ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The purpose of this research is to investigate value capture innovation in sharing economy platforms. Revenue management and pricing strategies are indeed pivotal aspects platforms should care about when (re)configuring their business models. A mixed-method investigation has been performed to achieve this goal: a longitudinal content analysis and a case studies analysis. Results from the first step of the research show that four main typologies of innovation emerge in the analyzed platforms. Furthermore, the case studies analysis reveals three main patterns (Network, Monetization, Lock-in) and the possible paths a platform can undergo when innovate its value capture mechanisms.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management (2022) 21:255–261
Paths andpatterns ofvalue capture innovation insharing economy
CeciliaGrieco1· GennaroIasevoli2
Received: 12 July 2021 / Accepted: 8 February 2022 / Published online: 22 February 2022
© The Author(s) 2022
The purpose of this research is to investigate value capture innovation in sharing economy platforms. Revenue management
and pricing strategies are indeed pivotal aspects platforms should care about when (re)configuring their business models.
A mixed-method investigation has been performed to achieve this goal: a longitudinal content analysis and a case studies
analysis. Results from the first step of the research show that four main typologies of innovation emerge in the analyzed
platforms. Furthermore, the case studies analysis reveals three main patterns (Network, Monetization, Lock-in) and the pos-
sible paths a platform can undergo when innovate its value capture mechanisms.
Keywords Sharing economy· Value capture· Revenue model· Innovation
The value capture process refers to the mechanism through
which an organization defines the origin of revenues, the
different ways to receive money in exchange for its services,
as well as the pricing strategies and the cost structure of
the organization (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010). Indeed,
once the value is created, the organization face the issue of
defining how to capture part of this value in form of revenue.
Despite value capture is one of the three core processes of
the business model of every organization, many of them
might struggle to find the proper one, as capturing value is
often much more difficult than creating it (Bock and George
2018). This emerges as being particularly true for sharing
economy companies, where the growing number do not cor-
respond to the length of the lifespan these platforms enjoy
(Plenter etal. 2017; Täuscher and Kietzmann 2017). Shar-
ing economy companies provide the infrastructure through
which individuals and eventually companies can access or
share existing resources and assets in exchange of monetary
and non-monetary benefits (Mair and Reischauer 2017).
While capturing value is a quite straightforward process for
traditional companies that simply charge the customers for
the value created (Kohler 2015), it becomes much harder
for this kind of platforms where the value comes from the
increased use of idle capacity, and is often largely created
by the users themselves.
The purpose of this research stems from these premises
and is focused on exploring the patterns and the paths of
value capture innovation in sharing economy platforms.
The concept of pattern comes from Alexander etal.
(1977) that define it as “a problem which occurs over and
over again in our environment, and then describes the core
of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can
use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it
the same way twice” (p. x). Scholars have widely applied
this concept to the business model and business model inno-
vation phenomena (Johnson 2010; Abdelkafi etal. 2013;
Remane etal. 2017). As a pattern often describes a solu-
tion for only a certain part of a company’s business model
(Weill and Vitale 2001), the aim of this research is that of
gaining insights about how this concept can be applied to the
value capture mechanisms. As for the path, the goal of this
research is to shed light on the steps that might lead from a
starting to an arrival point, consistently with a wider interest
emerged in literature towards the identification of the paths
of business model innovation (Hekkilä etal. 2018; Muzellec
etal. 2015).
* Cecilia Grieco
Gennaro Iasevoli
1 Sapienza University ofRome, Via Salaria, 113,
00198Rome, Italy
2 LUMSA University ofRome, Via di Porta Castello, 44,
00193Rome, Italy
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
256 C.Grieco, G.Iasevoli
Revelant literature
Leaving beside the wider debate about the appropriateness
of talking about profit generation in the sharing phenome-
non, extant literature shows a scant focus on value capture
in sharing economy. Ritter and Schanz (2019) describe
revenue streams as coming from direct or indirect sources
(e.g., charging consumers vs charging a third group sub-
sidizing the consumers) and as being utility bound or
unbound basing on their connection to parameters of use
or not (e.g., usage fee vs subscription). Constantiou etal.
(2017) underline the different degree of market mecha-
nisms that can be in place in sharing platforms: on the
one hand there are platform owners that price the service
dynamically based on secret algorithms, while in other
cases the prices—if any—are based on compensating or
sharing the costs of the supply side.
Properly managing the value capture mechanisms is
pivotal for sharing economy platforms as it can highly
support their survival and their success. Indeed, differ-
ently from products that can produce only a single revenue
stream, platforms can generate many. A wrong revenue
management has been proven to be among the main failure
factors in sharing economy business models. On the one
hand the transaction-centered nature of sharing economy
hampers the creation of switching costs and customer lock-
in strategies. On the other hand, the type of service often
implies a low transaction frequency, when business models
address a market in which product or service transactions
occur infrequently (Täuscher and Kietzmann 2017). As
for these features of the sharing phenomenon, platforms
should focus their attention on creating additional value by
broadening the value capture opportunities, moving for-
ward from relying on a revenue model that is often based
on a single revenue stream (i.e., commission fee) (Lac-
zko etal. 2019). Benefits in terms of increased platforms
stickiness and improved profitability also depends on the
ability to create revenue streams that are complementary
and not interdepended among each other, making the plat-
form viable in the long term (Laczko etal. 2019).
The innovation of the value capture formula sharing
economy platforms are demanded to carry out, is consist-
ent with the wider need to innovate the overall business
model to stay competitive on the market. A static offer-
ing is indeed easily copied by competitors (Smedlund and
Faghankhani 2015). To innovate the business model means
to adopt an innovation in company's BM that is new to
the firm, and whose results is an observable change in the
firm's practices towards its customers and partners (Hek-
kilä etal. 2016).
From a business model point of view, value capture
innovation refers to the innovation of a firm’s core earning
logic, either by changing the revenue model or the cost
structures (Spieth and Schneider 2016). As for the former,
having new revenue models might mean to adopt more
sustainable streams in which revenues are generated indi-
rectly or over time through cross subsidization or life cycle
values (Clauss etal. 2014; Clauss 2017). As for the latter,
cost structures reflect the strategic scope of a firm’s offer-
ing, and it can be changed consistently with the business
model and the corporate strategy (Zott and Amit 2008).
Giesen etal. (2007) refer to ‘revenue model innovation
as one of the three paths to effectively innovate the busi-
ness model. In their view this process includes the recon-
figuration of the offering (product, service, value mix) and/
or the introduction of new pricing models, citing Gillette’s
razor and blade pricing strategy and Netflix’s introduction
of new rental options as successful examples. Consistently,
Hinterhuber and Liozu (2014) pinpoint on the importance of
pricing strategy innovation, that have the potential to brings
new-to-the-industry approaches to pricing strategies, to pric-
ing tactics, and to the organization of pricing, to achieve
increased customer satisfaction and company profits. These
aspects take on a particular configuration in sharing econ-
omy platforms, where there are two or more sides involved,
thus strategic decisions need to be taken also about the pric-
ing issue of whether and how much the different sides are
charged (Evans 2003). The complexity of the pricing struc-
ture makes the revenue model very complex (Rochet and
Tirole 2003).
Materials andmethods
To achieve these goals a two steps methodology was applied,
combining retrospective data and real-time detection of the
innovation process. In the first stage, an iterative explora-
tory content analysis has been performed on a sample of
sharing economy platforms through a longitudinal data col-
lection that was carried out from 2018 to 2020. The sample
for this study was drawn from firms listed in Crunchbase,
a community-based platform that summarizes information
about industry trends, investments and news about global
companies, that emerged as being one of the world’s most
relied upon business information platform. The database
search was performed for the first time in 2018, using “shar-
ing economy”, “collaborative economy” and “Peer-2-Peer
economy” as keywords. The initial search identified 752
companies (excluding duplicates), from which those that
were no longer operating, those that were not properly shar-
ing platforms and those for which available information were
not sufficient were excluded.
The final sample was made of 149 sharing economy plat-
forms that were consistent with the purpose of the research.
Information about these platforms were collected for three
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
257Paths andpatterns ofvalue capture innovation insharing economy
times during a three years timeframe, mainly through the
websites but also from related news, and any available
documents that could be accessed by the researcher. The
framework for the data collection has been drawn from the
literature about business model, value capture and sharing
economy (Table1). Despite the cost structure is an impor-
tant part of the value capture process, in this first stage the
decision was to not include it in the data collection. This was
because of the lack of transparency on this subject in the
publicly available data due to the sensitivity of the informa-
tion (Ciulli and Kolk 2019).
While collecting information, the platforms that from one
year to the other resulted as not being operating anymore
were excluded from the sample. This lead to have 112 plat-
forms in 2019 and 99 platforms in 2020. The output of this
step was the identification of 8 cases in which changes are
evincible from one year to another concerning the analyzed
In the second phase, those cases for which an innovation
in the value capture process was evidenced from the website
analysis, were adopted for a case studies analysis, to have a
wider view about the overall picture behind these changes,
and to outline which might be considered the paths and the
patterns of value capture innovation(Table2). The study
has been based on the multiple-case (holistic) model (Yin
2014), and the single firm has been considered as the unit
of analysis. Semi-structured interviews and desk research
were used as data sources, also to collect complementary
evidence and, where necessary, triangulate the findings. The
interviews were transcribed and other data were protocolled
(Babbie 2015).
Findings anddiscussion
The longitudinal analysis carried out to identify the changes
in the variables of the value capture, highlights a first inter-
esting information about platforms’ survival, basing on the
numbers of platforms that were no more operating from one
year to the subsequent. Indeed, from year 1 to year 2 there
has been a decrease of 25%, while from year 2 to year 3, a
decrease of 12%. Overall, the innovations in the value cap-
ture along the analyzed timeframe concerned 8 platforms:
4 from year 1 to year 2, 3 from year 2 to year 3, and 1 both
from year 1 to year 2 and to year 2 to year 3.
The identified innovations show different degrees of
depth, where the variables that drove the analysis have been
differently affected.
A first example is made by those type of innovations
within the sub-variable, that has been labeled as Adjustment.
Table 1 Framework for the analysis
Source Authors’ elaboration
VALUE CAPTURE Revenue model Subscription A periodically fee is charged by the
platform provider independent of
peer usage
Botsman and Rogers (2010), Tang
(2016), Roma and Ragaglia (2016),
Kohler (2015), Kannisto (2017),
Täuscher and Kietzmann (2017) and
Kemppainen etal. (2018)
Transaction The platform provider retains a certain
percentage of the transaction value
after successfully matching supply
and demand
Advertising The sale of advertising is the main
source of revenue
Freemium The platform provider offers basic
services or usage for free. Additional
features and benefits are subject to
Paying side Provider Money are raised from the supplier
Evans (2003), Rochet and Tirole (2003),
Goos (2014), Bhargava (2014) and
Ardolino etal. (2020)
End customer Money are raised from the end-user
Provider and customer Money are raised from both suppliers
and end-users
Third part Money are raised from other partners
i.e. advertiser
Pricing strategy Fixed price The economic value is not negotiable Giesen etal. (2007), Hinterhuber and
Liozu (2014), Banerjee etal. (2015)
and Cachon etal. (2017)
Differentiated price The economic value is defined and it
varies in relation to different vari-
Bargained price The economic value is defined from
time to time during the bargaining
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
258 C.Grieco, G.Iasevoli
This type of change happens for example when the subscrip-
tion fee is increased or decreased in its amount, without
actually changing the revenue model itself, nor the paying
side or the pricing strategy.
At a further level, there are those innovation between
the sub-variables, where a transition from a sub-variable to
another is evincible in one of the analyzed variables. This
typology of innovation has been labeled as Reconfiguration.
Interesting examples are platforms P.3 and P.4, whose inno-
vation refers to the revenue model that in both the cases was
changed from advertising to freemium.
A third typology of innovation that emerged has been
labeled as Innovation, and concerns those changes that hap-
pen in two of the variables. It is interesting to note that in
three cases out of four this type of innovation emerges as
being linked to an integration rather than a mere transition.
This means that the new sub-variables are integrated in the
business model, in addition to the existing ones, leading the
platforms to benefit from a differentiation in their earning
logic. For example, P.1 and P.7 undertaken an integration in
their revenue model that lead also to an integration in the
pricing strategy. As for P.1, from year 1 to year 2, a sub-
scription model with a fixed price was added to the former
transaction fee where a differentiated pricing strategy was
evincible. In P.7, from year 2 to year 3, the former transac-
tion model with a fixed price was integrated with a fixed
priced subscription, that made the transaction fees as dif-
ferentiated according to the type of subscriptions. Revenue
streams integration are also evidenced in P.2, where the
changes cover both the revenue model and the paying side;
the platform started with a transaction fee on demanders in
year 1, and completed it with the introduction of a subscrip-
tion fee for the suppliers in year 2. Finally, a transitional
Innovation emerged in P.8, where a fixed price usage fee in
year 2 was replaced by a subscription fee with differentiated
pricing in year 3.
Lastly, the deeper typology of innovation emerged, that
has been labeled as Radical innovation, as it concerns all of
the analyzed variables, with changes covering at the same
time the revenue model, the paying side and the pricing
strategy. Interesting examples are P.6 and P.5. As for the
former, the initial situation was set on a transaction model
where the fee was defined through a bargained pricing strat-
egy, that was then changed from year 2 to year 3 in favor of
a subscription model, where the fixed fee has to be paid by
all the members of the community, whether they supply or
demand the goods. The case of P.5 is even more complete,
as changes have been detected in all of the three moments
of data collection. P.5 had no revenues in 2018, it moved
to the freemium model (differentiated pricing) charging the
supplier side in 2019 and finally it added a subscription fee
(differentiated pricing) for demanders in 2020(Table3).
Once the typologies of innovation have been detected, a
case studies analysis has been performed, to gain insights
about the phenomenon and to outline which can be consid-
ered the main patterns and the main paths of value capture
innovation in sharing economy companies.
A first element that has to be underlined is that the driving
element in those innovations emerges always as being the
revenue model, with the introduction or integration of new
streams bringing changes in the paying side and/or in the
pricing strategy. Also, regardless of the different typologies
of innovation and the specific sub-variables involved in the
changes as starting and arrival points, there seems to be a
common path in terms of pursued objectives (Fig.1).
In the Network phase, the need is that of attracting a criti-
cal mass of users, thus very often no revenue models are
foreseen. This choice depends on several reasons such as
the introduction on the market, the need to be known and
understood by the users, or the conduction of an idea test-
ing to gather evidence of its potential appealing. Of course,
this cannot be a long-term solution, and the pressing need to
ensure an economic sustainability lead the platforms towards
Table 2 Summary of cases included in the second phase
Source Authors’ elaboration
Code Description (from Crunchbase) Industry Year of
P.1 Long distance ridesharing platform that connects drivers with empty seats and passengers to share travel costs Mobility 2013
P.2 Mobile application and a peer-to-peer car sharing marketplace that enables car owners to rent out their cars Mobility 2009
P.3 Free app connecting people with their neighbors and with local shops & cafes so that surplus food can be
shared, not thrown away
Food 2015
P.4 Online market place trading free things to promote sharing, reuse and recycling Goods 2008
P.5 World's largest network for discovering and reviewing coworking spaces Space 2015
P.6 Night sharing community where members travel by swapping nights and not money Space 1992
P.7 Marketplace for businesses and marketing and communication agencies Service 2014
P.8 The first fully electric car sharing in Europe Mobility 2015
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
259Paths andpatterns ofvalue capture innovation insharing economy
the adoption of revenue streams to monetize the business
model. In the analyzed cases this passage takes on differ-
ent forms: from no revenues to advertising or transaction
fees, or from advertising to freemium or again transaction
fees. On the other hand, these changes need to be justified
to the users that are asked to pay for something they have
benefited from for free lately. The analysis shows that the
customer benefits that are connected to such changes mostly
refer to the increased security in the use of the platform
or to the better experience that could be delivered. In the
Monetization phase, the platforms can benefit from indi-
rect network effect, for example by attracting advertisers,
but also to reach a greater impact when the goal is to scale
up. However, the need to invest in further innovation and to
increase user’s retention might lead the platforms to adopt
tighter revenue models, such as the freemium and even more
the subscription model, and moving to a Lock-in phase. In
this phase the platforms often integrate new and existing
streams to differentiate the revenues and to add actors on the
paying side. A common goal is often that of overcoming the
Table 3 Value capture innovation typologies in the cases
Source Authors’ elaboration
Case Value capture innovation typology
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
P.1 Rev.: Transaction
Pr.: Differentiated price
Rev.: Transaction + subscription
Pr.: Fixed price
Innovation (integration)
P.2 Rev.: Transaction
Pay.: Supplier
Rev.: Transaction + subscription
Pay.; Demander
Innovation (integration)
P.3 Rev.: Advertising Rev.: Freemium Reconfiguration
P.4 Rev.: Advertising Rev.: Freemium Reconfiguration
P.5 Rev: No revenue Rev.: Freemium
Pay.: Suppliers
Rev.: Freemium + subscription
Pay.: Suppliers + demanders
Radical innovation
P.6 Rev.: Transaction
Pr.: Bargained price
Pay.: Renters
Rev.: Subscription
Pr.: Fixed price
Pay.: Suppliers + demanders
Radical innovation
P.7 Rev.: Transaction
Pr.: Fixed price
Rev.: Transaction + subscription
Pr.: Differentiated + fixed price
Innovation (integration)
P.8 Rev: Usage
Pr.: Fixed price
Rev.: Subscription
Pr.: Differentiated price
Innovation (transition)
Fig. 1 The paths and patterns of value capture innovation
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
260 C.Grieco, G.Iasevoli
transactional nature of sharing platforms, that often presents
the risk of users bypassing the platforms after the first match.
A key benefit from this point of view is also having recurring
revenues that have a long-term perspective but also that are
utility unbounded. In terms of users’ benefits, these changes
are promoted as increasing flexibility in using the platform,
allow users to save money when paying only a periodical
subscription fee, supporting the sense of community and
defending the core philosophy of the platform.
The research deals with an under-investigated yet important
topic, adding on the application of business model innova-
tion studies to the field of sharing economy companies, that
is a recent and promising avenue for inquiries (Grieco etal.
2021; Grieco 2021).
The research aims to increase the understanding about
value capture innovation, that can be an important element
in supporting platforms creating and maintaining their com-
petitive advantage. Further investigation will also allow to
shed light on the specific benefits and risks related to the
specific revenue models. Future research avenues open-
ing from here can focus on those platforms that failed, to
understand if the changes in the value capture can really be
considered as determining the survival of the company. The
main limit so far lies in the fact that important information
has been drawn from secondary sources and this might ham-
per the comprehension of the strategies behind the detected
innovation or the real implication they have brought about.
The case studies analysis aims to fill this gap, supporting and
completing the data collection process. Other limits derive
from the nature of the sample, that covers a wide but not
complete set of sharing economy platform. Finally, limi-
tation can also come from dealing with the topic of value
capture, where earning logics are a sensitive information to
collect, and it is not always easy to have transparent infor-
mation about it.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
Abdelkafi, N., S. Makhotin, and T. Posselt. 2013. Business model inno-
vations for electric mobility: What can be learned from existing
business model patterns? International Journal of Innovation
Management 17 (1): 1–41.
Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein. 1977. A pattern lan-
guage: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Ardolino, M., N. Saccani, F. Adrodegari, and M. Perona. 2020. A
business model framework to characterize digital multisided
platforms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and
Complexity 6 (1): 10.
Babbie, E.R. 2015. The practice of social research. Toronto: Nelson
Banerjee, S., C. Riquelme, R. Johari. 2015. Pricing in ride-share plat-
forms: a queueing-theoretic approach. Working Paper, Available
at SSRN 2568258.
Bhargava, H.K. 2014. Platform technologies and network goods:
Insights on product launch and management. Information Tech-
nology and Management 15 (3): 199–209.
Bock, A.J., and G. George. 2018. The business model book: Design,
build and adapt business ideas that thrive. London: Pearson Edu-
cation Limited.
Botsman, R., and R. Rogers. 2010. What’s mine is yours: The rise of
collaborative consumption. New York: Harper Collins.
Cachon, G.P., K.M. Daniels, and R. Lobel. 2017. The role of surge
pricing on a service platform with self-scheduling capacity. Manu-
facturing & Service Operations Management 19 (3): 368–384.
Ciulli, F., and A. Kolk. 2019. Incumbents and business model inno-
vation for the sharing economy: Implications for sustainability.
Journal of Cleaner Production 214: 995–1010.
Clauss, T. 2017. Measuring business model innovation: Conceptualiza-
tion, scale development, and proof of performance. R&D Manage-
ment 47 (3): 385–403.
Clauss, T., S.M. Laudien, and B. Daxbock. 2014. Service dominant
logic and the business model concept: Toward a conceptual inte-
gration. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management 18: 266–288.
Constantiou, I., A. Marton, V.K. Tuunainen. 2017. Four models of
sharing economy platforms. Mis Quarterly Executive 16(4).
Evans, D.S. 2003. Some empirical aspects of multi-sided platform
industries. Review of Network Economics 2: 191–209.
Giesen, E., S.J. Berman, R. Bell, and A. Blitz. 2007. Three ways to
successfully innovate your business model. Strategy & Leader-
ship 35 (6): 27–33.
Goos, M., P. Van Cayseele, and B. Willekens. 2014. Platform pricing in
matching markets. Review of Network Economics 12 (4): 437–457.
Grieco, C. 2021. Innovating the innovated: Business model innovation
process in sharing economy companies. Creativity and Innovation
Management. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ caim. 12457.
Grieco, C., L. Michelini, and G. Iasevoli. 2021. Which sharing are
we betting on? Analysing the financial attractiveness of sharing
business models. Journal of Cleaner Production. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/J. Jclep ro. 2021. 128067.
Heikkilä, M., H. Bouwman, and J. Heikkilä. 2018. From strategic goals
to business model innovation paths: An exploratory study. Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development 25 (1): 107–128.
Heikkilä, M., H. Bouwman, J. Heikkilä, T. Haaker, C. Lopez Nico-
las, A. Riedl. 2016. Business model innovation paths and tools.
29th bled econference digital economy June 19–22, 2016, Bled,
Hinterhuber, A., and S.M. Liozu. 2014. Is innovation in pricing your
next source of competitive advantage? Business Horizons 57 (3):
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
261Paths andpatterns ofvalue capture innovation insharing economy
Johnson, Mw. 2010. Seizing the white space: Business model innova-
tion for growth and renewal. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Kannisto, P. 2017. Sharing for profit: A new business model? Annals
of Tourism Research 66: 183–215.
Kemppainen, L., T. Koivumäki, M. Pikkarainen, and A. Poikola. 2018.
Emerging revenue models for personal data platform operators:
When individuals are in control of their data. Journal of Business
Models 6 (3): 79–105.
Kohler, T. 2015. Crowdsourcing-based business models: How to create
and capture value. California Management Review 57 (4): 63–84.
Laczko, P., D. Hullova, A. Needham, A.M. Rossiter, and M. Battisti.
2019. The role of a central actor in increasing platform sticki-
ness and stakeholder profitability: Bridging the gap between value
creation and value capture in the sharing economy. Industrial
Marketing Management 76: 214–230.
Mair, J., and G. Reischauer. 2017. Capturing the dynamics of the shar-
ing economy: Institutional research on the plural forms and prac-
tices of sharing economy organizations. Technological Forecast-
ing and Social Change 125: 11–20.
Muzellec, L., S. Ronteau, and M. Lambkin. 2015. Two-sided internet
platforms: A business model lifecycle perspective. Industrial Mar-
keting Management 45: 139–150.
Osterwalder, A., and Y. Pigneur. 2010. Business model generation:
A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers.
Hoboken: Wiley.
Plenter, F., E. Fielt, M. Hoffen, F. Chasin, M. Rosemann. 2017.
Repainting the business model canvas for peer-to-peer sharing
and collaborative consumption. Proceedings of the 25th Euro-
pean conference on information systems (ECIS), 2234–2249.
Remane, G., A. Hanelt, J.F. Tesch, and L.M. Kolbe. 2017. The business
model pattern database—A tool for systematic business model
innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management 21
(01): 1750004.
Ritter, M., and H. Schanz. 2019. The sharing economy: A comprehen-
sive business model framework. Journal of Cleaner Production
213: 320–331.
Rochet, J.C., and J. Tirole. 2003. Platform competition in two-sided
markets. Journal of the European Economic Association 1 (4):
Roma, P., and D. Ragaglia. 2016. Revenue models, in-app purchase,
and the app performance: Evidence from apple’s app store and
google play. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 17
(2016): 173–190.
Smedlund, A., H. Faghankhani. 2015. Platform orchestration for effi-
ciency, development, and innovation. In 2015 48th Hawaii inter-
national conference on system sciences, 1380–1388. IEEE.
Spieth, P., and S. Schneider. 2016. Business model innovativeness:
Designing a formative measure for business model innovation.
Journal of Business Economics 86 (6): 671–696.
Tang, A. 2016. Mobile app monetization: App business models in the
digital era. International Journal of Innovation, Management and
Technology 7 (5): 224–227.
Täuscher, K., and J. Kietzmann. 2017. Learning from failures in the
sharing economy. Science and Technology 67 (9): 2047–2059.
Weill, P., and M. Vitale. 2001. Place to space: Migrating to e-business
models. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Yin, R.K. 2014. Case study research. Design and methods, 5th ed. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Zott, C., and R. Amit. 2008. The fit between product market strategy
and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal 29: 1–26.
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cecilia Grieco is Assistant Professor of Management at Sapienza Uni-
versity of Rome. She teaches Market driven management and Strate-
gic marketing. Her research activity is currently focused on Business
models innovation and sharing economy platforms. She also writes
about social impact assessment in social enterprises and non-profit
Gennaro Iasevoli is the Vice-Rector for Research and Internationaliza-
tion at the LUMSA University, where he is full professor of Manage-
ment and Marketing. He is currently also Coordinator of the Doctorate
“The development of well-being of people and organizations”. His
interests of research are Sharing Economy, Co-marketing, Social enter-
prises, CRM.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
... Scholars generally believe that the concept of sharing can be widely used in various industries, and it is an intensive and efficient approach of operation that fits the times [23]. In the research of some scholars, it was pointed out that the concept of sharing can effectively improve business operation and management to optimize services [24]. ...
