On arrival at the Gare du Nord railway station in Paris, Kate jumps onto a *Velib*and cycles to various destinations, leaving the bike at bicycle stations close to each destination and paying only for the time she uses it. A keen photographer, she takes out her camera and lenses rented from *Lens Locker*, a local camera rental service. Finished for the day, she watches an early evening film on *Netflix* before hitting the town dressed to the nines in the latest luxury brand names rented from *Rent the Runway*. While this example is fictitious, the ability to access a range of products based on one’s needs is not.

Access-based consumption has emerged over the past fifteen years as a new type of market service. It allows the consumer to access products without owning them. Integrated into the sharing economy, it is defined as “a scalable socioeconomic system that employs technology enabled platforms to provide users with temporary access to tangible and intangible resources that may be crowdsourced” (Eckhardt *et al.*, 2019, p. 17). Access-based consumption has been booming since the 2010s. This rise reflects consumers’ appetite for more flexible access to assets and services (OECD, 2021)<fnref n="1" />, with 15% to 28% of consumers saying they are willing to share their electronics, cars or homes (Credit Suisse, 2021).<fnref n="2" /> It is also presented as a potential lever for shifting to a post-materialist paradigm, in which capitalist values centered on possession and accumulation are challenged (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Morewedge *et al.*, 2021; Rifkin, 2000). Its social and environmental benefits are also emphasized (ADP Research Institute, 2019).<fnref n="3" /> As such, the sharing economy is presented as a relevant market-driven solution responding to the sustainability megatrend (Mittelstaedt *et al.*, 2014), and is encouraged by the public authorities as is the case in Europe and more particularly in France (European Commission, 2016).<fnref n="4" />

Nevertheless, the initial enthusiasm for the sharing economy is subject to criticism, as its sustainability benefits and ability to build more sustainable societies are proving both complex and questionable (Bagga *et al.*, 2019; Buhalis *et al.*, 2020; Curtis & Mont, 2020; Kozinets, 2008; Mi & Coffman, 2019; Ryu *et al.*, 2019; Saravade *et al.*, 2020; Schor, 2016; 2020). Recent research calls for further investigation with regard to the sustainability of access-based models (Ryu *et al.*, 2019; Scaraboto & Figueiredo, 2022; Takeuchi *et al.*, 2017). Eckhardt *et al.* (2019, p. 20) refer to the paradoxes of the sharing economy as “*one of three important areas of future research*.” Our paper echoes this research avenue.

Many actors are involved in sharing economy models: access platforms, consumers, media, public authorities, etc*.*In this context, several recent studies show the stakeholder approach to be relevant for exploring sustainability (Domegan *et al.*, 2019; Klarin & Suseono, 2021; Scaraboto & Figueiredo, 2022), especially when it comes to systems (Fisk, 1967). Kalrin & Suseno (2021) also highlight the scarcity of empirical evidence for exploring sustainability using a stakeholder approach. Our research aims to fill this gap by adopting the dynamic stakeholders’ approach from an empirical standpoint. Doing so echoes the call by Chisam *et al.* (2022) to bridge the gap between public policy and firms’ marketing practices in the sustainability field. In line with Domegan *et al.* (2019), our approach operates at three levels: macro (public authorities), meso (territories, firms, business models of specific organizations, media), and micro (individuals).

The purpose of the present research is to challenge the claim of sustainability around access (rental), for collaborative schemes (peer-to-peer or P2P), by identifying and comparing the discourses revealing the specific interests of actors at different scales (macro, meso and micro) in a French context, and adopting a holistic approach to the phenomenon. To this end, our methodological approach is based on the triangulation of data collection and analysis methods via an NLP (Natural Language Processing) approach applied to different product categories and involving four types of stakeholders: the public authorities (macro), P2P rental platforms,<fnref n="5" /> press and professional blogs (meso), and consumers (micro).

Our results highlight the limited transformative capacities of the model at the macro and meso levels. A stronger potential for transformation seems to appear at the consumer level, where the discourse reveals however certain paradoxes: the aspiration to move towards a new consumption model based on access via P2P rental, without excluding the possibility of returning to ownership, particularly for certain less traditional products (clothing, objects). This research makes two contributions. On a theoretical level, through dynamic stakeholder approach, it contributes to the emerging critical approach in relation to access models, by crossing the perspectives of different stakeholders acting at the macro, meso and micro levels. On a practical level, as one of the first empirical studies, it considers how public policy may support access in a way that promotes “stronger sustainability” and moves towards a post-materialist society.

<footnote n="1">OECD (2021). The impact of the growth of the sharing and gig economy on vat/gst policy and administration. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/51825505-en</footnote>

<footnote n="2">Credit Suisse (2015). The sharing economy - New opportunities, new questions. Global Investor 2.15 - via SPENDMENOT.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">ADP Research Institute (2019), Hayes, M., Chumney, F., Wright, C., & Buckingham, M. (2019). The global study of engagement: Technical report.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">European Commission (2016). A European agenda for the collaborative economy. Final report. Belgium. June.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">Platforms are intermediaries facilitating sharing between individuals who rent out (owners) and customers or users (renters).</footnote>
# Theoretical background

## Sustainability and the stakeholder dynamics theory approach in the sharing
        economy

The stakeholder principle (Venkateswaran et al., 2021) provides the interpretive framework for this study. This principle is rooted in Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory (ST) and is part of a systemic approach to interests. Recent research in sustainability and marketing has explored different ways of extending beyond Freeman’s (1984) seminal work: One way is to highlight the limitations of the firm-centric perspective in marketing systems and participate in the dynamic ST (e.g. Fisk, 1967; Layton, 2015; Peterson, 2013; Domegan et al., 2019). This last approach is relevant when it comes to marketing systems (Fisk, 1967), defined as “*networks of individuals and groups linked through shared participation... in the creation and delivery of economic value through exchange*” (Layton, 2015, p. 303/305). Marketing is uniquely positioned to bring all stakeholders into a broad and inclusive movement, favoring a more symbiotic relationship between business and society (Bhattacharya & Korschun, 2008; Bhattacharya, 2010). Beyond the still dominant firm-centric models (Bhattacharya & Korschun, 2008), many researchers believe that ST needs to be discussed at the societal scale (Parmar *et al*., 2010), involving a more open dialogue between organizations and the societies in which they operate (Carbo *et al.*, 2014). Marketing is evolving from a market-centric orientation to an integrative perspective in relation to all stakeholders and their respective interests (Crittenden et al., 2011).

This inclusive type of approach makes sense with a societal-sustainable perspective. Domegan *et al.* (2019) point out that, as the aim of marketing systems is to positively contribute to society – i.e. through sustainability –, the traditional ST is not adequate. In this context, they take up Freeman’s recent work (2017) about the benefits of moving from ST towards a societal perspective centered on value creation and well-being. More specifically, in the sharing economy, the literature underlines the importance of this stakeholder dynamics approach (Domegan *et al.*, 2019; Klarin & Suseono, 2021), based on the understanding that institutions shape value co-creation in service ecosystems (Vargo & Lusch 2016).

To the best of our knowledge, although recent research emphasizes the relevance of the stakeholder dynamics approach to evaluate sustainability in the sharing economy (Domegan *et al.*, 2019; Klarin & Suseono, 2021; Scaraboto & Figueiredo, 2022), empirical studies have not yet provided examples of how to take stakeholders into account (Kalrin & Suseno, 2021). We therefore build on Desjeux’s (2006) position in order to understand stakeholders in relation to the macro, meso and micro scales. The author explains how different stakeholders, which are also agents of socialization, act at different scales of influence, from the most macro (public authorities) to the most micro (peers, family), via the meso-social scale (firms, media). As Domegan *et al.* (2019) state, within a chosen focal marketing system, social mechanisms echo each other at macro-meso-micro levels, and… “*the contribution of a dynamic stakeholders’ marketing system framework is… in understanding the continuous feedback nature of the macro-micro-macro everyday dynamics…*” (Domegan *et al.*, 2019, p. 136). Moreover, few studies have deconstructed or compared the discourses at the level of the three scales with a view to characterizing their content or valence. The present research aims to make good this shortcoming. Accordingly, we focus on the public-authorities’ discourse (macro scale) communicated to the market, reflected by media and P2P companies (meso scale) and then received by individuals (micro scale).

### At the macro scale

The context in which access-based practices evolve is largely constructed and fostered by macro-level actors. Indeed, the public discourses they deliver and publish play the main role in constructing and legitimizing public and government institutions in the broadest sense (Burger, 2013). Furthermore, it is these institutions, according to Burger *et al.* (2011) and Neveu (2009), that define a relationship to citizenship in a society. By providing a discourse that is intended to work in the general interest, the public authorities shape society’s relationship to consumption. They inform the markets of their ideological choices, which they try to prove superior to alternatives. They also hold legislative power. Pekkanen (2020) points out that the external institutional environment, and in particular governmental bodies, over and beyond regulation, strongly influence individual behaviors, especially with the objective of contributing to sustainability. In parallel with the development of technological tools, institutional communication has for several years been increasingly digital, in common with all communication markets, thereby enabling the public authorities to reach their targets more easily.

### At the meso scale

Similarly, the discourses and practices implemented on the meso scale by the media play a central role with regard to the problems of over-consumption (Burger, 2013) and more broadly societal issues (Ricci & Banterle, 2020). The media are among the bridge-building actors in the production and dissemination of discourses that influence the evolution of modern societies, while at the same time they reflect the various forms of societal evolution. In Bourdieu’s view (1996), the media constitute agents of socialization whose signals strongly condition individual choices. They also relay the issue of the influence of the many discourses (ecological, political, economic, etc.) that evoke the need for more sustainable consumption in order to safeguard the planet (Ducard et al., 2011). The meso dimension is thus composed of media actors but also stakeholders such as businesses and, in this case, technological platforms whose ambition is more commercial than informational. As Zhang et al. (2022) emphasize, these discourses are now largely relayed via technological platforms.

### At the micro scale

At the micro scale, we focus on the individual consumer as a central stakeholder (Friedman & Miles, 2006), particularly within a sustainability framework (*e.g.* De Boer & Aiking, 2011). In the sharing economy literature, the perceptions and role of consumers’ sense of responsibility in experiential settings have been examined in particular (*e.g.* Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Morewedge *et al.*, 2021). The individual is viewed as a major player in the evolution of models (Schor & Thompson, 2014). However, in the specific context of P2P rental—and in a French context where it has recently taken off—, there has been little or no research on consumer reactions. The micro perspective is nevertheless necessary to understand the reactions of individuals to collaborative rental phenomena. Moreover, the recent literature has been increasingly highlighting the role of consumer behaviors for examining societal challenges (Ricci & Banterle, 2020; Scaraboto & Figueiredo, 2022).

Our stakeholder dynamics approach can be integrated into the framework represented in figure 1. which summarizes the various observation scales of the sharing economy.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 — Different scales for observing sustainability in the sharing economy</figcaption></figure>

## The two visions of sustainability in access-based models

Is access a transformative lever for a post-materialist society or an extension of the current capitalist and pragmatic logic?

In the recent literature, sustainability in access has been questioned by researchers and practitioners (e.g. Rinne, 2018<fnref n="6" />; Saravade *et al.*, 2020; Schor, 2020) and has been identified as one of the key research agendas for the future (Eckhardt *et al.*, 2019; Ryu *et al.*, 2019; Scaraboto & Figueiredo, 2022; Takeuchi *et al.* 2017). In adopting the stakeholder dynamics theory, two visions of access-based models are opposed in terms of sustainability. Advocates of access highlight its ability to contribute to less materialistic and more ecological societies, by creating a virtuous circle fed by the various stakeholders. However, critical debates are also emerging at the macro-meso-micro levels.

### At the macro-meso scale

Based on a more efficient use of products according to needs, access intensifies the use of goods, reduces waste and the surplus created by overproduction and overconsumption, leads to better exploitation of idle resources, and less extraction of new resources and the related greenhouse gas emissions (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Ertz *et al.*, 2018; Rifkin, 2000; White *et al.*, 2019). As such, access is considered to be an innovative solution for correcting various market imperfections (Mittelstaedt *et al.*, 2014) and for supporting the development of sustainable societies (Armstrong *et al.*, 2014; Hawlitschek *et al.*, 2018; Ryu *et al.*, 2019; Saravade *et al.*, 2020). Moreover, access is regarded as a means to combat overconsumption and consumerism (*e.g.*Eckhardt *et al.*, 2019; Lang & Armstrong, 2018; Martin, 2016; Rifkin, 2000) and promote a shift from materialism to liquidity (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017). However, the ecological advantages of the access model (reduced greenhouse gas emissions, lower energy consumption) have been called into question (Behrend, 2020; Benoît-Moreau *et al.*, 2017). At the meso scale, leading to unanticipated or even counterintuitive outcomes, the capitalist market logic characterizing access platforms (Ekström & Salomonson, 2014; Mittelstaedt *et al.*, 2014) is not exempt from the risk that all technology platforms run of becoming increasingly monopolistic or having adverse consequences on other stakeholders (Keating, 2019; Loussaïef *et al.*, 2018; Muñoz & Cohen, 2018; Stofberg & Bridoux, 2019). Moreover, the necessary critical size makes the model competitive with the existing one rather than a substitute for it (Saravade *et al.*, 2020), that is likely to stimulate both demand and supply (Bardhi *et al.*, 2012; Frenken & Schor 2017; Eckhardt *et al.*, 2019; Beverland *et al.*, 2021; Curtis, 2021). Unexpectedly, platforms can play a role in promoting purchase (regular private sales; purchase options actionable on each rental, such as with Gwynnie Bee in the United States or Le Closet in France), thus legitimating “guilt-free” ownership, as highlighted by Benoît-Moreau *et al.* (2017). Rental platforms could ultimately derive a market opportunity from an initially virtuous and pro-environmental objective, to build a more traditional business model, and may reflect “sharewashing” (Belk, 2017). To avoid this outcome, a group of practitioners and researchers coordinated by Scholz and Schneider (Scholz & Schneider, 2016; Schneider, 2018, Scholz, 2023) proposes the cooperative alternative to any Internet platform. Shor (2020) builds on this in the specific case of the sharing economy. She gives the example of Stocksy, a photo supplier, which is owned by the artists supplying the photos: the suppliers own the company and recoup the profits that usually go to shareholders or investors. She has followed the company and observed the satisfaction of all stakeholders. Schor (2020) sees the evolution towards a cooperative system an opportunity to set up democratic sharing based on “sharing cooperatives”. She also talks about “sharing cities” that have an overall policy in this regard. The city of Seoul, for example, is encouraging local Airbnbs that preserve traditional Korean housing. There are many further examples from European cities, such as Amsterdam and Barcelona.

### At the micro scale

Within a logic of greater liquidity, consumers prefer access to possession and value-in-use to symbolic value (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; 2017; Eckhardt *et al.*, 2019; Saravade *et al.*, 2020). Access becomes a way for them to escape the “consumer elevator” (Schor, 2007) or “material trap” (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2012), which are sources of social status anxiety, pushing consumers to ever higher levels of materialism. Characterized by a distancing from possessions (Gonzalez *et al.*, 2009; Özçağlar-Toulouse, 2009), access can also be equated to a form of sustainable consumption or seen as an anti-consumption alternative (Ertz *et al.*, 2018; Ozanne & Ballantine, 2010). Social benefits also emerge for individuals and are reflected in links built between users within the sharing community (Neunhoeffer & Teubner, 2018; Philip *et al.*, 2015; Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015; Stofberg & Bridoux, 2019), on both the renter and owner sides (Hellwig *et al.*, 2015; Graul *et al.*, 2019). In this regard, the literature distinguishes between two main consumer segments: ‘practical sharers’ (looking to optimize the financial, material, and practical gains, as in car rental between individuals) and ‘sharing idealists’, motivated by the social benefits (Hellwig *et al.*, 2015; Farmaki & Stergiou, 2019). Based on online reviews by Chinese Internet users, and using NLP methods, Zhang *et al.* (2023) note that if a significant psychological distance is perceived by renters with regard to owners, booking intention is negatively impacted, thus reinforcing the importance of interpersonal relationships in the P2P rental. Nonetheless, the temporary nature of the access experience reduces the social dimension, but also the sense of responsibility and attachment to the product (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Morewedge *et al.*, 2021) and reinforces a throwaway culture (Schor & Thompson, 2014). Ecological, social, and societal motivations for access, moreover, sometimes seem to fade away in favor of utilitarian, pragmatic, or even materialistic or consumerist considerations (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; 2015; Benoît-Moreau *et al.*, 2017; Damay *et al.*, 2020; Herbert & Collin-Lachaud, 2017). Net consumption would then increase rather than decrease and existing structures based on overconsumption would be encouraged (Parguel *et al.*, 2017; Schor, 2014). Access is also challenged along with its social virtues, as access consumption logics are sometimes characterized by low levels of socialization (Herbert & Collin-Lachaud, 2017; Schor, 2016; Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015). Thus access-based consumption is not inherently so sustainable on the consumer side (Mont *et al.*, 2020; Saravade *et al.*, 2020).

While the literature identifies the issues at stake in access models by examining all stakeholders, very little empirical research has been carried out at a more systemic stakeholder level of the phenomenon (Kalrin & Suseno, 2021). Cheng & Edwards (2019) also emphasize the importance of comparing, through an empirical approach, the different perspectives of actors, specifically by leveraging text-mining methodologies to address issues related to the sharing economy. This is the subject of the present research, in relation to the context of peer-to-peer (P2P) rentals.

<footnote n="6">Rinne A. (2018), The Dark Side of the Sharing Economy, World Economic Forum (January 16), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/the-dark-side-of-the-sharing-economy/ , (Dec. 4<sup>th</sup> 2023).</footnote>
# Methodology and research design

In order to compare the different discourses of stakeholders within rental between individuals (known as collaborative access or consumption), our methodology, conducted in a French context, excludes access involving transactions with a platform (known as non-collaborative access). To the best of our knowledge, there have been no new studies about P2P in France. However, as in other Western countries, collaborative consumption has been declared a megatrend<fnref n="7" /> and is encouraged by the public authorities<fnref n="8" />. The development of this consumption goes hand in hand with more sustainability on the macro and micro scales. Since 2019, France has been committed to meeting the 17 SDGs defined by the UN, translating them into six major challenges by 2030.<fnref n="9" /> At an individual scale, 60% of French people say they want to consume differently despite budget constraints linked to inflation.<fnref n="10" /> 89% of French people also say they behave responsibly in terms of consumption<fnref n="11" />, and 38% declare the societal impact of their consumption plays a central role in all their choices.<fnref n="12" />

However, both academics and companies are looking for explanations and understanding of sustainability in collaborative consumption (e.g. Chisam *et al.*, 2022; Kalrin & Suseno, 2021).

## Data collection

Data were collected at different scales: macro (government reports), meso (press and professional blog content, commercial content from collaborative platforms) and micro (consumer reviews, tweets and consumer blogs).

These multiple data sources, collected in December 2021, allowed us to obtain, in addition to spontaneous online content, a large volume of information. For the data set, we did not limit the search to specific year ranges and considered data published up until December 2021.

## Collection method and samples

All the textual data is publicly available online. Content was searched in different ways: manually by keywords (e.g. renting between individuals, renting between peers, renting to individuals) and through the press aggregator Europresse. The database was manually checked by two coders to make sure that the contents were related to collaborative access (paid access-sharing between individuals -e.g. Blablacar, Uber - and rental between individuals - e.g. Airbnb, Ouicar, Getaround, Kiwiiz, Someboat). Using a systematic research approach (Riff *et al.*, 2019), and consistently with Riff *et al.* (2013) recommendations, the textual data collected at the macro and meso levels came from systematic online manual searches of cross-references shared between two coders. Tables 1 and 2 show the data collection method and the samples for the three analyzed scales.

<table><caption>Table 1 — Data collection method for each scale<fnref n="13" /><fnref n="14" /></caption><tr><td>Data collection method at the macro scaleThe research objective led us to collect
            discourses from French governmental authorities. Drawn from authoritative sources, from
            over thirty documents on the sharing economy we selected ten French public reports
            (fully accessible free of charge) related to new collaborative practices and
            specifically dealing with rental between individuals (a corpus of 462 pages),13 from
            state sources or government agencies (French General Direction for Competition,
            Consumption and Fraud Control, French Agency for the Environment and Energy control,
            ministerial reports, Senate report, European Commission). Data collection method at the
            meso scale59 articles dealing with private rental (national, regional and magazine
            press; daily and monthly newspapers; professional blogs) identified through a systematic
            manual and automatic press review via Europresse.14 The textual corpus comprises 204
            pages in Word format, Times 11 font, classic margins 2.5 cm. Throughout the data
            collection, there was no constraint in terms of dates.The content of the websites of 14
            P2P French rental platforms including description of and arguments in favor of the
            offering. Airbnb (accommodation), Blablacar (transport), Bricolib (tools), Getaround
            (formerly Drivy), jardins-prives (gardening), jelouetout (tools), Kiwiiz (everything
            between neighbors), la depanne (tools-gardening), La fashion lib (clothes), Ouicar
            (cars), Someboat (boats), Uber, Wepeps, Allovoisins (all products and services). Data
            collection method at the micro scaleFollowing the example of Buhalis et al. (2020), we
            proceeded to a systematic review of online opinions to collect data at the micro level.
            While there has been extensive literature in recent years on consumers’ online opinions,
            particularly in the context of the sharing economy (e.g. Bulchand-Gidumal &
            Melian-Gonzalez, 2019; Cheng & Jin, 2019), data is mostly used in a single-sector
            way and particularly in the product categories traditionally concerned with P2P rental:
            tourist real estate (e.g. Zervas et al., 2015 or Zhang et al., 2022), and vehicle rental
            (e.g. Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). However, the use of Twitter data is increasing in
            other sectors (e.g. Pantano & Stylos, 2020).Technically, by using a web-scraping
            tool via Octoparse, we were able to collect all contents in an exhaustive way, in
            addition to manual collections. Table 1 provides a summary of the samples studied
            according to the level of action of the actor.</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Table 2 — Overview of the samples</caption><tr><td>Level of analysisSampleDetailsMacro level10 French public reports (462 pages
            of textual corpus)DGCCRF, ADEME, Ministerial reports, Senate report, European
            CommissionMeso level59 French press articlesNational press, regional press, magazine
            press; daily and monthly newspapers14 platforms in their French version Airbnb,
            Allovoisins, Blablacar, Bricolib, Getaround, jardins-prives, jelouetout, Kiwiiz, la
            depanne, La fashion lib, Ouicar, Someboat, Uber, Wepeps(5 product categories)Micro
            level58 blog posts written by French individualsPosts created and written by individuals
            were identified with the systematic search methodology mobilized for the macro/meso
            scaleOn the phenomena of rentals between individuals13,878 online reviewsReviews written
            in French for the eight P2P rental platforms with identifiable online ratings and
            reviews. These data were collected on all possible review sites (e.g. ekomo, trustpilot,
            google play).232 tweets232 tweets written in French on Twitter, after cleaning in
            accordance with the recommendations of Pantano & Stylos (2020). The keywords
            searched were obtained via academic and journalistic literature on P2P rental and also
            by a “snowball” logic, with one keyword leading to another (e.g. loc_consommateur,
            consoglobe, loc_collaborative, location_usage, #location d’#objets). No constraints were
            imposed on the dates (first tweet identified in 2012). Out of about ten thousand tweets
            captured, a considerable proportion were identifiable as tweets from bots (automated
            tweets containing advertisements), retweets or duplicates, triplets, etc.</td></tr></table>

## Overall selected method

A Natural Language Processing (NLP) approach, also known as opinion extraction, was chosen. Based on a decomposition of the discourse, it reflects the growing interest in human sciences and management (e.g. Kang *et al.*, 2020; Shankar & Parsana, 2022) including recently in the context of the sharing economy (Klarin & Suseno, 2021). This approach uses tools capable of extracting text written in natural language, with the objective of creating structured categories and knowledge, thereby facilitating human interpretation. For example, these techniques can facilitate the understanding of a text written in a heterogeneous way (SMS language, incomplete words, ironic terms). Using a scientometric mapping approach, Klarin & Suseno (2021) highlight the major value of cluster analysis for defining the sharing economy and understanding its mechanisms in a structured way, thus shedding light on links between terms and thus the emergence of themes. The method enables a holistic visualization of textual data – as we aim to explore – and, as noted by Eck & Waltman (2014), provides objective, consistent, transparent and reproducible results. Although these are not free of bias (e.g. weight of words, sentence structure, omissions in online reviews as detailed in the discussion), NLP techniques can be used to classify a large textual corpus around different dimensions (polarity of the discourse, positive or negative feelings, level of objectivity of the discourse, syntactic structures of sentences, mobilized language dimensions) and make the analysis of content easier, in particular content posted on social media (Boukes *et al.*, 2020). The Internet’s textual content, however short, can be converted into concepts from disordered data, transformed into structured and interpretable information, especially in relation to consumer behavior (Chang & Wang, 2020; Zhang *et al.*, 2023).

