New Puppets in the Old School: The Applicability of
Traditional Internationalisation Theories in the
Cristina Pérez-Pérez * , Diana Benito-Osorio and Susana María García-Moreno
Citation: Pérez-Pérez, Cristina,
Diana Benito-Osorio, and Susana
María García-Moreno. 2021. New
Puppets in the Old School: The
Applicability of Traditional
Internationalisation Theories in the
Sharing Economy. Administrative
Sciences 11: 98. https://doi.org/
Received: 29 July 2021
Accepted: 4 September 2021
Published: 9 September 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional afﬁl-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Business Administration (ADO), Applied Economics II and Foundations of Economic Analysis, Universidad Rey
Juan Carlos, Paseo de los Artilleros s/n, 28032 Madrid, Spain; email@example.com (D.B.-O.);
Sharing Economy platforms have expanded their operations all around the globe at an
unexpected rate. Due to its “asset-lite” nature, traditional internationalisation theories may not be
able to fully explain or predict their expansion patterns. This lack of theoretical background puts at
risk the phenomenon’s future and stops traditional companies from coming up with a solid plan to
compete against platforms. To ease the creation of a Sharing Economy internationalisation paradigm,
this paper intends to review the existing research regarding the internationalisation of sharing
platforms as well as the applicability of existing theories. Through a systematic literature review, the
existing research was reviewed, and afterwards, internationalisation theories and their distinct factors
extracted were noted to address the applicability of these within the singularities of the sharing
phenomenon. This classiﬁcation of factors was done according to the exiting literature in the ﬁeld.
After this research, we can conﬁrm the lack of explanatory power of traditional theories regarding
sharing platforms and conﬁrm the insufﬁcient research regarding these operations. We propose a list
of factors that should be considered for future research as a guideline for the further development of
the Sharing Economy internationalisation theory. Additionally, the factors classiﬁcation is tested upon
the case of the internationalisation of Blablacar, the most extensive carpooling network operating, to
check if the theoretical and the practical approaches converge.
sharing economy; platforms; internationalisation; internationalisation theories; new
theory; growth methods; expansion; conceptualization; Blablacar
The platform business model has grown both in size and scale dramatically over
the last decade, and has contributed to driving up productivity in multiple ways (Evans
and Gawer 2016), proving not to be fragile or a temporary notion (Fan et al. 2019). This
system has been celebrated by consumers and investors (Wirtz et al. 2019) by achieving
an unprecedented rate of global success (Parente et al. 2018), despite not having a clear
deﬁnition (Botsman 2013;Frenken and Schor 2017;Sundararajan 2014). Instead of focusing
on developing and commercializing products, this model concentrates its efforts on creating
an efﬁcient and convenient virtual marketplace that connects users and allows them to
match accordingly to time, place, and individual preferences (Parente et al. 2018).
With an expected market value of $335 billion by 2025 (Statista 2020) and millions of
direct and indirect employees, platforms have become a signiﬁcant economic force and
a global phenomenon (Evans and Gawer 2016). To maximise the payoffs, SE platforms
have expanded quickly to other countries, in some cases without taking enough time to
evaluate how to adapt their methods and strategies, resulting in mixed results from these
internationalisation processes (Kozlenkova et al. 2021). This international expansion has
attracted a great deal of attention, but most questions related to these processes still need
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11030098 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 2 of 23
to be addressed by the literature (Kozlenkova et al. 2021;Parente et al. 2018). Although, in
general, the SE is a recent concept, the academic interest in this area is continuously growing
(Sassanelli et al. 2019), boosted by the request for answers by traditional companies and the
society in general, which are concerned about the legality and fairness of this competitive
model (Dunne 2017) and their long-term impact on communities all around the world
(Marchi and Parekh 2016).
According to Marano et al. (2020), SE platforms seem to be less challenged by
internationalisation-related challenges than traditional companies, and, at the same time,
platforms have been said to be able to formulate novel ways of international expansion
(Nambisan et al. 2019)
, extricating themselves from existent paradigms. Although, assess-
ing the size of the sharing sector is difﬁcult (Schor and Vallas 2021). In a survey carried
out by the Center for a New American Dream (2014), between 10% and 14% of Ameri-
cans had participated in a sharing exchange. Regarding Europe, and according to ING
Bank’s (2015) study, around a third of Europeans consumers have heard of the sharing
economy, and around 5% have declared to participate actively on it during the previous
year. This same study anticipated the growth that was about to come within the coming
years, which was mainly driven by technological innovations, cultural practices, the eco-
nomic conditions, and the Great Recession, together with the discourses of SE founders
(Schor and Vallas 2021)
. By enacting a new way of work, which offers a
more ﬂexible and personalise schedule (Sundararajan 2016), lower entry barriers and a
more inclusive environment for people from all types of backgrounds (Zanoni 2019) the
SE has expanded all over the world at an unprecedent rate, challenging both, traditional
companies, and scholars.
By taking into consideration this information, the main objective of this paper is to
review the most prominent international theories, and point out how they can be used
to explain the internationalisation processes of SE platforms and where they fail to do
so. With this paper, we aim to understand the applicability of traditional theories in the
SE and open new research paths to formulate a new custom-made theory that takes into
consideration the SE speciﬁcities. Therefore, during this research, the following research
questions will be addressed:
RQ1: Are existent internationalisation theories able to explain the foreign expansion
processes of SE platforms?
RQ2: How can the SE speciﬁc characteristics interfere in the applicability of interna-
This study is the ﬁrst attempt to analyse the applicability of the factors derived from
the main internationalisation theories and comes justiﬁed by several reasons. First, it
presents an overview of the current internationalisation theories and their key factors.
Second, by analysing the SE in this context, the relevance of each factor can be evaluated
under the perspective of this model, which will allow sifting among those factors which
can be useful when explaining internationalisation processes and those which are not. This
sieving will conﬁrm if any of the actual theories is fully applicable to this model, and in the
opposite case, which factors should be considered when analysing the expansion processes.
Finally, by bridging the disconnect between the SE model and the internationalisation
theories, we aim to provide a foundation for future research regarding these processes and
stimulate this discussion.
To shed light on this theoretical question, the case of Blablacar’s internationalisation
process was analysed under this new perspective. This platform is the world’s leading
long-distance carpooling platform, with a community of 80 million drivers, passengers in
22 countries and 600 employees (Mogavero 2020). It contributes to bringing people closer
and creating a unique space and has double the occupancy rate of cars, contributing to
carbon-saving. Moreover, this platform, among other examples as Lift or Ola, has changed
the old-fashioned mobility systems worldwide (Wirtz et al. 2019) without owning any
vehicles (Mogavero 2020).
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 3 of 23
To reach the objectives set, ﬁrst, both topics are reviewed, and the relationship between
them and their most important aspects exposed. Afterwards, these two elements will be
combined and analysed in deep to distort the factors according to their applicability. These
results will be applied to the case of Blablacar’s internationalisation process. Finally, the
discussion and the conclusion section will be addressed, going through the principal results,
and showing the way for the further advancement of the ﬁeld.
2. Literature Review
With the rise of information technology in the late 20th century, the spread of personal
computers, mobile communication and location-based services, the global consumption
scheme is changing (Kim and Suh 2021). Furthermore, factors such as the abundance of
idle capacity, the growing awareness regarding sustainability, and the economic recession,
which implies higher unemployment rates, have constituted the perfect environment for the
EC to ﬂourish (Cheng 2016;Kathan et al. 2016). This system offers more convenient access
and the possibility of gaining proﬁts from underutilised assets (Cheng 2016;Kathan et al.
2016;Parente et al. 2018), and returns, in some way, to the consumption method followed
in the pre-industrial era, when people lived in smaller communities and used to share their
limited resources thanks to mutual trust and previous experience (Hawksworth 2014).
This phenomenon has been named as: “Collaborative Economy”, “Access economy”,
“Collaborative consumption” or “Sharing Economy”, with this last name being the most
widely used. Although there is still no agreement on defining this model (Botsman 2013;
Frenken and Schor 2017;Lamberton and Rose 2012), it has some characteristics widely
agreed among scholars. These include aspects, such as the critical role played by digital
platforms (Möhlmann 2015;Munkøe 2017;Stokes et al. 2014;Tussyadiah 2016) or the
reputation systems incorporated within them (Allen and Berg 2014;Frenken 2017;Munkøe
2017). In addition, the elimination of idle capacity of goods (Allen and Berg 2014;Richard-
son 2015), the preference of access over ownership (Dredge and Gyimoothy 2015;Lindblom
et al. 2018;Perren and Grauerholz 2015), or the community of peers (Frenken 2017;Hamari
et al. 2016;Perren and Grauerholz 2015), that builds up around platforms (Alonso-Almeida
et al. 2020;Baumber et al. 2019;Kassan and Orsi 2012), are considered relevant as well.
Due to the lack of agreement when it comes to deﬁning the phenomenon, different
classiﬁcations have arisen as well. For example, according to Schor (2016), platforms can
be classiﬁed depending on the platform orientation (for-proﬁt/non-proﬁt), and the type
of provider involved (peer-to-peer/business-to-peer). For Frenken et al. (2015), the SE
is compound by three elements: a costumer-to-costumer interaction, temporary access,
and a more efﬁcient use of physical resources. If only two out of these three elements are
present, they no longer consider it SE, but another economic form of exchange, on demand
economy (customer-to-customer and access), second-hand economy (customer-to-customer
and goods), or product-service economy (access and goods). Oskam and Boswijk (2016)
divided value networks in four groups according to two dimensions. From this analysis,
open and not-for-proﬁt systems were identiﬁed, as well as peer-to-peer market places based
on open systems, closed protected systems for the common good (called collectives) and
hyperconnected and distributed platforms with a commercial goal (network capitalists).
