipsit, D. M. (1986). Culture, exchange, and gender: Lessons from the Murik. Cultural Anthropology, 1, 6–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murillo, D., Buckland, H., & Val, E. (2017). When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: Unravelling the controversies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.024.

  • Nielsen. (2014). Is sharing the new buying?” Retrieved June 20, 2015 from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/is-sharing-the-new-buying.html.

  • Nissanoff, D. (2006). FutureShop: How the new auction culture will revolutionize the way we buy, sell, and get the things we really want. New York: Penguin Audio.

    Google Scholar 

  • OCU. (2016). Collaboration or business? Collaborative consumption: From value for users to a society with values. OCU Ediciones SA. Retrieved on march 20, 2018 from http://embedslide.net/slide-collaboration-or-business-collaborative-consumption-fromvalue-for-users-to-a-society-with-values-ocu-s56cb3ee758e693dc4a0d74e2.html.

  • Ostrom, E., & Hess, C. (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owyang, J., Samuel, A., & Grenville, A. (2013). Sharing is the new buying, winning in the collaborative economy. Retrieved on February 14, 2016 from http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2014/03/03/report-sharing-is-the-new-buying-winning-in-the-collaborative-economy/.

  • Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2015). Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 31, 1310–1332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paden, N., & Stell, R. (2005). Consumer product redistribution: Disposition decisions and channel options. Journal Market Channels, 12(3), 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavia, T. (1993). Dispossession and perceptions of self in later stage HIV infection. Advances in Consumer Behavior, 20, 425–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perren, R., & Kozinets, R. V. (2018). Lateral exchange markets: How social platforms operate in a networked economy. Journal of Marketing, 82(1), 20–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center. (2016). Shared, collaborative and on demand: The new digital economy. Retrieved June 11, 2018 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/05/19/the-new-digital-economy/

  • Piscicelli, L., Cooper, T., & Fisher, T. (2015). The role of values in collaborative consumption: Insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, K. (1957). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. New York: Rinehart (Original work published 1944).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PwC (2015). The sharing economy. Retrieved February 14, 2016 from https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-consumer-intelligence-series-the-sharing-economy.pdf.

  • Ritzer, G. (2015). Prosumer capitalism. The Sociological Quarterly, 56(3), 413–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roster, C. A. (2001). Letting go: The process and meaning of dispossession in the lives of consumers. Advances in Consumer Research, 28(1), 425–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scaraboto, D. (2015). Selling, sharing, and everything in between: The hybrid economies of collaborative networks. Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (June), 152–176.

  • Schau, H. J., Muniz, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schor, J. (2016). Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance & Management Economics, 4(3), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfang, G., & Longhurst, N. (2013). Growing green money? Mapping community currencies for sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 86, 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaheen, S., Sperling, D., & Wagner, C. (1999). Car-sharing and partnership management: An international perspective. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1666(1), 118–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry Jr., J. F. (1990). A sociocultural analysis of a Midwestern American flea market. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahel, W.R. (1982). The product life factor. An inquiry into the nature of sustainable societies: The role of the private sector (Series: 1982 Mitchell prize papers). Houston: HARC.

  • Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J., Horne, S., & Hibbert, S. (1996). Car boot sales: A study of shopping motives in an alternative retail format. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 24(11), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (2009). Why we cooperate. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, R., Denegri-Knott, J., & Molesworth, M. (2016). The relationship between ownership and possession: Observations from the context of digital virtual goods. Journal of Marketing Management, 32, 44–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M.M., & Wallendorf, M. (1989). Ashes to ashes, dust to dust: Conceptualizing consumer disposition of possessions. In Proceedings of the AMA winter educator’s conference (pp. 33-39), American marketing association, Chicago, ILL.

  • Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (2017). The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(5), 687–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, R., Dholakia, U. M., Chen, X., & Algesheimer, R. (2012). Does online community participation foster risky financial behavior? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(3), 394–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LaboNFC, Department of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Université du Québec À Chicoutimi (UQÀC), 555, boulevard de l’Université, Chicoutimi, (QC), G7H 2B1, Canada

    Myriam Ertz

  2. Marketing Department, École des Sciences de la Gestion (ÉSG), Université du Quebec À Montreal [School of Management Sciences – University of Quebec in Montreal], 405, Rue Sainte-Catherine Est, Montreal, (QC), H2L 2C4, Canada

    Fabien Durif & Manon Arcand

Authors
  1. Myriam Ertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabien Durif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manon Arcand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Myriam Ertz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ertz, M., Durif, F. & Arcand, M. A conceptual perspective on collaborative consumption. AMS Rev 9, 27–41 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-018-0121-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-018-0121-3

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation