COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - A European agenda for the collaborative economy European agenda for the collaborative economy - supporting analysis
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, consumer, economic cooperation, economy, entrepreneur, job creation, market access, national law, provision of services, service

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.6.2016  SWD(2016) 184 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS -  A European agenda for the collaborative economy   European agenda for the collaborative economy - supporting analysis {COM(2016) 356 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1.  POLICY CONTEXT ................................................................................................... 4 

2.  ECONOMIC AND POLICY CHALLENGES ........................................................... 5 

2.1.  What is the collaborative economy? ................................................................. 5 
2.2.  Benefits .............................................................................................................. 6 
2.3.  Challenges ......................................................................................................... 6 
2.4.  Usage and perception ........................................................................................ 6 

3.  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND DRIVERS ..................................................... 8 

3.1.  General economic development ........................................................................ 8 
3.1.1.  Development in EU compared to US .................................................. 9 
3.1.2.  Main drivers ...................................................................................... 10 
3.1.3.  Collaborative business model ............................................................ 13 
3.1.4.  Efficiency and competitiveness ......................................................... 15 
3.1.5.  Effect of regulation on development ................................................. 19 
3.1.6.  Peer-to-peer transportation ................................................................ 20 
3.1.7.  Peer-to-peer accommodation ............................................................. 21 
3.1.8.  Online labour markets ....................................................................... 22 
3.1.9.  Engaging with stakeholders ............................................................... 24 

4.  NATIONAL REGULATIONS ON THE COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY .......... 26 

4.1.  Distinction between ‘peers’ and professional services providers ................... 27 
4.2.  Market access requirements ............................................................................ 27 
4.2.1.  Transport sector ................................................................................. 27 
4.2.2.  Accommodation sector (short-term rentals) ...................................... 31 
4.2.3.  Professional services ......................................................................... 33 
4.3.  Consumer protection and information obligations .......................................... 34 
4.4.  Employment status .......................................................................................... 35 

5.  HORIZONTAL IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 36 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Impact on employment .................................................................................... 36 
5.1.1.  Profile of workers .............................................................................. 36 
5.1.2.  Motivation ......................................................................................... 37 
5.1.3.  Source of income ............................................................................... 37 
5.1.4.  Remuneration .................................................................................... 38 
5.1.5.  Physical versus virtual services ......................................................... 38 
5.1.6.  Skilled versus unskilled tasks ............................................................ 40 
5.1.7. 
Impact on the labour market .............................................................. 40 
Impact on tax administration ........................................................................... 41 
5.2.1.  Challenges for tax administrations .................................................... 41 
5.2.2.  Available tools to address the issues ................................................. 42 

6.  ASSESSING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 44 

2 

 
6.1.  Challenges for official statistics ...................................................................... 44 
6.2.  Further research ............................................................................................... 45 

7.  REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 45 

3 

 
 
 
 
1. 

POLICY CONTEXT 

The  Single  Market  Strategy  adopted  in  October  2015  announced  that  the  Commission  "will 
develop  a  European  agenda  for  the  collaborative  economy,  including  guidance  on  how 
existing EU law applies to collaborative economy business models".  
The collaborative economy is part of the Single Market Strategy1 and also the Commission’s 
Digital Single Market Strategy.2 Supporting the collaborative economy is key to meeting the 
objectives  of  the  digital  single  market  by  providing  better  access  for  consumers  and 
businesses to online goods and services across Europe. This in turn will lead to more efficient 
services, the re-use of existing resources and provide new and more flexible employment. The 
most visible examples of the collaborative economy involve renting apartments, sharing cars 
and  organising  deliveries.  The  new  collaborative  business  models  have  an  influence  on 
existing businesses, increasing competition and changing consumer behaviour.3 

The  collaborative  economy  is  part  of  the  digital  economy  but  also  overlaps  with  other 
economic sectors, mainly those providing services. The business functions and technological 
features  of  collaborative  platforms  are  similar  to  those  of  other  platforms  in  the  digital 
economy. Collaborative platforms are typically transaction-based platforms,4 similar to peer-
to-peer  e-commerce  platforms  founded  in  the  early  phase  of  the  internet.  Collaborative 
platforms  have  pushed  peer-to-peer  commerce  into  more  complex  service  sectors,  such  as 
transport and accommodation. This enables domestic assets to be used as part of a temporary 
service, often provided offline. 

A  public  consultation  was  carried  out  from  September  2015  to  January  2016  to  gather  the 
views5  of  public  authorities,  entrepreneurs  and  individuals.  Workshops  were  also  held  in 
several  Member  States  to  discuss  the  development  of  the  collaborative  economy  with 
administrators  and  entrepreneurs.  A  Eurobarometer  survey  on  collaborative  platforms  was 
also carried out.6 

Responses  from  the  public  consultation  and  workshops  show  that  there  is  significant 
economic  potential  in  the  collaborative  economy  but  also  a  large  degree  of  uncertainty 
regarding rights and obligations. The replies to the public consultation focused on uncertainty 
on  rights  and  obligations  for  users  and  providers  as  obstacles  to  the  growth  of  the 
collaborative  economy,  and  consequently  there  was  a  desire  for  more  guidance  and  better 
information  on  the  application  of  the  existing  rules.  A  majority  of  respondents  considered 
European  action  promoting  the  collaborative  economy  necessary.  However,  Member  State 
authorities noted that a regulatory framework that is too rigid can create problems.  The public 
consultation  also  emphasised  increased  transparency,  wider  choice,  increased  competition, 
and the price and quality benefits stemming from a more efficient market as reasons for the 
rapid adoption of collaborative economy business models.7 

1 
2 
3 

4 
5  

6 
7  

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2015 %3A550 %3AFIN. 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news/digital-single-market-strategy-europe-com2015-192-final. 
For a review of the collaborative economy see Codagnone, C., Abadie F., and Biagi, F., (2016), The Passions and 
the Interests: Unpacking the Sharing Economy, JRC Science for Policy Report, Luxembourg: Publications Office 
of the European Union Studies, forthcoming. 
See Evans 2016, http://thecge.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PDF-WEB-Platform-Survey_01_12.pdf. 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/public-consultation-regulatory-environment-platforms- 
online-intermediaries-data-and-cloud  
Flash Eurobarometer 438 (March 2016) on ‘The use of collaborative platforms’, forthcoming. 
See the results of public consultation on the regulatory environment for platforms, online intermediaries, data and 
cloud computing and the collaborative economy; link 

4 

 
                                                 
According to the Eurobarometer survey, 52 % of EU citizens are aware of the services offered 
by the collaborative economy and 17 % have used such services at least once. The perceived 
main  advantages  are  improved  convenience  in  accessing  the  services  and  lower  prices.  Not 
knowing  who  is  responsible  if  a  problem  arises  is  seen  as  the  main  inhibiting  factor.8  The 
Eurobarometer survey showed that users’ main concern is not knowing who is responsible if a 
problem arises while the services are being provided. The second most important obstacle is 
the  trust  and  reliability  of  the  service  provided  by  peers  through  the  platform.  In  addition, 
general  issues  of  trust  in  the  internet  transactions  in  general  are  also  mentioned  as  main 
disadvantages of collaborative platforms. To a lesser extent, the fact that the services offered 
do not meet consumers’ expectations is also a problem. 

The purpose of this document is to provide the background and evidence that underpins the 
Communication on the European agenda on the collaborative economy. 

2. 

ECONOMIC AND POLICY CHALLENGES 

2.1.  What is the collaborative economy? 

A variety of collaborative economy business models are rapidly emerging and growing across 
Europe, changing the way services are traditionally provided and consumed. They are driven 
by  technological,  economic  and  societal  factors.  Collaborative  platforms  enable  individuals 
and  other  actors  such  as  micro  entrepreneurs  and  (small)  businesses  to  offer  services.  This 
creates  new  employment,  flexible  working  arrangements  and  new  sources  of  income  and 
helps  small  businesses  reach  a  wider  market  and  customer  base.  They  also  make  markets 
more competitive and efficient by improving matching between demand and supply.9 

The  notion  of  the  collaborative  economy  is  evolving.  In  this  staff  working  document,  the 
‘collaborative  economy’  refers  to  business  models  where  activities  are  facilitated  by  online 
platforms  that  create  an  open  marketplace  for  the  temporary  use  of  goods  or  services  often 
provided  by  private  individuals.10  The  collaborative  economy  involves  three  categories  of 
actors:  

(i)  service  providers  who  share  assets,  resources,  time  and  skills  —  these  can  be  private 
individuals  offering  services  on  an  occasional  basis  (‘peers’)  or  professional  service 
providers;  

(ii) users of these services;  

(iii)  collaborative  economy  platforms  that  connect  providers  with  users  and  facilitate 
transactions between them, also ensuring the quality of these transactions e.g. through after-
sale services (handling complaints), insurance services, etc.  

Collaborative economy transactions frequently do not involve a change of ownership and can 
be carried out for profit or not for profit. 

8 
9  

10 

Flash Eurobarometer 438 (March 2016) on ‘The use of collaborative platforms’. 
The Commission has recently published other communications on platforms, including widespread deployment of 
business-to-consumer online platforms COM(2016) 288/2 final and industrial platforms (COM(2016) 180 final. 
There is no universally accepted definition of the collaborative economy, which is also referred to by a range of 
synonyms such as the ‘sharing economy’, ‘peer-to-peer economy’ or ‘demand economy’. Most definitions of the 
‘collaborative economy’ include some or all of the following elements: online platforms, temporary usage, peer-to-
peer (consumer-to-consumer) relations, exchange of goods or services. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
2.2. 

Benefits 

The  increased  efficiency,  transparency  and  competition  in  the  marketplace  provided  by 
collaborative  platforms  are  due  to  a  wide  provider  base,  mainly  drawn  from  the  consumer 
sector, and the technological aspects of online platforms, which enable efficient matching and 
reduce information asymmetries.11 Collaborative platforms are also increasing resource12 and 
labour efficiency through their use of digital technology and are driving digitalisation across 
industries.13 Therefore, they are a driver of competitiveness throughout the economy. 

For consumers, the collaborative economy is providing new services, extending the range and 
supply  of  existing  services  and  offering  lower  prices.  For  individuals  wishing  to  supply 
services,  the  collaborative  economy  provides  opportunities  for  new  employment,  flexible 
working14 and a source of income from under-used domestic assets. It also allows people to 
start marketing and selling their own services, thereby taking the first steps towards becoming 
an entrepreneur, without many of the risks associated with setting up a business.15  
For society, the collaborative economy offers environmental benefits16 by encouraging more 
asset  sharing  and  social  benefits.  This  is  done  by  creating  an  opportunity  for  individuals  to 
interact, integrating communities. The collaborative economy can thus also contribute to the 
EU’s environmental goals while also offering wider benefits. 

2.3. 

Challenges 

Some collaborative business models do not fit clearly within the existing national, local and 
sector  rules.  This  is  partly  a  consequence  of  the  nature  of  collaborative  business  models, 
which typically comprise a collaborative platform and individual service providers, leading to 
uncertainty  about  mutual  and  respective  rights  and  obligations.  The  uncertainty  relates  to 
several aspects of service provision including regulatory obligations, consumer rights, liability 
insurance and the status of workers. 

The collaborative economy offers many employment opportunities but the work generated is 
often temporary, short-term and task-based. Many of the national rules on taxation and social 
protection  have  not  been  drafted  for  such  situations,  even  though  in  principle  modern 
technology  provides  multiple  options  to  ensure  that  appropriate  contributions  are  made  and 
that minimum levels of remuneration are upheld. 

2.4. 

Usage and perception 

In  order  to  provide  further  evidence  on  the  extent  of  the  activities  taking  place  within  the 
collaborative economy and on the awareness and frequency of use of collaborative platforms, 
a Flash Eurobarometer survey was commissioned by the European Commission. In particular, 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16  

For example, platform-enabled peer-to-peer carsharing reduces the costs of finding an available vehicle to rent in 
the physical neighbourhood (Demary 2015). 
Domestic  vehicles  are  used  less  than  5 %  of  the  time  and  three  quarters  of  car  rides  are  single  occupancy. 
http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/facts_on_parking.pdf. 
The introduction of collaborative platforms has triggered a proliferation of transport network companies (TNCs) in 
the US transport sector. 
Flexible  working  is  valuable  in  helping  to  avoid  many  of  the  problems  associated  with  structural  or  long-term 
unemployment. This particularly affects younger and older workers, as well as those returning from parental leave. 
For  example,  the  peer-to-peer  accommodation  sector  offers  the  potential  for  many  people  to  provide  services, 
alongside professional providers, without taking the financial risks normally associated with starting an enterprise. 
It  has  been  estimated  that  the  collaborative  economy  could  achieve  average  savings  of  up  to  7 %  in  household 
budgets and reduce waste by 20 % if the market operates under the most favourable conditions (Demailly & Novel 
(2014),  ‘Économie  du  partage:  enjeux  et  opportunités  pour  la  transition  écologique’;  IDDRI).  The  European 
Commission  will  launch  in  2016  a  study  to  better  understand  the  environmental  impact  of  the  collaborative 
economy in general and also of individual projects and activities. 

6 

 
                                                 
the  survey  aimed  to  help  better  understanding  the  advantages  and  difficulties  the  different 
actors are experiencing in this context. 

This survey was carried out by TNS Political & Social network in the 28 EU Member States 
on 15 and 16 March 2016. This opinion poll gathered 14 050 replies. 

According  to  the  survey,  a  majority  of  respondents  (52 %)  are  aware  of  the  existence  of 
collaborative  platforms.  Nearly  one  in  five  respondents  (17 %)  declared  they  have  used  the 
services  of  these  platforms  at  least  once.17  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  percentage  of 
respondents being aware of collaborative platforms is higher among people:  

  aged between 25 and 39 years;  
  who finished education after the age of 16;  
  who live in a large or small/mid-sized town; and  
  who are self-employed or employees (63 %).  

The number of people using collaborative platforms is also higher for this category than for 
the general audience (32 %). 

The  trend  on  the  awareness  of  these  services  significantly  varied  from  country  to  country. 
More  than  one  third  of  respondents  in  France  (36 %)  and  Ireland  (35 %)  have  used  these 
platforms, whereas respondents in Cyprus (2 %), Malta (4 %) and the Czech Republic (7 %) 
are the least likely to have done so. 

Among  the  respondents  who  have  used  the  services  of  collaborative  platforms,  almost  one 
third  (32 %)  say  they  have  provided  a  service  on  this  kind  of  platform  at  least  once,  which 
signals that a consistent proportion of users are also likely to act as service providers. 

On the main advantages of collaborative platforms, slightly more than two in five (41 %) of 
respondents  who  have  heard  of  or  have  been  on  collaborative  platforms  believed  that  the 
access to services is more conveniently organised. Around a third (33 %) mentioned that the 
services offered through collaborative platforms are cheaper than traditional services or free, 
while around a quarter (25 %) acknowledged that being able to exchange products or services 
instead of paying with money was a positive aspect. 

Three main drawbacks were identified by the respondents:  

 
 
 

lack of awareness of who is responsible if a problem arises (41 %);  
lack of trust for internet transactions (28 %);  
lack of trust for the provider/seller (27 %).  

The fact that the services might not meet users’ expectations and lack of information on the 
service provided were also mentioned as drawbacks. 

17  

These findings are similar to the findings of a survey conducted in 10 Member States in March 2016, which showed 
that 17 % of the consulted persons had over the preceding 12 months participated in online collaborative platforms 
for sharing goods, transport, accommodation and non-professional services (‘odd jobs’). The survey was conducted 
by  the  European  Commission’s  DG  Justice  as  part  of  a  study  to  be  published  in  the  final  quarter  of  2016.  The 
survey  will  also  present  data  on  the  satisfaction  rates  and  problems  encountered  with  P2P  transactions  in  the 
collaborative economy. 

7 

 
                                                 
3. 

3.1. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND DRIVERS 

General economic development 

Collaborative platforms have penetrated several sectors of the economy, particularly service 
sectors.  This  section  estimates  the  effect  on  economic  development  in  the  EU  of  five  key 
collaborative economy sectors: 

  peer-to-peer accommodation;  

  peer-to-peer transportation;  

  online skills, comprising:  

o  on-demand household services;  

o  on-demand professional services;  

  collaborative finance.  

This is followed by a closer analysis of four of these sectors. 

It is  estimated  that collaborative platforms operating in  five key sectors of the collaborative 
economy  generated  revenues  of  EUR 3.6 billion  in  2015  in  the  EU.18  In  terms  of  gross 
revenues  flowing  to  providers  and  platforms,  it  is  estimated  that  collaborative  platforms 
facilitated  EUR 28 billion  of  transactions  in  2015  in  the  EU.19  The  largest  collaborative 
economy sector by platform revenue is the peer-to-peer transportation sector, which includes 
ridesharing and carsharing. By contrast, the peer-to-peer accommodation sector is the largest 
on the basis of commerce generated. The largest sector by gross revenues is the peer-to-peer 
accommodation sector, which includes primary and secondary home rental platforms, as well 
as home-swapping.20 

On average, over 85 % of gross revenue generated by collaborative economy platforms goes 
to  providers.  The  revenue  models  deployed  by  platforms  vary  between  and  within  sectors. 
Most gather revenue based on fixed or variable commissions ranging from 1-2 % for peer-to-
peer lending to up to 20 % for ridesharing services. 

18 

19 

20  

of 

the 

the 

size 

current 

economy 

collaborative 

Based on estimates by PwC consulting as part of a study contracted by the European Commission. The estimates of 
the size of the collaborative economy across the five sectors are primarily based on enterprise (platform) revenues. 
However, other sources of information, such as equity valuations and market research on platform usage, have also 
been used to arrive at the final aggregations of sector size. The estimates should be treated as broad approximations 
sectors. 
of 
The  development  of  the  collaborative  economy  was  studied  more  closely  in  nine  EU  Member  States  (France, 
Belgium,  Germany,  UK,  Poland,  Spain,  Italy,  Sweden  and  the  Netherlands).  The  study  carried  out  by  PwC 
consulting contains a non-exhaustive list of 275 collaborative platforms that have been developed in those Member 
States.  The  list  of  platforms  gives  an  indication  of  the  development  of  the  collaborative  economy  in  particular 
Member States and of the diversity of platforms that have been established across various sectors of the economy. 
The UK and France have the highest number of collaborative platforms out of the above Member States. 
Data from table 1 SWD p. 5 and from a study published by the European Parliament that estimates that the 
collaborative economy could potentially generate revenues of EUR 572 billion in the EU. This is based on the 
economic value of currently unused or under-used assets which could become part of the collaborative economy. 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/558777/EPRS_STU(2016)558777_EN.pdf. 
The estimate of the size of the collaborative economy was not based exclusively on this list; to arrive at the overall 
estimate, the revenues of other platforms and other factors were also taken into account. 

the  EU 

five 

key 

in 

in 

8 

 
                                                 
Table 1: Net revenues and commerce generated from collaborative platforms (2015, 
million EUR). 