These different deﬁnitions and classiﬁcations lead to a very disorganised research ﬁeld as
well as to difﬁculties with collecting and processing information to obtain empirical data,
which results in a lack of ofﬁcial statistics (Schor and Vallas 2021).
In general, it could be said that through this system, similarly to multi-sided market-
places or triadic business model (service enabler–service provider–customer), platforms
rely on information technologies to allow different agents to share their assets and to ﬁnd a
substitute alternative to ownership (Parente et al. 2018). The success of this model relies
on the strength of this interaction (Kumar et al. 2018). In addition, this shift from bilateral
to multilateral relationships allows members to have varying and dynamic roles through
their time within the platform (Nambisan et al. 2019). The effects of the SE continues to
trigger an intense debate among scholars (de Streel and Larouche 2015), and traditional
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 4 of 23
industries are opening to newcomers which compete with existing companies through
different strategies and methods (Russo and Stasi 2016), challenging traditional ways of
doing business and changing the global organization of economic activities (Vitkovic 2016).
Due to the virtual nature of the platforms, users access them through web browsers
or mobile apps, which means that they can be used all around the world, allowing them
to be international “by default” (Shaheer and Li 2020). Although this opportunity is
presented, most platforms make deliberate foreign market entry decisions (Stallkamp and
Schotter 2019) expanding aggressively and not being conditioned by cultural or economic
discrepancies (Parente et al. 2018). However, these internationalisation decisions are often
made without much information, making platforms unsure of how to proceed (Coviello
et al. 2017), resulting in different degrees of success (Kozlenkova et al. 2021). This quick
international expansion has attracted a signiﬁcant amount of attention (Parente et al. 2018),
but this is a topic still to be developed, which could have its foundations in traditional
International business strategy has been an area of interest for many years, which
has contributed to the development of different theories aiming to explain the processes
undertaken by companies. Traditionally, these theories were focused on large multina-
tional corporations (Johanson and Vahlne 2009;Mtigwe 2006), but the focus recently has
been on the analysis of smaller companies, international new ventures, and born-global
companies, as they seem to internationalise faster and differently (Oviatt and McDougall
2005;Smith et al. 2012).
Although the internationalisation research ﬁeld has increased over the last few decades,
literature dealing with the internationalisation of SE platforms is almost non-existent
(Parente et al. 2018;
Stallkamp and Schotter 2019). This is relevant because traditional
internationalisation-related challenges are less relevant for SE ﬁrms (Marano et al. 2020),
and, therefore, underlying reasons for internationalisation may be different. Due to their
nature, there is a need to formulate novel ways of international expansion models (Nam-
bisan et al. 2019), as although traditional theories could be considered, their theoretical
assumptions are signiﬁcantly challenged by this new system (Parente et al. 2018).
From traditional international business literature, three main perspectives can be
found aiming to explain internationalisation processes (Table 1) (Akter et al. 2019;Anders-
son 2000;Burgel et al. 2001). These three domains identify how internationalisation has
been explained through previous theories, either by growth and expansion, or though
strategies and methods, therefore considering an internationalisation theory any paradigm
Table 1. Summary of the review of internationalisation theories.
Theories Key Assumptions Derived Factors Authors
Economic View of Internationalisation (Macro Level)
Product Life Cycle
The life cycle of the ﬁrm’s product
is linked to internationalisation
Nature of product
Stage in the life cycle Vernon (1966)
Highlights the role of the individual
ﬁrm as the main determinant of
international ﬂows of goods and
Firm’s competitive advantage
Product’s superior value Hymer (1976)
Internalisation Theory Firms internationalise to reduce
Opportunity to the
Buckley and Casson (1976)
The Eclectic Theory of
Firms internationalise due to
ownership advantages, location
Barrier to trade
Product’s heritage value
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 5 of 23
Table 1. Cont.
Theories Key Assumptions Derived Factors Authors
Resource-Based View of Internationalisation (Firm Level)
Assumes that the international
resources of a ﬁrm inﬂuence the
internationalisation of small
Firm’s territorial location Barney (1991)
Foreign investment decisions are
heavily inﬂuenced by the unique
managerial competencies of
Management know-how Collis (1991)
Human Capital Theory
The ability to be an exporter may
not be solely related to the age or
size of the business, it is also related
to the human capital of an
Bates (1998); Gimeno et al.
(1997); Kalleberg and Leicht
(1991); Ruzzier et al. (2007);
Behavioural View of Internationalisation
The Foreign Investment
Assumes that decisions regarding
foreign investment encompass a
behavioural process triggered by a
stimulus to invest.
Time and effort pressure Aharoni (1966)
Uppsala/Stage Model of
Firms gradually increase their
internationalisation operations in
different stages as they develop
knowledge, experience, and
relationships with international
Foreign market knowledge
Relationships with foreign
Johanson and Vahlne (1977)
Ruzzier et al. (2007)
Johanson and Vahlne (2009)
Firms start involving in
international trade with those
countries having psychologically
distinct features. Export activities
vary for small ﬁrms depending on
the decision-makers of the ﬁrm.
The process of decision-making is
the key to the process of
Past or present experience
Exploration for market
Previous experience and
reputation, founders learning
and positive behaviour
Bilkey and Tesar (1977)
Network Theory of
Emphasise personal relationships as
the key factor to enter the
Johanson and Mattsson (1987)
Munro and Coviello (1995)
Laforet and Tann (2006)
Internationalisation is dependent
on contingent on the nature of the
knowledge. The quality and nature
of knowledge developed by an
organization and its deployment
are dependent on the institutional
settings and social communities
where the ﬁrm is located.
Quality of knowledge Nelson and Winter (1973)
Kogut and Zander (1993)
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 6 of 23
Table 1. Cont.
Theories Key Assumptions Derived Factors Authors
Process Theory of
The internationalisation process of a
ﬁrm is initiated in a reactive mode
in response to unsolicited export
orders. Spontaneous international
orders provide entrepreneurs to
accumulate knowledge of
internationalisation and learn both
their organization’s capabilities as
well as international market needs.
Experience in international
Global Firm’s Theory of
Early accumulation of experiential
knowledge facilitates early
internationalisation. Firms focus on
niche markets and global networks
and reoriented towards developing
mutually beneﬁcial relationships
with international partners.
Role of founder/entrepreneur
McDougall et al. (1994)
Oviatt and McDougall (2005)
Bell et al. (2003)
Li and Li (2007)
Strategic Choice Theory
Firms evaluate the risks in changing
market opportunities and respond
strategically to internationalisation
Knowledge, skills, experience Shuman and Seeger (1986)
Adaptive Choice Model
Internationalisation is an adaptive
response to other challenging
environments, imposed on
Declining local demand
Increase demand in foreign
Risk of adapting to change
Lam and White (1999)
Havnes and Senneseth (2001)
Source: Prepared by the authors after Akter et al. (2019).
Economic Perspective: The economic perspective, based on Smith (1776) and Ri-
cardo (1891) conceptualise internationalisation as an independent phenomenon for proﬁt-
maximization, and places the ﬁrm’s distinctive advantage central to internationalisation
and conjectures rationally (Seifert 2010).
Resource-Based View Perspective: This theory, initially proposed by Penrose (1960),
and actualised several other times by authors like Wernerfelt (1984) and Barney (1991),
became the dominant paradigm in strategic planning (Barney et al. 2001) and later, an
inﬂuential approach in internationalisation research (Peng 2001). Through this theory, the
internationalisation of companies is explained as an adaptive response to environmental
complexity, with the aim of gaining a competitive advantage by organizing the resources,
skills, and routines (Teece et al. 1997).
Behavioural Perspective: Behavioural theories of internationalisation appeared as an
alternative to the economic view of internationalisation (Akter et al. 2019). The central
assumptions of behavioural theories of internationalisation are: (1) path dependency;
(2) goal complexity; (3) contextual contingency; and (4) weak rationality requirements
This perspective has provided a solid background for new perspectives on
The qualitative research here has involved a systematic literature review (Grant and
Booth 2009;Petticrew and Roberts 2006;Tranﬁeld et al. 2003) to investigate the previous
research analysing the relationship between the SE and the internationalisation of the
platforms. The main goal of this step is to check if there is any speciﬁc research that
analyses the internationalisation of SE platforms, and if so, what has been said about these
The search strategy was based on the bibliographic database Web of Science (WoS)
Core Collection, as it is the most widely accepted and frequently used database for the
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 7 of 23
analysis of scientiﬁc publications (Castillo-Vergara et al. 2018;Dzikowski 2018;Guerras-
Martín et al. 2020;Yang et al. 2013).
We identiﬁed the research area for the systematic review and studied the scope and
objectives, setting the SE as the central concept. Afterwards, we determined the inclusion
and exclusion criteria. All of the articles and reviews in the database containing the
keywords “sharing economy”, “collaborative economy”, or “platform economy” were
retrieved. This approach yielded a total of 2564 results. The sample was downloaded
and reviewed to remove duplicates and conﬁrm their ﬁt within the model. The authors
undertook this process manually, including 1898 papers in the ﬁnal database. This search
was conducted in April 2021.
For this speciﬁc research, a subgroup of publications was analysed, selecting from the
previous sample those articles that relate the sharing economy with the internationalisation
processes, including those papers studying speciﬁc cases. Again, the documents were
individually reviewed by the authors to conﬁrm their ﬁt within the topic. In addition,
selected references from the articles identiﬁed were carefully screened for other relevant
After the initial query, the sample was personally revised by the authors to eliminate
non-related papers and possible duplicates. Once this step had been undertaken, the
remaining papers were analysed in depth. Several new articles were included because they
appeared in the bibliography of some of the selected papers and dealt with the topic in
question. Finally, nine papers were identiﬁed that studied the relationship between the SE
platform and internationalisation (Figure 1). These nine studies can be found in Table 2.