Full-text available
This study is a discussion on the feasibility of, application, and promotion of sharing products in tourism services. The promotion and application of the current sharing concept are mostly aimed at a wide range of urban populations or urban service systems, while research on applications of the concept that target tourism services are few. This study hopes to demonstrate that, with the introduction of the sharing concept into the tourism industry, tourism services will benefit from sharing tourism products. Adopting the TAM model, the study surveyed tourists in the form of a questionnaire and obtained its data from 410 participants. The research investigated tourists’ attitudes towards sharing tourism products and the impact of sharing products in tourism services. In the SEM model test and analysis, we found that: (1) sharing tourism products is acceptable to tourists; (2) sharing tourism products brings tourists good travel experiences and improves the quality of tourism services in scenic spots; and (3) tourists can have their special needs and concerns met by sharing tourism products. These prove that tourist sharing products are a scientific and effective way for the tourism industry to improve the travel experience of tourists and to optimize the tourism service industry, and that the sharing concept is in agreeance with the climate of current economic development and the diversified needs of consumers. This research focuses on the promotion of the sharing concept in seaside tourism services. In future research, we can also try to improve the user experience, assist service management, and build a healthy economic ecological model with the application of the sharing concept in different service models and business venues.
Full-text available
Business model innovation (BMI) allows firms to rethink the mechanisms of value creation and proposition and capture in order to adapt to the ever-changing environment and increase competitive advantage. Despite already innovative compared to the incumbents, sharing economy platforms also feel the need to continuously innovate their business model (BM) to ensure their survival. However, these platforms are often studied under a static perspective, focusing on the outcome of the innovation rather than on the process underlying it. The purpose of the paper is to unveil the process of BMI in the already innovative BM of sharing economy platforms, focusing on the different degrees this innovation can take place. In so doing, a mixed-methods was applied, clustering a sample of 72 sharing platforms, and completing the results with a qualitative analysis on a subsample of those. What this research demonstrates is that sharing economy platforms do feel the need to innovate their BM just as strongly as incumbents, giving rise to an innovation-in-the-innovation that fills the gap between the process- and the outcome-oriented interpretations of BMI. The four identified clusters shed light on the different forms of BMI that happen in sharing economy platforms.
Full-text available
Businesses grounded upon multisided platforms (MSPs) are found in a growing number of industries, thanks to the recent developments in Internet and digital technologies. Digital MSPs enable multiple interactions among users of different sides through information and communication technologies. The understanding of the characteristics and constituents of MSPs is fragmented along different literature streams. Moreover, very few empirical studies have been carried out to date. In order to fill this gap, this paper presents a three-level framework that describes a digital MSP. The proposed framework is based on literature analysis and multiple case study. On the one hand, the framework can be used to describe MSP as it provides an operationalization of the concept through the identification of specific dimensions, variables and items; on the other hand, it can be used as an assessment tool by practitioners, as exemplified by the three empirical applications presented in this paper.
Full-text available
Purpose: This paper identifies emerging revenue models for personal data platform operators that facilitate the exchange of resources between an individual and a service provider for their mutual benefit. Context of this study is human-centered personal data management, which refers to individuals being able to control the use and access of their personal data for third-party services. Design: This research is conducted by analysing qualitative questionnaire data from 27 organizations from 12 different countries that are considered as forerunners in creating services in this context. Findings: Our study shows that personal data platform operators capture value with transaction-, service-, connection and membership fees from service providers, data sources and individuals using the platform. This study also reveals two propositions as the foundation of revenue model creation in the context of human-centered personal data management, namely a no-advertising and free-for-users model. Our research findings show that monetising personal data with advertising is avoided by personal data platform operators. Research Limitations/Implications: This study calls for further research about how does providing control over personal data to individuals influence on business models of platform operators and other service providers in the market. Practical implications: For practitioners, this research offers new insights on revenue models that are being developed by the forerunners of human-centered personal data management approach in the European market. Originality/Value: Revenue models for personal data platform operators when taking a human-centered approach to personal data management. Propositions to consider when creating revenue models in this context.