Sector 

Net 
revenue 

Total 
commerce 

Percentage of net 
revenue 

Percentage of 
commerce 

P2P accommodation 

P2P transportation 

On-demand household services 

On-demand professional services 

Collaborative finance 

Total 
Source: PwC consulting 

1,150 

1,650 

450 

100 

250 

15,100 

5,100 

1,950 

750 

5,200 

3,600 

28,100 

31.9 

27.3 

10.2 

2.5 

6.5 

53.7 

12.4 

5.4 

2.2 

15.6 

The  estimated  gross  revenues  from  these  five  sectors  represent  approximately  0.2 %  of  EU 
GDP. By contrast, the net contribution of the collaborative economy to economic output will 
be lower as it is partially drawing on existing demand. However, for some industries such as 
tourism, research has found that the degree of substitution appears to be limited.21 

Platform revenues and gross commerce generated via platforms both grew rapidly in 2015 and 
gathered pace compared to the previous year. This indicates that the collaborative economy is 
still at a very early stage of development and also growing more quickly than the related e-
commerce sector, in which revenues grew by 15 %.22 

Table 2: Net revenues and commerce generated via collaborative platforms (2013-2015, 
billion EUR) 

Year 
2013 
2014 
2015 

Net revenue 
1.0 
1.8 
3.6 

Source: PwC consulting 

Growth (%) 

55 
76 

Total commerce 
9.9 
15.3 
26.9 

Growth (%) 

80 
97 

3.1.1.  Development in EU compared to US 

The  largest  collaborative  platforms  in  the  EU  mainly  originated  in  the  US  and  remain  US 
based,  e.g.  Airbnb  and  Uber.  In  addition,  with  the  exception  of  BlaBlaCar,  EU  based 
collaborative  platforms  appear  to  fall  into  the  category  of  small  enterprises,  based  on 
information  gathered  on  staffing  levels  and  reported  revenues.  This  suggests  that  EU 
collaborative  platforms  have  difficulty  both  in  the  start-up  phase  and  the  growth  phase  of 
business development.23 

21 
22 
23  

http://people.bu.edu/zg/publications/airbnb.pdf. 
https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/european-e-commerce-turnover-grew-143-reach-eu-4238 bn-2014. 
It is estimated that EU-based platforms, including those that are part of the collaborative economy,account for only 
4% of the total market capitalization of the world's largest online platforms, as noted in the Commission's recent 
Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market   (COM(2016) XXX.) 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1: Size of online P2P accommodation platforms (Number of rental spaces, 2015) 

Source: Cologne Institute of Economic Research (CIER), based on various reference sources: Gloveler, 2013; 9flats, 2015; 
Statist, 2015; Wimdu, 2015 
Note: Data from 2013. 

Since its foundation in 2008, Airbnb has grown tremendously. Nearly 16 million guests used 
the platform in 2015 compared to 45 000 in 2010. Compared to EU-based competitors such as 
Wimdu, 9flats or Gloveler, Airbnb24 offers a far greater number of rental listings, exceeding 
the largest competitor Wimdu by a factor of seven.25 Although this may be accounted for by 
the specifics of each platform, it is fair to assume that the national and EU contexts of Airbnb 
and Wimdu may also have played a role. 

Compared  to  US  platforms  operating  in  the  US,  EU  platforms  operating  in  the  EU  face 
several barriers to their development. These can be categorised in three groups. Firstly, there 
is a more fragmented regulatory environment in the EU than in the US, although differences 
in  regulatory  responses  also  occur  between  US  cities.  This  is  examined  in  detail  in  the 
following sections. Secondly, the venture capital environment is less favourable in the EU26 
than in the US. Thirdly, there are cultural (including linguistic) differences in the EU, which 
inevitably  have  an  impact  on  content-rich  enterprises  such  as  those  in  the  collaborative 
economy. 

However, balanced against these hurdles there are structural features of the EU economy that 
may  also  promote  the  development  of  the  collaborative  economy.  For  example,  the 
collaborative  economy  has  pushed  e-commerce  into  services,  many  of  which  are  provided 
offline.  As  noted  above,  these  require  a  critical  mass  of  suppliers  and  users  who  typically 
reside in urban areas. In this respect, the EU has structural advantages over the US in that it is 
more densely populated and urbanised. 

3.1.2.  Main drivers 

The collaborative economy is being driven by technological, economic and societal factors. 

24 
25 

26  

Airbnb also leads on other size indicators such as funding or the number of countries covered by the platform. 
Wimdu  was  founded  in  Germany.  However,  even  in  this  ‘home’  market  the  comparative  trends  in  business 
development between the two platforms are quite similar. At one point queries for Wimdu were around two thirds 
of  the  total  for  Airbnb.  However,  since  then  interest  in  Airbnb  has  exploded  whereas  interest  in  Wimdu  has 
remained more or less constant. 
The  availability of  venture  capital  (VC)  in  Europe  is  relatively low.  The  total  VC  investment  in  Europe  in  2014 
amounted  to  USD 10.5  billion  (EY,  2015).  In  the  US,  by  contrast,  VC  investment  reached  USD 52  billion.  This 
corresponds to 12 and 60 % of worldwide VC investment respectively. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
Internet technology is an essential driver of the collaborative economy.27 It provides the basis 
for  developing  collaborative  platforms  and  for  linking  them  with  service  providers  and 
purchasers.  It  also  partly  determines  the  type  and  range  of  services  that  can  be  provided 
online, but not offline. 

In  economic  terms,  internet  technology  has  helped  to  lower  the  costs  of  market  entry  for 
individual  service  providers  and  reduce  the  costs  and  time  (implicit  costs)  associated  with 
sharing  physical  assets.  For  example,  the  use  of  internet  technology  has  enabled  the 
development of marketplaces for sharing relatively low value items, such as basic household 
machinery,  on  a  peer-to-peer  basis.28  Internet  technologies  are  also  the  basis  for  increasing 
market  efficiency,  including  allocative  efficiency  and  the  reduction  of  information 
asymmetries  (see  section  on  business  models  and  efficiency  below).  This  helps  to  drive 
competitiveness and lower prices. 

Wider  use  of  the  mobile  internet  has  expanded  and  increased  platform  usage  beyond  that 
possible with the traditional internet and has specifically promoted mobility-related services. 
Increasing  technological  sophistication  will  continue  to  drive  other  forms  of  collaborative 
platforms in future and expand the range of collaborative services.29 

In general, the collaborative economy appears to be developing quickly in EU Member States 
with high levels of internet access and usage30 e.g. in the UK, Netherlands and Sweden. This 
suggests better access to goods and services31 and the removal of barriers will be an important 
factor in driving further development. 

Table 3: Internet access and usage (2015) 

Internet access 
(percentage of 
households) 

Broadband 
access 
(percentage of 
households) 

Internet usage 
in the last three 
months  

(percentage of 
individuals) 

e-commerce 
usage 
in the last three 
months 
 (percentage of 
individuals) 

Internet usage via 
mobile phone or smart 
phone (percentage of 
individuals)  

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Denmark 

Sweden 

UK 

Finland 

Germany  

Estonia 

97 

96 

92 

91 

91 

90 

90 

88 

95 

94 

84 

83 

90 

90 

88 

87 

97 

93 

96 

91 

92 

93 

88 

88 

63 

59 

67 

56 

75 

50 

64 

46 

73 

71 

75 

74 

73 

69 

57 

55 

27 

28 
29  

30 

31 

The collaborative economy is part of a wider trend of digitalisation having a profound effect on service industries. 
(http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/Strategyand-Measuring-Industry-Digitisation-Leaders- 
Laggards-Digital-Economy.pdf). 
e.g. Zilok: http://fr.zilok.com/. 
The use of technology by digital platforms has reduced the costs associated with sharing assets and with working 
remotely. At present mainly high-value assets are being shared, although equipment sharing sites are an exception 
to this. However, further technological developments will continue to reduce other implicit and explicit costs. For 
example, the greater indexation of assets via internet protocols, as part of the internet of things, will reduce the time 
and  costs  associated  with  sharing  assets,  by  removing  much  of  the  manual effort  involved in  locating assets  and 
monitoring their usage. Other technological developments, such as platforms offering enhanced video capabilities 
for virtual or augmented reality, are also likely to form the basis for new collaborative services. 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/E-commerce_statistics; 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Information_society_statistics_-
_households_and_individuals. 
https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/better-online-access-digital-goods-and-services_en. 

11 

 
  
  
                                                 
Ireland 

France 

Austria 

Belgium 

Malta 

Czech Republic 

Slovakia 

Spain 

Slovenia 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Latvia 

Poland 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Portugal 

Greece 

Lithuania 

Romania 

Bulgaria 

85 

83 

82 

82 

82 

79 

79 

79 

78 

77 

76 

76 

76 

75 

71 

70 

68 

68 

68 

59 

83 

76 

81 

79 

82 

76 

78 

78 

78 

76 

75 

74 

71 

74 

71 

69 

67 

67 

65 

59 

80 

85 

84 

85 

76 

81 

78 

79 

73 

70 

73 

79 

68 

66 

72 

69 

67 

71 

56 

57 

44 

49 

46 

42 

43 

26 

35 

32 

28 

26 

23 

27 

24 

18 

19 

23 

24 

22 

8 

12 

59 

54 

61 

58 

56 

40 

47 

65 

47 

49 

46 

38 

34 

25 

55 

41 

38 

36 

31 

34 

Source: Eurostat 
Notes: Percentage of households, usage and online purchases within the last three months, mobile usage of the internet. 

In addition to the role of internet technology, societal drivers such as population density also 
appear to play an important role in the development of the collaborative economy. Increasing 
population  density  within  cities  has  provided  the  basis  for  a  critical  mass  of  resources  and 
suppliers  to  support  online  markets  for  localised  services.  As  shown  by  the  figure  below, 
between  2007  and  2013  urban  populations  increased  more  than  the  total  population  in  the 
majority  of  EU  Member  States  for  which  data  were  available.  This  trend  may  provide  a 
greater potential for the development of collaborative services.32 

32  

Data from the Listminut platform, located in Belgium, indicate that earnings for providers located in urban areas 
are higher than those located elsewhere. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: Change in urban population vs change in total population in EU Member 
States (%, 2007-2013) 

Source: own calculations based on Eurostat data 
Notes: Data not available for CY, LU, DE, PL, SL. 
The  collaborative  economy  emerged  quite  recently,33  during  a  period  of  weak  economic 
growth.  Some  features  of  the  current  economic  environment  may  have  helped  drive  both 
supply  and  demand  in  the  collaborative  economy.  For  example,  the  recent  financial  and 
economic crisis has had a lasting impact on the labour market, where there are still high levels 
of  unemployment  and  where  wage  growth  has  been  weak.  These  circumstances  may  have 
created  a  supply-side  push  from  people  seeking  work  opportunities  and  a  demand-side  pull 
from  consumers  seeking  cheaper  alternative  services.  In  addition,  the  weak  investment  and 
financing climate that has persisted since 2008 may have made collaborative business models 
more  attractive  to  enterprises:  by  unlocking  the  value  of  existing  resources  located  in  the 
consumer sector they obviate the need for significant capital expenditure. 

3.1.3.  Collaborative business model 

The collaborative business model is based around a digital internet platform, which creates an 
online marketplace and provides a range of services for buyers and sellers/service providers 
who are, at least in the initial stages of platform development, typically consumers. Services 
provided tend to be intermediation services but can also be ancillary services, e.g. facilitation 
of payments. The business model has been economically disruptive because in some sectors, 
for  example  transport  and  accommodation,  it  has  challenged  the  traditional  ‘pipe’-based 
business  model  whereby  enterprises  supply  and  market  a  service.  Collaborative  platforms 

33 

According to a study by NESTA, 64 % of collaborative enterprises have been founded since 2010. 
http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/making-sense-uk-collaborative-economy. 

13 

BE BG CZ DK EE IE EL ES FR HR IT LV LT HU MT NL AT PT RO SK FI SE UK -15-10-5051015-15-10-5051015ΔpopulationΔurban population 
 
 
                                                 
reach  a  large  scale  quickly  due  to  the  involvement  of  individual  providers,  which  lowers 
barriers to market entry. 

By internalising sales and marketing functions to a platform and externalising the end service 
to individual service providers, collaborative platforms have enabled individual consumers to 
provide marketable services, both by reducing the costs of providing the end service34 and by 
opening up access to markets via the platform.35 

Collaborative  platforms  operate  two  (or  multi)-sided  markets  via  the  desktop  and/or  mobile 
internet,  enabling  interactions  between  two  or  more  distinct  but  interdependent  groups  of 
users in order to generate common value.36 The market development of a two- or multi-sided 
platform is dependent on several factors:  

  network effects;  
  scale economies;  
  congestion;  
  platform differentiation;  
  multi-homing.37  

Network effects (for buyers or sellers) increase together with the growing number of users on 
the same side of the market (direct effects) or the opposite side (indirect effects). In order to 
build  overall  network  value,  online  platforms  may  subsidise  one  side  of  the  network.38 
Collaborative  platforms  often  use  different  pricing  strategies  for  supply  and  demand  and 
asymmetric pricing (Demary 2015). 

Marginal costs of online platforms are low. However, they do incur high fixed costs that result 
in  large  economies  of  scale.39  Economies  of  scale  are  partly  constrained  by  the  level  of 
congestion  on  a  platform,  although  these  are  minimal  for  online  platforms.  Platform 
differentiation can be either vertical, relating to the specific qualities of the product or service 
being traded, or horizontal, relating to the profile of users. Although platform differentiation 
is a driver of the usage of an individual platform, it is not a determinant due to multi-homing, 
which  is  the  practice  of  using  several  platforms  to  fulfil  similar  or  distinct  tasks.  Indirect 
network  effects  and  scale  economies  have  increased  market  concentration  whereas 
congestion, platform differentiation and multi-homing have negative effects. 

Collaborative  platforms  achieve  scale  by  harnessing  the  supply  potential  of  the  consumer 
sector. However, there is a tension between the heterogeneity of supply and a preference on 
the demand side for a minimum service level. This can result in platforms introducing some 

34 

35 

36 

37 
38 

39 

For  example,  user  feedback  ratings  systems  reduce  some  of  the  costs  of  marketing  associated  with  brand 
development in a traditional market. 
Around half of users of free-floating car rental platforms have been found not to own their own vehicle, hence the 
platform has driven demand for car travel. 
https://prod.drive-
now/content.com/fileadmin/user_upload_de/12_Presse/Pressemitteilungen_PDF/Deutsch/2015/2015.03.12-
DriveNow_car2go_Mobilitaetsumfrage.pdf. 
See  Tirole  2014,  EU  2015.  Some  examples  of  online  platforms  are:  search  engines,  online  market  places,  news 
aggregators, media platforms, video sharing platforms, social networks and collaborative economy platforms. 
See Evans 2007, 2016; Schmalensee 2007. 
In many cases platform growth as a whole is subsidised by investment, because many platforms take several years 
before becoming profitable. 
Diseconomies of scale are also possible due to increasing complexity as online platforms expand. 

14 

 
                                                 
standardisation  measures,  such  as  guidelines  on  service  provision,  leasing  standard  types  of 
equipment to providers or in some cases guidance on pricing.40 

Data collected from about 500 national collaborative and resale peer-to-peer platforms in the 
EU show that a large majority of platforms set terms and conditions, and a substantial number 
of platforms fix prices or give guidance on prices. Platforms facilitating transactions based on 
cost-sharing  business  models,  such  as  BlaBlaCar,  set  a  maximum  price.  Platform  business 
models  based  on  exchange  without  monetisation,  such  as  Lovehomeswap,  give  strict  price 
guidance to ensure the value of the living space exchanged is correctly estimated.    
Because transactions on collaborative platforms are not face-to-face communications,41 trust-
building  mechanisms  appear  to  be  important  for  business  development.42  Establishing  trust 
may be more difficult for collaborative platforms than for e-commerce platforms because they 
typically provide a service that is less tangible than manufactured goods, whereas e-commerce 
platforms also use trust-building mechanisms.43 

3.1.4.  Efficiency and competitiveness 

This  section  illustrates  some  of  ways  in  which  collaborative  business  models  may  be 
potentially more efficient than traditional business models. For the purposes of the analysis, a 
typical P2P accommodation model is compared with a traditional hotel service44.45  Some of 
the  efficiency  gains  are  specific  to  platforms  in  the  peer-to-peer  accommodation  sector  but 
many  can  be  generalised  for  all  collaborative  platforms.46  For  example,  the  market 
efficiencies described below are a feature of collaborative platforms in general. 

3.1.4.1.  Prices 

Accommodation providers facilitated by P2P accommodation platforms appear to be able to 
offer lower prices than traditional hotels. Based on the following figures, more than 20 % of 
P2P accommodation in Paris falls into the cheapest price bracket compared to less than 5 % of 
hotel accommodation. 

40  

41 

42 

43 

44 

45  

46 

Ridesharing platforms, such as Blablacar, typically set a maximum price. Other platforms which do not provide a 
financial intermediation service, such as Lovehomeswap, give price guidance to ensure the value of the living space 
exchanged is accurately estimated. 
Notwithstanding  some  platforms’  use  of  video-conferencing  software,  which  largely  substitutes  for  face-to-face 
interaction. 
Establishing trust in services is more difficult than with consumer goods because they are generally less tangible 
and  the  output  is  more  individual  and  less  measurable.  Trust  may  be  established  via  several  methods  including:  
- the transparency of information provided on the platform and the usage of personal data that is submitted;  
- objective ratings and review systems;   
- endorsement from an independent institution or regulatory body to certify the trust building mechanisms.  
See Finley, 2013. 
As  a  consequence,  collaborative  platforms  often  rely  on  other  mechanisms  to  establish  trust,  such  as  ratings  or 
reviews. Platforms also carry out anti-fraud monitoring and action, criminal record checks, verification of user ID, 
monitoring of user activity, insurance for the service provided and complaint handling. 
The  analysis  is  based  on  the  findings  of  an  impulse  paper  carried  out  by  the  Cologne  Institute  of  Economic 
Research on behalf of the Commission for use in this Communication. 
Due  to  data  limitations  it  is  not  possible  to  analyse  efficiency  or  productivity  at  an  aggregate  level  in  the 
collaborative economy, therefore a ‘case-study’ approach was adopted. 
The efficiencies described below are realisable in theory but not automatically realised in practice by every peer-to-
peer accommodation platform. This is because this depends on factors which determine business performance in 
general, and these are not necessarily linked to the collaborative economy. 