The next step was analysing which of the factors extracted from existing internation-
alisation theories can be used to explain the internationalisation process of SE platforms.
First, the internationalisation theories were examined, and their most representative factors
noted to study. Afterwards, these factors were individually addressed from a theoretical
point of view to analyse if, according to previous literature regarding the SE, its character-
istics and processes, each individual element could be used to explain the international
expansion activities of platforms. In order to address the applicability of the factors, and
due to the lack of literature regarding these speciﬁc processes, general literature regarding
the SE was used, relating the internationalisation factors extracted with the closest existent
literature. The reasoning behind the classiﬁcation of each element is explained in detail
in Sections 4.1–4.3, and summarised in Table 3, where the factors, their suitability and
the literature supporting the classiﬁcation are presented. After this process, the resulting
division of factors was tested on the case of the internationalisation process of Blablacar, to
check if the theory driven classiﬁcation was true in a practice driven example.
Figure 1. Criteria for selecting papers.
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 8 of 23
Table 2. Final sample of papers regarding the internationalisation of sharing platforms.
Author(s)/Year Article Journal Main Conclusions
Kim and Suh (2021)
Spreading the sharing
conditions for the
international diffusion of
- The SE has the potential to be a substitute
of traditional economic transactions.
- There are certain external environments
which allow the SE to ﬂourish.
- The SE is not only an emergent industry,
but a whole set of social relationships
among the agents.
- Platforms are destined to compete with
conventional companies to expand their
Kozlenkova et al. (2021)
- The lack of a unify SE deﬁnition has
hindered the accurate understanding of the
expansion of platforms.
There are some key drivers that need more
research to explain the SE effectiveness
- There is a complex pattern of global
contingencies that platforms need to
consider when entering international
Marano et al. (2020) The liability of disruption Global strategy
- Traditional internationalisation-related
challenges are less relevant for SE
platforms than traditional ﬁrms.
- The key platform’s features like their
“asset-lite” nature explain these differences.
- Institutional characteristics may play
against platforms, which are challenging
industry-speciﬁc expectations and rules.
Lehdonvirta et al. (2019)
Online Platform Providers in
the Sharing Economy:
Emergence of New Service
Journal of world
- The growth of the SE challenges domestic
and international economic structures and
- There is an incompatibility between
platforms and international trade regime.
Fan et al. (2019)
The inﬂuence of social
organizational legitimacy and
the sustainability of the
globalization of the sharing
economic platform: Evidence
from Uber China
- Platforms originated in developed
economies have “leadership” advantages
when entering emerging economies.
- Organizational legitimacy, in the
internationalisation contact, is both and
external and internal adaptation process.
- Localization success of international
platforms depend on different dimensions
of embeddedness and their interactions.
Nambisan et al. (2019)
Global platforms and
ecosystems: Implications for
international business theories
- There is a need to develop new concepts
and related constructs to facilitate the
adoption of platforms lens in
- New internationalisation models need to
be developed and validated that include
speciﬁc concepts regarding the SE
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 9 of 23
Table 2. Cont.
Author(s)/Year Article Journal Main Conclusions
Stallkamp and Schotter
Platforms without borders?
The international strategies of
digital platform ﬁrms
- Platforms wishing to internationalise need
to consider the scope of direct and indirect
- Network externalities inﬂuence the
international expansion of platforms.
Within-country and cross-country network
externalities affect internationalisation
Parente et al. (2018)
The sharing economy
globalization phenomenon: A
- The widespread adoption of platforms
across the world is one of the fastest and
largest internationalisation movement.
Previous IB literature provide only a partial
explanation of the behaviour of SE
- The ecosystem approach to SE
internationalisation should encompass
different IB perspectives.
- Platforms internationalisation relies on
their reach for multisided ecosystem
Growing global in the sharing
economy: Lessons from Uber
- Platforms can take advantage of
ﬁrst-mover opportunities when entering a
new country, as well as covering niche
- Brand management and distinctive
business models are key aspects for
- Consumer loyalty and the constant seek of
new opportunities are essential to the
Table 3. Derived factors from internationalisation theories and their role in the SE.
Derived Element Suitability for SE Authors
Nature of product 4Parente et al. (2018); Wirtz et al. (2019)
Stage in the life cycle 4Frenay (2018); Marano et al. (2020)
Firm’s competitive advantage 4
Chasin et al. (2018); Nambisan et al. (2019); Stallkamp and
Schotter (2019); Wirtz et al. (2019)
Product’s superior value 4
Kozlenkova et al. (2021); Rogers (2016); Wirtz et al. (2019)
Cost reduction X Wirtz et al. (2019)
Opportunity to be an intermediate supplier
XWirtz et al. (2019)
Labour costs X Anwar (2018); Frenay (2018); Parente et al. (2018); Wirtz
et al. (2019)
Barriers to trade 4Anwar (2018); Felländer et al. (2015); Kozlenkova et al.
Transport costs X Anwar (2018); Frenay (2018); Parente et al. (2018)
Product’s heritage value X Evans and Gawer (2016); Parente et al. (2018)
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 10 of 23
Table 3. Cont.
Derived Element Suitability for SE Authors
Firm’s performance X Kozlenkova et al. (2021); Ochieng and Takawira (2020)
Firm’s territorial location X Frenay (2018)
Entrepreneur/Manager characteristics ≈Wirtz et al. (2019)
Time and effort pressure ≈Felländer et al. (2015); Ochieng and Takawira (2020)
Foreign market knowledge ≈Frenay (2018); Kozlenkova et al. (2021); Ochieng and
Past experience ≈Kozlenkova et al. (2021); Ochieng and Takawira (2020)
Relationship with foreign partners ≈Mogavero (2020); Ochieng and Takawira (2020); Parente
et al. (2018); Wirtz et al. (2019)
Foreign language ≈Marano et al. (2020); Mascareñas Pérez (2011); Stallkamp
and Schotter (2019)
Exploration for market knowledge X Kozlenkova et al. (2021); Ochieng and Takawira (2020)
Quality of knowledge X Ochieng and Takawira (2020)
International orders X Anwar (2018)
Experience in international transactions ≈Ochieng and Takawira (2020)
Firm’s perception X Marano et al. (2020); Nambisan et al. (2019)
Experiential knowledge X Kozlenkova et al. (2021)
Vision ≈Anwar (2018)
Declining local demand X Liu and Chen (2020); Razeghian and Weber (2019)
Increase demand in foreign markets 4Anwar (2018); Evans and Gawer (2016); Frenay (2018)
4. Results from the Applicability of Selected Factors from Internationalisation
Theories within the Sharing Model
The ﬁrst step of the process was searching for papers analysing the internationalisation
of the SE. Table 2presents the ﬁnal sample of documents obtained after applying the
different criteria stablished.
After corroborating the statement about the scarcity of research regarding the interna-
tionalisation processes, selected theories were tested upon the sharing model. Table 3shows
a list of derived factors from internationalisation theories (included in the last column of
Table 1) and their expected suitability to explain the internationalisation expansion of SE
platforms according to previous literature of the ﬁeld. Some of these factors were grouped
with other similar ones. In order to make this classiﬁcation, and due to the small amount
of speciﬁc literature regarding the internationalisation processes, general literature about
the SE ﬁeld was used. Therefore, previous literature was checked to analyse how each
speciﬁc element would interact the SE characteristics and attributes, and therefore infer if,
at the time of international expansion, that element would be relevant when explaining the
methods and decision behind the operation.
4.1. Non-Inﬂuential Factors
The main goal of platforms is to provide a common land for users, therefore, platforms
do not undertake any production activity nor generate costs further than those which arise
from the platform maintenance and responsible for this. By being “asset-lite” (Parente et al.
2018) and relying upon their users’ goods to provide their service, platforms do not beneﬁt
from any cost reduction by operating in one or another location, neither general labour
nor transport costs (Anwar 2018;Frenay 2018;Parente et al. 2018;Wirtz et al. 2019). This
implies that the search for lower production costs is not as inﬂuential for sharing platforms
as it is for traditional companies.
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 11 of 23
By acting as an intermediary between users, platforms do not have suppliers, so
they cannot be inﬂuenced by the chance of being an intermediate supplier. According
to Wirtz et al. (2019), platforms have disintermediated industries by facilitating people
to transact directly with one another in unprecedented ways (Caldieraro et al. 2018). As
platforms do not focus on developing or commercializing products, but in creating an
efﬁcient marketplace to connect users (Parente et al. 2018), the product’s heritage value
cannot inﬂuence the internationalisation decision.
The relationship between ﬁrm performance and internationalisation does not seem
relevant, as platforms usually do not wait to have a solid performance in the home country
before moving to others (Kozlenkova et al. 2021;Ochieng and Takawira 2020). Due to their
speciﬁc characteristics, platforms will be inﬂuenced to a lesser extent by risks (Brouthers
et al. 2016) than traditional companies. This lack of relevant risks could be a critical factor
in the accelerated internationalisation process, as they can start operating internationally
before any company following a traditional business model could (Parente et al. 2018).
This lack of risks and the ﬂexibility inherent to the model (Nambisan et al. 2019) places
the ﬁrm’s territorial location as a less relevant factor when making the internationalisation
decision. Digital businesses have implied the “death of distance” (Cairncross 2001) due
to its ease when expanding through the use of the internet and technologies. Hence, the
territorial location is not an inhibiting factor anymore.
