Social perspective

When examining the social issues brought about by the sharing model, it is important to consider that this system has questioned existing market structures, disrupted community interactions, changed boundaries, and altered the psychology of ownership (Lee, Yang & Koo, Reference Lee, Yang and Koo2019). These changes have elevated social relations to a new level, where individuals are expected to operate sustainably, consciously, and cooperatively to advance the common good and achieve efficient resource use and allocation (Kauffman & Naldi, Reference Kauffman and Naldi2020; Sabitzer, Hartl, Marth, Hofmann & Penz, Reference Sabitzer, Hartl, Marth, Hofmann and Penz2018). However, sharing has been associated with numerous issues, such as people acting out of self-interest, exploiting others without contributing, and fostering avoidable group conflicts (Culiberg, Abosag & Čater, Reference Culiberg, Abosag and Čater2023; Kauffman & Naldi, Reference Kauffman and Naldi2020; Ozuna & Steinhoff, Reference Ozuna and Steinhoff2024). These behaviors often arise because individuals do not perceive themselves as part of the community and view their participation as merely a business transaction rather than an integral component of the community’s overall social mission (Acquier et al., Reference Acquier, Daudigeos and Pinkse2017).

Several forms of sexual harassment have been identified as significant issues within the SE (Buhalis et al., Reference Buhalis, Andreu and Gnoth2020). Additionally, prejudices based on factors such as race, class, ethnicity, education, or social connections have been observed. Information leaks are also frequent in co-working environments associated with the SE, leading to general mistrust and potentially harming entrepreneurial efforts and community-building initiatives (Bouncken & Reuschl, Reference Bouncken and Reuschl2018). These issues highlight the challenges of fostering inclusive and safe environments within the SE.

Some authors argue that the SE has evolved from a non-profit, community-oriented approach to a for-profit business model. In this model, users can access goods and services at lower prices, leading to increased consumption. However, this can also exacerbate traditional capitalist and monopolistic tendencies, as well as widen social and economic inequalities (Botsman & Rogers, Reference Botsman and Rogers2010; Ciulli & Kolk, Reference Ciulli and Kolk2019; Ravenelle, Reference Ravenelle2017). These effects are particularly concerning in contexts already marked by high levels of inequality and vulnerable populations (Dreyer et al., Reference Dreyer, Lüdeke-Freund, Hamann and Faccer2017; Melián-González & Bulchand-Gidumal, Reference Melián-González and Bulchand-Gidumal2021). In such settings, individuals who are already at risk of social or economic exclusion are often drawn into roles within the SE that lack formal protections, stable income, or long-term security. While platforms often promote narratives of empowerment and flexibility, they may, in fact, reinforce precarious conditions, leaving participants exposed to fluctuating demand, algorithmic management, and limited institutional support (Stewart & Stanford, Reference Stewart and Stanford2017; Woodcock & Graham, Reference Woodcock and Graham2020).

In remote areas with few users, platforms may struggle to function effectively, potentially exacerbating existing disparities (Dervojeda et al., Reference Dervojeda, Verzijl, Nagtegaal, Lengton, Rouwmaat, Monfardini and Frideres2013). Additionally, it’s important to note that many activities within the SE do not provide the benefits of regular employment and have faced criticism for potentially exploiting individuals rather than empowering them (Stein, Reference Stein2015). These factors underscore the complexities and challenges associated with the SE, particularly in terms of equitable access and fair labor practices.

Finally, it is crucial to recognize the impact certain platforms have had on specific urban neighborhoods, particularly concerning rising housing costs attributed to their introduction and widespread use (Baumber et al., Reference Baumber, Scerri and Schweinsberg2019). For example, Airbnb has been criticized for transforming residential properties into short-term rentals, which can displace long-term residents and alter the fabric of communities (Clemons et al., Reference Clemons, Waran, Li, Hermes and Schreieck2021).

Legal perspective

The rapid expansion of the sharing-based model has outpaced the capabilities of existing regulatory systems, leaving them ill-equipped to manage the new challenges it presents (Abutaleb, El-Bassiouny & Hamed, Reference Abutaleb, El-Bassiouny and Hamed2023). While some regulatory actions have been taken in response to platform activities, these measures have often been inadequate, lacking a cohesive philosophical or strategic framework, as well as the foresight to anticipate these developments (Dellaert, Reference Dellaert2019). Non-sharing businesses have voiced concerns that their demand has declined and that they have been forced to lower their prices due to the uneven regulatory landscape, which imposes different restrictions on sharing platforms compared to non-sharing companies (Gunter & Önder, Reference Gunter and Önder2018; Koh & King, Reference Koh and King2017).

The legal issues extend beyond mere restrictions or their absence. Governments have focused on the sharing-based model due to its reliance on the flow of information and the exchange of personal data, such as consumption patterns, locations, and payment methods (Ranzini, Etter, Lutz & Vermeulen, Reference Ranzini, Etter, Lutz and Vermeulen2017). With fewer restrictions on data sharing, platforms can more extensively exploit user data. While this can enhance service delivery, it also raises the risk of private information being leaked, leading consumers to question the legitimacy and ethical implications of such practices (Ranzini et al., Reference Ranzini, Etter, Lutz and Vermeulen2017).

When questioned about their regulations, platforms argue that their own background checks and swift resolution of member disputes allow them to identify stalkers more effectively than government agencies (Malhotra & van Alstyne, Reference Malhotra and van Alstyne2014). This approach to self-regulation not only provides greater operational freedom but also facilitates cross-platform collaboration to gain a social license, which could lead to improved regulation in the future (Baumber et al., Reference Baumber, Scerri and Schweinsberg2019). An example of this is Sharing UK, a trade body established to protect and promote the interests of individuals and businesses involved in the SE (Sharing Economy, 2022).

The emerging global digital economy has demonstrated how large, powerful high-tech companies aim to maintain their dominance by adopting an early-mover approach, which limits governments’ ability to regulate their products and services (Kelsey, Reference Kelsey2017). Similarly, sharing platforms tend to prioritize their own interests and financial objectives, sometimes fostering systems that are vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination in pursuit of higher profits (Kauffman & Naldi, Reference Kauffman and Naldi2020). These dynamics are enabled by regulatory delays and ambiguities, which allow platforms to present themselves as neutral intermediaries rather than service providers. In doing so, they often sidestep legal responsibilities while actively influencing the evolution of policy and governance in ways that reinforce their strategic advantage (Zhang, Pinkse & McMeekin, Reference Zhang, Pinkse and McMeekin2024; Zvolska et al., Reference Zvolska, Voytenko Palgan and Mont2019). To mitigate these issues, basic regulatory measures and ongoing activity monitoring have been recommended to manage the impact of sharing activities within different communities (Buhalis et al., Reference Buhalis, Andreu and Gnoth2020).

Technological perspective

With the widespread adoption of the Internet, sharing activities have become more accessible, facilitating collaboration beyond personal social circles. However, this ease of sharing has also enabled illegal activities, such as the unauthorized distribution of movies and music, which have garnered significant opposition from the affected industries (Bag, Gupta, Srivastava, Sivarajah & Kumar, Reference Bag, Gupta, Srivastava, Sivarajah and Kumar2022; Belk, Reference Belk2014).

Platforms have recognized the necessity of using algorithms and computational power to manage matchmaking mechanisms and pricing processes, as members of these communities often do not know each other personally. These systems must be robust enough to handle all demands and can encounter significant issues when they fall short (Marr, Reference Marr2016). These restrictions, coupled with the necessity for mobile devices, have been suggested to limit the expansion of this phenomenon (Kauffman & Naldi, Reference Kauffman and Naldi2020).