<table><caption>Table 3 — Descriptive part of the automated content analysis</caption><tr><td>Description of results at the macro levelAt the macro level, government reports are
            descriptive, subjective, and primarily labeled as having political or “business”
            content. The discourse is unemotional. 95.83% of the corpus has been analyzed (Figure 2
            left-hand side). Four categories emerge, among which there are two groups of independent
            categories. Overall, the discourse is oriented around two main axes: on the one hand,
            environmental problems and ecological issues are evoked, particularly in a context of
            digital development; on the other, the macro actors evoke the role of the state in this
            context, particularly with regard to legal and fiscal actions. We observe a highly
            structured public discourse whose dimensions are stable between the different sources
            (e.g. Senate reports, government reports). The four categories are quite independent of
            each other, as shown on the dendrogram (cf. Figure 2). Description of results at the
            meso levelAt the meso scale, the content written and promoted on the platforms’ websites
            is, also as expected, largely descriptive, subjective, and commercially oriented. The
            discourse is subjective. The tone is sometimes emotional and positive, focusing on the
            potential financial gains arising from renting between individuals. The discourse is
            less homogeneous and seems to be more confused, as seen from the dendrogram (cf. Figure
            2).On the meso scale, 93.12% of the corpus was analyzed with six categories of words
            that are 2 to 2 dependent. One category concerns the luxury sector and the notion of
            reuse, as well as the paradox between luxury consumption and sustainable consumption.
            Categories 2 and 3, which are mutually dependent, evoke the legal framework depending on
            the category of products used. Categories 4 and 5 concern overconsumption and emphasize
            new models integrated into the circular economy.Description of results at the micro
            levelThe thematic analysis carried out at the micro level made it possible to analyze
            68.96% of the textual corpus and revealed three independent categories. Throughout the
            discourse, and for a significant proportion of the textual corpus, the notions of
            possession and use were predominantly evoked. At the micro level, consumer discourse
            (reviews, tweets and consumer blogs) reflects a high level of objectivity, through a
            thoughtful and straightforward narrative style. Overall, renting between individuals is
            a phenomenon that is perceived very positively, with a salient emotional tone (positive
            emotions) occasionally inflected by negative emotions (in particular feelings of anger).
            A strong polarity is nevertheless observed (extreme valence of the discourse – very
            positive or very negative) with, moreover, an initially very positive discourse that is
            called into question, qualified, and becomes less positive over time. Two classes are
            concerned with more recent P2P rental product categories (fashion, convenience products,
            bicycles, equipment, washing machines) and one (class 2) with traditional P2P rental
            product categories (‘vacations’, ‘housing’, cars, etc.) (cf. Table 4).</td></tr></table>

## Data analysis method

Data processing was based on an analysis of feelings and opinions. A double software approach was used, finally complemented by a manual exploration of the data. On the one hand, we used Meaning Cloud, a tool for automated semantic processing of speech. This allowed us to identify the polarity of the discourse (positive, negative or neutral), its level of objectivity and the emotional states linked to the discourse. Furthermore, the tool allowed us to label discourses from a list of predefined domains (e.g. politics, business, finance, environment, leisure). On the other hand, the data were processed via a qualitative module of R, Iramuteq, capable of identifying similarities between text segments (significant words and groups of words) through a factorial correspondence analysis. Different themes emerged, depending on the scale studied.

<footnote n="7">European Commission, Ibid</footnote>

<footnote n="8">https://www.economie.gouv.fr/dgccrf; https://www.economie.gouv.fr/particuliers/</footnote>

<footnote n="9">https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/ODD</footnote>

<footnote n="10">https://public.message-business.com/emailing/42119/3860/r16oiafyapumpgupgojbjuphzgzmvpjupfe/emailing.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="11">https://www.statista.com/study/136881/sustainable-consumption-in-france/</footnote>

<footnote n="12">https://lobsoco.com/lobservatoire-de-la-consommation-responsable-lobsoco-citeo-2023/</footnote>

<footnote n="13">Word, Times 11 font, classic margins 2.5</footnote>

<footnote n="14">Europresse is a database of information accessible by subscription via the Internet</footnote>
# Findings

Before analyzing the findings, a description of data is carried out. Tables 3 to 5 show the descriptive part of the automated content analysis, the structure of the language dimensions as well as the classes obtained after the CFA at the micro level. Figure 2 shows the thematic analyses of macro- and meso-level discourse.

<table><caption>Table 4 — Structure of the language dimensions according to the discourse of the different actors</caption><tr><td>Polarity Level of objectivity Label Your emotional tonePublic authorities100%
            positive100% subjectivePolitics & Law: 5 reports / 10Business, finance and industry:
            4 reports / 10Environment: 1 report / 10Neutral to low emotional tone (22%)Press 63.19%
            positive or very positive terms10.34% negative or very negative terms 29.31%
            target70.79% subjectiveAutomotive and housing: 13%.Leisure time: 23%.Business: 39% of
            the totalLaws and politics: 6%.Environment: 11% of the totalNo category: 8%.Medium to
            low emotional tone (27%)Platform 92.86% of terms positive or very positive7.14% negative
            or very negative terms14.29% target85.71% subjectiveAutomobile: 28% of the
            totalBusiness: 26% of the totalTechnology: 14%.Leisure time: 32%.Medium to high
            emotional tone (45%)Notice60.05% positive or very positive terms20.84% negative or very
            negative terms63.78% target36.22% subjectiveAutomotive and housing: 18%.Leisure time:
            31%.Business: 5% of the totalLaws and policies 5%.Environment: 37% of the totalNo
            category: 4%.Higher emotional tone (62%)Tweets & special blogs 31.4% positive or
            very positive terms19.3% negative or very negative terms 92.67% target7.33% subjective
            Automotive: 18%.Business and economy: 14%.Housing, recreation: 24%.Policies and laws:
            3%.Environment: 22% of the totalFashion: 8% of the totalNo category: 11%.Medium to high
            emotional tone (53%)</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Table 5 — Classes obtained after the CFA, at the micro level<fnref n="15" /></caption><tr><td>Class (color on the graph;% of ECU15)InterpretationClass 1 (39,7%)Class 1 evokes
            the notion of use and possession. It appears in the background the will of a new
            economic model whose central element would be use over possession. If some elements are
            descriptive, this class also reflects new reflections of individuals who wish an
            upheaval in terms of sustainability, in particular via P2P rental practices or at least
            a greater sobriety through use (‘revolution’, ‘privilege’, ‘fashion’, ‘product’).
            Coocurences also appear between the term ‘possession’ and the terms ‘buy’, ‘keep’,
            ‘preserve’, ‘re-buy’, ‘own’. Class 2 (24,8%)Class 2 includes terms around the consumer
            but also other actors of the private rental phenomenon such as some third parties acting
            (‘startup’, ‘alliance’, ‘trade’, ‘market’). The focus seems to be on the notion of a new
            ‘market of alternatives’ that could change the distribution of roles (‘car’, ‘swimming
            pool’, ‘vacations’, ‘housing’). The discourse seems to imagine or describe the potential
            actors who could participate in this new market logic.Class 3 (35,5%)Class 3 is centered
            around overconsumption. The terms that appear in the CFA reflect criticisms of the very
            nature of consumption when it is perceived as not very sustainable (animal welfare,
            educational games bought in excess). Individuals thus question the current model
            (‘model’, ‘going beyond’, ‘properties’) and in particular for products recently offered
            for rental by private individuals (‘bicycle’, ‘equipment’, ‘washing machine’).</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 — Thematic analyses of macro- and meso-level discourse: factorial correspondence analysis, dendrograms and class interpretations</figcaption></figure>

In combining the macro, meso and micro levels with a stakeholder dynamic approach, our findings reveal contrasting discourses.