The exponential growth of the SE (Frenay 2018) supposes that this model is known
and present almost anywhere, so platforms can, at least, foresee the success opportunities of
their business in different locations. This fact can be considered advantageous as platforms
do not need to adventure in new countries to explore and increase their market knowledge.
From the begging, platforms can know the market conditions or have easy access to
locals who can provide with knowledge (Ochieng and Takawira 2020), which inﬂuences
speeding up internationalisation processes (Kozlenkova et al. 2021) and the establishment
in said location. By being able to access local knowledge, the information or experience
accumulated by platforms before the establishment in new countries is not much. However,
this factor does not hinder their expansion intentions. Regarding this factor, older platforms
could have a slight advantage over younger competitors (Anwar 2018).
The SE has proved that it is neither a tendency nor a temporal phenomenon (Fan
et al. 2019). Although its popularity has increased over the years and it is possible to
ﬁnd platforms almost anywhere, internationalisation decisions are not based on demands
of potential users in other locations or client chasing strategies. Instead of basing their
decisions on international orders, platforms seek opportunities to broaden their business
portfolio (Anwar 2018). As previously indicated, the risks assumed by platforms are,
theoretically, smaller than those assumed by traditional companies, so the risk perception is
lower as well (Nambisan et al. 2019). The “asset-light” condition of these platforms reduces
the size of the investment needed to enter new markets, allowing a rapid expansion and
limiting asset exposure (Marano et al. 2020). Due to the novelty of the SE ﬁeld, and although
the industry is in different life stages depending on the country to be analysed, neither of
them can be considered to be in a mature or declining stage, so the main reason behind the
internationalisation of platforms is not a decline in the local demand, but the opportunity
to keep growing in potentially successful locations (Liu and Chen 2020;Razeghian and
Finally, platforms businesses are more ﬂexible than traditional businesses. This char-
acteristic allows them to adapt quickly to changes (Wirtz et al. 2019), therefore not being so
much inﬂuenced by other competitors’ decisions. Although there is an increasing number
of multi-country platforms (Kim and Suh 2021), there is still a signiﬁcant proportion of
non-internationalise equally successful ones, so, therefore, it cannot be said that platforms
are internationalizing because of an adaptive response to challenging environments, but
rather are deciding on their own when, where, and under which conditions they want to
internationalise (Parente et al. 2018).
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 12 of 23
4.2. Inﬂuential Factors
Due to the nature of the operation carried out through SE platforms (Parente et al.
2018;Wirtz et al. 2019) the internationalisation is fundamentally different from traditional
companies, mainly in terms of speed, scope and territorial expansion (Frenay 2018;Marano
et al. 2020). Instead of offering any product or service, these platforms aim to create a shared
virtual space to connect people with similar needs (Alonso-Almeida et al. 2020;Hamari
et al. 2016;Stokes et al. 2014). This mainly digital nature allows platforms to expand their
operations within territorial spaces almost from creation (Shaheer and Li 2020).
As commented previously, the novelty of the SE places it in the ﬁrst stages of its
lifecycle, although it can vary among these ﬁrst stages depending on the territorial location.
This growth has led platforms to invade markets (Frenay 2018) and enjoy rapid global
growth opportunities (Marano et al. 2020). This rapid growth has been inﬂuenced by the
platform’s characteristics and its way of achieving competitive advantages. According to
Chasin et al. (2018), these competitive advantages depend on having a big community
of users, both on the supply and the demand side, and therefore create interconnections
among partners (Nambisan et al. 2019). The more local users that both sides of the network
have, the more attractive it will be for new users (Stallkamp and Schotter 2019). Since
sharing platforms do not possess any other source of competitive advantage, as difﬁcult to
imitate assets (Parente et al. 2018), this generation of a network of users is a critical factor
for their internationalisation. In the same way, platforms generate value by leveraging the
resources and users of communities, lowering transaction costs and fostering trust and
ecosystem governance (Wirtz et al. 2019). According to Rogers (2016), these platforms
deliver value differently from traditional businesses, achieving a differentiation degree that
translates into a higher perceived value by users (Kozlenkova et al. 2021).
The growth experienced by platforms has, on some occasions, has been hindered by
different barriers, as legal and regulatory problems (Dunne 2017;Vitkovic 2016). These
laws can affect platforms and the experience of users (Kozlenkova et al. 2021) as they can
see their experience modiﬁed due to these limitations. In addition to the legal barriers
and the reaction from local competitors (Felländer et al. 2015), platforms need to take
into consideration other kinds of barriers as trust, sustainability and societal issues or
institutional concerns (Anwar 2018;Kozlenkova et al. 2021;Marano et al. 2020). Regarding
this last aspect, factors related to the local institutional conditions affect the platforms’
internationalisation decisions (Tsukanova 2019). According to Uzunca et al. (2018), coun-
tries with lower levels of institutionalization may be more accessible for platforms to enter
and achieve power due to their lower barriers and the ease for platforms to gain society’s
Finally, as it has been stated before, over recent years, the SE has experienced ex-
collaborative alternatives (Anwar 2018). This global tendency of access preference has sped
up the internationalisation process (Frenay 2018), and platforms have become an important
economic force (Evans and Gawer 2016). Together with the better exploitation of market
imperfection by platforms (Parente et al. 2018;Razeghian and Weber 2019), this fact has
created a perfect environment for the SE to grow and expand their operations all over
4.3. Potentially Inﬂuential Factors
There are some other factors that, while not being indispensable, may help explain
platforms’ internationalisation decisions. The quick speed of growth within the SE has
beneﬁted most platforms, although it has brought some challenges. Due to this speed,
platforms willing to internalise have felt the urge to take quick decision, which on some
occasions has been an advantage and in other a drawback. According to Ochieng and
Takawira (2020), those ﬁrst-mover platforms have faced many disadvantages as competitors
were aware of their decisions to avoid their errors and take advantage of their knowledge.
On the other hand, some platforms were willing to take these risks, as the beneﬁts of ﬁrst
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 13 of 23
movers outweigh the disadvantages (Felländer et al. 2015). However, wishing to enter a
location as quickly as possible, platforms can ignore their lack of knowledge regarding
the local conditions (Frenay 2018) or forget to adapt their strategies to the country-speciﬁc
factors. These facts may be the main reason for many unsuccessful operations (Kozlenkova
et al. 2021), becoming, therefore, a relevant factor to take into account when expanding
In order to avoid as many threats as possible, platforms might tend to internationalise
in those countries in which they can achieve context-speciﬁc advantages (Nambisan et al.
2019) and where the local conditions are similar to those faced in previous countries
(Kozlenkova et al. 2021)
. The study of demographic characteristics and usage patterns can
help determine the most advantageous conditions for the SE to ﬂourish (Kumar et al.
2018;Shaheen et al. 2017) and decide future destinations based on said data. Among
these conditions, the local language may be a determinant factor for some platforms.
They may ﬁnd it easier to enter countries with similar languages (Ochieng and Takawira
2020;Stallkamp and Schotter 2019). Meanwhile, this factor may not be relevant for other
platforms, as platform software can be translated easily without incurring high costs
(Marano et al. 2020).
Although the SE is characterised by their aim for growth and expansion (Anwar 2018),
their past experience can condition this expansion, for example, regarding the speed (Ochieng
and Takawira 2020) or the evaluation of local conditions (Kozlenkova et al. 2021) in order
to avoid previous errors or repeat successful strategies, as for example collaborations. By
complementing their system with complementary asset provides, for example, insurance
companies (Mogavero 2020), platforms can manage their ecosystem and assure a sufﬁcient
number of users on both sides (Parente et al. 2018) as well as achieve an excellent knowledge
about local conditions (Ochieng and Takawira 2020). Furthermore, these alliances may
inﬂuence internationalisation decisions by encouraging platforms to expand to those
countries where their partners are present or a higher chance to reach agreements.
Finally, when talking about factors related to the entrepreneur/manager ﬁgure, con-
trary to the born global companies, which mainly depend on the entrepreneur will to
internationalise (Bouncken et al. 2014;Kuivalainen et al. 2012), there is no evidence of SE
platforms being highly dependent on the entrepreneur goals and perceptions. In contrast to
traditional business, platforms require a management team that facilitates a strong network
connection, controls all resources orchestration, and fosters liquidity and quality matching
(Wirtz et al. 2019). Rather than being dependent on the manager’s skills, orientation,
perception, or know-how, platforms seem more motivated by external factors, such as the
popularity of the sharing model in the target country, government decisions, or population
characteristics (Ochieng and Takawira 2020).
5. The Applicability of Traditional Internationalisation Factors to Platforms:
The Blablacar Case
Blablacar (established in France in 2006) is an online platform offering carpooling
services, connecting people who need to travel with drivers who have empty seats (Cruz
et al. 2018). Blablacar posts itself as the world’s leading carpooling community which
enables low-cost city-to-city travel by connecting people with drivers going the same way.
This platform has 90 million users and is present in 22 countries, with 25 million travellers
per quarter (Blablacar 2021), and by combining their ability for identifying share ride
opportunities with the SE growth, they have come up to an efﬁcient and popular system.
By merging social media with a reservations platform, a feeling of trust and safety was
achieved, contributing to the company’s establishment (Shaheen et al. 2017). With the
vision of bringing fairness, freedom, and fraternity to the world of travel, this platform has
revolutionised the mobility sector in Europe.
