The Progression and Impact of the Sharing Economy; a Preface

Even though most people still prefer ownership, it may not be themost practical mode of consumption inmany situations anymore, especially for the younger generations. A recent survey revealed thatmore than 70 percent of millennials’ top priority is to own a home, which is significantly higher than their other top priorities such as traveling or even getting married (Del Valle, 2018). Nevertheless, their homeownership rate is considerably lower than that of Gen Xers and baby boomers when they were at the same age group (Nova, 2018). Therefore, unwillingness to own is not why the nonownership consumption trend (or the so-called sharing economy) has emerged and become stronger in recent years. A host of other factors plays a major role in such growth, all of which are worthy of academic attention and have major implications for marketers and consumer studies. The increasing burden of ownership that eventually can be translated into the cost of ownership is perhaps one of the main reasons of the boost of the sharing economy. This economy provides a platform upon which the users and owners can meet each other halfway. The users will get access to goods and materials for more affordable prices, or sometimes free, whereas the owners can cover parts of the ownership cost by receiving reimbursement for providing access to their spare room, idle car, tools, or any other shareable materials (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). All this is possible due to a more efficient use of the available resources by collaboration among ordinary individuals (as opposed to business ventures). No wonder monetary reasons come up first and heavily weighted in academic research investigating the antecedents of participation in the sharing economy (Akbar, 2019; Lamberton & Rose, 2012) and materialistic beliefs increments such participation (Davidson, Habibi, & Laroche, 2018). Sharing economy growth was not only due to tight budgets and increased burdens of ownership; technology advances, especially social media, and increased consumer awareness about environmental causes and responsible consumption have been among anecdotes (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Chen, 2009). In its general sense, the sharing economy has not been all about money and that is why sharing practices with goodwill intentions such as Couchsurfing exist and continue to thrive. In such contexts, community building and emphasis on sustainability and environmental concerns are among the top priorities of participants. Perhaps association with such good intentions, concurrent with lack of clear framework to understand sharing boundaries, partly explains what Price and Belk (2016) call “share washing. ” That is, labeling practices as sharing that have little to do with sharing and more with renting or other forms of exchange (Matzler, Veider, & Kathan, 2015) in order to create positive attitudes among participants (Belk, 2014b). The failure of Zipcar’s community building efforts based on the premise of being a sharing community (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012) proves lack of effectiveness of share washing efforts (Habibi, Davidson, & Laroche, 2017). Research is lagging here. There is more need to study effectiveness of share washing and other forms of communication messages within sharing economy context especially knowing that lay consumers may have a different perspective of sharing than academics or practitioners (Reich & Yuan, 2019). Nonetheless, the mere existence of the sharing economy is a blessing for contemporary consumers as it provides more alternatives in the market to enjoy nonowned materials and/or more efficiently utilize the owned materials that would sit idle otherwise. Additionally, it provides tangential values such as social utility, communal values, and possible environmental benefits. All and all, it offers smarter choices for consumption and that is perhaps why people who are more intelligent tend to engage more often in a sharing economy (Aspara & Wittkowski, 2019). Unfortunately, these benefits come with some dark sides, unintended consequences for other consumers and the society as a whole, (Griffiths, Perera, & MohammadRezaHabibi, Department ofMarketing,Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University, Fullerton, mhabibi@fullerton.edu.