15 

 
                                                 
 
 
Figure 3: Price of P2P accommodation versus hotel accommodation 
Percentage of accommodation offered per price bracket (per person per night) 

Source: CIER 

The pattern of prices above may reflect efficiencies in the P2P model. However, differences 
in the type of accommodation being provided may also have an effect.47 

3.1.4.2.  P2P market efficiencies 

Online P2P markets create two potential sources of efficiency: 

i)  a  reduction  in  information  asymmetries,  through  more  information  and  more  objective 
information on buyers and providers, which enables better matching of demand and supply. 
This  fosters  market  efficiency  because  market  players  act  rationally  based  on  the  same 
information48  (CIER  2016).  Ratings  systems  on  buyers  and  sellers/service  providers  are 
instrumental in this respect. 

ii)  An  increase  in  allocative  efficiency,  i.e.  the  optimal  distribution  of  goods  according  to 
preferences, due to the positive network effects of platforms. These result in a deeper market 
that offers greater potential to match the preferences of buyers and providers (e.g. hosts and 
guests  in  the  accommodation  sector).  Allocative  efficiency  is  also  facilitated  by  the  digital 
aspects of P2P platforms, which offer buyers in particular better search possibilities.49 

47  

48 

49 

For  example,  accommodation  listed  on  Airbnb  appears  to  be  spread  more  broadly  across  urban  areas  than 
traditional hotel accommodation, which is clustered in city centres (Zervas et al 2015). This is likely to lower the 
average price of accommodation offered by Airbnb compared to hotels. 
The  level  of  transparency  of  information  is  relatively  high  on  collaborative  platforms.  In  the  traditional  business 
model, most information on service quality is given by individual providers, and hence is not readily comparable 
and transparent. By contrast, in the collaborative business model some information on service quality is provided 
by users. In addition, it is generally easier to select between individual service providers on a collaborative platform 
because information is collected together in a single online market rather than distributed across the internet. In this 
respect, (implicit) transaction costs are reduced. 
A  de  facto  indication  of  the  greater  efficiency  of  P2P  accommodation  may  also  be  the  increasing  number  of 
professional  providers  using  P2P  platforms.  In  this  respect,  the  fastest  growing  part  of  Airbnb  rentals  is  that  of 
hosts  offering  multiple  accommodation  spaces: 
these  account  for  almost  40  %  of  Airbnb  revenues 
(O’Neill/Ouyang, 2016). The attractiveness of P2P accommodation to professional providers is most likely due to 
the positive network effects of platforms, which increase allocative efficiency and thereby reduce transaction costs 
even after deducting platform commissions. 

16 

 
 
                                                 
Greater  resource  efficiency  can  be  achieved  through  increased  allocative  efficiency.  For 
example,  through  the  use  of  digital  platform  technology,  ridesharing  services  may  enable 
more efficient usage of cars by matching supply and demand more quickly. This reduces the 
idle time between trips and may give rise to environmental benefits. 

An  increase  in  allocative  efficiency  may  also  improve  skill  development  because  more 
efficient matching of supply and demand implies that workers are able to market their skills 
more effectively. 

3.1.4.3.  P2P business model versus traditional model 

This  section  provides  a  detailed  comparative  analysis  of  the  P2P  accommodation  business 
model  compared  to  a  traditional  hotel.  The  aim  is  to  highlight  where  there  are  potentially 
significant differences between both models in terms of labour and capital efficiency. 

The  processes  of  searching  for,  booking  and  using  accommodation  through  a  collaborative 
platform and through a traditional hotel can be divided into three stages: before, during and 
after the stay. The following table highlights the main differences between a P2P platform and 
a traditional hotel service with respect to the use of capital and labour inputs.50 It also assesses 
secondary economic effects. 

Table 4: Comparative analysis of P2P accommodation business model with a traditional 
hotel service 

Stage 1: Before Stay 

Input 

Capital 

Labour/time 

Hotel 

P2P platform 

per 

  Hotel: very high; e.g. economy hotel 
development 
room 
costs 
estimated  to  be  USD 87 000  (Hotel 
land, 
Online 
construction,  soft  costs  (interests, 
furniture,  equipment,  pre-
fees), 
opening 
capital; 
marketing 

and  working 

2015);51 

incl. 

 

Platform:  high  costs  for  initial  technological 
setup  incl.  servers;  low  capital  costs  with 
regard to property, land, etc. 

  Host:  minor  equipment  costs  (extra  linen 

etc.) 

Lower capital input in collaborative case52 

answering 

  Hotel:  website  setup  (incl.  photos; 
for  website; 
support 
requests; 

once); 
IT 
receptionist 
support staff, e.g. for marketing 
  Guest:  search  costs  depending  on 
familiarity  with  internet  search  and 
travel  destination/hotel  brands,  level 
of 
requests; 
communication with hotel (booking) 

pickiness/special 

 

Platform:  website  setup  (once); extensive  IT 
support  for  website;  costs  for  maintaining 
community;  possibly  support  staff,  e.g.  for 
marketing;  photographers;  no  receptionist 
needed;  capital and  labour  costs  spread  over 
large  number  of  users  (marginal  costs  close 
to zero) 

  Host:  profile  setup  (once);  communication 
with guest; storing personal belongings 
  Guest:  profile  setup  (once);  search  costs; 

Other input 

  Hotel: community not important; big 
data processing not applicable 
(except for very large hotel chains) 

 

communication with host. 
Platform:  number  of  users/community 
extremely  important  due  to  network  effects; 
big data to improve search algorithm; trust 

Lower labour operating input in collaborative case 

50 

51 

52 

In order to appreciate these efficiencies, the experience of booking accommodation through a P2P platform can be 
compared  to  searching  for  hotel  accommodation  using  other  methods,  for  example  searching  for  a  hotel  via  a 
standard internet search engine. 
An  older  estimate  is  that  of  Gellersen  (2009),  who  estimates  the  costs  at  about  EUR 32 000  per  room.  Pfeiffer 
(2014) speaks of at least EUR 25 000 per room. 
The lower capital input in the collaborative case is based on the assumption that capital resources have already been 
purchased by hosts for private usage. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Output 

  Accommodation offer with dynamic 

pricing options 

  Reliable booking 

  Very  diverse  and  flexible  accommodation 
offer (12 609 active Airbnb listings in Berlin 
(Airdna,  2016)); 
to 
extended market. 

low  entry  barrier 

  Reduced 

information 

low 
transaction  costs;  guests  and  hosts  benefit 
from network effects 

asymmetry; 

Comparative 
efficiency 

More  reliable;  lower  initial  coordination 
costs  between  hotel  and  guest  (but  also 
more information asymmetry) 

  Discrimination based on profile possible 
Reduced  transaction  costs  (search)  despite  higher 
coordination  requirements;  market  efficiency; 
allocative efficiency 

Stage 2: During stay 

Hotel 

P2P platform 

Input 

Capital 

  Hotel:  maintenance/operating  costs 

of hotel 

 

automated 

Platform:  maintenance/operating  costs  of 
offices; 
handling 
(basically  at  zero  cost);  insurance  fees; 
extensive  negotiations  with  municipalities 
worldwide about tax rules, accountability etc. 
  Host:  operating  costs  of  accommodation 

payment 

(energy) 

  Guest: price for accommodation (often lower 

  Guest: price for accommodation 

than for hotel) 

Lower capital input in collaborative case 

Labour/time 

  Hotel:  very  high  operating  labour 
costs  for  service,  cleaning,  security, 
management etc. 

 

Platform: 24h hotline in different languages, 
IT specialists, management 

  Host: check-in/-out, guest advice, attendance 
in case of problems; investments in trust 

  Guest: 
solving 

check-in/-out, 

problem-

  Guest: 

check-in, 

problem-solving 
(potentially  more  time-intense  than  in  hotel 
case), self-service (cleaning) 

Output 

  High 

level  of  security,  hygiene, 

  Guests:  local  experience;  access  to  useful 

Lower labour input in collaborative case 

professionalism, accountability; 
  No  significant  negative  externalities 

on neighbourhood 

  No avoidance of tourism taxes 
  Allegedly  no  significant  effect  of 
increasing  number  of  hotels  on 
number  of  tourists  (unless  demand 
was higher than supply) 
  Disinvestments in hotels 

Efficiency advantages  Professionalism; safety; internalisation of 

externalities 

Stage 3: After stay 

amenities, budget-conscious 

  Hosts  can  earn  additional  income  for  idle 
assets  (Berlin:  EUR  2 520/year  (GEWOS, 
(Airbnb, 
2014);  NYC,  USD 5 110/year 
2015a)); 
economic 
sustainability 

environmental 

and 

  Negative  externalities:  diminished  housing 
supply, higher competition for public goods; 
noise; free-riding; unclear legal situation 

  More tourism (non-touristic areas)53 
 
Investments in private apartments 
Allocation efficiency; price efficiency 

Traditional economy 

Collaborative economy 

Input 

Capital 

  Hotel: replacement of 

damaged/missing equipment 

  Host/platform: replacement of 

damaged/missing equipment 

Capital input similar in the traditional and collaborative economy 

Labour/ 
time 

  Hotel: cleaning 

  Host/guest: evaluation 
  Host: cleaning 

Lower labour input in traditional case 

53  

San Francisco Airbnb guests averaged greater total trip expenditures than hotel guests (USD 1 100 vs USD 840) 
and were particularly likely to visit and spend money in areas outside of the tourist core since many Airbnb guests 
stayed  in  those  areas  (72  %  of  the  city’s  Airbnb  listings  were  located  outside  of  the  six  central  postcodes,  as 
compared with 26 % of hotels) (Airbnb, 2012; Lawler, 2012). 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Output 

  Hotel quickly available for new 

guests 

Efficiency advantages  Professionalism 

  Accommodation available for host or new 

guests 
Information on accommodation experience 

 
Reduction of information asymmetries: low 
quality driven out of the market 

Source: CIER 

The analysis contained in  the above table indicates  that most  of the potential  efficiencies in 
the  P2P  accommodation  business  model  are  derived  from  the  positive  market  (network) 
effects  of  the  P2P  model  and  lower  capital  inputs.  Lower  capital  input  is  mainly  a 
consequence  of  using  private  capital  for  commercial  purposes,  i.e.  spare  accommodation 
which  has  already  been  purchased  and  for  which  the  overheads  are  partly  covered  by 
overheads  on  a  private  property.  The  comparative  efficiency  of  labour  inputs  as  a  whole  is 
less clear. Whereas even the largest collaborative platforms generally employ comparatively 
small  workforces54  when  compared  to  the  large  amount  of  accommodation  available,  the 
labour involved on the part of hosts is clearly a significant input. 

The analysis would need adjustment in view of:  

 

 

the  explosive  growth  of  the  short-term  accommodation  platforms  market,  which  is 
shifting  from  ‘shared  space’  to  ‘short-term  rented’  accommodation  and  from  single 
rooms to whole-unit and host-absent rentals;  
the  emergence  of  specialised  local  handling  agencies  (‘hosting  services’)  for  short-
term rentals via platforms.55 

3.1.5.  Effect of regulation on development 

The impact of the regulatory environment on the development of the collaborative economy is 
two-sided.  Horizontal  regulation,  such  as  employment  regulation,56  may  affect  the 
development  of  collaborative  platforms  generally  whereas  vertical  regulation  may  have  an 
impact  on  the  development  of  collaborative  platforms  within  sectors.  Also,  the  regulatory 
environment surrounding the services offered by the collaborative economy is more complex 
than  that  surrounding  typical  e-commerce  platforms  selling  goods  for  example.  This  is 
because  regulation  is  applied  at  national,  sector,  regional  and  local  level,  and  much  of  this 
regulation is specific to Member States. 

Regulation  surrounding  collaborative  services  can  affect  development  of  collaborative 
platforms  in  several  ways.  Firstly,  the  consultation  exercises  carried  out  for  this 
communication  have  shown  that  there  is  large  degree  of  confusion  surrounding  regulatory 
rights  and  obligations,  including  taxation,  on  the  part  of  participants  in  the  collaborative 
economy.  This  may  deter  some  people  from  participating  in  the  collaborative  economy  and 
restrict its development. 

Secondly, collaborative platforms achieve scale largely by harnessing the supply potential of 
individual consumers who wish to act as providers. However, as noted above, many potential 
providers only use the collaborative economy as a means to gain a small amount of earnings 
on an occasional basis. Therefore they may be unable to support the costs associated with full 
regulatory  compliance.  For  example,  the  development  of  peer-to-peer  home  meal  making 
services may be restricted due to the need for providers to comply with full health and safety 
regulations. 

54  
55  
56  

Based on reported figures, even the largest platforms have no more than several hundred employees in the EU. 
See for example HOTREC, Levelling the Playing Field — Policy Paper on the sharing economy, November 2015. 
For example, the employment classification of service providers in relation to platforms has the potential to have an 
impact on business development. 

19 

 
                                                 
Thirdly,  differences  in  national  regulation  lead  to  market  fragmentation  at  EU  level.  Such 
fragmentation presents a barrier to establishing the same business model in several Member 
States, because in each Member State collaborative platforms and/or individual suppliers have 
an obligation to comply with a different set of rules and regulations. For example, in practice, 
collaborative platforms are often obliged to employ legal services in each country of operation 
to examine the detailed legal and regulatory environment before taking a decision on whether 
to  expand  into  another  Member  State.  This  significantly  adds  to  the  costs  associated  with 
expansion and hence deters business development. 

Finally, regulatory uncertainty on new collaborative business models creates a risk of future 
legal challenges, which can also deter investment in collaborative businesses and particularly 
cross-border  expansion.  This  risk  is  heightened  due  to  the  different  treatment  of  the  same 
business model in different Member States, which contributes to the danger of fragmentation 
of the single market. 
Although  the  actual  impact  of  regulation  on  development  varies  according  to  sector,57    the 
relatively  few  cross-border  collaborative  platforms  or  collaborative  platforms  where  the 
services  are  realised  offline58  and  locally  that  have  expanded  across  the  EU  suggests  that 
regulation is having a significant impact on business development. 

This  section  focuses  on  three  sectors  in  which  the  collaborative  business  model  has  had  a 
significant market impact. The development of the three sectors also illustrates the impact of 
some of the main regulatory issues identified above. 
The  following  sections  also  include  a  summarised  case  study  taken  from  each  sector59  to 
illustrate the development of collaborative platforms in practice. 

3.1.6.  Peer-to-peer transportation 

Out of the sectors in which the collaborative economy has penetrated, existing regulation in 
the transport sector has probably had the greatest impact on the development of collaborative 
platforms. Ridesharing platforms have faced significant regulatory challenges over their peer-
to-peer business model. 

In  the  EU,  there  have  been  few  examples  of  new  legislation  similar  to  transport  network 
companies  (TNC)  legislation  in  the  US.60  As  a  consequence,  in  most  Member  States  the 
business  model  adopted  by  ridesharing  platforms  has  operated  on  the  basis  of  licenced 
drivers. Within this framework, licensing requirements, and in particular costs, appear to have 
had an impact on business development. For example, growth in ridesharing services has been 
stronger  in  the  UK,  where  there  are  typically  minimal  licensing  requirements.61  Non-profit 

57  

58 

59 

60  

61  

For  example,  in  the  peer-to-peer  accommodation  sector,  growth  is  dependent  on  the  physical  location  of  the 
accommodation services being provided and on the amount of supply. 
For  example,  Uber,  Airbnb  and  BlaBlacar,  Carjump  and  Drivy.  There  are  several  cross-border  skills  platforms 
where services are realised virtually. 
The case studies are based on those produced by PwC consulting as part of a specific contract and commissioned 
for use in this Communication. 
Bespoke legislation for ridesharing services has been implemented in Finland and Estonia. In a few other member 
states, the UberPOP service, using non-professionally licenced drivers, has been permitted to operate. 
The  International  Transport  Forum  has  proposed  that  data  collected  from  ridesharing  platforms  on  the  service 
performance of individual drivers might be used by regulators to monitor driver performance, possibly as a partial 
substitute  for  licensing.  In  this  way,  drivers  might  be  subject  to  a  lighter  initial  licensing  procedure,  while  still 
agreeing to submit performance information in the future.     
http://www.itf-oecd.org/data-driven-transport-policy-framework-location-data-privacy-and-sharing,  
http://www.itf-oecd.org/principles-regulation-hire-road-transport-passenger-services. 

20 

 
                                                 
ridesharing platforms have not been significantly affected by regulation, although there have 
been some regulatory and legal hurdles in the countries it has operated in.62  

An important challenge for ridesharing in  the EU is  the variety of VAT rules  and a lack of 
clarity around the legal status of the money collected by drivers via platforms. 

Platform: BlaBlaCar 

Description 

Blablacar is a long-distance ridesharing service, founded in 2006 (under the name Comuto — coviturage.fr) in 
France.  The  platform  connects  drivers  travelling  between  cities  with  empty  seats  to  individuals  looking  to 
travel the same way. The company has grown from 1 million members in 2011 to 25 million in 2015 and now 
facilitates over 2.5 million journeys per month, more journeys than are taken on the Eurostar. Blablacar has 
expanded  from  its  home  market  to  over  22  countries,  including  15  in  the  EU.  Most  recently,  the  platform 
launched in eastern European countries including Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 

Business model 

Blablacar  drivers  typically  use  the  platform  to  share  costs  of  making  long  journeys,  but  also  to  meet  new 
people  and  to  share  some  company.  The  platform  estimates  that  its  drivers  have  saved  GBP 216 million 
annually,  reducing  carbon  emissions  by  an  estimated  1  million  tonnes  of  CO2.  Blablacar’s  revenue  model 
works by charging a fee on each transaction facilitated by the platform. Currently, BlaBlaCar offers payment 
services in approximately half of the countries in which it operates in the EU. Blablacar prevents drivers from 
using the platform for profit-making purposes by setting a cap on prices and on the number of seats available. 
Blablacar recommends a price to drivers and does not allow them to adjust it by more than 50 %. Blablacar 
sets a maximum price for each trip to ensure that peer providers respect cost-sharing and do not operate for 
profit. 

Key drivers of growth and cross-border expansion: 

 

 

 

the high cost of owning and maintaining cars (particularly for the Millennial generation who tend to 
be less motivated by car ownership); 

the level of existing transport infrastructure and the pricing of alternatives; 

the  cultural  fit  and  degree  of  openness  of  the  population  to  sharing  car  journeys  (for  example,  the 
difference in BlaBlaCar’s performance between France and the UK is largely explained by the more 
positive attitudes of the French towards ridesharing); 

  Public understanding of the difference between alternative ridesharing concepts (many consumers do 
not fully understand the purpose of BlaBlaCar’s service — i.e. for drivers to share costs rather than 
to make a profit from rides). 

3.1.7.  Peer-to-peer accommodation 

In  most  Member  States,  consumers  and  other  types  of  providers  are  able  to  offer  spare 
accommodation via collaborative platforms, subject to conditions that are typically stated in 
terms of annual daily limits.63 While it is clear that the level of the threshold has an impact on 
the  supply  capacity  of  collaborative  platforms,  it  is  also  clear  that  demand  factors,  partly 
described above, also play an important role in the development of collaborative platforms. 
As  part  of  this  process,  some  Member  States  have  introduced  restrictions  to  limit  the  total 
amount  of  time  the  accommodation  is  available  and  prevented  commercial  enterprises  from 
being active on the platform (e.g. limiting multiple rentals, limitations on revenue made from 
accommodation). 

62 
63 

For regulatory details, see section 4.2.1. 
See section 4.2.2. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
Platform: Airbnb 

Description 
Airbnb  is  an  online  platform  mainly  offering  peer-to-peer  accommodation,  founded  in  2008  in  the  US.  It 
allows individuals to rent their spare room or entire home to travellers looking for accommodation. At present, 
Airbnb lists nearly 2 million properties in 191 countries worldwide. 60 % of these are in Europe and six of the 
platform’s top 10 global cities by revenue are European. Paris is Airbnb’s most popular city, with over 54 000 
listings. 
Business model 
The motivation of Airbnb hosts is generally to generate extra income from space in their own home or in other 
properties.  Guests  using  Airbnb  are  generally  looking  for  an  authentic  travel  experience,  the  opportunity  to 
live  like  a  local  and  to  save  extra  money.  Airbnb’s  analysis  suggests  that  guests  tend  to  stay  longer  in  the 
country  they  are  visiting  and  spend  more  than  visitors  staying  at  hotels.  Airbnb’s  revenue  model  works  by 
charging a flat commission from hosts and a transaction fee from travellers. 

Key drivers of growth and expansion 

 
 
 
 
 

the prevalence of urban conurbations popular with international tourists; 
the cultural fit and openness of the population to extend their spare space to a guest; 
digital infrastructure and literacy of the population; 
positive word of mouth; 
a regulatory environment permitting short-term accommodation letting. 

3.1.8.  Online labour markets 

In  contrast  to  other  sectors  of  the  collaborative  economy  described  above,  online  labour 
markets:64  

  are more horizontal in scope;65  
  do not include the use of major assets as part of a service;  
 

in practice cover several vertical sectors which are less developed economically than 
the two sectors described above. 

Online workers are typically:  
independent;  

 
  either seeking part-time work or additional income to permanent employment;  
  operating with freelance or self-employed status (see employment section below).  

Online markets cover professional as well as unskilled labour. 

The online labour market can be broadly separated into professional or ‘skilled’ activities and 
unskilled labour. The online labour market for professional activities is more sensitive to:  

 

 

regulation,  in  particular  the  classification  of  what  constitutes  a  professional  service; 
and  
the  thresholds  under  which  services  can  be  provided  by  individuals,  or  ‘non-
professionals’,  specified  in  terms  of  working  days  and/or  financial  amounts  (see 
below).  

Much  of  the  skilled  work  exchanged  on  platforms  can  be  classified  as  ‘virtual  services’, 
which  can  be  performed  irrespective  of  physical  location.66  This  type  of  labour  presents  a 

64  

65 

For a discussion of the challenges posed by labour platforms see Codagnone, C., Abadie F. and Biagi, F., (2016). 
The  future  of  work  in  the  ‘Collaborative  Economy’:  Market  Efficiency  and  Equitable  Opportunities  or  Unfair 
Precarisation?  JRC  Science  for  Policy  Report,  Luxembourg:  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union  Studies 
(forthcoming). 
They cover more than one service sector within the official statistical classification schemes, e.g. NACE. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
greater challenge for regulation both at national and EU level because it is widely exchanged 
across borders in a similar way to merchandise trade. Much unskilled work can be classified 
as ‘physical services’, which are performed locally67.68 

The online labour market is made up of many small platforms with a few very large players,69 
although not all of them are present in Europe. In general, online labour markets appear to be 
supply-driven.  There  is  no  indication  that  platforms  grow  spontaneously.  Rather,  constant 
optimisation  techniques,  including  design  features,  are  required  to  match  the  supply  and 
demand sides of the market in order to scale up a platform. Many online labour platforms are 
still in their infancy and display inefficiencies when matching supply and demand. Although 
currently online labour markets are small, their rapid growth gives them the potential to have 
an impact on the overall labour market in future. 

Because online labour markets cover several vertical services, the regulatory issues are more 
heterogeneous.  However,  to  illustrate  the  regulatory  challenges  faced  by  online  skills 
providers,  it  is  instructive  to  cite  the  example  of  non-profit  meal  sharing,  which  is  partially 
affected by the same type of issues as non-profit ridesharing (see case study below). 

Platform: Share Your Meal 

Description 

ShareYourMeal  is  a  non-profit  foodsharing  platform  founded  in  2011  in  the  Netherlands.  The  platform 
enables  home  chefs  to  share  their  cooking  with  people  in  their  local  neighbourhood.  ShareYourMeal  has 
grown to 10 000 home cooks and 75 000 users on its platform, It operates predominantly in the Netherlands. 

Business model 

ShareYourMeal aims  to  have  a  positive  social impact  by  connecting  neighbours  and  creating  stronger  local 
communities through the act of sharing food. For example, it has worked with local communities to develop a 
special programme that match vulnerable people with home cooks so they can eat healthier and get to know 
their neighbours. 

Social impact 

Since  its  inception  in  2014,  the  platform  has  paired  over  360  people,  generated  over  14 800  meetings  and 
19 200 meals shared. Over 91 % of vulnerable people connected feel that the experience helped to improve 
their  quality  of  life  significantly,  and  51 %  of  the  home  cooks  help  with  other  household  tasks  outside  of 
cooking. 

Growth drivers 

 
 
 

the cultural fit and openness of the population to sharing a meal with their neighbours; 
the strength and resilience of local communities; 
a conducive regulatory environment and vocal support from local public sector bodies. 

Regulatory issues 

In  general,  tax  legislation  in  the  EU  does  not  differentiate  between  cost-sharing  ventures  and  commercial 
enterprises. The Netherlands has chosen to treat ShareYourMeal’s activity as non-profit making, whereas in 

66 

67 

68  

69 

There are several online labour platforms for skilled tasks such as software development or design, for example, 
https://www.elance.com/. This also means that higher skilled work is more open to cross-border competition than 
lower skilled tasks, which are performed offline. 
There  are  exceptions  in  both  cases.  For  example,  there  are  unskilled  virtual  tasks  such  as  checking  restaurant 
reviews  via  Amazon  Mechanical  Turk,  as  well  as  skilled  tasks  requiring  physical  presence,  such  as  architectural 
work. 
A  detailed  taxonomy  of  the  online  labour  market  is  developed  in  Codagnone,  C.  and  Biagi,  F.,  (2016),  The 
Passions  and  the  Interests:  Unpacking  the  Sharing  Economy,  JRC  Science  for  Policy  Report,  Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union Studies, forthcoming. 
For example, Task Rabbit and Amazon Mechanical Turk. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
 
Belgium  the  tax  authority  proposed  that  VAT  should  applied  to  foodsharing  services  and  that  home  cooks 
should be subject to income tax. The platform has provided information indicating that home cooks use the 
platform to share grocery costs, charge an average price per meal of under EUR 4.50 and receive in Belgium 
an average annual turnover of EUR 120. 

In addition, there is a distinction between commercial food safety and hygiene regulations and those applied 
to home-catering platforms. In this respect, the food hygiene authority visited some home cooks to verify that 
they were applying food hygiene standards. This restricted platform development in Belgium because many 
home caterers were unable to comply with the hygiene standards of traditional commercial enterprises without 
incurring significant costs. 

3.3. 

Stakeholder workshops — examples of collaborative economy business models 

3.1.9.  Engaging with stakeholders 

Under  the  umbrella  of  the  Single  Market  Forum,  the  Commission  organised  a  series  of 
stakeholders’  workshops  on  the  collaborative  economy  in  several  European  cities.  The 
purpose  of  the  workshops  was  to  develop  a  deeper  understanding  of  the  collaborative 
economy  and  hear  from  the  business  community,  local  and  national  authorities,  as  well  as 
academics, think tanks and NGOs. The discussions were held using a participatory leadership 
style, which helped to:  

 

 

identify the most innovative business models;  

reveal the challenges of the collaborative economy;  

  debate the most appropriate forms of regulation.  

Participating  stakeholders  welcomed  the  workshops  as  a  new  way  of  designing  policy  and 
facilitating communication between entrepreneurs, regulators and civil society. 

The findings of the workshops show that the collaborative economy is producing a range of 
innovative enterprises that are providing new services and changing the way existing services 
are being provided. To some extent, entrepreneurs in the collaborative economy face similar 
challenges to startups all over Europe:  

  difficult access to finance;  

 

relationships with the authorities that are not always smooth;  

  some barriers for expanding cross-border.  

In terms of what is specific to the collaborative economy, workshop participants emphasised 
the  convenience  and  user-friendliness  of  the  new  business  models,  as  well  as  the  emerging 
consumer behaviour, which involves moving from ownership towards access.  

Among the most debated issues were the unclear legislative framework, including for paying 
taxes,  as  a  fair  number of  market  participants in  the  collaborative  economy  are  actually  not 
aware of the legislation that applies to them. Most stakeholders expressed the need for a tool-
box for regulatory good practices and asked regulators for some built-in flexibility and out-of-
the-box thinking.  

Another  hotly  debated  issue  was  that  of  trust,  especially  for  those  consumers  that  are  more 
risk-averse  and  worry  about  unwanted  effects  of  sharing  an  asset,  such  as  the  item  being 

24 

 
damaged  or  stolen.  The  discussions  centred  on  the  fact  that  businesses  in  the  collaborative 
economy  have  a  potential  solution  for  overcoming  lack  of  trust,  as  on  platforms,  users  and 
transactions are always traceable. 

Below is a selection of some innovative business models identified during the workshops.70 

Peer-to-peer accommodation 
Handiscover  is  an  accommodation-booking  website  that  matches  hosts  with  visitors  with  physical 
disabilities. Handiscover is built around a classification system that allows users to select accommodation 
based  on  their  level  of  physical  disability.  This  system  takes  into  account  various  features  of  an 
accommodation, such as the number of thresholds and stairs, the width of the doors, the walking distance, 
etc. Handiscover has now had over 15 000 visitors from all over the world, matched with approximately 500 
hosts in 10 different countries. The idea came from the personal experience of the founder, who has a son 
who needs a wheelchair when travelling. While over 10 % of the population has a physical disability or is 
affected by one, it is relatively easy to travel around Europe: most cities have a good level of accessibility in 
transportation, public spaces and facilities. The biggest challenge for the business comes from the complex 
formalities for paying taxes in all the different countries it operates in. 
Peer-to-peer transport 
Drivy is a peer-to-peer car rental service based in Paris, Berlin and Barcelona. It has more than 35 000 cars 
from peers available to rent all across Europe. There are no registration fees, car owners can list their cars 
for free and can also set the price, time and duration of rental. Allianz, with which Drivy has partnered for 
providing  insurance,  automatically  covers  all  rentals.  The  biggest  challenge  for  the  business  is  to  make 
people  aware  that  if  their  car  sits  idle  23  hours  a  day,  there  is  a  way  to  reduce  the  cost  of  owning  a  car: 
instead of having 10 people using 10 cars, you can have 10 people using 1 car. 
Sennder is a German company that offers same-day parcel delivery by using free/unoccupied space in the 
luggage  compartments  of  long-haul  buses.  The  company  uses  only  existing  infrastructure,  including  for 
security screening. It has partnered with one of Europe’s largest long-distance bus operator, FlixBus, as well 
as  city  couriers  and  shops  where  packages  can  be  dropped  off.  The  first  route  was  Berlin-Hamburg,  and 
during the first month of operation, approximately 1 000 parcels were delivered door-to-door. The company 
has  a  goal  of  delivering  packages  cross-border  at  the  price  of  national  deliveries  by  the  end  of  2016, 
potentially adding business in five more countries by 2017. The target clients are e-commerce players and 
businesses, as well as private individuals. 
Baghitch is a Swedish company that matches drivers either on the road or planning a trip with people who 
need various bulkier objects delivered, such as furniture. Drivers and senders agree on a date and time for 
pick up. Prices are fixed and freight insurance is included for up to SEK 2 500. Both drivers and senders rate 
each other after the experience. The company has approximately 1 750 members up to date, with 150 active 
drivers in Sweden, and has just started operation in neighbouring Denmark. 
Carjump  is  a  German  platform  aggregator that allows people  to find  and  compare vehicles  from  different 
carsharing  providers.  The  mission  of  the  company  is  to  provide  people  with  easy  access  to  a  variety  of 
vehicles and enable them to book directly via the dedicated app. Users can see cars from major carsharing 
providers in their area, find the closest one, compare offers and book the best fit. The business has already 
expanded into Italy, Netherlands, France and the Scandinavian countries. The company has faced challenges 
over ensuring the safety of data, specifically over complying with regulations for storing and transmitting 
data. 
Online skills 
Sir Local is a Polish platform that connects providers of what are called ‘home services’, such as plumbing, 
home  appliance  repair,  including  electrical  appliances  and  other  handyman  works,  with  people  who  need 
those services. The company operates in over 40 cities, has dealt with over 400 000 customer calls and has 
over 1 300  service  providers, out of which half hold  licences  for  providing  those  services.  The  idea came 
from the difficulty plumbers had to convert internet marketing and ads into customers. 
Dooify is an online community where members can share experiences and knowledge and use their skills to 
offer  help.  Dooify  works  as  a  time  bank  where  the  currency  used  is  hours  spent,  which  are  accumulated 
either by providing services or by recruiting more members. All services are valued equally. Accrued hours 

70 

The  examples  come  from  the  workshops  held  in  Stockholm,  Berlin  and  Bucharest  during  November  2015  — 
March 2016. 

25 

 
                                                 
are spent freely on the available services; two hours are offered for free when signing up. There are currently 
250 services available and some 700 registered members. 
Peer-to-peer financing 
PolakPotrafi.pl is a Polish crowdfunding platform that has been active for five years and has funded about 
1 100 projects worth a total of EUR 3 million. Projects that have been supported by the platform have either 
an art or a technology component. Examples of projects are the creation of a lavender museum in eastern 
Poland, for which EUR 15 000 were raised, and Shut-out — an application dedicated to graphics, design and 
photography.  After  the  fund-raising  phase,  the  platform  deals  with  the  issue  of  trust  by  checking  if  the 
projects have been completed in line with the specifications in the initial description. 
Crestemidei.ro is a Romanian crowdfunding platform that has funded more than 30 projects totalling more 
than  EUR 65 000.  The  platform  focuses  on  innovative  projects  that  generate  positive  impact  in  the 
community.  The  biggest  challenges  for  the  company  are  to  find  people  with  good  ideas  willing  to  try 
crowdfunding  as  a  funding  method,  as  well  as  to  educate  project  owners  on  how  to  run  a  crowdfunding 
campaign.  In  a  recent  poll,  80 %  of  the  platform  participants  said  they  would  continue  to  finance  similar 
innovative projects.   
Peer-to-peer rental of household items 
Leihbar is a German company that proposes a different model of consumption. For a small fee, people who 
want tools such as drills, household equipment or electronics book the needed item via the website and then 
pick it up from the location closest to them. This business model involves partnering with host locations in 
every neighbourhood, such as kiosks or shops, as well as producers and startups that are experimenting with 
product-as-a-service business models. At the moment, the company has seven partner shops in Berlin and 
different  arrangements  with six  manufacturers. While  customers  enjoy  the  convenience  of  the  system,  the 
incentive for producers is a different consumption model that increases the life span of a given product. The 
biggest challenge for the business is to reach customers and make them aware that when they need a tool or 
equipment, buying is not the only option. 
Klädoteket  is  a  Swedish  fashion  library  where  clothes  and  accessories  can  be  rented  and  swapped.  Its 
mission is to inspire people and show that it is possible to be both fashionable and environmentally friendly. 
The  company  offers  a  mix  of  second  hand,  vintage  and  new  items  from  several  collaborations  with 
designers.  Different  levels  of  subscriptions  are  offered,  each  of  which  proposes  a  different  quantity  of 
products to customers. There is also a weekend subscription, tailored for customers who only rent for special 
occasions. There is a time limit of four weeks, within which customers can exchange items as often as they 
like. 

4. 

NATIONAL REGULATIONS ON THE COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY 

The  collaborative  economy’s  rapid  development  has  brought  it  to  the  attention  of  Member 
States, either because they see it as an opportunity or a challenge, or a mix of the two. The 
positions  Member  States  adopt  towards  collaborative  economy  activities  can  vary  greatly, 
ranging  from  explicit  support  to  prohibition  of  certain  activities.  Moreover,  these  responses 
may  differ  depending  on  the  sector  concerned  and  vary  from  region  to  region  or  from 
municipality to municipality. 

At the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, the Commission carried out a legal mapping of 
existing  regulations  covering  accommodation/tourism,  ridesharing/carsharing  and  business 
services  sectors  in  selected  cities  in  Belgium,  Germany,  Estonia,  Spain,  Finland,  France, 
Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania,  Sweden  and  the  United 
Kingdom.71 This section outlines the main outcomes of the legal mapping and highlights the 
main trends regarding:  

 

the  distinction  between  peers  providing  services  on  an  occasional  basis  and 
professional service providers;  

71  

Brussels  (Belgium),  Berlin  (Germany),  Tallinn  (Estonia),  Barcelona  (Spain),  Helsinki  (Finland),  Paris  (France), 
Budapest  (Hungary),  Dublin  (Ireland),  Milan,  Rome  (Italy),  Valetta  (Malta),  Amsterdam  (the  Netherlands), 
Warsaw (Poland), Bucharest (Romania), Stockholm (Sweden) and London (the United Kingdom). 

26 

 
                                                 
  market access requirements;  
  protection of users;  
  employment;  
 
taxation. 

4.1. 

Distinction between ‘peers’ and professional services providers 

The distinction between a peer providing services on an occasional basis and a professional 
provider  of  a  service  is  decisive  for  a  range  of  areas  of  law,  ranging  from  authorisations  to 
consumer protection or taxation.72 Many regulatory obligations will only apply to one of these 
categories,  e.g.  as  regards  authorisations  and  licensing  requirements,  the  taxation  of  the 
activities and the establishment of an employment relationship. 

Member  States  have  approached  these  issues  very  differently.  Many  have  established 
thresholds  which  set  the  line  for  characterising  a  provider  as  a  peer  offering  services  on  an 
occasional basis or as a professional. Above these thresholds, the provider is usually exposed 
to  more  legal  obligations.  The  thresholds  are  mainly  developed  sector-by-sector  and  cover 
authorisation, taxation and social security contribution. (see additional information in Annex 
II) 

Some  Member  States  differentiate  between  professional  and  peer-to-peer  services  when 
laying down authorisation requirements.  

For example, in the transport sector, some countries specifically stipulate that profits beyond 
the sharing of the cost of a ride can only be made by licenced taxi or hire car drivers. This is 
the case for example in Ireland, France, and Spain. Other Member States, like Finland, intend 
to exempt small-scale passenger and goods transport rides from licensing requirements below 
a threshold of EUR 10 000 annual turnover.73  

In  the  accommodation  sector,  the  frequency  of  the  activity  (i.e.  minimum  number  of  days 
under  which  short-term  rentals  of  primary  residences  are  not  subject  to  authorisation 
requirements)  have  also  been  used  in  some  Member  States  to  mark  the  distinction  between 
professional services and those provided by peers on an occasional basis. This is for example 
the case in the Netherlands, the UK and France. 