Blabacar’s main business relies on providing a common land for people who have
free seats in their cars and people wishing to travel (Mogavero 2020), offering a trendy and
innovative product. This new consumption alternative did not only offer a better value in
economic terms, but it did also rely on a more sustainable and environmentally friendly
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 14 of 23
option (Font and McCabe 2017), addressing two highly requested topics by users. Due to its
recent appearance, both the SE and Blablacar can be considered to be in the growth stage of
their life cycle, or nascent market (Casprini et al. 2019), characterised by growing demand
and by the expansion of platforms (Klepper 1997). This is the general situation, together
with the high aggregated value this alternative has achieved by granting access to goods
which, otherwise many users could not access it, has meant that Blablacar has achieved a
competitive advantage and a product differentiation resulting from the big and efﬁcient
global network of users (Casprini et al. 2019). By achieving a balance between the supply
and demand of car seats, the platform reached a point of efﬁciency in which they believed
they had a product that could be successful in different countries
(Shaheen et al. 2017)
Therefore, by relying upon factors, such as the nature of their product, their stage along
the life cycle, or their competitive advantage achieved through the superior value of
their product and the network of users created, Blablacar decided to take a step toward
As pointed before, the use of technological means and the mainly online nature of
platforms suppose that their cost structure is fundamentally different from traditional
business, implying lower costs associated with internationalisation processes and lower
operating costs (Gilibert and Ribas 2019). Although Blablacar has been expanding into
different countries, their headquarters have stayed in France, their home country, com-
plemented with regional ofﬁces in some speciﬁc settings to provide users with a close,
knowledgeable contact according to their location in the globe, and constituting this with
a corporate strategy (Aversa et al. 2021). By establishing their ofﬁces where most needed
are, instead of where the lower costs are located, in operating, labour, and transport terms,
the platform is proving that their internationalisation steps are not toward lower costs
but towards better and more efﬁcient service for all agents involved and a wider range of
options for their users.
At the moment of the ﬁrst internationalisation, the number of users and car seats
offered in France was still rising (Shaheen et al. 2017). Although the platform was not
facing a decrease in their numbers, the generalization of the SE tendency along different
countries was a growth opportunity, as although there was not an explicit request for these
services, there were countries that presented an ideal set of circumstances that favoured
Blablacar’s business model implementation (Zalega 2020). Due to these being their ﬁrst
steps towards the international expansion, neither the platform nor the management team,
which was more focused on programming and web services (Blablacar 2021), had enough
accumulated experience or knowledge about the foreign markets as to be inﬂuenced
when making decisions, an aspect which change as the platform gain experience and
started following a quicker internationalisation rhythm. Although before undergoing the
ﬁrst expansion, Blablacar waited until having a solid performance in their home country,
after this ﬁrst expansion, the pace becomes quicker and the performance less relevant,
which ﬁts in with the idea of a gradual “foreign gateway market” followed by quick
internationalisation decisions (Ochieng and Takawira 2020).
As shown in Table 4, in the beginning, Blablacar expanded its operations in close coun-
tries, which have a greater chance of having similar demand structures and socio-economic
conditions. It could be said here that, in this case, they are following an incremental
internationalisation. By aiming at this, the process could be smoother, and the challenges
faced less demanding (Kozlenkova et al. 2021). Even though each country has its particular
institutional conditions, by expanding into countries which are not only neighbours and
therefore similar in cultures, but also into countries which operate under similar institu-
tions, as the European Union, Blablacar was able to design an expansion strategy which
could be applied in several countries at the same time. As the platform expanded into
different countries, the virtual space was translated into local languages, facilitating its
adoption by users (Blablacar 2021). Although these factors had a higher relevance at the
beginning of the internationalisation process, as Blablacar acquired experience, they began
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 15 of 23
to lose importance, and the platform expanded its operations into additional locations and
Table 4. Blablacar internationalisation process.
Date of Internationalisation Countries Entered
2010 (January) Spain
2011 (June) United Kingdom
2012 (May) Italy
Benelux (Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxemburg)
2013 (April) Germany
2014 (January) Ukraine
2014 (September) Turkey
2015 (January) India
2015 (April) Mexico
2015 (November) Brazil
2016 (January) Czech Republic
By being one of the pioneering platforms in carpooling of Europe (Mogavero 2020),
Blablacar beneﬁted from some monopolistic advantages, as their early start provided them
with some years of experience and accumulated knowledge, which allowed them to take
advantage of market imperfections and create a network of users who, although having
alternatives, would still rely on their platform. To keep their users loyal and stay ahead of
possible changes in the industry, Blablacar started building relations with different agents
to offer complementary products to their main one. The most well-known one is their
collaboration with the insurance company Axa (Gassot 2017), which oversees covering any
incident that arises during a trip among members of Blablacar. This partnership allowed the
platform to start charging a fee to every transaction made between users, which percentage
changed according to the length of the trip and the anticipation of the booking (Mogavero
2020). Although this measure was controversial among users, Blablacar justiﬁed it with the
new incorporation of the insurance service, which added an extra safety point to the service.
Apart from this, additional services were added to Blablacar recently: buses and soon
trains. By doing this, the platform is not only securing their innovative company image, which
assists on renew themselves and boost their competitive advantages
(Calabròet al. 2016)
also fulﬁls the same need, travel from one place to another, by different means. This
helps to reach a higher potential market share, and therefore building an ecosystem of
services for the community (Gassot 2017). These new operations and the previous ones
and the internationalisation processes have been funded through funding rounds, the most
recent one in April 2021. This funding round secures ﬁnancial stability to the platform
to keep working toward their main goal, facilitate mobility between places with shared
transportation (Dillet 2021). This compatibility strategy can lead into a new phenomenon
and inﬂuence on the travel mode choice of urban residents (Lu et al. 2019).
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 16 of 23
After analysing the case of Blablacar, we can say that traditional internationalisation
theories cannot fully explain the process undertaken by platforms. In this speciﬁc case,
the analysis of the extracted factors resulted in the expected results, with some excep-
tions (Table 5). Blablacar started its international expansion process in countries with a
small psychic distance, expanding later into more distant ones (Gassot 2017). This can
be explained by the fact that the platform’s home country is located in the middle of the
European continent, which places them in an ideal location to expand their processes into
several neighbour countries at the same time. Contrary to expectations, in this case, the
platform’s performance was a key factor for the ﬁrst internationalisation process (Shaheen
et al. 2017). However, it lost most of its value as the expansion consolidated and Blablacar
started operating into more countries. Finally, although according to the co-founder and
CEO, the actual strategy of Blablacar is focusing on their actual operating countries instead
of keeping expanding their activities (Dillet 2021), given the funding data and the growth
expectancies, this platform keeps positioning itself as the leading carpooling company of
Europe and a referent company in the mobility sector in general.
Table 5. Applicability of the extracted factor on Blablacar.
Derived Factor Expected Result Feasibility for Blablacar
Nature of product 4 4
Stage in the life cycle 4 4
Firm’s competitive advantage 4 4
Product’s superior value 4 4
Cost reduction X X
Opportunity to be an intermediate supplier
Labour costs X X
Barriers to trade 4 4
Transport costs X X
Product’s heritage value X X
Firm’s performance X 4
Firm’s territorial location X 4
Entrepreneur/Manager characteristics ≈X
Time and effort pressure ≈X
Foreign market knowledge ≈4
Past experience ≈X
Relationship with foreign partners ≈4
Foreign language ≈X
Exploration for market knowledge X X
Quality of knowledge X X
International orders X X
Experience in international transactions ≈X
Firm’s perception X X
Experiential knowledge X X
Declining local demand X X
Increase demand in foreign markets 4 4
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 17 of 23
Previous literature had already acknowledged the lack of research regarding the
internationalisation processes within this model (Stallkamp and Schotter 2019) and the need
to formulate a new theory due to the different challenges faced and methods followed by
sharing platforms (Marano et al. 2020;Nambisan et al. 2019). This paper has corroborated
these statements by verifying that none of the existing theories can be fully applied to
the SE model. Sharing platforms share some attributes of ibusiness (Brouthers et al.
2016) and triadic business models (Ochieng and Takawira 2020), reﬂecting on aspects,
such as their quicker international expansion (Parente et al. 2018) or the strength of the
interaction between users (Kumar et al. 2018), which signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the success of
the business model.
When analysing existing internationalisation literature, two big approaches can be
found: the gradual internationalisation and the born global (Paul and Rosado-Serrano 2019).
Their main difference is that, while the former says that companies will internationalise
in countries closer in proximity to the domestic market in terms of physical distance
(Johanson and Vahlne 1977)
, the latter are created to do global business from inception,
internationalizing within three years of founding and generating at least 25% of the total
sales in foreign countries (Knight and Cavusgil 2004). Some scholars (Gardinni et al. 2021)
suggest that the SE would ﬁt better in the born global model due to their digital nature,
asset-free nature, and quick expansion. Although this is a real possibility, more empirical
research will be needed to check if platforms ﬁt within this model, as, for example, born
global ﬁrms are said to need managers with a strong international orientation, which drives
them to develop better competitive advantages both in goods and technology (Knight and
Sharing platforms generate competitive advantages by creating networks of users
and facilitating transactions among them, which implies that the bigger the size of the
community, the greater value the platform will generate and the more attractive it will be
for new users (Stallkamp and Schotter 2019). This suggests that factors related to local
culture, features of markets and government positions, and institutionalization factors may
affect more of these processes than those factors related to internal aspects of platforms
(Razeghian and Weber 2019;Uzunca et al. 2018;Wirtz et al. 2019). On the other hand,
factors related to production factors, like transport or labour costs, lose almost all their
importance because of the asset-free nature of platforms and the opposite cost structure
they have compared to traditional companies (Anwar 2018;Frenay 2018;Kozlenkova et al.