## A neoliberal perspective at the macro-meso scale with a minor role for sustainability,
        and agreement on social benefits

**Consistency between the macro and meso (platform) levels on economic side:** At the macro level, when the phenomenon of P2P renting is mentioned, it is presented as a facilitator for new modes of mobility or food waste initiatives. It is also mentioned among other initiatives but not discussed exclusively, as an additional tool in the discourse for entrepreneurship, working to enhance France’s economic vitality. This economic view also understands collaboration through technology. In this regard, the proposals are comprehensive and proactive, sometimes focusing on the possibilities offered by the Internet in terms of purchase/resale or new mobilities, but the notion of rental is rarely if ever addressed. Instead, the collaborative phenomenon is presented as an extension of a neoliberal economy that ought to have more collaborative objectives (Table 6, quote 1). The current operating model of exchanges based on materialistic principles is barely called into question, while any notions of possession or accumulation of objects are absent from the discourse. The public authorities thus seem to be in line with a neoliberal trend (in the sense of Beverland *et al.*, 2021) that does not question excessive consumption (Bradshaw and Ostberg, 2019). Platforms are part of this paradigm. They sell an offering based on the proposal of a service around the creation of a community and are based mainly on financial gains.

**For meso-media,**a**pragmatic economic vision but a more sustainable perspective, except for the centrality of possession:**Overall, the media view is both descriptive and pragmatic, emphasizes the collaborative/sharing aspect and explains how the platforms work based on products/sectors (mainly in transport), without going into much depth on the issues of the collaborative model. The media also highlight the importance of P2P rental in more inaccessible sectors such as luxury goods. The two categories referring to the luxury sector suggest a new form of consumption is made accessible by renting, whereby it can extend the horizons of consumers previously unaccustomed to luxury. It thus contributes to overconsumption (Guillard, 2018). However, media discourse is more nuanced and critical than that of the public authorities and platforms and raises sustainability issues. The positive aspects of the model in terms of sustainability are thus highlighted: the fight against planned obsolescence, the existence of organic products, etc. The model is ultimately presented as an extension of the current paradigm, but with a view of the future that is more focused on sustainability. The negative potential of the model, with the risk of overconsumption and overproduction, is also highlighted (Table6, quote 2). Thus, the media offer a more reflexive and critical discourse around the possibility of returning to excessive consumption through access. They confirm their role as agents of socialization, in calling for more restraint (Ducard *et al.*, 2011). However, while focusing more on sustainability and overconsumption, the solutions considered around collaborative practices retain a salient economic dimension associated with the centrality of possession, following the example of existing models (Table 6, quote 3). These results are in line with those of Cheng & Edwards (2019), who point out how little or none of the issues related to the sharing economy are addressed in the discourse of both media and government.

**Consistency between the macro and meso scales for social bonds**: At both the macro and meso scales there is agreement on the importance of the sharing economy as a lever for social bonds. The public authorities and journalistic content mainly focus on the possibility of nurturing ingroup ties, i.e., with members of one’s own group, in particular family and friends (Table 6, quote 4). Platforms, particularly those involving garden or pool rentals, also mention the ingroup dimension. But they also emphasize the possibility of new interactions through P2P rental and the prospect for renters and owners of creating social links and meeting new people (Table 6, quote 5).

<table><caption>Table 6 — Illustrative quotes for findings 1</caption><tr><td>Quote numberIllustrative quotes1“Regular observation of new behaviors of material
            sobriety, associated with territorial experiments (families or control neighborhoods)
            will be of the greatest interest [...] In order to reconcile value creation and
            environmental preservation, new business models are emerging” (ADEME Report, 2015).2“We
            consume more and more and this model is less and less viable for the future of humanity.
            It is therefore more than urgent to adopt a new model of consumption for a more sober
            and waste-free society.” (consoglobe, February 2020).3The project is designed to “allow
            people to test the possibilities of an electrically-assisted bicycle and, perhaps, to
            encourage a subsequent act of purchase” (Ouest-France, October 2020).4“Historically, the
            exchange of goods and services between individuals remains traditionally anchored in
            customs, particularly in the countryside where interpersonal and intra-family solidarity
            are most frequent. The collaborative economy is therefore an extension of ancestral
            sociabilities, nourished by the contribution of digital technology and the technological
            maturity of platforms” (HBRFrance, April 2019);“To get together with family or friends,
            more and more city dwellers are opting to rent a garden. With the pandemic and the risks
            of contamination with Covid-19, this trend has become even more pronounced”
            (Ouest-France, September 2021).5“We are convinced that the local economy should be
            encouraged. This is why we re-create links at the neighborhood or city level to
            facilitate local exchanges between residents and/or professionals” (Allovoisins
            platform).</td></tr></table>

## The search for a more sustainable society at the micro scale, with more social links,
        but also the centrality of possession

**Perception of a revolutionary sustainable model, but with ownership remaining central:**Consumers use emotionally charged terms to describe a transformative market model ideal for them (e.g. ‘revolution’, ‘change’) that would involve a redistribution of roles, particularly in favor of individuals (Table 7, quotes 1). This transformative perspective arises mainly in connection with the evocation of new markets and new alternatives (e.g. renting out one’s swimming pool). It may also be combined with consumers giving meaning to their behavior, especially for product categories more recently put up for rent, such as washing machines, clothing or bicycles (Table 7, quote 2). Consumers’ discourse also focuses on sustainability and addresses the notions of overpossession and overconsumption. Consumers consider the possibility of a better future through a different form of society and consumption, possibly based on use (Table 7, quotes 3). However, despite these declared societal virtues, ownership remains a pillar in the discourse, with many consumers’ comments suggesting that the purpose of P2P rental could ultimately be that of purchase. Numerous terms such as “keep” and “buy” are identified as a path from P2P rental to ownership, i.e. a more classical model (Table 7, quote 4). However, attitudes to ownership tend to differ according to the product category. In the case of items like clothing or certain objects, we observe a significantly higher proportion of terms related to ownership. The rental of specific goods is more likely motivated by the opportunity to acquire them, perhaps as a temporary way of acquiring ownership of the product. This is less the case in the car and housing rental categories, which are less associated with possession or ownership.

**Importance of social links:** The social dimension is very salient at the micro level. Two sub-dimensions are observed, respectively linked to members of the ingroup and outgroup. They are referred to differently by renters and owners. While certain common points emerge regarding the environmental dimension, the valence of the discourse is different. Renters’ discourse is more positive and linked to satisfactory experiences. Renters prioritize their intragroup relationships (family and friends) but remain open and positive about developing new social ties with property owners (Table 7, quote 5). For owners, the same positive valence is expressed around the idea of developing new social ties (Table 7, quote 6). However, some marked disappointments qualify this perception (Table 7, quote 7). The desire to forge new connections seems stronger with less conventionally rented goods (clothes, washing machines), and those that often involve physical interaction between renter and owner: provision of services or objects, most often accompanied by a service (object/service such as renting a drill with an owner who also offers to drill the wall).

<table><caption>Table 7 — Illustrative quotes for findings 2</caption><tr><td>Quote numberIllustrative quotes1"2015, the #collaborative revolution: #Usage vs.
            #Possession / Collaborative economy/ #Social" (tweet, Fanny, December 2015).2"From
            #possession to #use. Let's reshape our #consumption patterns together. Long-term #rental
            is part of this movement and offers a second life to the product" (tweet, Aldo, December
            2019).3“… you don't have to buy a tool or a machine you only need once, sometimes even a
            washing machine can help out once in a while if you have a problem” (allovoisin,
            J.Vernier, June 2021).4"I rented a costume from kiwizz but my daughter liked it so much
            it was really great. I was happy to be able to buy it for her finally, the lady who was
            renting agreed" (review, Catherine, April 2019); "I tried it one day anyway, renting
            shoes for a gala event. I bought them in the end. They were perfect for me" (blog,
            Tasnim, February 2020).5"I mostly rent the entire accommodation when I'm accompanied, by
            my boyfriend, family, or friends. When I can, especially for my business trips, I take a
            room in someone's home; it's really nice to be able to talk with my hosts… and you
            really feel at home!" (Jeanne, review, 2014, Airbnb).6"Based on trust, it's a
            concentration of humanity. It's like in life, there are great people and others not so
            much. I live in the countryside, so I suppose abuses are more focused in highly
            sought-after cities. Don't forget that it's meant to be friendly and not professional,
            that hotels are there to offer you an unparalleled service – decor, hours, access – that
            you're renting from someone who makes their property, belongings, and history available,
            with all the good and bad surprises that come with it" (Laure Airbnb, November
            2016).7"The first thing to deplore is the attitude of the guests. More and more guests
            behave as if they were arriving at a hotel: many renters leave the accommodation dirty
            (even though I don't charge a cleaning fee to keep the price very reasonable), are
            poorly organized, very, very inattentive to instructions, abuse the heating (30
            degrees!!), damage things, and refrain from reporting it, happen with more people than
            expected. In short, the attitude of the guests is becoming increasingly objectionable."
            (Review, zouzou, 2019).</td></tr></table>

<footnote n="15">Elementary Context Units</footnote>
# Discussion

Taking a holistic approach, the purpose of this research is to compare the discourses and interests of different stakeholders with regard to P2P rental in France. Our article highlights the divergent discourses of the various stakeholders. The macro- and meso-level stakeholders (platforms) mainly adopt a neoliberal perspective, showing little concern for sustainability and ignoring the centrality of ownership despite its relevance in an access-based model. Conversely, actors operating at the meso level (media) have a more pragmatic viewpoint, recognizing sustainability issues though still not addressing the central role of ownership. At the micro level, the emphasis is on the need for a different and more sustainable society through P2P interactions, that promises increased social connections and depends on the roles of owner and renter. However, this approach is still paradoxical, as it also emphasizes the central role of ownership. The importance attributed to ownership depends on the inherent “nature” of the product under consideration. This nuanced analysis highlights the complex interplay between sustainability, social dynamics and ownership on different platforms and at different media scales.