4.2.  Market access requirements 

4.2.1.  Transport sector 

Member  States  generally  do  not  have  in  place  specific  legislation  regulating  collaborative 
economy models in the transport sector. Therefore they tend to apply their general transport 
legislation (i.e. for taxis and private hire vehicles ‘PHVs’). 

Collaborative  economy  models  in  this  sector  may  vary  substantially.  At  one  end  of  the 
spectrum we have intermediation to offer transport passenger services against remuneration, 
connecting drivers and customers, either on a professional and licence-based market or on a 
peer-to-peer basis. At the other end of the spectrum is intermediation of ridesharing services, 
where in principle no remuneration is obtained by the driver beyond the compensation of the 
cost. 

72  

73  

The category of ‘prosumer’ has been introduced in some studies trying to capture the concept of consumers offering 
services  not  related  to  their  habitual  business,  trade  or  profession  http://www.consumerchampion.eu/news/study-
how-improve-sharing-economy-
consumers?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=BEUCTwitter. 
See  the  Finnish  Ministry  of  Transport  press  release  of  18.4.2016  on  transport  reform:  http://www.lvm.fi/en/-
/transport-code-enables-better-transport-services-and-flexible-business-operations. 

27 

 
                                                 
Generally, transport regulation imposes requirements on private passenger transport services 
which  are  provided  for  remuneration,  but  does  not  regulate  non-profit  transportation 
services.74  In  the  absence  of  any  case-law75  which  would  shed  light  on  which  of  the 
collaborative economy activities are considered to be offered for remuneration, most Member 
States  seem  to  exclude  pure  cost-sharing  transport  from  sector-specific  regulations  which 
cover  economic  activities  in  those  areas.  For  example,  in  Poland,  Romania  and  the  UK, 
transport  legislation  does  not  refer  specifically  to  non-profit  private  passenger  transport 
services. 

In  France,  however,  a  definition  for  ridesharing  (‘co-voiturage’)  has  been  introduced.  This 
definition  refers  to  the  common  use  of  a  motor  vehicle  by  a  driver  and  one  or  several 
passengers, for non-profit (‘à titre non onéreux’) except for cost compensation, in the context 
of a ride that the driver performs for its own account. The same article states that the matching 
of drivers and passengers (and thus intermediation services for ridesharing) may be done ‘à 
titre  onéreux’  (for  remuneration)  without  the  intermediary  falling  under  the  transport 
professions laid down in Article L. 1411-1 of the French Transport Code.76 

In Spain, the Transport Code law makes a distinction between remunerated transport services 
and  non-profit  transport  services.  In  that  respect,  the  law  specifies  that  ‘private  individual 
transport’ is not subject to authorisations if it is intended to satisfy the personal or domestic 
transport  needs  of  the  car  owner  and  his/her  relatives.  Private  transport  must  not  result  in 
direct or indirect monetary remuneration, apart from per diems or travel costs for the owner.77 

Similarly, in Germany no-profit ridesharing is defined by the Passenger Transportation Law 
(Personenbeförderungsgesetz),  which  regulates  passenger  transportation  for  commercial 
purposes. As stated in the general provisions, ‘this Law does not apply to the transport of a 
person in a private vehicle as long as they are doing so for free, as long as the payment only 
covers  the  running  costs  of  operating  the  vehicle’.78  In  Ireland,  the  law  provides  that 
ridesharing for more than the cost of fuel is illegal.79 

Rules regulating taxis and PHVs differ significantly between Member States: many still apply 
tariffs,  qualification 
quantitative  restrictions  for 
requirements for drivers, qualitative criteria for cars (size, power, etc.), insurance obligations, 
obligations to have a physical establishment, etc.80  

licences,  regulated 

taxi  and  PHV 

In  some  Member  States,  national  courts  have  applied  existing  transport  legislation  to 
collaborative  business  models  that  intermediate  between  passengers  and  non-licenced  car 
drivers who offer a ride against remuneration. This has led to the prohibition of those services. 
In some of these cases, the collaborative economy business models have been prohibited on 
the basis of alleged unfair competition against either the taxi drivers, the private hire vehicles 
drivers, or the transport (dispatching) operators, or because they did not comply with rules on 
technical requirements. 

74  

75  

76  
77  
78  
79  
80  

In Belgium, remunerated drivers need to follow the rules on taxis, whereas carsharing drivers do not need to follow 
any rules at all. In Finland, transport rules apply (i.e. obtaining a taxi licence and driver’s permit) when the purpose 
of transporting the person is ‘earning a livelihood’. 
A preliminary ruling before the CJEU may provide additional clarifications in this respect (see Uber Belgium, C-
526/15). 
Art. L. 3132-1 of the French Transport Code Law. 
See Article 101 paragraph 1a, of Law 16/1987 of July 30 on land transport. 
Personenbeförderungsgesetz §1,Section 2. 
See Taxi Regulation Act 2013. 
In 2016 the Commission will publish a study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and ridesharing in 
the  EU.  This  study  will  provide  a  detailed  overview  of  the  regulatory  and  market  overview  and  analysis  of  the 
European taxi, hire car with driver and ridesharing market. 

28 

 
                                                 
For  example,  the  Milan  Court  banned  the  UberPop  app  across  Italy  for  unfair  competition 
practices  in  May  2015,81  as  it  considered  it  a  direct  competitor  of  taxi  operators.  A  second 
decision by the Court of Milan considered that business models offering rides with licenced 
drivers  like  Uber  Black  may  also  constitute  ‘unfair  competition’  against  PHV  drivers  who 
have return to a garage in between rides.82 

In  Spain,  telecom  operators  and  payment  service  providers  were  asked  by  a  Madrid  Court 
ruling  on  interim  measures,  to  disable  access  to  the  Uber  application  on  the  basis  that  its 
operation  would  constitute  unfair  competition  with  licenced  taxi  drivers.83  In  response  to  a 
request by a Barcelona Court, the CJEU is expected to issue a preliminary ruling to clarify the 
nature of the services provided by Uber and the applicable legislation.84 

Other  rulings  banning  the  collaborative  economy  peer-to-peer  passenger  transport  business 
models in particular have been issued by national courts in France, Belgium and Germany. In 
some cases the courts actually considered the collaborative platforms liable for the potential 
illegality of the drivers offering their services via the platforms. 
In Germany, several courts85 have taken the view that using a software application to dispatch 
and  provide  bookings  for  passenger  transport  should  be  viewed  as  an  integral  part  of  an 
overall service which involves a transport service. Therefore the platform would be held liable 
for the illegality of the provision of the transport service. 

In Belgium, the Commercial Court of Brussels condemned Uber in a cease and desist order 
for unfair commercial practice because it enables drivers who do not have a licence to offer 
taxi  services.86  Hence,  platforms  enabling  the  provision  of  unauthorised  activities  are 
condemned on the basis of Article VI.104 ELC.87  

Following  the  reform  of  the  Transport  code,  France  prohibits  third-party  transport  services 
provided by PVCs and their intermediaries to inform users in real time, by any means, of the 
availability  and  location  of  cars  active  in  the  public  road,  except  if  they  are  taxis.88  It  also 
requires  intermediaries  that  put  PVCs  in  contact  with  users  to  obtain  insurance  covering 
professional civil liability.89 It also sets the liability regime for the intermediary vis-à-vis the 
execution  of the transport service.90In  the UK, platforms would  be liable if they collaborate 
with unlicenced drivers. Irrespective  of whether a collaborative platform active in the urban 
transportation field is required to obtain an ‘operator’ licence to be able to operate, it is always 
requested by law to work only with licenced drivers (licenced taxi drivers or licenced private 
hire vehicle drivers). 

81   

82  
83  
84  
85  

86  
87  
88  

89  
90  

Tribunale  di  Milano  (25  May  2015)  ‘Ordinanza nel  procedimento  cautelare iscritto  al N.16612/2015’.  The  Court 
stated that Uber’s ‘surge pricing’ system allows Uber to apply fares that are much lower than taxi fares while not 
bearing  the  expenses  borne  by  the  owners  of  a  transport  licence  (like  taxi  drivers),  such  as  the  cost  of  installing 
meters,  insurance  obligations or  purchase  of  a  car  exclusively  dedicated  to  third-party  use,  frequent  maintenance 
checks, etc. 
http://www.unioneartigiani.it/home/ia_by_4343. 
Interim measures 707/2014 of 9 December 2014 by the Juzgado de lo Mercantil, nº2 Madrid. 
See preliminary ruling in Case C-434/15. 
Superior Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht) Hamburg, decision of 24 September 2014 (3 Bs 175/14), 
Superior  Administrative  Court  (Oberverwaltungsgericht)  Berlin-Brandenburg,  decision  of  10  April  2015  in  case 
VG 11 L 353.14 Berlin. 
Comm Bruxelles (cess.), 23 sept. 2015, Radio Taxi Bruxellois v. Uber. 
Code de droit économique du 28 février 2013. 
Article  L3120-2,  paragraph  III.  The  Decree  implementing  this  provision  has  been  annulled  by  a  decision  of  the 
French Conseil d’Etat of 9 March 2016 for its lack of notification under Directive 98/34/EC 
Article L3120-4. 
Article L3120-3. 

29 

 
                                                 
In  some  Member  States,  collaborative  platforms  offering  intermediation  services  are 
requested to obtain prior authorisation as transport operators. This is for example the case in 
the UK and Ireland. 

In  Poland,  even  if  there  are  no  current  rules  regulating  ridesharing  activities,  the  Regional 
Administrative Court in Wrocław ruled in June 2014 that the performance of occasional road 
transport  services  without  a  licence,  which  is  a  statutory  requirement  for  those  wishing  to 
undertake  and  conduct  such  business,  is  subject  to  the  Road  Transport  Act  and  subject  to 
fines.91  

Some  Member  States  are  amending  their  transport  legislation  to  regulate  ‘intermediation 
services’  for  the  provision  of  passenger  transport.  For  example,  Hungary  has  adopted  a 
Decree  on  public-road  passenger  transport  which  differentiates  between  independent 
dispatcher  services  and  dispatchers  that  perform  passenger  transport  services.92  France  has 
also  established  a  distinction  within  the  French  Transport  Code  between  ‘exploitants’ 
(operators) of ‘voitures de transport avec chauffeur’ (VTCs) (transport vehicles with driver), 
and ‘intermediaries’ that put VTCs and users in contact. In addition, as mentioned above, it 
has  also  established  a  third  category  for  intermediaries  matching  drivers  and  passengers  for 
(non-remunerated) ridesharing services (co-voiturage). 

The  Netherlands  is  considering  reforming  its  transport  act  to  liberalise  the  taxi  and  hire  car 
with driver sector. Sweden has launched an inquiry to assess existing legislation on taxi and 
ridesharing  services,  covering  possible  proposals  for  revision  and  clarification  of  rules 
applicable  to  ridesharing.  A  report  is  due  1 July 2016.  Finland  is  also  working  on  a  wide-
ranging  reform of  its  Transport Code. In  addition to  eliminating  quantitative  restrictions for 
taxi licences and facilitating market access for all operators, the reform is intended to adjust 
existing  rules  to  new  business  models,  thus  allowing  small-scale  passenger  transport 
operations by non-professionals, facilitated by digital means, below a fixed annual turnover.93  

In Italy, the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) published in December 2015 an opinion to 
the  government  on  the  inadaptability  of  the  existing  transport legislation  to  cover and  solve 
the  challenges  posed  by  services  in  the  collaborative  economy  area  and  VTCs.  The  Italian 
Chamber of Deputies is currently assessing a draft law regulating collaborative platforms and 
promoting the sharing economy.94   

Estonia is in the process of amending its Public Transport Act to cover ridesharing services. 
The draft law will set requirements for providers and platforms and give the tax authority the 
right to access data on provided services.95 The draft law also abolishes some requirements for 
taxi and VTC drivers such as the training obligation, a limited service area, vehicle cards and 
a type of authorisation for self-employed drivers. 

Spain has also reformed some of the conditions on market access requirements applicable to 
VTC  regulation.96  However,  in  April  2016  the  implementing  acts  were  challenged  by  the 
Spanish Market and Competition Commission (CNMC) on the grounds that they restrict the 
principles of promoting effective competition and efficient economic regulation in Spain. 

91  
92  
93  

94  
95  

96  

See in particular the provisions of Article 92a of the Road Transport Act of 6 September 200. 
Hungarian Decree 176/2015 on public-road passenger transport. 
See the Finnish Ministry of Transport press release of 18. 4.2016 on transport reform: 
http://www.lvm.fi/en/-/transport-code-enables-better-transport-services-and-flexible-business-operations. 
See Proposta di leggi d’iniziativa dei Deputati of 27 January 2016. 
Draft law and explanatory note on the parliament’s website:  
http://www.riigikogu.ee/tegevus/eelnoud/eelnou/17074c56-bf09-477f-befb-6e4ea86461f/%C3 %9 
Chistranspordiseaduse%20 muutmise%20seadus/. 
Real Decreto 1057/2015, de 20 de noviembre. 

30 

 
                                                 
 
 
4.2.2.  Accommodation sector (short-term rentals) 

Short-term  lettings  in  the  accommodation  sector  are  subject  to  great  diversity  of  regulatory 
regimes  across  the single  market.  First  of  all,  a  distinction  is  made  in  many  Member  States 
between  short-term  lettings  where  there  is  remuneration  and  those  where  the  economic 
element is missing. 

Member  States  have  adopted  different  interpretations  of  the  concept  of  remuneration.  For 
example,  in  the  UK,  ‘remuneration’  is  interpreted  broadly:  money  or  payment  in  kind  is 
included in the scope of remunerated services, whereas salaries are excluded. 
So  far,  many  Member  States  exclude  pure  home-swapping97  and  solidarity  networks98  from 
sector-specific regulations which cover economic activities in the accommodation sector. For 
home-swapping  and  solidarity  networks,  no  fee  is  paid  in  principle  for  accommodation  and 
related services (breakfast or tour guide). Instead, hosts swap houses either at the same time or 
agree to host each other in the future. In some cases, providers ‘win’ nights at someone else’s 
place  within  the  network  if  they  host  other  users.99  In  these  cases,  collaborative  economy 
transactions  are  often  covered  by  general  civil  codes  and  contract  rules,  as  opposed  to 
remunerated economic activities, which are often covered by sector-specific regulation.  

For example in France, Italy and the UK, home exchanges/swaps are not regulated under the 
tourism  laws.  Under  French  law,  home  swaps  could  be  seen  as  an  innominate  (contrat 
innomé)  synallagmatic  (bilateral)  contract.  In  Italy,  a  home  swap  contract  could  be  a 
‘contratto  atipico’  (art.  1322  c.c.).  The  Brussels  Region’s  law  on  tourist  accommodation 
applies  to  transactions  undertaken  ‘for  a  fee/consideration’  (‘a  titre  onéreux’),  which  might 
suggest that it excludes home swaps. 

For  short-term  lettings  where  economic  consideration  is  present,  Member  States  generally 
apply less restrictive requirements for short-term rentals between peers than for providers of 
traditional accommodation services (such as hotels, bed & breakfast, rural houses, campsites, 
etc.). 

For providers of traditional accommodation services, usually Member States require specific 
authorisation or licensing regimes. They also set stricter rules on the quality of the services, 
for  example  on  minimum  room  sizes  and  facilities  offered,  such  as  compulsory  ancillary 
services:  breakfast,  room-services,  laundry,  etc.  In  most  Member  States,  traditional 
accommodation services also need to comply with insurance obligations. 

However, short-term rentals of primary and secondary residences activities (or parts of them) 
for  tourist  use  between  peers  are  not  necessarily  subject  to  regulation  and  strict  registration 
procedures,  particularly  when  specific  conditions  are  met.100  This  also  varies  substantially 
between  Member  States.  Several  Member  States,  including  the  Netherlands,101  the  UK,102 
Portugal, Germany, Italy and Belgium, have recently updated their legislative frameworks to 
facilitate the development of the peer-to-peer accommodation rental sector. 

97  
98  
99  
100  
101  

102  

For example, LoveSwapHome for swapping houses. 
Such as Couchsurfing and WarmShowers. 
E.g. NightSwapping. 
However, some other obligations might be applicable e.g. fire safety obligations. 
The City of Amsterdam has signed an agreement with Airbnb which explicitly permits renting accommodation via 
an online platform. In return, Airbnb has been collecting the applicable tourist tax since February 2015. 
In 2015, the ‘Deregulation act’ relaxed planning permission rules in London for short-term lets. Previously, owners 
were required to apply to the local planning authority for planning permission. 

31 

 
                                                 
For example, in the UK no authorisation is required for short-term lettings of any residential 
premises  in  Greater  London,  if  the  total  number  of  nights  of  use  as  temporary  sleeping 
accommodation  in the same calendar year  does not  exceed 90 and the person who provides 
the sleeping accommodation pays council tax on the income received.103 Ireland also exempts 
hosts  from  any  registration  procedure,  although  some  other  obligations  maybe  applicable 
depending on the exact characteristics of the property. In Finland, no authorisations for short-
term  rentals  are  required;  in  rented  properties,  up  to  half  of  the  apartment  can  be  sublet 
without prior consent of the landlord. 

Some  Member  States  take  a  different  approach  depending  on  the  use  of  the  dwelling  and 
whether it is a primary or a secondary residence, or whether it falls under the category of a 
‘touristic  dwelling’  specifically  designed  for  short-term  rentals.  France,  for  example, 
considers  that  for  primary  residences  (living  use  for  eight  months  a  year)  no  prior 
authorisation  to  the  mayor  is  required  for  short-term  rentals.  However,  when  a  secondary 
residence  or  a  ‘touristic  dwelling’  is  offered  in  Paris,  an  authorisation  is  required,  coupled 
with a conditional obligation to adopt a compensatory measure consisting in the conversion of 
non-residential premises into housing.104  

Other  Member  States  place  authorisation  requirements  on  any  provider  of  accommodation 
services regardless of the type of dwelling. For example, under Maltese law anyone (including 
peers) offering accommodation to a tourist for a short-term rent against payment would need a 
licence.105 In Hungary, short-term rentals are also subject to an authorisation.106This type of 
service is considered an ‘other accommodation service’ (maximum 90 days) and is subject to 
specific  conditions.107  There  is  no  requirement  to  take  out  insurance.  In  Italy,  the  Regional 
Regulation of Lazio lays down publicity and transparency requirements on prices and opening 
times for accommodation structures, such as 24-hour ‘availability’, meaning that the provider 
should be always available in case the user encounters a problem.108 

Some Member States have recently introduced legislation or are preparing drafts to regulate 
short-term  rentals  of  primary  or  secondary  residences  and  spare  rooms  by  peer  providers, 
imposing  a  number  of  conditions  including  authorisation,  registration  or  prior  declaration 
obligations. For example, in Belgium, the recently adopted regulation by the Brussels Region 
requires prior declarations followed by a procedure for registration with the local municipality 
also for ‘homestay accommodation’. This covers short-term rentals of primary residences (or 
part  of  them),  which  need  to  be  available  at  least  four  months  per  year.  In  addition  to 
registration, hosts need to provide quality and a personal welcome, breakfast, household linen, 
and  the  room  needs  to  comply  with  minimum  quality  conditions  (window  or  ventilation, 
wardrobe, etc.). Hosts also need to inform their home insurer. Short-term rentals of primary 

103  
104  

105   

106  

107  

108  

Section 44 of Deregulation Act 2015 c.20. 
The premises offered as compensation must cumulatively: a) be of equivalent quality and surface to those subject to 
the  change  of  use,  b)  be  located  in  the  same  arrondissement  of  the  converted  premises  (see  Article  2,  co  1  of 
Règlement municipal de Paris). 
The  Malta  Environment  and  Planning  Authority  (MEPA)  will  only  issue  a  licence  once  it  is  satisfied  that  the 
building  in  question  is  compliant  with  a  MEPA  permit.  This  permit,  called  a  ‘Tourism  Design  Guidelines 
Certificate’,  is  a  certificate  which  approves  the  plans  of  a  tourist  accommodation  establishment  following  a 
consultation between the applicant and MEPA. 
In Budapest, homesharing has been regulated for a number of years under the category of ‘other accommodation’. 
Hosts must register at a local notary before they can rent their spare rooms or entire home to tourists and provide 
detailed information to the local and tax authorities. For further details see Gov. Decree 239/2009. 
Conditions  such  as  the  size  of  the  room  per  number  of  beds,  having  a  bathroom  reserved  for  guests,  a  kitchen 
equipped to have breakfast, prepare coffee or tea, including a fridge reserved for the guests; etc. See Government 
Decree 239/2009. 
Reg 8/2015 http://www.regione.lazio.it/binary/rl_turismo/tbl_evidenza/TUR_RR_08_07_08_2015.pdf. 