2021;Parente et al. 2018). In the middle of these two extremes, some factors may play an
important role for some platforms. Among these factors, some like the relationship with
foreign partners (Mogavero 2020;Ochieng and Takawira 2020;Parente et al. 2018;Wirtz
et al. 2019), local languages (Marano et al. 2020;Mascareñas Pérez 2011;Stallkamp and
Schotter 2019) or the monopolistic advantage achieve by platforms (Anwar 2018;Stallkamp
and Schotter 2019) can be found. Contrary to born global companies, in sharing platforms,
the role of founders and entrepreneurs is not as determinant in the internationalisation of
the company (Wirtz et al. 2019). Through the analysis of these factors, RQ1 was answered,
and the applicability of current internationalisation theories was addressed.
Regarding the development of a future theory that addresses the internationalisation
processes of SE platforms, considering their singular nature, and as a response to RQ2, it will
need to include factors regarding aspects such as the nature of the products/services offered,
the level of development of the SE in the location, or the value creation method followed
individually by platforms. It should also consider the importance of local conditions, from
the social characteristics to the institutional constraints and the technological development
of the country or the acceptance towards the online operations. On the other hand, factors
related to the production or distribution of goods should be relegated to the background.
7. Conclusions and Future Research Opportunities
The SE has proved to be more than a temporary trend and is challenging companies
from all around the globe (Parente et al. 2018), while becoming a signiﬁcant economic force
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 18 of 23
at the same time (Evans and Gawer 2016). Due to its speciﬁc characteristics, traditional
internationalisation theories, which are mainly centred on production and distribution
factors, can only provide a partial explanation of why, how, and when sharing platforms
internationalise. Therefore, further research within this ﬁeld is required.
This paper has analysed the potential applicability of existing internationalisation
theories in the SE by extracting the most relevant factors of each theory and studying
their applicability taking into consideration the singular characteristics of the sharing
model. By extracting these factors and studying their suitability, a detailed picture of the
applicability of each theory is provided, which will assist scholars when formulating a
new theory adapted to the set of characteristics of these platforms. It must be considered
that the classiﬁcation of these factors has a theoretical focus, and it is based on previous
literature of the SE ﬁeld, so when applying them to real examples, some of the factors may
act differently from expected. Another limitation of this research comes from the set of
internationalisation theories selected and the derived factors, which could be complement
with more theories regarding growth strategies. It should be considered as well that the
SE is in constant change and, therefore, research must evolve as platforms do, so what is
applicable today, may not be tomorrow. This fact, instead of being a daunting factor for
scholars, only encourages the constant development of new research.
In line with the previous statement, the academic implications of this paper come
from the fact that, from a theoretical point of view, the reviewed internationalisation
theories do not seem to be sufﬁcient when it comes to explain the geographical expansion
of sharing platforms, therefore conﬁrming what other authors said previously (Marano
et al. 2020;Parente et al. 2018;Stallkamp and Schotter 2019). Although theories cannot be
fully applied, some of their more relevant factors seem to inﬂuence internationalisation
decisions of platforms more than others. By listing the relevant factors, some guidelines are
provided for the future development of a theory which can address in a better way these
expansion processes. This theory should consider aspects such as the value creation model
of platforms, the barriers to trade to face or the institutional conditions. By providing
this breakeven point, we expect to foster research regarding the SE in general and their
expansion process in speciﬁc. This research would not only be helpful for academics
researching this topic but also managers of platforms and traditional companies. The
former would be able to count on guidelines regarding the steps to follow to have a smooth
internationalisation process within the inherent risks of this strategy and achieve a better
rate of success. The latter would have been able to have more information regarding
the most recent threat to their business model, and the environmental factors that could
make their market attractive for sharing platforms. Therefore, they have a more room to
manoeuvre when taking steps toward their answer to these questions and doubts raised
toward their systems. This paper will also help those reluctant economic entities to realise
that the SE is more than a temporary trend and that platforms could pose a problem to
their business, as they do not only compete among platforms, but also with their models
. Finally, there are some governments which are not sure about how to
regulate and deal with the SE (Rifkin 2000;Vitkovic 2016) and are delaying this regulation
on the grounds that this phenomenon may be temporal. This research can help them
realise the international potential of the SE and urge them to look for solutions which
accommodate all the implied agents.
To further develop the research ﬁeld, scholars should analyse in depth the operations
already taken by platforms, looking at the previous and posterior data, at the industry
involved, at the speciﬁc market characteristics, as well as to the reaction of competitors,
both from the sharing and traditional ﬁeld. This research should count on the platforms’
managers collaboration, which will assist in obtaining obtain empirical data, testimonies,
and motivations, and therefore, count on a more extensive amount of information coming
from different sources.
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 19 of 23
Conceptualization, C.P.-P. and D.B.-O.; methodology, C.P.-P. and D.B.-O.;
software, C.P.-P.; validation, C.P.-P., D.B.-O. and S.M.G.-M.; formal analysis, C.P.-P. and D.B.-O.;
investigation, C.P.-P., D.B.-O. and S.M.G.-M.; resources, C.P.-P., D.B.-O. and S.M.G.-M.; data curation,
C.P.-P. and D.B.-O.; writing—original draft preparation, C.P.-P.; writing—review and editing, C.P.-P.,
D.B.-O. and S.M.G.-M.; visualization, C.P.-P., D.B.-O. and S.M.G.-M.; supervision, D.B.-O. and S.M.G.-
M.; project administration, D.B.-O. and S.M.G.-M.; funding acquisition, D.B.-O. and S.M.G.-M. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not Applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not Applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not Applicable.
Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.
Aharoni, Yair. 1966. The foreign investment decision process. In Harvard Business School. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Akter, Mansura, Mahfuzur Rahman, and Dragana Radicic. 2019. Women entrepreneurship in international trade: Bridging the gap by
bringing feminist theories into entrepreneurship and internationalisation theories. Sustainability 11: 6230. [CrossRef]
Allen, Darcy, and Chris Berg. 2014. The Sharing Economy: How Over-Regulation Could Destroy an Economic Revolution. Institute
of Public Affairs. Available online: https://ipa.org.au/portal/uploads/Sharing_Economy_December_2014.pdf (accessed on
12 June 2021).
Alonso-Almeida, María del Mar, Jordi Perramon, and Llorenç Bagur-Femenías. 2020. Shedding light on sharing economy and new
materialist consumption: An empirical approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52: 101900. [CrossRef]
Andersson, Svante. 2000. The internationalisation of the ﬁrm from an entrepreneurial perspective. International Studies of Management
& Organization 30: 63–92. [CrossRef]
Anwar, Syed Tariq. 2018. Growing global in the sharing economy: Lessons from Uber and Airbnb. Global Business and Organizational
Excellence 37: 59–68. [CrossRef]
Aversa, Paolo, Annelore Huyghe, and Giulia Bonadio. 2021. First impressions stick: Market entry strategies and category priming in
the digital domain. Journal of Management Studies. [CrossRef]
Barney, Jay. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99–120. [CrossRef]
Barney, Jay, Mike Wright, and David J. Ketchen. 2001. The resource-based view of the ﬁrm: Ten years after 1991. Article in Journal of
Management 27: 625–41. [CrossRef]
Bates, Timothy. 1998. Survival patterns among newcomers to franchising. Journal of Business Venturing 13: 113–30. [CrossRef]
Baumber, Alex, Moira Scerri, and Stephen Schweinsberg. 2019. A social licence for the sharing economy. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 146: 12–23. [CrossRef]
Bell, Jim, Rod McNaughton, Stephen Young, and Dave Crick. 2003. Towards an Integrative Model of Small Firm Internationalisation.
Journal of International Entrepreneurship 1: 339–62. [CrossRef]
Bilkey, Waren J., and George Tesar. 1977. The export behavior of smaller-sized wisconsin manufacturing ﬁrms. Journal of International
Business Studies 8: 93–98. [CrossRef]
Blablacar. 2021. Blablacar: About Us. Available online: https://blog.blablacar.com/about-us (accessed on 24 July 2021).
Botsman, Rachel. 2013. The Sharing Economy Lacks a Shared Deﬁnition. Fast Company, November 21. Available online: https:
//www.fastcompany.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-lacks-a-shared-deﬁnition (accessed on 10 July 2021).
Bouncken, Ricarda B., Felix Schuessler, and Sascha Kraus. 2014. The Theoretical Embedding of Born Globals: Challenging Existing
Internationalisation Theories. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER) 14: 39. [CrossRef]
Brouthers, Keith D., Kim D. Geisser, and Franz Rothlauf. 2016. Explaining the internationalisation of ibusiness ﬁrms. Journal of
International Business Studies 47: 513–34. [CrossRef]
Buckley, Peter J., and Mark Casson. 1976. The Future of the Multinational Enterprise. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [CrossRef]
Burgel, Oliver, Gordon Murray, Andreas Fier, and Georg Licht. 2001. The Rapid Internationalisation of High-Tech Young Firms in Germany
and the United Kingdom. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, vol. 22. Available online: https://www.euro-ciss.eu/
ﬁleadmin/user_upload/Redaktion/INTSME/Dokumente/Publikationen/Germany_UK_2.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2021).
Cairncross, Frances. 2001. The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Will Change Our Lives. Boston: Harvard Business
Calabrò, Andrea, Tommaso Minola, Giovanna Campopiano, and Thilo J. Pukall. 2016. Turning innovativeness into domestic and
international corporate venturing: The moderating effect of high family ownership and inﬂuence. European Journal of International
Management 10: 505. [CrossRef]
Caldieraro, Fabio, Jonathan Z. Zhang, Marcus Cunha, and Jeffrey D. Shulman. 2018. Strategic Information Transmission in Peer-to-Peer
Lending Markets. Journal of Marketing 82: 42–63. [CrossRef]
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 20 of 23
Casprini, Elena, Alberto Di Minin, and Andrea Paraboschi. 2019. How do companies organize nascent markets? The BlaBlaCar case in
the inter-city shared mobility market. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 144: 270–81. [CrossRef]
Castillo-Vergara, Mauricio, Alejandro Alvarez-Marin, and Dario Placencio-Hidalgo. 2018. A bibliometric analysis of creativity in the
ﬁeld of business economics. Journal of Business Research 85: 1–9. [CrossRef]
Center for a New American Dream. 2014. Analysis Report: New American Dream Survey. Available online: https://newdream.org/
downloads/New_Dream_2014_Poll_Final_Analysis.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2021).