## Theoretical and methodological contributions

Our research contributes to the emerging literature on the level of sustainability and transformative power of access-based models. By studying different stakeholders, it highlights the discrepancies between the macro, meso and micro levels, and takes a critical look at the supposed contributions of the model in terms of link creation and non-centrality of ownership, thereby highlighting the critical side of the model. On the one hand, our results enrich the literature on the sharing economy by taking a stakeholder approach, which makes it possible to go beyond the usual marketing reading focused solely on the consumer (Bhattacharya, 2010; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). Our results highlight different, even contradictory, discourses between the macro, meso and micro levels. As with Domegan *et al.* (2019), our aim is not so much to identify the marketing mechanisms in play, but to understand the continuous feedback between the three levels studied. Actors at a macro level, as well as platforms at the meso level, seem to understand P2P rental as an extension of or complementary practice to the neoliberal economic model. The concerns of public authorities are business-oriented, and although the issue of sustainability, particularly through the environmental prism, is present, the emphasis is primarily on the technological and entrepreneurial strengths of the model. The press, relayed by the platforms, has little interest in sustainability, but more in the economic gains consumers can expect. Consumers themselves have a different perspective and are willing to adopt a transformative model. They seem to be attracted by these new practices, which they perceive as more respectful, more rewarding and more sustainable than current exchange practices. Their more emotional discourse reflects a critical view of society and a search for meaning through a new logic of consumption. These new practices also represent catalysts for them regarding the ingroup social relations that they seek to nurture (particularly in a family and friendship context). However, contrary to what some previous work suggests (e.g. Graul *et al.*, 2019; Stofberg & Bridoux, 2019), consumers reveal a degree of social motivation at the outgroup level (new encounters) depending on the product category when referring to these practices. The model does not appear to foster lasting relational bonds (Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015; Schor, 2016). More specifically, a more “classic” type of rental is observed (cars, housing) in which intergroup interactions are overlooked, and importance is placed on the family and friends (ingroup). In this category, owners tend to adopt a negative discourse. A second type of rental can be identified in the case of more recent products. These products not only involve social ties and interaction, as one might logically expect, but also seem to prompt reflection on the return to ownership. These results are in line with those of Schor (Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015; Schor, 2016), but refine them in relation both to the product category and to individual status (owner vs. renter).

Moreover, at the micro level, our approach allows us to distinguish, a posteriori*,*two types of actors with different perceptions: renters, who have a positive and favorable attitude to the phenomenon, and owners who, through their accounts of disappointing experiences, reveal the possible shortcomings of these practices, particularly in terms of perceived risks linked to the renters’ behavior. Although we do not measure the intention of owners to continue renting out, our results suggest that this could be adversely affected, which would call into question the very essence of this mode of consumption.

On the other hand, we note that despite the strong appetite for this new model, P2P renting may sometimes be a pathway from temporary access to ownership, particularly among more interactive P2P rentals (clothing or consumer goods). In contrast to the literature predicting a shift towards a post-materialist society (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Morewedge *et al.*, 2021; Rifkin, 2000), our research underlines the importance that possession ultimately retains in the discourse of the various stakeholders, particularly on a micro scale and for specific products other than housing and cars. Possession currently remains the norm, even if not always acknowledged. However, it very much co-exists with the idea of change, the need for a new economic model and new sustainable alternatives. The public authorities encourage the collaborative economy for its ecological and sharing potential. They also find it a favorable ground for entrepreneurial activity in the digital universe. At the same time, the state “protects” already established industrial companies and does not question the ownership inherent in the classical neoliberal model based on sales and purchases. Here as well more virtuous marketing practices are not promoted. The press and platforms are positive about the model, with a focus on the potential for additional gains for consumers. For the latter, although they are the only actors to question the meaning of this mode of consumption and its capacity to limit overconsumption, ownership seems to remain an ultimate goal. This finding runs counter to the literature on the primacy of use over ownership (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; 2017; Eckhardt *et al.*, 2019; Saravade *et al.*, 2020). Conversely, it extends work presenting access as a pathway to possession (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; 2015) and highlighting the continued importance of material possessions in access configurations (Benoît-Moreau *et al.*, 2017; Herbert & Collin-Lachaud, 2017). Thus, access-based models do not seem to shape a new society detached from possessions. However, the issues expressed by consumers about overconsumption and overproduction would suggest that the classical neoliberal approach based on possession and accumulation needs to be qualified. The alternative current of “appreciative” materialism might point to an intermediate approach lying between the post-materialist and classical models. In this approach (Kramarczyk & Oliver, 2020), objects remain important to consumers, but through non-possession or at least through voluntary non-accumulation. These authors build on the work of Belk (1984) and Richins & Rudmin (1994) on materialism and the centrality of possession to emphasize “nuanced” or “appreciative” materialism, in which consumers spend time choosing objects (which remain central to their lives) but in opposition to accumulative materialists, by focusing on non-acquisition rather than accumulation.

Our methodological contributions lie in the choice of a recent method (NLP) that allows the analysis of a large amount of data spontaneously disseminated online. In addition to reducing social desirability biases, the triangulation of data regarding different actors and by various means made it possible to obtain data of a different nature from a syntactic and semantic standpoint, as well as from different sources within the same scale of analysis.

## Societal and practical implications

Governments play a pivotal role in finding a better balance between the classical neoliberal system and a post-materialist model, and could promote access-based models, both for their economic and societal benefits. To this end, they could consider actions aimed at platforms and consumers. With regard to platforms, it would be appropriate to refine the regulatory and fiscal framework in order to encourage creation or to reduce the risk of failure. New sources of financing and regulation could also be considered, particularly for helping small platforms, following the examples of Scholz and Schneider (Scholz & Schneider, 2016; Schneider, 2018, Scholz, 2023) with the cooperative alternative to Internet platforms, and Shor’s (2020) notion of “democratic sharing”, where platforms are owned and controlled by the users themselves. Fritze *et al.* (2020) point out that most platforms are still small and loss-making, even in the US market, which was a pioneer in this field. With regard to consumers, it would be useful to make known the existence of collaborative schemes (similarly to what is done for nutrition campaigns, for example) and to encourage consumers to distance themselves from their possessions. From a practical standpoint, the question is to establish whether the French authorities have the ambition to “de-normalize” the notion of possession in order to propose consumption through access, not just as an alternative but potentially as a new model. If so, our paper highlights the lack, or at least the weakness, of public or journalistic contributions to this notion of ownership. Communication departments (institutional or media) could then find that our work resonates with them and could echo it in their discourses on this issue. The role of public authorities may also apply at the territorial level, following the example of the approaches currently proposed in the area of food waste (e.g*.*information campaigns, educational games in schools, nudges). In this way, town halls, departments and public authorities could inform people about these new practices and encourage them to adopt them. For example, the websites of major French cities focus their communication on the legal and fiscal framework of furnished accommodation and mobility (bicycles/scooters/cars), without mentioning the various other possibilities offered by access models. Various actors (schools, sports and cultural associations, etc.) could also be encouraged to promote P2P rental through events (Neighbors’ Day, pop-up markets, stands in schools, etc.). In parallel to the efforts of public authorities, it would be relevant to consider marketing actions at the level of rental platforms. The deepening of our results around two major product categories at the micro level also enabled us to reinforce the contributions of our paper to management practice. Opinions and perceptions appear to differ between individual owners and renters, depending on whether the more traditional product categories (vacation home, car) do not systematically involve physical interaction vs. more recent categories (clothing, household equipment), in which social interaction is more of a priority. This suggests interesting implications on a meso “commercial” scale for platforms which, depending on the anchor product category, could develop content and ergonomics more or less geared towards the possibility of developing social links. In the same vein, commercial arguments could also differ.