32 

 
                                                 
residences  (or  part  of  them)  which  are  available  for  less  than  four  months  per  year  are  not 
allowed.109 

In  Spain,  Spanish  regions  can  adopt  their  own  rules  on  tourist  apartments  and  housing  for 
touristic  use.  Regulation  is  significantly  diverse  across  the  regions.110  For  example,  in 
Catalonia (but also in other regions), a peer provider needs to obtain prior authorisation and 
register its dwelling at the local mayor’s office in order to offer short-term lettings for tourist 
use. In addition, the peer provider’s registration number must be published before the provider 
can  start  letting.  The  government  of  Catalonia  fined  several  platforms  for  advertising 
apartments and houses without stating the registration number indicating their inscription in 
the Register of Tourism of Catalonia. Homestay accommodation (in spare rooms) seems to be 
prohibited  since  short-term  rentals  need  to  cover  the  whole  dwelling.  Currently  there  is  a 
moratorium on the authorisation of new tourist accommodation in Barcelona. 

In some countries, short-term lettings have been in principle banned. For example, in Berlin, 
Germany, there is a general ban on using living space for other purposes than living in it. The 
law  bans  the  use  of  homes  as  holiday  homes  for  commercial  purposes  without  prior 
authorisation under specific circumstances. However, it is still allowed to rent out one or more 
rooms in an apartment as long as the ‘residential use’ is the prevailing one (50 % of the flat’s 
entire square footage). 

In  Member  States  where  authorisation  procedures  are  in  place,  authorisation  requirements 
often include:  

requirements on the size of the rooms, bathroom, kitchen;  

  proof of compliance with sanitary, fire and minimum equipment conditions;  
 
  disclosing the identity of the hosts;  
  obtaining civil liability insurance;  
  displaying a visual identity logo in the apartment;  
 

the agreement of the local mayor’s office, authorising such use of the property. 

Reasons  often  invoked  by  Member  States  to  restrict  short-term  lettings,  either  through 
registration procedures or via a complete ban include:  

 
 

the need for supervision to ensure quality of service;  
the  need  to  ensure  availability  of  rental  housing  accommodation  in  markets  where 
demand exceeds supply;  

  preventing the abusive subletting of social housing;  
  maintaining a level playing field;  
 

to control the character of neighbourhoods in cases where housing is being converted 
in response to growing inflows of tourists. 

4.2.3.  Professional services 

Professional  services  provided  through  online  platforms  in  the  context  of  the  collaborative 
economy are not specifically regulated by the Member States. However, the provision of these 
services  cannot  be  considered  as  unregulated.  Member  States  are  indeed  applying  to  these 
services the same rules they apply to service providers active in the traditional sectors. These 
might originate from legal or regulatory provisions at national, federal, regional or local level 

109  

110  

March 2016 
http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2014050850&table_name=loi. 
For an overview see the preliminary results of the CNMC report E/CNMC/004/15 on the collaborative economy, 
published in March 2016. 

33 

 
                                                 
but also from the codes of conduct adopted by certain professional associations. For example, 
reserves  of  activities  linked  to  the  possession  of  a  professional  qualification  will  apply  to 
service providers in  the traditional sectors as  well as to  those in  the collaborative economy. 
This is due to the specific character of certain professions for which the protection of the title 
or the activities are subject to specific professional or deontological rules. 

For example, where legal advice is a reserved activity, no service provider is allowed to give 
advice or draft private deeds for others on a regular basis and for remuneration unless he is a 
lawyer,  irrespective  of  whether  the  advice  is  given  face-to-face  or  through  a  collaborative 
platform. Similarly, in the case of architects or engineers, where some Member States have in 
place  certain obligations linked to the reserve of activities, such  as  chamber  membership  or 
the  obligation  to  possess  professional  indemnity  insurance,  these  will  in  principle  apply  in 
equal measure to both traditional sectors and the collaborative economy. 

Generally,  the  existing  legal  framework  was  conceived  for  the  provision  of  professional 
services  in  a  traditional  way  and  was  designed  before  the  emergence  of  the  collaborative 
economy. Existing regulation reflects the fact that most services are traditionally provided for 
remuneration.  In  the  collaborative  economy,  however,  services  are  sometimes  provided 
without  a  corresponding  remuneration  or  the  intermediary  asks  for  a  corresponding  fee  for 
their services. This can prove problematic in the light of rules set out in deontological codes 
limiting the provision of services for free or prohibiting the sharing of professional fees. 

The  mapping  has  not  revealed  any specific  Member  State  procedure  requiring  collaborative 
economy  platforms  intermediating  professional  services  to  obtain  authorisation  to  start 
operations. 

4.3. 

Consumer protection and information obligations 

Member  States  have  transposed  in  their  national  systems  the  e-Commerce  Directive,  the 
Services  Directive  and  the  EU’s  consumer  and  marketing  legislation.  For  business-to-
consumer transactions, EU consumer and marketing legislation includes:  

  Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices;  
  Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights;  
  Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts;  
  Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes;  
  Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes.  

For business-to-business transactions, Directive 2006/114/EC on Misleading and Comparative 
Advertising  applies.  The  above  legislation  in  general  applies  to  collaborative  platforms  and 
service  providers.  It  includes  the  relevant  rights  and  obligations  stemming  from  these 
European laws. 

Depending  on  the  sector,  in  addition  to  the  rights  and  obligations  mentioned  above, 
collaborative  platforms  and  service  providers  may  be  also  requested  to  offer  consumers  a 
different set of information stemming from sectorial legislation. For professional services, the 
relevant deontological codes may also include additional information requirements. 

In  Spain,  online  platforms  and  service  providers  are  subject  to  obligations  for  instance  laid 
down in the following laws:  
  Law 34/2002111;  
  Law 1/2007112;  

111  

Ley 34/2002, de 11 de julio, de servicios de la sociedad de la información y de comercio electrónico. 

34 

 
                                                 
  Law 17/2009113;  
  Law 3/1991114.  

In line with the EU acts they transpose, these laws include information obligations about the 
provided  services,  the  identity  of  the  provider,  the  contract  conclusion  and  execution.  In 
business-to-consumers transactions , the consumer laws provide for rights such as the right of 
withdrawal and prohibit practices such as misleading or aggressive practices. 

In Belgium platforms and providers are subject to the general rules and obligations set out in 
the  Civil  Code,  which  are  applicable  to  all  types  of  contracts.115  Those  rules  deal  with  the 
formation of the contract and possible action if there is a breach of contract. Platforms which 
have an economic goal and are considered to offer information society services also have to 
comply with the obligations set out in Book XII of the Economic Law Code116 on the digital 
economy. 

In  France,  information  obligations  for  platforms  and  service  providers  are  set  out,  among 
others, in:  

  Loi 2004-575117;  
  Loi 2015-990118;  
  Loi 111-1119;  
  Loi 2014-344120.  

In  the  accommodation  sector,  under  the  Tourism  law,121  platforms  have  the  obligation  to 
inform  the  accommodation  provider  of  the  applicable  declaration/authorisation  obligations 
and  to  obtain  the  provider’s  ‘déclaration  sur  l’honneur’  (declaration  on  honour)  that  its 
accommodation complies with the regulations in force. 

4.4. 

Employment status 

Member  States  are  responsible  for  defining  their  national  concepts  of  employee  and  self-
employed and the relevant laws applicable to these statuses. There is no single approach on 
how to qualify employment status across Member States in the collaborative economy. 

So  far,  the  distinction  between  employees  and  self-employed  people  has  been  particularly 
challenging in passenger transport. In some cases, countries offer the possibility for drivers to 
be  either  employees  or  self-employed,  depending  on  whether  they  sign  a  contract  with  the 
transport operator, the number of hours they work and the type of subordination relationship 
in place. 

In  France,  the  transport  regulations  allow  providers  in  the  passenger  transport  sector  to  be 
employees  or  self-employed.  A  taxi  driver  can  have  the  status  of  craftsman,  freelancer  or 
employee.122 The evidence shows that taxi drivers are mainly self-employed owners or lessees 

112  

113  
114  
115  
116  
117  
118  

119  
120  
121  
122  

Council  Directive  93/13/EEC  of  5  April  1993  on  unfair  terms  in  consumer  contracts  —  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1460107799053&uri=CELEX:31993L0013. 
Ley 17/2009, de 23 de noviembre, sobre el libre acceso a las actividades de servicios y su ejercicio 
Ley 3/1991, de 10 de enero, de Competencia Desleal — https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1991-628. 
Arts. 1101-1314 Civil Code. 
Code de droit économique du 28 février 2013. 
Loi n° 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour la confiance dans l’économie numérique 
The  Loi  Macron  (Loi  n°2015-990  du  6  août  2015  —  art.  134)  added  article  L111-5-1  to  the  ‘Code  de  la 
Consommation’. 
Loi 111-1 Code de la Consommation 
Loi 2014-344 du 17 mars 2014 relative à la consommation  
Article 11 of the Loi ALUR (L324-2-1 of the Code du Tourisme). 
https://www.service-public.fr/professionnels-entreprises/vosdroits/F21907. 

35 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
of  the  vehicle,  similar  to  VTC  drivers  who  are  in  most  cases  self-employed,  providing 
services  through  intermediaries.123  The  Polish  Labour  law  also  makes  a  distinction  between 
being self-employed and being an employee of a taxi company or general transport company. 

In  other  countries,  drivers  are  in  principle  considered  to  be  ‘independent’  providers.  In 
Germany most taxi drivers are deemed to be self-employed or freelancers, which means that 
there  are  no  binding  laws  or  rules  on  working  time,  holiday  entitlement,  payment, 
remuneration  in  the  event  of  illness,  protection  of  expectant  mothers  or  protection  against 
unfair dismissals.124 This is also the case in the UK where the vast majority of taxi drivers and 
private hire vehicle drivers are self-employed.125 

Other Member States, however, have a different approach. In Italy, taxi and VTC drivers can 
be  either  individual  entrepreneurs  (and  thus  be  enrolled  in  the  official  register  of  the  craft 
industry),  members  of  workers’  cooperatives  or  they  can  join  a  consortium.126  Generally, 
VTC drivers prefer to adopt the legal form of workers’ cooperative. It is worth noting that in 
Italy  the  distinction  is  emerging  between  ‘occasional’  drivers  active  in  the  collaborative 
economy and traditional ones. According to the opinion delivered by the Consiglio di Stato in 
December  2015,127  private  drivers  allowed  to  offer  their  services  through  collaborative 
platforms  should  be  ‘occasional  workers’,  with  a  maximum  limit  of  annual  income  and  a 
maximum amount of working hours per week (15 hours, as opposed to up to 12 hours per day 
for professional taxi drivers). 

5. 

HORIZONTAL IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Impact on employment 

This  section  describes  the  employment  aspects  of  the  collaborative  economy.  There  are  no 
official  statistics  on  employment  in  the  collaborative  economy,  therefore  this  section  draws 
mainly on findings from surveys and data drawn directly from platforms. Most surveys to date 
have been carried out in the US, hence the results may be only partially transferrable to the 
situation in the EU. 

5.1.1.  Profile of workers 

The common findings from surveys indicate that the workforce of the collaborative economy 
is younger, better educated and more urban than the workforce in the overall economy. There 
appears to be less consensus on gender and ethnicity. 

A survey conducted as part of the Request for Startups (RFS) 1099 Report found that workers 
in the collaborative economy are more male, younger, better educated128 and more ethnically 
similar — predominantly white129 — than the US workforce in general. Another survey in the 
US conducted on 3 000 people in 2015130 found that workers are more likely to be male, from 
a  racial  or  ethnic  minority,  living  in  city  areas131  and  young.  The  findings  of  a  survey 

123  
124  
125  
126  
127  
128 

129 
130 
131 

Idem footnote 80 
Idem footnote 80 
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire 
Idem footnote 80  
Consiglio di Stato, opinion N. 00757/2015, 25 November 2015. 
This  may  be  partly  due  to  the  technical  skills  involved  in  using  platform  technology  and  the  core  services 
themselves. 
Bloomberg Brief 2015. 
The survey was commissioned by Burston-Marsteller, the Aspen Institute and TIME magazine. 
This finding is consistent with data obtained from an online skills platform, based in Belgium, where roughly two 
thirds of the workforce are located in urban areas (CEPS 2016). 

36 

 
                                                 
conducted in the UK132 found that while half of workers are below 35, women are more likely 
to work in the collaborative economy than men. 

5.1.2.  Motivation 

Based on a survey carried out in the US, workers in the collaborative economy are motivated 
primarily  by  a  need  to  find  alternative  employment,  due  to  an  inability  to  find  standard 
employment, as well as the appeal of flexibility and greater control over working patterns. A 
further survey of workers on Amazon Mechanical Turk and Crowdflower (Berg 2016) found 
that  the  possibility  to  work  from  home  was  the  second  most  important  motivation  after 
additional income. 
Figure 4: Main motivation for working in the collaborative economy133 

33% 

33% 

32% 

30% 

28% 

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Primary source
of income

Could not find
work in offline
economy

Enjoy flexibility
of
collaborative
economy

Like the
independence

Like to be in
charge of own
schedule

Source: Burston-Marsteller, the Aspen Institute and TIME (2015). 

5.1.3. 

Source of income 

There are indications that a substantial share of the US population is active on collaborative 
economy  platforms.  The  same  survey  commissioned  by  Burston-Marsteller,  the  Aspen 
Institute  and  TIME  among  3 000  Americans  in  2015  indicated  that  44 %  of  the  population 
have used collaborative platforms. The figures corrected for internet usage and demographics 
show  that  almost  all  of  the  people  involved  in  the  collaborative  economy  have  used  the 
services  (42 %)  of  a  collaborative  platform  and  about  half  have  worked  (22 %)  through  a 
collaborative platform. 

These  findings  suggest  that  many  people  supply  services  on  collaborative  platforms. 
However,  other  surveys  indicate  that  the  degree  of  participation  is  relatively  low  and 
insufficient in most cases for the work to serve as a primary source of income. For example, 
the  survey  conducted  as  part  of  the  RFS  1099  Report  found  that  income  from  work  in  the 
collaborative  economy  accounted  for  less  than  a  quarter  of  household  income  for  39 %  of 
those surveyed and less than half of household income for 58 %.134 

132 
133 

134 

An online survey was carried out with 2 238 adults between 16 and 75 years of age (Huws & Joyce, 2016). 
The figure shows the responses from those earning more than 40 % of their monthly income in the collaborative 
economy. 
RFS 1099 Economy workforce report, quoted in Bloomberg Brief 2015. 
http://www.bloombergbriefs.com/content/uploads/sites/2/2015/05/Sharing-Economy.pdf. 

37 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 5: Proportion of household income from the collaborative economy 

Source: RFS (1099 Report), Bloomberg 
Notes: people working in the collaborative economy in the US 

The survey findings  on degree  of participation can  be compared with data gathered directly 
from a collaborative platform, ListMinut, located in Belgium, that intermediates mainly local 
personal  services.  Only  approximately  5 %  of  registered  workers  on  the  platform  have 
performed a task, suggesting that participation levels are low (CEPS 2016). In addition, about 
half of ListMinut workers only worked up to five hours through the platform during a two-
year  period.  Other  workers  worked  between  6  and  450  hours  but  even  based  on  450  hours, 
work on the platform would not be sufficient to substitute the earnings of a full-time job. 

Collectively  these  findings  suggest  that  the  collaborative  economy  is  mainly  serving  as  a 
supplementary source of income for most participants and that many participants are using the 
collaborative economy as an occasional source of income. 

5.1.4.  Remuneration 

This section examines rates of remuneration in the collaborative economy and compares them 
with those in the labour market in general.135  

Remuneration  in  the  collaborative  economy  is  largely  determined  by  the  same  factors  that 
influence remuneration in the overall labour market, e.g. the supply of labour for a particular 
job/task  is  largely  influenced  by  the  level  of  skill  involved  in  the  task.  However,  ‘online’ 
markets differ from ‘offline’ markets in a several ways that may cause a divergence in levels 
of remuneration. 

1.  In online labour markets, work is typically task-based rather than time-based. 
2.  Online workers are typically freelancers or self-employed rather than employees. 
3.  Much  work  in  online  labour  markets  is  ‘virtual’,  meaning  that  it  can  be  performed 

with a greater degree of flexibility than most standard employment. 

4.  Much  work  on  online  labour  markets  is  exportable,  which  exposes  online  labour 

markets to international forces of supply and demand. 

5.1.5.  Physical versus virtual services 

The following table presents earnings information gathered from the Belgian skills platform 
ListMinut. The platform typically intermediates tasks which require physical offline delivery 
such as home repairs and gardening. The tasks generally require the service provider to travel 

135 

The  estimated  rates  of  remuneration  should  be  treated  with  some  caution  as  a  general  indication  of  rates  in  the 
collaborative economy. Firstly, all the data on remuneration in this section is based on individual platforms where 
rates are affected by some factors specific to each platform. Secondly, remuneration in ‘online’ and ‘offline’ labour 
markets  can  only  be  compared  by  converting  task-based  remuneration  into  hourly  rates.  This  has  been  done  by 
using survey data to estimate the average time taken to complete various types of tasks and hence it is open to some 
sampling bias. 