Full-text available
Full text available open access at In addition to fostering the rise of new players in various sectors, the sharing economy has attracted the attention of established companies, the so-called ‘incumbents’. Some incumbents have joined the sharing economy to both reap its emerging opportunities and tackle newcomers' competition. The entry of incumbents comes at a time in which the sharing economy, still in its initial stages, is the ‘battlefield’ between actors defending its original sustainability promise, based on the efficient use of resources, social bonding, non-monetized relationships and power of the communities, and those supporting the need to compromise on the principles, to ensure the sharing economy's expansion. Given incumbents' size and power, their entry is likely to significantly affect the shape of the sharing economy. Our study explores the implications for environmental, social and economic value creation of the different ways in which incumbents are changing their existing business models to join the sharing economy. We develop a typology of business model innovation for sharing, which stems from the literature on sustainable business models in particular, and present illustrative cases of incumbents' entry in the sharing economy. For every type adopted by incumbents, the sustainability dimensions are subsequently explored, considering both the benefits and drawbacks of incumbents' entry in the sharing economy. The final section concludes, and discusses implications for research, practice and policy.
Full-text available
The sharing economy is seen as an important building block for transitions to sustainability. Although the sharing economy concept is widely used, comprehension varies about what makes a sharing economy business model. This study aims to review and categorize the field of sharing economy business model research, by reviewing the fundamentals of the concept of sharing and feeding them back into the business model literature. A comprehensive framework of business model categories is proposed, distinguishing four market segments of the sharing economy: Singular Transaction Models, Subscription-Based Models, Commission-Based Platforms and Unlimited Platforms. The study's framework is grounded in an analysis of sharing economy fundamentals and business model literature, contributing to a better understanding of the potentials of sharing economy for sustainability transitions and the implementation of business model innovations.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Sharing Economy businesses have become very popular recently but there is little guidance available on how to develop the respective business models. We faced this problem during a consortium research project for developing a service for electric vehicle charging that adopts the paradigm of Peer-to-Peer Sharing and Collaborative Consumption (P2P SCC)-a specific branch of the Sharing Economy. We use Action Design Research (ADR) to develop an adapted version of the Business Model Canvas that is specifically tailored to the needs of P2P SCC business model development. The adapted canvas is then applied to develop a business model for the proposed service. The learnings from the development process are formalized into a set of generally applicable guidelines for the development of P2P SCC business models. The resulting guidelines and the adapted canvas provide guidance for both researchers and practitioners who want to either develop new or analyze existing P2P SCC business models.
Full-text available
Firms eager to succeed in the sharing economy are encouraged to imitate the strategies and business models of successful businesses like Airbnb and Uber. Yet they often ignore the lessons from sharing economy firms that failed with similar business models. Our analysis of several failed firms has identified common causes of failure, and the associated risks, when competing in the sharing economy. An illustrative case study shows that a hybrid business model can significantly reduce the inherent risks and can lead to sustainable growth in the sharing economy.
The study aims to explore the interaction between business model dimensions and the financial attractiveness of sharing economy platforms, to understand if business models with certain dimensions are more able to attract investment. The research has been developed taking into account the difference between true sharing and pseudo-sharing, to establish to which type of sharing economy platform more investment has been directed to date. The main dimensions of sharing economy business models were identified from the literature. These variables were used to classify the business models of 161 sharing platforms. A one-way ANOVA was performed to infer results. Results from the analysis show that business models that offer rational benefits; increase the utilization of durable assets; have a C2C process and adopt a transaction model, have received more funds. In conclusion, the research suggests that different sharing business models can affect the financial attractiveness and the empirical results show that “pure exchange” platforms are more financed compared with the “pure sharing” platforms.
To survive and prosper, firms need to be able to capture the value they create. The role of the central actor in developing a viable multi-stakeholder platform resides in its ability to continuously manage synergies between the value it enables and creates, and the value it appropriates. However, capturing value is more difficult than its creation, which often results in a rather short lifespan of many platform-based businesses. Existing literature, however, neglects the role of the central actor in orchestrating value in these platforms, and mostly focuses on mechanisms through which diverse stakeholders gain financial benefits and appropriate value for themselves. With an aim to contribute to this research field, we draw upon stakeholder theory and a longitudinal case study of HeadBox, the first online B2B sharing economy-based platform that enables businesses to offer and hire inspiring off-site spaces and associated services in the United Kingdom. We put forward a Platform Stickiness – Stakeholder Profitability Framework that establishes the missing connection between value creation and value appropriation by the central actor in multi-stakeholder platforms. The framework integrates eight ‘value-driving’ mechanisms that impact the central actor's ability to establish synergies between value creation and capture within a platform.