The latter could better promote their offering by emphasizing the non-materialist virtues of the model and its ability to provide a powerful ingroup experience. As in Schneider’s (2018) reflections on platform cooperativism, it could be valuable to consider a consensual approach – a minimum in terms of communication – as part of a communicative co-branding between the various platforms, to highlight a new ecosystem with a shared societal positioning. In line with Chisam *et al.* (2022) call, public authorities could incentivize firms to deploy more sustainable practices in the sharing economy.
# Future areas of research and limitations

This study suffers from various limitations that point the way to future research. First, at the level of macro-meso data, certain government reports or journalistic content were not accessible and would undoubtedly have helped to shed further light on the topic. A study covering all media could compensate for this shortcoming. Another research avenue could involve breaking down the analysis by historical periods. Thus bringing in the notion of temporality, through a diachronic approach, similar to the work of Cléret & Leroy (2013) could be interesting in the long term so as to observe the potential impacts of macro and meso discourses on the micro level. The impact of macro and meso discourses over time on the micro scale could be identified, as the impact of the former is not immediate for individuals. A quantitative approach could be suitable for measuring these various effects over time. A longitudinal approach would therefore be very useful, following the same dynamic logic as Bailly *et al.* (2022), who have studied how platforms affiliate their users in P2P networks in the car-sharing market. Moreover, platform developers could usefully be confronted with the perceptions of each stakeholder’s discourse. The literature has already highlighted the power relations that the various actors maintain internally on these platforms, as macro-actors-networks (Bailly *et al.*, 2022).

From a methodological standpoint, the comments collected on Twitter often come from committed individuals, whose views are not necessarily representative of all consumers. However, the tweets were coupled with opinions and blogs from people with various profiles. Furthermore, through their very nature, these sources do not provide information such as renters’ or owners’ intent to repeat rentals, which would be interesting to incorporate into future research. While our data collection yielded a large volume of spontaneous information, further exploration of our findings through semi-structured interviews or experimental methods would provide a richer understanding of the discourses and mechanisms underlying P2P rental practices. Also, while we have recovered exhaustive content, we observe a certain imbalance in the samples, particularly in tweets and public reports. While this still represents a significant database to analyze, one perspective might include a more in-depth analysis of tweets, or other social networks, in an English-speaking context, notably in the United States, but also in Canada, where the phenomenon of peer-to-peer renting is much more prevalent and the content published is thus more significant. Moreover, although our method of data analysis allows us to reduce possible biases of social desirability among consumers, the fact that we do not identify the author prevents us from knowing and precisely defining his/her profile as a consumer and from a socio-demographic standpoint. Moreover, we have addressed the phenomenon on three scales. One avenue for improvement could be to refine the content and analysis of each of these three levels, and even to dissect each level stakeholder by stakeholder in the same way as we do for a company, i.e. an even finer division. While our results note similarities that enabled us to gather the discourses at the macro and one element of meso scales (i.e. platforms), it would be interesting in a subsequent stage to distinguish more clearly the meso scale. To this end, it would be interesting to propose a meso-scale subdivision, dividing up the discourse of platforms (similarly to that of macro) and that the discourse of the more nuanced media. This first empirical study is a starting point for other more refined studies. Finally, our work highlights the concept of possession and the relationship between owners and renters that vary according to two major categories of products (more traditional and less interactive vs. more recent and more interactive) on a micro scale. It would be interesting to refine the results, firstly within the categories of products, and secondly to examine whether these differences also exist at the macro and meso scales. In this context, interviewing certain actors acting at each of the levels of analysis would make it possible to focus on their objectives and interests in the context of P2P rental, as well as on the models they wish to develop in the long term from a societal point of view.

## Références

C.M., Niinimäki K., Kujala S., Karell E. & Lang C. (2015), Sustainable product-service systems for clothing: Exploring consumer perceptions of consumption alternatives in Finland. *Journal of Cleaner Production,*97: 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.046.

E. & Wallendorf M. (1994), Market-Oriented Ethnography: Interpretation Building and Marketing Strategy Formulation, *Journal of* *Marketing Research*, 31, 484-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379403100404

C.K., Bendle N. & Cotte J. (2019), Object valuation and non-ownership possession: how renting and borrowing impact willingness-to-pay, *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*47(1): 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0596-3

Bailly, A., Borel, S., & Roux, D. (2022). Les plateformes d’échange pair à pair comme réseaux. Professionnalisation des usagers et nouvelles formes de concurrence. *Revue Française de Gestion*, 48(307), 41-70. doi:10.3166/rfg.307.41-70

F. & Eckhardt G.M. (2012), Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing, *Journal of Consumer Research,*39: 881-898. https://doi.org/10.1086/666376

F., Eckhardt G.M. & Arnould E.J. (2012), Liquid relationships to possessions, *Journal of Consumer Research*39: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1086/664037

F. & Eckhardt G.M. (2017). Liquid consumption, *Journal of Consumer Research,*44(3): 582-597. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx050

R.W. (2014), You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online, *Journal of Business Research,*67: 1595-1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001

R.W. (2017), Sharing, materialism, and design for sustainability. In *Routledge handbook of sustainable product design*. Abingdon: Routledge:160-172.

M., Cankurtaran P. & Loussaïef L. (2021), A critical framework for examining sharing brands’ sustainability claims: Exploring the tensions within platform brand discourses. *Journal of Macromarketing*, *online* *.*https://doi.org/10.1177/02761467211060331.

C.B. (2010), Introduction to the Special Section on Stakeholder Marketing, *Journal of Public Policy & Marketing*, 29 (1): 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.29.1.1

C.B. & Korschun D. (2008), Stakeholder Marketing: beyond the Four Ps and the customer, *Journal of Public Policy & Marketing*, 27 (spring): 113-116. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.27.1.113

Botsman R. & Rogers R. (2010), *What’s mine is yours: the rise of collaborative consumption*, New York: Harper Collins.

Bourdieu P. (1996), *Sur la télévision. Suivi de l’emprise du journalisme*, Paris: Editions Raisons d’agir.

M. (2013), Qu’est-ce qu’un discours de communication publique? *Cahiers Du Centre De Linguistique Et Des Sciences Du Langage*, 34: 13–41. https://doi.org/10.26034/la.cdclsl.2014.775

J., Langella I.M., Dao V.T. & Haase S.J. (2014), Breaking the ties that bind: From Corporate Sustainability to Socially Sustainable Systems, *Business & Society Review*, 119 (2): 175-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12029

W. L., & Wang, J. Y. (2020). A 2020 perspective on “Mine is yours? Using sentiment analysis to explore the degree of risk in sharing economy, *Electronic Commerce Research and Applications*, 40, 100934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100934

M., & Edwards, D. (2019). A comparative automated content analysis approach on the review of the sharing economy discourse in tourism and hospitality. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(1), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1361908

N., Germann, F., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022). A call for research at the public policy–marketing strategy interface. *Journal of Public Policy & Marketing*, *41*(3), 213-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156221092413

S.K. (2021). Business model patterns in the sharing economy, *Sustainable Production and Consumption,*27: 1650-1671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.04.009

S.K & Mont O. (2020), Sharing Economy Business Models for Sustainability, *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 266 (1): 121519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121519

Cléret B., & Leroy J. (2013). Retour vers le futur : Comment utiliser une chronologie à partir de données ethnographiques. 12èmes Journées Normandes de Recherches sur la Consommation, November, Caen, France. (hal-01655549)

Damay C., Ulrich I. & Loussaïef L. (2020), What is the value of a piece of clothing that I do not own? Les composantes de la valeur dans les pratiques de partage et location, *Décisions Marketing*, 100: 53-78. DOI : 10.7193/DM.100.53.78.