38 

39191329Less than 25%25-50%50-75%75-100% 
 
                                                 
to  the  client  and  therefore  are  more  requested  in  urban  areas  where  population  density  is 
higher and hence the time and cost of travelling between locations is lower. For comparative 
purposes, the table includes a column showing average earnings for a selection of tasks in the 
Belgian labour market. 

Table 5: Median gross hourly earnings by skill category (EUR) 

Category 

ListMinut 
(completed tasks) 

Labour market  Difference (%) 

1. Home repair 

2. Animals 

3. Households 

4. Tutoring 

5. Events 

6. Gardening 

7. Transport 

8. Computer science 

9. Babysitting 

10. Wellness 

17.50 

26.00 

10.50 

15.00 

13.00 

13.00 

17.50 

14.00 

7.67 

26.00 

12.70 

10.82 

8.20 

13.06 

12.12 

11.35 

10.94 

12.51 

10.78 

10.29 

+4.8 

+15.18 

+2.3 

+1.94 

+0.88 

+1.65 

+6.56 

+1.49 

-3.11 

+15.71 

Note: The figure shows the median hourly (gross) earnings per type of activity of the 2 396 tasks executed on the ListMinut 
platform between December 2013 and December 2015. The ListMinut categories are matched with the equivalent or closest 
category in the Wage Indicator database (see Annex 4 of De Groen et al., 2016). 
Source: De Groen, Maselli, and Fabo (2016). 

The above table indicates that for most tasks average rates are comparable with those in the 
‘offline’  labour  market,  with  a  slight  premium  for  online  tasks  in  nearly  all  cases.  These 
findings  can  be  compared  with  research  conducted  in  the  US  on  collaborative  transport 
services, which found that remuneration levels of drivers working on the Uber platform were 
comparable  with  industry  levels  (Hall  and  Krueger  2015).136  Therefore,  if  generalised,  they 
suggest that there is no significant difference between remuneration in online labour markets 
and remuneration in ‘offline’ labour markets for ‘physical’ services. 

By  contrast,  remuneration  rates  on  online  markets  for  ‘virtual’  services  show  a  divergence 
from rates in offline markets when the online market is international in scope, which is driven 
by  the  location  of  participants  on  both  sides  of  the  market.  For  example,  information  on 
remuneration  gathered  from  the  platform  CoContest,137  an  international  design  platform 
located in Italy, suggests that rates for skilled virtual tasks are approximately 30 % lower than 
average  rates  on  the  Italian  labour  market.138  Alternatively,  on  the  same  platform  average 
rates are over three times higher than average rates on the Serbian labour market, where many 
service  providers  are  located.  By  establishing  an  international  market  for  a  service,  online 
skills platforms such as CoContest set an equilibrium price that is between the rates charged 
on the national labour markets of participants. The degree of divergence from national rates is 
strongly  influenced  by  the  international  profile  of  the  platform  with  respect  to  both  the 
demand and supply sides of the market.    

136  
137 
138 

http://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp010z708z67d/5/587.pdf. 
CoContest is a tendering-based marketplace for design services. 
The comparison is based on information gathered from a single online platform and can therefore not be taken as 
typical of this category of online platforms. 

39 

 
                                                 
The evidence of lower rates for (online) virtual tasks than for rates for (online) physical tasks 
may  also  be  explained  by  other  factors.  For  example,  there  are  no  transport  costs  or  travel 
time associated with virtual tasks, which may represent a significant cost saving. 

5.1.6. 

Skilled versus unskilled tasks 

The  skills  dimension  of  tasks  does  not  seem  to  have  a  strong  impact  on  ‘online’  rates 
compared  to  ‘offline’  rates.  In  other  words,  low-  and  medium-skilled  tasks  appear  to  be 
remunerated  at  a  similar  level  on  online  collaborative  platforms  as  in  the  labour  market  in 
general  when  they  are  ‘physical’  services.  However,  unskilled  ‘virtual’  tasks,  known  as 
‘micro-tasks’, appear to carry particularly low rates of remuneration.139  

This  may  be  partly  explainable  due  to  the  high  degree  of  flexibility  associated  with  the 
performance  of  such  work  and  the  possibility  to  carry  out  ‘virtual’  online  work  in  parallel 
with other employment irrespective of employment status. 

Notwithstanding  the  above  considerations,  the  levels  of  remuneration  for  virtual  unskilled 
tasks  appear  particularly  low  when  converted  into  hourly  rates  and  compared  with  national 
averages  for  standard  employment  involving  similar  tasks.  They  also  appear  insufficient  to 
serve  as  a  primary  source  of  income.  The  scale  of  employment  associated  with  this  type  of 
work is currently limited. Such work is also performed on a freelance basis. However, further 
research  and  information  gathered  from  platforms  on  remuneration  would  be  useful  to 
monitor  the  development  of  this  type  of  work  given  that  if  it  becomes  widespread  it  would 
have potentially adverse socioeconomic effects. 

5.1.7. 

Impact on the labour market 

Collaborative platforms are creating employment and more flexible working but their impact 
on  the  wider  labour  market  is  unclear  and  requires  further  research.  Currently,  there  are  no 
clear  signs  that  the  collaborative  economy  is  creating  a  structural  shift  in  the  labour  market 
towards more temporary freelance employment. This may be due to the current scale140 of the 
collaborative economy and the effect of other employment trends. 
Although the collaborative economy is probably more established in the US than the EU,141 
the proportion of self-employment in the US has declined since 2000 from 7.4 % to 6.8 %.142 
Multiple job holding also declined steadily from a high of 6.8 % in 1995 to 5.0 % in 2013.143 

In  the  EU,  there  are  indications  that  the  type  of  work  associated  with  the  collaborative 
economy  is  increasing.144  The  rate  of  self-employment  in  the  EU145  has  risen  steadily  by 
around  two  percentage  points  since  2006,  based  on  figures  from  Eurostat,  from  3.7 %  to 
5.6 %,146  although  there  are  large  differences  among  Member  States.  The  proportion  of 
workers taking up second jobs has also increased gradually since 2002 from 3.6 % in 2002 to 
4.2 %,  mainly  due  to  a  marked  increase  in  self-employed  female  workers.  However,  both 

139  

140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 

146 

When converted into hourly rates, remuneration on platforms such as Crowdflower is typically less than EUR 5 per 
hour, based on the findings of a study carried out by the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), which was 
contracted by the Commission for use in this Communication. 
Based on revenue estimates, online labour markets are likely to account for less than 1 % of employment in the EU. 
https://s3.amazonaws.com/uber-static/comms/PDF/Uber_Driver-Partners_Hall_Kreuger_2015.pdf. 
Based on statistics from the OCED. 
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/multiple-jobholding-over-the-past-two-decades-1.htm. 
Also, the level of self-employment for the EU as a whole is higher than in the US. 
Measured as the proportion of self-employed persons compared to employees, using the latest available data on the 
number of self-employed persons. 
On a sector level, there have been significant increases in self-employment in health and social work, education, 
and professional activities. 

40 

 
                                                 
these  trends  started  somewhat  before  the  rise  of  the  collaborative  economy,  whereas  most 
platforms were founded in the last five years. 

Therefore,  based  on  official  statistics  it  appears  that  the  type  of  employment  created  by  the 
collaborative  economy  is  in  line  with  longer  term  employment  shifts  in  the  EU.  However, 
further  research  is  required,  including  gathering  more  quantitative  information  on  the 
employment generated via collaborative platforms. This will give us a better understanding of 
how much the collaborative economy has had an impact on these developments and of the net 
impact of the collaborative economy on employment. 

5.2. 

Impact on tax administration 

5.2.1.  Challenges for tax administrations 

The  current  tax  rules  apply  to  collaborative  economy  players,  but  there  are  issues  in  tax 
administration  and  policy  that  have  been  left  unclear.  These  questions  are  relevant  for  all 
types  of  taxes:  VAT,  corporate  income  tax,  personal  income  tax,  some  specific  taxes  like 
tourist tax, and  social  security  contributions.  The  main  challenges  for Member  States  are  to 
strike the right balance in the level of obligations and to maintain a level playing field for both 
traditional and new forms of business. 

Member States do not have a uniform definition of the scope of the collaborative or sharing 
economy.  A  common  understanding  would  be  the  first  step  in  dealing  with  the  taxation 
challenges.  In  many  cases  platform  users  are  true  professionals  who  are  responsible  for 
providing such a service, although acting as if they are individuals. There are also cases where 
individuals use platforms for cost-sharing purposes or with the aim of helping people in need. 
Finally, there are cases where the platform acts purely as an intermediary. 

The VAT Directive applies both to the services provided by the sharing economy platforms 
and to the services provided through the platforms by their users. The Commission is working 
with the VAT Committee to set out basic principles of VAT assessment.147 Supplies of goods 
or services for monetary consideration are economic activities that fall under the scope of the 
VAT  Directive.  The  main  challenge  is  how  to  assess  bartering  transactions  and  situations 
where individuals contribute goods or services to a common pool in exchange for the right to 
benefit from other goods or services included in the pool: in both situations where there is an 
exchange of goods doubts may arise as to the qualification of individuals as taxable persons 
and as to the existence of a direct link between the supplies and the remuneration in kind. The 
assessment must be carried out on a case-by-case basis. 

Service providers on a collaborative platform receive an income for the service they propose. 
This income varies widely, from recovering costs (e.g. for the personal use of a good such as 
in  ridesharing/carsharing)  to  amounts  comparable  to  business/work  activities.  Tax  rules 
should  follow  national  laws  and  jurisprudence,  which  determine  from  which  moment  an 
activity becomes a business activity. If comparable economic activities are taxed the same and 
tax  incentives  apply  similarly  to  the  traditional  economy,  there  is  no  risk  of  additional  tax 
competition. 

The growing importance of the service component of the economy and the delivery of digital 
products makes it possible for enterprises which mainly or exclusively operate on the web to 
limit  their  physical  presence  in  the  countries  of  their  users.  As  a  result,  it  becomes  more 
difficult  to  establish  the  link  and  allocate  profits  to  a  national  jurisdiction.  The  challenge  is 

147 

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/878e0591-80c9-4c58-baf3-b9fda1094338/878 %20-
%20VAT%20treatment%20of%20sharing%20economy.pdf. 

41 

 
                                                 
even  bigger  when  loopholes  can  be  exploited  where  tax  legislation  does  not  keep  up  with 
economic and technological developments.148 

The  tax  challenge  is  rather  an  enforcement  issue,  in  particular  making  sure  that  tax  payers 
know  their  tax  obligations,  declare  their  income  and  pay  their  share  according  to  national 
rules.  While  tax  legislation  has  its  roots  in  the  traditional  business  models,  technological 
progress encourages more work to be performed by individuals, rather than by employees of 
enterprises. Both the new economic agents and tax administrators may not be clear about the 
obligations  and/or  have  doubts  on  the  application  of  existing  tax  rules  to  their  specific 
activities.   

5.2.2.  Available tools to address the issues 

Awareness  raising,  guidance  notes  and  online  tax  calculators  can  be  used  to  facilitate  tax 
administration.  Direct  collaboration  between  platforms  and  tax  authorities  can  also  help 
gather  more  information  to  ensure  tax  compliance  in  order  to  address  the  arising  issues  at 
source. This may also reduce costs for both administrations and enterprises. 

Most Member States apply  general rules to the collaborative economy, including  thresholds 
on annual income, VAT and on additional services, such as services offered together with the 
accommodation  (i.e.  cleaning  and laundry).  Many  countries set  a  minimum  annual  turnover 
for the application of income tax rules or the VAT obligation, while others set tax breaks for 
specific sectors. 

On  income  tax,  Belgium  and  Finland  apply  different  income  deductions.  Certain  Member 
States  go  further  and  offer  tax  breaks.  For  example,  the  UK’s  rent-a-room  scheme  allows 
landlords to earn up to a threshold of GBP 7 500 per year tax free from letting out furnished 
accommodation.  Ireland  clarifies  that  short-term  lets  to  guests,  ‘including  where  such 
accommodation is provided through online accommodation-booking sites’, do not fall within 
the  terms  of  the  relief  available  for  renting  an  apartment  for  the  longer  term.  France  has 
amended  its  financial  legislation  to  allow  online  marketplaces  to  collect  any  applicable 
‘tourist taxes’ on behalf of their users.149  

The  challenges  Member  States  face  with  the  growth  of  the  collaborative  economy  illustrate 
the need for further simplification and modernising of tax and social security legislation. The 
Commission is currently looking into the possibility of extending the VAT One Stop Shop for 
electronic  services  so  that  it  also  covers  the  supply  of  goods.150  The  Commission  has  also 
initiated a  pilot  project to enhance cooperation between tax administrations and  published a 
guide for cooperation between tax authorities and businesses in the field of e-commerce.151 

Member  States  are  taking  different  approaches  to  bring  more  clarity  to  the  applicable  rules 
and make it easier for people participating in collaborative economy activities to understand 
their tax obligations and report their income to the tax authorities. Some Member States focus 
on providing guidance on the application of existing tax rules (Austria, Slovakia, Lithuania), 
while others opt for exchange of information (UK, France, Finland). Estonia has introduced a 
test  service  for  automatic  simplified  tax  declaration,  developed  in  cooperation  with 
ridesharing  services.  Some  Member  States  are  considering  changes  in  their  tax  legislation 
(Italy,  UK,  France,  Denmark).  In  other  Member  States,  public  authorities  have  clarified 

148 

149 
150 
151 

OECD,  Addressing  the  Tax  Challenges  of  the  Digital  Economy,  OECD/G20  Base  Erosion  and  Profit  Shifting 
Project, 2014. 
In October 2015, Airbnb started collecting ‘tourist tax’ charged on the basis of per room per night. 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/telecom/index_en.htm. 
VAT Action Plan. 

42 

 
                                                 
applicable rules on their websites or in the context of wider guidelines, e.g. in Hungary in the 
context of guidance on rules applicable to e-commerce. 

Some  Member  States  are  working  with  collaborative  platforms  to  streamline  tax  collection 
and  make  tax  declaration  easier.  In  some  Member  States,  municipalities  have  concluded 
agreements with collaborative platforms to collect and pay tourist taxes. This is the case for 
example in Amsterdam, where the authorities have concluded an agreement with Airbnb. 

In  some  cases,  Member  States  impose  on  platforms  certain  obligations  facilitating  the 
calculation of revenues from collaborative economy activities. In France, for example, as of 
July  2016,  collaborative  platforms  will  have  to  communicate  to  each  individual  providing 
services in  the  collaborative economy an annual summary of their tax situation, mentioning 
how and how much they have to declare to the tax authorities. 

Table 6: Overview of Member States’ tax initiatives targeted at the collaborative economy 

Country 

Initiatives 

Implications 

Law: tax on employment intermediaries 

UK 

Law: targeted tax relief measures 

Proposal: expansion of data-gathering powers 

Italy 

Proposal: Sharing Economy Act 
(online consultation until end of May) 

Proposal: Government Report 

France 

Law: introducing the possibility for platforms 
to collect local taxes for the users 

Individuals providing personal services through a platform are 
considered  employees  if  the  quality  of  the  work  is  under  the 
control of the platform 

Increase in rent-a-room relief 
Encourages local authorities to grant relief from business rates 

Extension  of  data  collection  from  credit  card  companies  to 
other payment providers  
Normative definition of sharing economy 
Creation of an electronic register of platforms 
Platform active in Italy is a permanent establishment 
Platform is a withholding agent 
Creation  of  a  new  tax  category  ‘income  deriving  from  non-
professional sharing economy activity’ 
10 % tax for income up to EUR 10 000; standard tax rate for 
higher income  
Exchange of information on user revenues between platforms 
and tax and social security administration 
Commercial users must register 
Clarifies the boundary between commercial activity and cost-
sharing 

Paris is the only city that has made use of this possibility for 
Airbnb services 

Proposal:  Planned  introduction  of  an  income 
threshold for taxation 
Income tax guidance for the sharing economy 

Threshold debated between EUR 2 000 and 5 000 
Awareness raising 

Finland 

VAT  guidance  for  providers  of  passenger 
transport services 

Study  on  how  platform  providers  can  be 
obliged to declare amounts 
Guidance  for  ridesharing  and  rent-a-room 
platforms 
Guidance for providers of passenger transport 
services ordered online  
the 
Government 
collaborative  economy  to  be  launched  in 
spring 2016 

strategy 

towards 

collaborative 

Dialogue  with 
companies  
Guidance  for  particular  business  models  to 
qualify  a  business  as  professional,  e.g. 
commercial renting 

economy 

Lithuania 

Slovakia 

Denmark 

Austria 

Awareness raising 

Awareness raising 

Re-examine whether legislative change is needed to integrate 
the collaborative economy into the traditional economy 

Find  ways  to  increase  citizens’  awareness  of  tax  rules  and 
make income reporting easier 

Awareness raising 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estonia 

Test service for simplified income declaration 
for ridesharing services 

Simplification of tax declaration and automated calculations 
Possible  expansion  to  other  types  of  collaborative  economy 
businesses  

6. 

ASSESSING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 

6.1. 

Challenges for official statistics 

The  collaborative  economy  has  given  rise  to  new  business  opportunities  as  the  outreach  of 
households  and  small  businesses  increases  in  the  nearly  borderless  digital  world.  The 
platforms serving the collaborative are fully dependent on a strong IT infrastructure while the 
more  successful  platforms  make  use  of  big  data  methods  to  exploit  their  information  on 
suppliers and consumers to better match needs. 

The collaborative economy is characterised by many small actors (suppliers and consumers) 
and  relatively  few  platforms.  The  economic  size  of  the  platforms  themselves  is  recorded  in 
official statistics: they may have a head office in one country and regional offices in several 
other countries, although not necessarily in all countries in which they operate. The size of the 
services  intermediated  by  those  platforms  is  nevertheless  of  even  greater  importance  to 
economists  and  policy-makers.  For  example, 
large-scale 
collaborative  platforms  in  the  transport  and  accommodation  sectors  have  an  influence  on 
economic development that goes far beyond the platforms themselves. 

the  services  provided  by 

Most  of  the  facts  presented  in  this  document  come  from  research  and  specific  surveys. 
However,  there  are  no  official  statistics  on  employment  in  the  collaborative  economy  and 
other  direct  or  indirect  effects  are  currently  not  assessed.  As  a  result,  it  is  difficult  to  fully 
appreciate the potential benefits on issues where quantifiable information comes from a range 
of diverse sources that may emphasise different aspects of the collaborative economy. 

The information challenge is to bring these different sources together, providing a reliable and 
relevant basis for the industry itself, as well as policy-makers, to understand the benefits and 
implications of a growing collaborative economy. 

Official statistics provide a framework for compiling objective information that may be used 
for monitoring public policies and programmes, and to improve public and private decision-
making.  Official  statistics  are  produced  primarily  on  the  basis  of  information  gathered  via 
administrative sources and surveys of public institutions, businesses and the public. 