Chasin, Friedrich, Moritz von Hoffen, Benedikt Hoffmeister, and Jorg Becker. 2018. Reasons for failures of sharing economy businesses.
MIS Quarterly Executive 17: 185–99. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol17/iss3/4 (accessed on 10 June 2021).
Cheng, Mingming. 2016. Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Hospitality Management 57:
Collis, David J. 1991. A resource—Based analysis of global competition: The case of the bearings industry. Strategic Management Journal
12: 49–68. [CrossRef]
Coviello, Nicole, Liena Kano, and Peter W. Liesch. 2017. Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: Macro-context and
microfoundations. Journal of International Business Studies 48: 1151–64. [CrossRef]
Cruz, Isabel, Rafaela Ganga, and Stefan Wahlen, eds. 2018. Contemporary Collaborative Consumption. Berlin: Springer Fachmedien
Czinkota, Michael. 1982. Export Development Strategies: US Promotion Policy. Westport: Praeger Publishers. Available online:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/757a/973b887800e4dab2587a7c1ccd23a147c49b.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
de Streel, Alexandre, and Pierre Larouche. 2015. Disruptive Innovation and Competition Law Enforcement. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Dillet, Romain. 2021. BlaBlaCar Raises $115 Million to Build All-in-One Travel App. Available online: https://techcrunch.com/2021
OXyvBX0gcF05_fW3MHKwYtR (accessed on 24 July 2021).
Dredge, Dianne, and Szilvia Gyimoothy. 2015. Collaborative Economy and Tourism: Critical Perspectives, Questionable Claims and
Silenced Voices. SSRN Electronic Journal 40: 286–302. [CrossRef]
Dunne, Niamh. 2017. Competition Law (and Its Limits) in the Sharing Economy. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Law of the Sharing
Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–107. [CrossRef]
Dunning, John H. 1979. Explaining Changing Patterns of International Production: In Defence of the Electic Theory. Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and Statistics 41: 269–95. [CrossRef]
Dzikowski, Piotr. 2018. A bibliometric analysis of born global ﬁrms. Journal of Business Research 85: 281–94. [CrossRef]
Evans, Peter C., and Anabelle Gawer. 2016. The Rise of the Platform Enterprise A Global Survey (Issue 1). Available online:
https://www.thecge.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PDF-WEB-Platform-Survey_01_12.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2021).
Fan, Yancheng, Min Xia, Yaguang Zhang, and Yantai Chen. 2019. The inﬂuence of social embeddedness on organizational legitimacy
and the sustainability of the globalization of the sharing economic platform: Evidence from Uber China. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 151: 104490. [CrossRef]
Felländer, Anna, CLare I. Bogusz, and Robin Teigland. 2015. Sharing Economy: Embracing change with caution. Entreprenörskapsforum.
Örebro: Örebro Universitet. [CrossRef]
Font, Xavier, and Scott McCabe. 2017. Sustainability and marketing in tourism: Its contexts, paradoxes, approaches, challenges and
potential. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 25: 869–83. [CrossRef]
Frenay, Alexandra. 2018. The Internationalisation of Companies with a Sharing Business Model: A Multiple Case Study of Car-Sharing
Platforms. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Frenken, Koen. 2017. Political economies and environmental futures for the sharing economy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 375: 20160367. [CrossRef]
Frenken, Koen, and Juliet Schor. 2017. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
23: 3–10. [CrossRef]
Frenken, Koen, Toon Meelen, Martijn Arets, and Pieter van de Glind. 2015. Smarter Regulation for the Sharing Economy. Available
(accessed on 29 June 2021).
Gardinni, Marco A., Michael C. Ottenbacher, and Markus Schuckert. 2021. The Routledge Companion to International Hospitality
Management. London: Routledge.
Gassot, Yves. 2017. Interview with Frédéric Mazzella Founder, BlaBlaCar, France. Communications & Strategies 108: 99–103. Available
online: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2454183423/fulltextPDF/5743D6C8E2BA4FC5PQ/1?accountid=14730 (accessed
on 14 June 2021).
Gilibert, Mireia, and Imma Ribas. 2019. Synergies between app-based car-related Shared Mobility Services for the development of
more proﬁtable business models. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 12: 405. [CrossRef]
Gimeno, Javier, Timothy B. Folta, Arnold C. Cooper, and Carolyn Y. Woo. 1997. Survival of the Fittest? Entrepreneurial Human Capital
and the Persistence of Underperforming Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 750–83. [CrossRef]
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 21 of 23
Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health
Information & Libraries Journal 26: 91–108. [CrossRef]
Guerras-Martín, Luis Ángel, Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo, José Ángel Zúñiga-Vicente, and Diana Benito-Osorio. 2020. Half
a century of research on corporate diversiﬁcation: A new comprehensive framework. Journal of Business Research 114: 124–41.
Hamari, Juho, Mimmi Sjöklint, and Antti Ukkonen. 2016. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67: 2047–59. [CrossRef]
Havnes, Pers A., and Knut Senneseth. 2001. A Panel Study of Firm Growth among SMEs in Networks. Small Business Economics 16:
Hawksworth, John. 2014. The Sharing Economy Has Gone Mainstream. Available online: https://www.ﬁnancialdirector.co.uk/2014
/09/12/the-sharing-economy-has-gone-mainstream/ (accessed on 13 May 2021).
Hymer, Stephen H. 1976. The International Operations of National Firms: A study of Direct Foreign Investment. Cambridge: MIT Press.
ING Bank. 2015. What Is Mine Is Yours for a Price. Rapid Growth Tipped for the Sharing Economy. Available online: https:
on 7 July 2021).
Johanson, Jan, and Jan-Erik Vahlne. 1977. The Internationalisation Process of the Firm—A Model of Knowledge Development and
Increasing Foreign Market Commitments. Journal of International Business Studies 8: 23–32. [CrossRef]
Johanson, Jan, and Jan-Erik Vahlne. 2009. The Uppsala internationalisation process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to
liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies 40: 1411–31. [CrossRef]
Johanson, Jan, and Lars-Gunnar Mattsson. 1987. Interorganizational Relations in Industrial Systems: A Network Approach Compared
with the Transaction-Cost Approach. International Studies of Management & Organization 17: 34–48. [CrossRef]
Kalleberg, Arne L., and Kevin T. Leicht. 1991. Gender and Organizational Performance: Determinants of Small Business Survival and
Success. Academy of Management Journal 34: 136–61. [CrossRef]
Kassan, Jenny, and Janelle Orsi. 2012. The legal landscape of the sharing. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 27: 1–20.
Kathan, Wolfgang, Kurt Matzler, and Viktoria Veider. 2016. The sharing economy: Your business model’s friend or foe? Business
Horizons 59: 663–72. [CrossRef]
Kim, Hyun J., and Chan S. Suh. 2021. Spreading the sharing economy: Institutional conditions for the international diffusion of Uber,
2010–2017. PLoS ONE 16: e0248038. [CrossRef]
Klepper, Steven. 1997. Industry life cycles. Industrial & Corporate Change 6: 146–81.
Knight, Gary A., and Tamar S. Cavusgil. 2004. The born-global ﬁrm. Journal of International Business Studies 35: 124–41. [CrossRef]
Kogut, Bruce, and Udo Zander. 1993. Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation. Journal of
International Business Studies 24: 625–45. [CrossRef]
Kozlenkova, Irina V., Ju-Yeon Lee, Dandian Xiang, and Robert W. Palmatier. 2021. Sharing economy: International marketing strategies.
Journal of International Business Studies. [CrossRef]
Kuivalainen, Olli, Sanna Sundqvist, Sami Saarenketo, and Rod B. McNaughton. 2012. Internationalisation patterns of small and
medium-sized enterprises. International Marketing Review 29: 448–65. [CrossRef]
Kumar, Vikas, Avishek Lahiri, and Orhan B. Dogan. 2018. A strategic framework for a proﬁtable business model in the sharing
economy. Industrial Marketing Management 69: 147–60. [CrossRef]
Laforet, Sylvie, and Jennifer Tann. 2006. Innovative characteristics of small manufacturing ﬁrms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development 13: 363–80. [CrossRef]
Lam, Long W., and Louis P. White. 1999. An adaptive choice model of the internationalisation process. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis 7: 105–34. [CrossRef]
Lamberton, Cait P., and Randall L. Rose. 2012. When is Ours Better than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering
Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems. Journal of Marketing 9: 34–40. [CrossRef]
Lehdonvirta, Vili, Otto Kässi, Isis Hjorth, Helena Barnard, and Mark Graham. 2019. The Global Platform Economy: A New Offshoring
Institution Enabling Emerging-Economy Microproviders. Journal of Management 45: 567–99. [CrossRef]
Li, Wenchen, and Meizi Li. 2007. The effect of entrepreneurship for the internationalisation of SMEs. Paper presented at the 2nd
International Forum of Business Education, Lilydale, Australia, September 16–19.
Lindblom, Arto, Taru Lindblom, and Heidi Wechtler. 2018. Collaborative consumption as C2C trading: Analyzing the effects of
materialism and price consciousness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44: 244–52. [CrossRef]
Liu, Xufeng, and Hongmin Chen. 2020. Sharing Economy: Promote Its Potential to Sustainability by Regulation. Sustainability 12: 919.