D. (2006), La question des échelles d’observation en sciences humaines appliquées au domaine de la santé, *Recherche en soins infirmiers*, 85(2): 14-21. DOI:10.3917/rsi.085.0014

C., McHugh P., Flaherty T. & Duane S. (2019), A dynamic stakeholders’ framework in a marketing systems setting, *Journal of Macromarketing*, 39 (2): 136-150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146719835287

G.M., Houston M.B., Jiang B., Lamberton C., Rindfleisch A. & Zervas G. (2019), Marketing in the sharing economy, *Journal of Marketing,*83(5): 5-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919861929

M., Durif F., François-Lecompte A. & Boivin C. (2018), Does “sharing” mean “socially responsible consuming”? Exploration of the relationship between collaborative consumption and socially responsible consumption, *Journal of Consumer Marketing,*35(4): 392-402. DOI:10.1108/JCM-09-2016-1941

A., & Stergiou, D. P. (2019). Escaping loneliness through Airbnb host-guest interactions. *Tourism Management*, 74, 331-333. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.006

Freeman, R. E. (1984), *Strategic management: A stakeholder approach*, Boston: Pitman.

Freeman, R. E. (2017), Five Challenges to Stakeholder Theory: A Report on Research in Progress, in *Stakeholder Management* (Business and Society 360, Volume 1), David M. Wasieleski and James Weber, eds. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited: 1-20.

K. & Schor J.B. (2017), Putting the sharing economy into perspective, *Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,*23: 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003

M.P., Marchand A., Eisingerich A.B. & Benkenstein M. (2020), Access-based services as substitutes for material possessions: The role of psychological ownership, *Journal of Service Research,*23(3): 368-385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520907691

Graul A, Brough A. & Isaac S.M. (2019), Do owners in a consumer-to-consumer market ever prefer renting to less-engaged users? *ACR North American Advances*47: 180-184.

F., Teubner T. & Gimpel H. (2018), Consumer motives for peer-to-peer sharing, *Journal of Cleaner Production,*204: 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.326

K., Morhart, F., Girardin, F., & Mirjam, H. (2015). Exploring different types of sharing: A proposed segmentation of the market for “sharing” businesses. *Psychology and Marketing*, 32(9), 891–906. DOI:10.1177/0022242919861929

M. & Collin-Lachaud I. (2017), Collaborative practices and consumerist habitus: An analysis of the transformative mechanisms of collaborative consumption. *Marketing Research and Applications*, *32*(1): 40-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051570716678736

Y., Cai Z., Tan C.W., Huang Q. & Liu H. (2020), Natural Language Processing (NLP) in management research: A literature review, *Journal of Management Analytics,*7(2): 139-172. DOI:10.1080/23270012.2020.1756939

A. & Suseno Y. (2021), A state-of-the-art review of the sharing economy: Scientometric mapping of the scholarship, *Journal of Business Research*, 126, 250-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.063

R.V. (2008), Technology/Ideology: How ideological fields influence consumers’ technology narratives, *Journal of Consumer Research,*34(4): 865-881. DOI:10.1086/523289

C. & Armstrong C.M.J. (2018), Collaborative consumption: The influence of fashion leadership, need for uniqueness, and materialism on female consumers’ adoption of clothing renting and swapping, *Sustainable Production and Consumption,*13: 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.11.005

Loussaïef L., Diridollou C. & Redon G. (2018), A proposed definition of collaborative consumption through the *business models*of market enterprises, *Management & Avenir,*104: 103-125. DOI : 10.3917/mav.104.0103.

L., Ulrich I. & Damay C. (2019), How does access to luxury fashion challenge self-identity? Exploring women’s practices of joint and non-ownership, *Journal of Business Research*, 102: 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.020

I. & Ferrell O.C. (2004), Corporate social responsibility and marketing: an integrative framework, *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*, 32 (1), 3-19. DOI: 10.1177/0092070303258971

C.J (2016), The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? *Ecological Economics*121: 149-159. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027

J.D., Clifford J.S. II, Kilbourne W.E. & Peterson M. (2014), Sustainability as megatrend: Two Schools of Macromarketing thought, *Journal of Macromarketing,*34(3): 253-264. DOI: 10.1177/0276146713520551

O., Palgan Y.V., Bradley K. & Zvolska L. (2020), A decade of the sharing economy: Concepts, users, business and governance perspectives, *Journal of Cleaner Production,*(269): 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122215

C.K, Monga A., Palmatier R.W., Shu S.B. & Small D.A. (2021), Evolution of consumption: A psychological ownership framework, *Journal of Marketing,*85(1): 196-218. DOI: 10.1177/0022242920957007

L.K & Ballantine P.W. (2010), Sharing as a form of anti-consumption? An examination of toy library users, *Journal of Consumer Behaviour*, 9: 485-498. DOI: 10.1002/cb.334

E. & Stylos N. (2020), The Cinderella moment: Exploring consumers’ motivations to engage with renting as collaborative luxury consumption mode, *Psychology & Marketing,*37(5): 740-753. DOI: 10.1002/mar.21345

B.L., Freeman R.E., Harrison J.S., Wicks A.C., Purnell L. & de Colle S. (2010), Stakeholder Theory: The state of the art, *The Academy of Management Annals*, 4(1): 403-445. DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2010.495581

T.L. (2020), Institutions and agency in the sustainability of Day-to-Day consumption practices: An institutional ethnographic study, *Journal of Business Ethics*, 1-20.DOI: 10.1007/s10551-019-04419-x

H.E., Ozanne L.K. & Ballantine P.W. (2015), Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting, *Journal of Marketing Management*31(11-12): 1310-1332. DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2015.1013490

Rifkin J. (2000), *The age of access: The new Culture of hypercapitalism*, Putnam Publishing Group: New York.

D., Lacy S., & Fico F. (2013), *Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research*(3<sup>rd</sup> ed.), Routledge.

H. & Basu M. & Saito O. (2019), What and how are we sharing? A systematic review of the sharing paradigm and practices, *Sustainability Science*, 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0638-2

S., Reto F. & Fırat A.F. (2020), From solidity to liquidity: macro-level consumption patterns in the sharing economy, *Journal of Macromarketing,*41(2): 284-296. DOI: 10.1177/0276146720958184

D. & Figueiredo B. (2022), How consumer orchestration work creates value in the sharing economy, *Journal of Marketing*, 86(2): 29-47. DOI: 10.1177/00222429211027777

J.B. (2007), In defense of consumer critique: Revisiting the consumption debates of the twentieth century. *The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science*611(1): 16-30. DOI:10.1177/0002716206299145

J.B. (2016), Debating the sharing economy, *Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics,*4(3): 7-22. DOI:10.22381/jsme4320161

Schor J.B. (2018), The platform economy - Consequences for labor, inequality and the environment, *Policy Network*,policynetwork.org/opinions/essays/the-platform-economy/, (March 9<sup>th</sup> 2023.

J.B. (2020), *After the gig - how the sharing economy got hijacked and how to win it back*, University of California Press.

Schor J.B. & Thompson, C.J. (2014), Practicing plenitude. In *Sustainable Lifestyles and the Quest for Plenitude*, Schor J.B. & Thompson C.J. New Haven, NY: Yale University Press: 1-24.

R.T & Schneider N. (2016), Ours to hack and to own: The rise of platform cooperativism, a new vision for the future of work and a fairer internet, available here.

Scholz R.T. (2023), Own This!: How Platform Cooperatives Help Workers Build a Democratic Internet, Verso Books.

N. (2018), An Internet of ownership: Democratic design for the online economy. *The Sociological Review*, 66(2): 320-340.https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118758533

N. & Bridoux F. (2019), Consumers’ choice among peer-to-peer sharing platforms: The other side of the coin, *Psychology & Marketing,*36(12): 1176-1195. DOI:10.1002/mar.21265

V., Kumar D.S & Gupta D. (2021), ‘To Trust or Not’: Impact of camouflage strategies on trust in the sharing economy, *Journal of Business Research*, 136: 110-126. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.023

K., Habib R. & Hardisty D.J. (2019), How to shift consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework, *Journal of Marketing,*83(3): 22-49. DOI:10.1177/0022242919825649

S., Lee D., Singh P. & Mukhopadhyay T. (2022), Demand interactions in sharing economies: Evidence from a natural experiment involving Airbnb and Uber/Lyft, *Journal of Marketing Research*, 59(2): 374-391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437211062172

S., Lu Y. & Lu B. (2023), Shared accommodation services in the sharing economy: Understanding the effects of psychological distance on booking behavior, *Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research*, 18(1): 311-332. DOI:10.3390/jtaer18010017