The  European  Statistical  System  comprising  the  national  statistical  institutes  in  Member 
States already conducts several surveys of enterprises and households. However, the character 
of the collaborative economy means that the cost and burden of carrying out surveys on the 
households and SMEs participating in the collaborative economy is significant and prevents 
the  collection  of  sufficiently  reliable  information.  In  this  respect,  platforms  serving  the 
collaborative  economy  are  potentially  an  efficient  source  of  basic  information  for  the 
compilation  and  improvement  of  official  statistics:  consumer  or  business  surveys  cannot 
provide the same rich set of information relevant for understanding the socioeconomic impact 
of the collaborative economy. 

An  efficient  and  organised  collaboration  between  these  platforms  and  official  statistical 
bodies  may  also  limit  the  overall  burden  on  actors  in  the  collaborative  economy,  especially 
the burden on SMEs and consumers, since the platforms can be a primary source for official 
statistics.  Confidentiality  issues  would  be  paramount  in  this  context.  The  principle  of 
statistical confidentially is laid down in Union law as well as in the European Statistics Code 
of  Practice:  ‘The  privacy  of  data  providers  (households,  enterprises,  administrations  and 
other  respondents),  the  confidentiality  of  the  information  they  provide  and  its  use  only  for 

44 

 
statistical purposes are absolutely guaranteed’. The Commission (Eurostat) could play a role 
in forwarding steps towards such a collaboration between platforms and producers of official 
statistics. 

6.2. 

Further research 

The collaborative economy is  developing rapidly. Internet technology is providing the basis 
for a new generation of platforms that are enabling wider networks of peer-to-peer services to 
be  created.  These  provide  many  opportunities  for  employment,  innovation,  and  create  the 
potential for more efficient use of resources. Currently, our understanding of the collaborative 
economy  is  largely  tied  to  the  economic  development  of  individual  collaborative  platforms. 
Further research is required to broaden and deepen our appreciation.  

There  is  need  to  estimate  more  accurately  the  size  and  rate  of  development  of  the 
collaborative economy in the EU, using larger datasets and possibly more automated methods 
of  data  gathering.  As  well  as  examining  the  development  of  individual  platforms,  it  is 
important to understand the net impact of the collaborative economy on the wider economy. 
For  example,  although  it  is  clear  that  employment  is  being  created,  the  net  impact  on 
employment  still  has  to  be  better  understood  as  well  as  the  structural  impact  of  the 
collaborative  economy  on  the  overall  labour  market.  Regulation  has  an  impact  on 
collaborative platforms, as it is does other businesses. More analysis is required to fine tune 
our understanding of how regulation affects the development of, primarily, peer-to-peer based 
platforms,  where  suppliers  are  typically  individuals  seeking  to  earn  additional  income. 
Finally,  individual  collaborative  platforms  offer  the  potential  for  environmental  benefits  by 
providing  the  possibility  to  share  resources  more  widely  than  in  the  past.  However,  the  net 
impact of collaborative platforms on the environment requires further research. 

7. 

REFERENCES 

Airbnb, 2015, Data on the Airbnb Community in NYC, https://www.airbnbaction.com/data-on-the-airbnb-
community-in-nyc/  [30-3-2016] 

Airbnb, 2012, Study finds that Airbnb hosts and guests have major positive effect on city economies, 
https://www.airbnb.de/press/news/study-finds-that-airbnb-hosts-and-guests-have-major-positive-effect-on-city-
economies  [31-3-2016] 

Airdna, 2016, Airbnb Data and Analytics Berlin April 2016, 
http://www.airdna.co/city/de/berlin?report=de_berlin  [1-4-2016] 

Berg, J. (2016), ‘Income Security in the Collaborative Economy: Findings and Policy Lessons from a Survey of 
Crowdworkers’, Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 37/3. 

Burston-Marsteller, Aspen Institute and TIME (2015), ‘The Collaborative Economy Survey’, (www.burson-
marsteller.com/ondemand-survey/).   

De Groen, W.P., I. Maselli and B. Fabo (2016), ‘The Digital Market for Local Services: A one-night stand for 
workers?’, CEPS Special Report No 133, CEPS, Brussels, April. 

Demary, Vera, 2015a, Competition in the Sharing Economy, IW policy papers, No 19, Cologne 

Demary, Vera, 2015b, The Platformization of Digital Markets. Comments on the Public Consultation of the 
European Commission on the Regulatory Environment for Platforms, Online Intermediaries, Data and Cloud 
Computing and the Collaborative Economy, IW policy paper, No 39, Cologne 

European Commission, 2015a, Regulatory environment for platforms, online intermediaries, data and cloud 
computing and the collaborative economy, http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-
regulatory-environment-platforms-online-intermediaries-data-and-cloud  [22-3-2016] 

European Commission, 2015b, A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, Communication from the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions, {SWD(2015) 100 final}, COM(2015) 192 final, 6.5.2015, Brussels 

45 

 
Eurostat, 2016, Information Society. Comprehensive Database, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/information-
society/data/comprehensive-database  [6-4-2016] 

Eurostat (2016), Urban-rural typology (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Glossary:Predominantly_rural_region). 

Evans, David S. / Schmalensee, Richard, 2007, The Industrial Organization of Markets with Two-sided 
Platforms, in: Competition Policy International, Vol. 3, No 1, pp. 151-179 

EY — Ernst & Young, 2015, Venture Capital insights — 4Q14. Global VC investment landscape, 
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Venture_Capital_Insights_ 4Q14  -_January_2015/$FILE/ey-
venture-capital-insights-4Q14.pdf [12-11-2015] 

Finley, Kate, 2013, Trust in the Sharing Economy: An Exploratory Study, Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, 
University of Warwick, Warwick 

Gellersen, Christoph, 2009, Kostenschätzung für ein Muster-Hotel, http://www.christoph-
gellersen.de/MUSTER_2009_FF-E_Kostenschatzung_CG.pdf  [7-4-2016] 

GEWOS, 2014, Airbnb und der Berliner Wohnungsmarkt, http://www.airbnbaction.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/12/AirbnbundderBerlinerWohnungsmarkt.pdf  [30-3-2016] 

Gloveler, 2013, Zahlen und Fakten, http://gloveler.de/geschichte  [14-3-2016] 

Hall, J.V. and A.B. Krueger (2015), ‘An analysis of the labor market for Uber’s driver-partners in the United 
States’, Princeton University Industrial Relations Section Working Paper 587, Princeton, NJ. 

Huws, U. and S. Joyce (2016), ‘Size of the UK’s ‘Gig Economy’ revealed for the first time’, Crowd Working 
Survey, Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) and UNI Europa, February. 

Hotel Online, 2015, Hotel Development Cost Survey 2014/15, https://www.hotel-
online.com/press_releases/release/hotel-development-cost-survey-2014-15  [30-3-2016] 

Lawler, Ryan, 2012, Airbnb: Our guests stay longer and spend more than hotel guests, contributing $56 m to the 
San Francisco economy, TechCrunch, http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/09/airbnb-research-data-dump / [31-3-
2016] 

Maselli, I., K. Lenaerts and M. Beblavý (2016), ‘Five things we need to know about the collaborative economy’, 
CEPS Essay No 21, CEPS, Brussels, January. O’Neill, John W. / Ouyang, Yuxia, 2016, From Air Mattresses to 
Unregulated Business: An Analysis of the Other Side of Airbnb, Pennsylvania State University, 
www.ahla.com/uploadedFiles/_Common/pdf/PennState_AirBnbReport_.pdf [16-3-2016] 

Pfeiffer, Elmar, 2014, Hotelprojekte — Gestehungskosten, http://www.stalys.de/data/hotkos2.htm  [31-3-2016] 

Statista, 2015, Kennzahlen zu Airbnb weltweit Stand 2015, 
http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/419494/umfrage/globaler-ueberblick-von-airbnb/  [14-3-2016] 

Wimdu, 2015, Über Wimdu. Wimdu in Zahlen, http://www.wimdu.de/aboutus#about-us-about-us  [14-3-2016] 

Zervas, Georgios / Prosperio, Davide / Byers, John W., 2015, A First Look at Online Reputation on Airbnb. 
Where Every Stay is Above Average, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2554500  [7-4-2016] 

9flats, 2015, https://www.9flats.com/de/  [14-3-2016] 

46 

 
 
 
Annex I: Action taken by Member States over the collaborative economy 

Member 
State 

Austria 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

Action 

 

 

The Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy commissioned a study to analyse 
the legal aspects of renting private accommodation under the current legislation. 
The  City  of  Vienna  has  announced  that  it  is  introducing  amendments  to  the  Vienna  Tourism 
Promotion Act (WTFG), laying down reporting obligations for platform operators as accommodation 
agencies,  reporting  requirements  for  accommodation  providers  and  fines  for  providers  who  do  not 
register accommodation. The City of Vienna assumes that many private sharing economy providers, 
in  particular  providers  of  accommodation,  are  not  sufficiently  aware  of  the  legal  framework. 
Therefore,  the  City  of  Vienna  will  intensify  its  communication  and  information  activities  on  the 
regulations to be observed, including in numerous information channels. 

  Austria realises that overregulation or inadequate solutions might hamper or even destroy innovative 

processes or ways of sharing assets. 

 

 

The Czech Republic has not provided any guidance or clarification on the rules that apply. Given that 
the country is strongly aware of the cross-border character of the collaborative economy, the Czech 
Republic  is  waiting  for  clarification  from  the  Commission  (European  agenda  for  the  collaborative 
economy) and decisions from the CJEU to ensure that eventual domestic regulations will be in line 
with EU law. 
There  is  ongoing  research  of  the  collaborative  economy  submitted  by  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and 
Trade. 

  Denmark is currently undertaking an analysis of its sharing economy, including its economic impact 

and size. The results will be published before summer 2016. 

 

 

Estonia 

The Estonian Parliament is in the process of amending the law on public transport, as part of which 
rules applicable to ridesharing will also be addressed. 
The Estonian Tax and Customs Board (ETCB) and the technology company Uber have been working 
together in a pilot scheme to analyse cooperation points between Uber’s global cash-free service and 
ETCB’s  contactless  reporting  scheme  in  order  to  offer  new  ways  of  paying  tax  liabilities  in 
collaborative economy. 
Estonia is open to cooperating/finding new methods of stimulating the collaborative economy. 

 
  A study about collaborative economy businesses in Estonia will be carried out in 2016. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  objective  in  Finland  is  to  avoid  additional  regulation  and  where  possible  to  instead  consider 
relaxing regulations. 
In 2015 the Finnish tax authorities provided specific guidance on how income from services like Uber 
and Airbnb is treated in income taxation. 
The Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy is currently planning on providing guidance 
on homestay services. 
In  Finland  the  Ministry  of  Finance  is  drafting  a  Crowdfunding  Act  which  will  cover  investor 
protection issues. 
There  is  currently  an  ongoing  project  in  the  Finnish  Ministry  of  Transport  and  Communications 
entitled ‘the Transport Code’, the goal of which is to bring all transport market regulations together 
under one act. The aim of the project is to make room for new business models and to better meet the 
needs of users. 
The  Finnish  Consumer  ombudsman  uses  ‘soft  law’  methods  like  negotiations,  persuasion  and 
guidelines.  The  Consumer  Ombudsman  has  negotiated  with  some  national  marketplace  platforms 
(Huuto.net,  Tori.fi)  and  ensured  that  platforms  will  inform  parties  acting  on  the  platform  of  the 
consumer law requirements. 

The  Federal  Government  is  currently  reviewing  or  possibly  revising  national  laws  that  might  be 
necessary to accommodate new developments shaped by the collaborative economy. 

  Germany’s  Ministry  of  Education  and  Research  is  currently  analysing  the  collaborative  economy 

Finland 

Germany 

47 

 
 
 
 
through  a  project  called  ‘Peer  Sharing’.  First  results  of  the  project  can  be  found  at  www.peer-
sharing.de  

Italy 

Malta 

 

 

 

 

Proposed  law  to  tax  income  from  ‘non-professional  collaborative  economy’  activities.  It  aims  at 
taxing any income below EUR 10 000 at a 10 % flat tax rate and taxing income above that sum at the 
ordinary income tax rate. The legislative proposal is currently undergoing public consultation, which 
is due to end on 31 May 2016. 

The Maltese Government Research Unit has carried out general research into best practices abroad in 
the  collaborative  economy.  Malta  has  not  yet  carried  out  any  study  on  the  fiscal  impact  of  the 
collaborative economy.  

The  priority for  the  Netherlands and  its Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs was/is  to  remove  and  clarify 
existing  barriers  yet  keep  an  eye  out  for  potential  unwanted  effects  of  the  emergence  of  the 
collaborative economy. 
The  Dutch  government  is  involved  in  a  carsharing  ‘Innovation  Deal’  (‘Green  Deal  Autodelen’) 
scheme  that  involves  government  bodies,  private  companies,  special  interest  groups  and  NGOs 
participating to stimulate carsharing in the Netherlands. Obstacles to the development of carsharing 
are being identified as part of the Innovation Deal. 

  Both  the  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  and  the  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and  Environment  have 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

conducted studies on the collaborative economy. 
The Dutch government supports ‘ShareNL’, which since 2013 has been functioning as an independent 
knowledge  and  network  platform  that  advises  and  provides  guidance  to  businesses,  startups, 
governments and knowledge institutes. 
The national tax authority is working on guidance for homesharing (e.g. Airbnb). A dedicated site to 
guide participants through the applicable legislation is expected soon. 
The  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  has  a  contact  point  that  businesses  in  the collaborative economy 
can contact if they experience any barriers to operation. The Ministry responds both proactively and 
on a case-by-case basis to signs of any barriers. This is in line with its priority to remove barriers and 
obstacles in order to promote the collaborative economy. 

Poland  believes  in  ‘self-regulation’.  The  role  of  the  public  administration  in  this  sector  is  rather 
limited and self-regulation could be much a more effective tool (since trust and safety between users 
are the foundation of this type of economy). It is worth emphasising that many services provided by 
collaborative economy companies have been available before (e.g. sharing car park  areas), but they 
were  beyond  the  control  of  public  administration  (i.e.  in  the  shadow  economy).  Transferring  the 
services  to  mobile  applications  and  the  internet  is  conducive  to  combating  this  area  of  the  shadow 
economy. 

Portugal has expanded its rules on the tourist industry to cover local accommodation. In particular in 
the context of short-term housing rent for tourists, the definition of ‘local host’ under Portuguese law 
has been expanded to cover the electronic platforms. 
Portugal has published Decree-Law No 128/2014, specifically regulating local accommodation. The 
Decree-Law  sets  out  clear  definitions  of  the  scope  and  extent  of  tourism  enterprises  by  providing 
minimum requirements for operation and operation in the market. Registration is done online, through 
a simple written notification, which is the pre-requisite for operating an establishment. 
Portugal has established a government ‘Sharing Economy Analysis Platform’ covering all aspects of 
the collaborative economy. 
The  current  Portuguese  government  also  launched  in  March  2016  the  ‘National  Strategy  for 
Entrepreneurship’,  which  includes,  among  other  measures,  the  creation  of  the  National  Network  of 
Fab Labs and promoting new forms of crowdfunding. 
‘Turismo  de  Portugal’  has  been  very  active  promoting  entrepreneurship  programmes  with  other 
partners  such  as  startups,  accelerate  associations,  universities  and  education  institutions,  including 
hotel schools. 

48 

 
 
 
UK 

 

 

 

 

 

The  UK  sees  that  the  evolving  nature  of  the  collaborative  economy  market  means  that  it  would  be 
hard to communicate a holistic set of guidance without this becoming quickly out of date. Therefore 
the UK prefers to look at the specific challenges posed by the development of the sharing economy 
and tackle these individually. The UK has not provided one specific set of guidance on all the rules 
that apply to individuals and businesses operating in the sharing economy. Instead it has tended to do 
this on an issue-by-issue basis. 
The UK Government has in place a ‘rent-a-room’ allowance, permitting people to earn up to £7 500 a 
year from renting out a room in their house tax free. 
From  April  2017,  there  will  be  two  new  tax-free  £1 000  allowances:  one  for  selling  goods  or 
providing services and one for income from property you own. People who make up to £1 000 from 
occasional jobs — such as sharing power tools, providing a lift share or selling goods they have made 
— will no longer need to pay tax on that income. In the same way, the first £1 000 of income from 
property — such as renting a driveway or loft storage — will be tax free. 
The UK has set up an engagement group with Government and sharing economy businesses to raise 
and  address  continuing  barriers  to  their  growth  coming  from  regulation,  data  issues  or  commercial 
challenges. 
The  UK  also  has  a  couple  of  non-departmental  bodies  that  assist  with  promoting  innovation  in  the 
sharing  economy.  Both  ‘NESTA’  and  ‘Innovate  UK’  have  a  wide  economic  development  and 
innovation remit, but take a close interest in the sharing economy, both in terms of doing research and 
funding competitions to help promote innovation in this area. 

Note: information was collected through a European Commission questionnaire sent to Member States entitled:  ‘Good 
practices in promoting Collaborative Economy Businesses’. 

49 

 
 
 
 
Annex II Examples of thresholds applied in Member States 

Services sector   Authorisation/licensing thresholds  

Taxation thresholds 

Transport 

Accommodation 

- profits beyond the cost of fuel can only 
be made by licenced taxi drivers (IE) 
- direct or indirect monetary 
remuneration requires authorisation 
- additional licensing thresholds on the 
minimum number of people carried and 
territorial scope (e.g. inter-urban 
transport services) (PL) 

- minimum revenues or 
annual turnover for 
VAT imposition (BE) 
- profits beyond the cost 
of the journey subject to 
income tax (PL) 
- frequency of the 
activity (RO) 

security 

Employment/Social 
contribution thresholds 
- compulsory social security 
contributions above specific 
thresholds (ES, FR, IE) 
- income beyond the minimum 
wage on an annual basis 
attributes a freelance status to 
the provider (ES) 

- maximum number of properties/rooms 
and people staying (BE, ES, NL) 
- maximum and minimum number of 
days (BE, UK, ES, IE, NL) 
- different types of residence (main 
residence vs secondary residence) (FR) 
- presence of hosts while renting out the 
property (BE) 
- different types of space to be rent (flat 
vs room) (ES) 
- frequency and activity purpose (IE) 
- minimum number of days’ break 
between rentals (IT) 
- living purpose of the flat and 
percentage of the surface rent (DE) 

Professional 
services 

- frequency and activity purpose (per-
profit vs non-profit) (FR) 
- minimum turnover (HU) 
- chamber membership and minimum 
period of traineeship requirement (HU)   

- minimum revenues or 
annual turnover for 
VAT imposition (BE, 
FR, UK, PL, NL) 

- kind of services 
offered: VAT imposed 
on additional services 
offered (i.e. cleaning 
and laundry) (ES) 
- purpose of the activity 
(for profit) and 
frequency (RO) 
- exemption of income 
tax for longer term 
letting (IE) 
- Different fees 
depending on number of 
beds (MT) 
- minimum revenues or 
annual turnover for 
VAT imposition 
- minimum income for 
the application of 
income tax rules 
- frequency of the 
activity (RO) 
- purpose of the activity 
(pastime vs economic 
activity) (NL) 
- user benefiting from 
the services (e.g. family 
sphere) (NL) 

50