Lu, Ke, Jing Zhou, and Xiaowei Lin. 2019. Research on compatibility strategy of ride-hailing platforms. European Journal of International
Management 13: 880. [CrossRef]
Marano, Valentina, Stephen Tallman, and Hildy J. Teegen. 2020. The liability of disruption. Global Strategy Journal. [CrossRef]
Marchi, Alberto, and Ellora-Julie Parekh. 2016. How the sharing economy can make its case. McKinsey Quarterly 1: 112–16.
Mascareñas Pérez, Juan. 2011. Fusiones, Adquisiciones y Valoración de Empresas. Madrid: Universidad Complutense Madrid.
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 22 of 23
McDougall, Patricia. P., Scott Shane, and Benjamin M. Oviatt. 1994. Explaining the formation of international new ventures: The limits
of theories from international business research. Journal Business Ventures, 469–87. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/0883902694900175 (accessed on 10 May 2021). [CrossRef]
Mogavero, Tyler. 2020. Strategic Management of BlaBlaCar. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/43385710/Strategic_
Management_of_BlaBlaCar (accessed on 16 June 2021).
Möhlmann, Mareike. 2015. Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy
option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 14: 193–207. [CrossRef]
Mtigwe, Bruce. 2006. Theoretical milestones in international business: The journey to international entrepreneurship theory. Journal of
International Entrepreneurship 4: 5–25. [CrossRef]
Munkøe, Malthe M. 2017. Regulating the European Sharing Economy: State of Play and Challenges. Intereconomics 52: 38–44. [CrossRef]
Munro, Hugh J., and Nicole E. Coviello. 1995. Growing the Entrepreneurial Firm: Networking for International Market Development.
Article in European Journal of Marketing 29: 49–61. [CrossRef]
Nambisan, Satish, Shaker A. Zahra, and Yadong Luo. 2019. Global platforms and ecosystems: Implications for international business
theories. Journal of International Business Studies 50: 1464–86. [CrossRef]
Nelson, Richard R., and Sidney G. Winter. 1973. Toward an evolutionary theory of economic capabilities. American Economic Review 63:
440–49. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1817107 (accessed on 24 July 2021).
Ochieng, Irene A., and Simbarashe Takawira. 2020. Internationalisation Challenges of Sharing Economy Firms: An Emerging
African Markets Perspective. Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1442250 (accessed on
14 May 2021).
Oskam, Jeroen, and Albert Boswijk. 2016. Airbnb: The future of networked hospitality businesses. Journal of Tourism Futures 2: 22–42.
Oviatt, Benjamin M., and Patricia P. McDougall. 2005. Toward a Theory of International New ventures. Journal of International Business
Studies 36: 29–41. [CrossRef]
Parente, Ronaldo, José.-Mauticio. G. Geleilate, and Ke Rong. 2018. The Sharing Economy Globalization Phenomenon: A Research
Agenda. Journal of International Management 24: 52–64. [CrossRef]
Paul, Justin, and Alexander Rosado-Serrano. 2019. Gradual Internationalisation vs. Born-Global/International new venture models.
International Marketing Review 36: 830–58. [CrossRef]
Peng, Mike W. 2001. The resource-based view and international business. Journal of Management 27: 803–29. [CrossRef]
Penrose, Edith T. 1960. The Growth of the Firm—A Case Study: The Hercules Powder Company. Business History Review 34: 1–23.
Perren, Rebeca, and Liz Grauerholz. 2015. Collaborative Consumption. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences 4:
Petticrew, Mark, and Helen Roberts, eds. 2006. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing
Razeghian, Maryam, and Thomas A. Weber. 2019. The advent of the sharing culture and its effect on product pricing. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications 33: 100801. [CrossRef]
Reid, Stan D. 1981. The Decision-Maker and Export Entry and Expansion. Journal of International Business Studies 12: 101–12. [CrossRef]
Ricardo, David. 1891. Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation. London: G. Bell and Sons. [CrossRef]
Richardson, Lizzie. 2015. Performing the sharing economy. Geoforum 67: 121–29. [CrossRef]
Rifkin, Jeremy. 2000. L’Âge de L’accès: Survivre àL’hypercapitalisme. Quebec: Boreal.
Rogers, David. 2016. The Digital Transformation Playbook. New York: Columbia University Press. [CrossRef]
Russo, Francesco, and Maria Luisa Stasi. 2016. Deﬁning the relevant market in the sharing economy. Internet Policy Review 5: 1–13.
Ruzzier, Mitja, Bostjan Antoncic, Robert D. Hisrich, and Maja Konecnik. 2007. Human capital and SME internationalisation: A
structural equation modeling study. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 24: 15–29. [CrossRef]
Sassanelli, Claudio, Monica Rossi, Giuditta Pezzotta, Diego Pacheco, and Sergio Terzi. 2019. Deﬁning lean product service systems
features and research trends through a systematic literature review. International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 12: 37.
Schor, Juliet. 2016. Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 4: 7. [CrossRef]
Schor, Juliet B., and Steven P. Vallas. 2021. The Sharing Economy: Rhetoric and Reality. Annual Review of Sociology 47: 369–89. [CrossRef]
Seifert, Rene Eugenio. 2010. Meaningful Internationalisation: A Study among the Leaders of Brazilian Smaller Enterprises. Available
online: http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/1168/ (accessed on 27 July 2021).
Shaheen, Susan, Adam Stocker, and Marie Mundler. 2017. Online and App-Based Carpooling in France: Analyzing Users and
Practices—A Study of BlaBlaCar. In Disrupting Mobility. Edited by Gereon Meyer and Susan Shaheen. Lecture Notes in Mobility.
Shaheer, Noman A., and Sali Li. 2020. The CAGE around cyberspace? How digital innovations internationalise in a virtual world.
Journal of Business Venturing 35: 105892. [CrossRef]
Shuman, Jeffrey C., and John A. Seeger. 1986. The Theory and Practice of Strategic Management in Smaller Rapid Growth Firms.
American Journal of Small Business 11: 7–18. [CrossRef]
Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 98 23 of 23
Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. New York: Irwin.
Smith, Adele, Paul Ryan, and David G. Collings. 2012. Born global networks: The role of connectors. European Journal of International
Management 6: 566. [CrossRef]
Stallkamp, Maximilian, and Andreas P. J. Schotter. 2019. Platforms without borders? The international strategies of digital platform
ﬁrms. Global Strategy Journal 11: 1–23. [CrossRef]
Statista. 2020. Value of the Global Sharing Economy 2014–2025. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/830986/value-
of-the-global-sharing-economy/ (accessed on 10 June 2021).
Stokes, Kathleen, Emma Clarence, Lauren Anderson, and April Rinne. 2014. Making Sense of the Uk Collaborative Economy. London: Nesta.
Sundararajan, Arun. 2014. Peer-to-Peer Businesses and the Sharing (Collaborative) Economy: Overview, Economic Effects and
Regulatory Issues. Written testimony for the hearing titled The Power of Connection: Peer to Peer Businesses. pp. 1–7. Available
online: https://republicans-smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedﬁles/1-15-2014_revised_sundararajan_testimony.pdf (accessed
on 10 June 2021).
Sundararajan, Arun. 2016. The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Teece, David J., Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18:
Tranﬁeld, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management
knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–22. [CrossRef]
Tsukanova, Tatyana. 2019. Home country institutions and export behaviour of SMEs from transition economies: The case of Russia.
European Journal of International Management 13: 811. [CrossRef]
Tussyadiah, Iis. 2016. Factors of satisfaction and intention to use peer-to-peer accommodation. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 55: 70–80. [CrossRef]
Uzunca, Bilgehan, J. P. Coen Rigtering, and Pinar Ozcan. 2018. Sharing and shaping: A cross-country comparison of how sharing
economy ﬁrms shape their institutional environment to gain legitimacy. Academy of Management Discoveries 4: 248–72. [CrossRef]
Vernon, Raymond. 1966. International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle. The Quaterly Journal of Economics 80:
Vitkovic, Deni. 2016. The sharing economy: Regulation and the EU competition law. Global Antitrust Review 9: 78–118. Available online:
https://bit.ly/2SaO972 (accessed on 10 July 2021).
Wernerfelt, Birger. 1984. A resource—Based view of the ﬁrm. Strategic Management Journal 5: 171–80. [CrossRef]
Westhead, Paul. 1995. Exporting and non-exporting small ﬁrms in Great Britain A matched pairs comparison. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 1: 6–36. [CrossRef]
Wirtz, Jochen, Kevin K. Fung So, Makarand A. Mody, Stephanie Q. Liu, and HaeEun H. Chun. 2019. Platforms in the peer-to-peer
sharing economy. Journal of Service Management 30: 452–83. [CrossRef]
Yang, Lie, Zhulei Chen, Ting Liu, Zhe Gong, Yingjian Yu, and Jia Wang. 2013. Global trends of solid waste research from 1997 to 2011
by using bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 96: 133–46. [CrossRef]
Zalega, Tomasz. 2020. The Sharing Economy and the Behaviour of Young Polish Singles: The Case of BlaBlaCar. Gospodarka Narodowa
304: 105–34. [CrossRef]
Zanoni, Patrizia. 2019. Chapter 6 Labor Market Inclusion Through Predatory Capitalism? The “Sharing Economy,” Diversity, and the
Crisis of Social Reproduction in the Belgian Coordinated Market Economy. In Work and Labor in the Digital Age. Bingley: Emerald
Publishing Limited, pp. 145–64. [CrossRef]