Users are more likely to embrace the SE if digital platforms, whether accessed via smartphones or websites, are user-friendly and intuitive (Lacan & Desmet, Reference Lacan and Desmet2017). Some authors have proposed integrating blockchain into these platforms to enhance safety and efficiency, and reduce perceived risk (Chang & Wang, Reference Chang and Wang2018; Großmann, Merfeld, Klein, Föller & Henkel, Reference Großmann, Merfeld, Klein, Föller and Henkel2024; Kapassa, Themistocleous, Christodoulou & Iosif, Reference Kapassa, Themistocleous, Christodoulou and Iosif2021; Krivenchuk & Smutny, Reference Krivenchuk and Smutny2019). However, despite the high expectations surrounding blockchain technology, it may not fully eliminate the need for trust in the SE (Hawlitschek, Notheisen & Teubner, Reference Hawlitschek, Notheisen and Teubner2018), and it involves complex and costly technologies (Baldimtsi, Kiayias & Samari, Reference Baldimtsi, Kiayias, Samari, Nguyen and Zhou2017).

Moreover, the digital infrastructures underpinning these platforms, particularly algorithms and data collection systems, are not neutral. Rather, they are often designed to advance the interests of the platform itself, shaping user behavior, controlling visibility, and extracting value in ways that may compromise transparency and equity (Vallas & Schor, Reference Vallas and Schor2020).

Economic perspective

The SE has experienced rapid growth, making it one of the fastest-growing sectors of the global economy. Platforms that act as intermediaries, managing transactions and profiting from them, have become particularly significant in this process (Gössling & Michael Hall, Reference Gössling and Michael Hall2019). Some authors argue that the SE has evolved from a nonprofit, community-oriented phenomenon into a for-profit business model capable of transforming production, consumption, finance, and learning due to its rapid expansion (Ravenelle, Reference Ravenelle2017). These claims are substantiated by the substantial market dominance that platforms have quickly achieved, often nearing monopolistic power (Kauffman & Naldi, Reference Kauffman and Naldi2020). This shift has also raised concerns about value allocation within the system, as the intermediary platforms that facilitate exchanges tend to capture the majority of the profits, leading to an inequitable distribution among all participants and compensation insecurities (Alnaggar, Gzara & Bookbinder, Reference Alnaggar, Gzara and Bookbinder2024; de Filippi, Reference de Filippi2017).

Despite these limitations, non-sharing businesses are increasingly adopting the SE model, potentially exacerbating wealth inequality and reinforcing capitalist and monopolistic tendencies. This adoption allows more people to access commodities, leading to a boomerang effect that increases overall consumption (Ciulli & Kolk, Reference Ciulli and Kolk2019). Additionally, financial risks associated with fraud and the possibility of members not receiving what was promised must be considered (Yi, Yuan & Yoo, Reference Yi, Yuan and Yoo2020). There is also the potential for increased prices of new products due to their after-purchase sharing potential (Kauffman & Naldi, Reference Kauffman and Naldi2020). These economic shifts can be understood through a lens that shows how platforms create significant profits by capitalizing on users’ resources and work, while minimizing their own risks and offering little in terms of wealth redistribution (Srnicek, Reference Srnicek2017).

However, these are not the only financial issues associated with the SE’s integration into daily life. The increasing demand for ‘shared’ residences is known to limit the availability of affordable long-term housing, subsequently raising living expenses, rents, and home prices (Malhotra & van Alstyne, Reference Malhotra and van Alstyne2014; Newlands et al., Reference Newlands, Lutz and Fieseler2017). When examining the effects of the sharing movement on the automotive sector, the results are mixed. On one hand, car sharing suggests that fewer people will own cars, potentially reducing the number of automobiles sold by 2% to 4% annually (Schiller, Reference Schiller2014; Schmidt, Reference Schmidt2020) and increasing competition within the automotive sector. This shift will also affect the manufacturing of car components, support services, and related industries (Barnes & Mattsson, Reference Barnes and Mattsson2016). However, since shared cars are likely to be used more intensively, they will wear out faster and need replacement sooner, leading to a gradual but steady increase in industry sales (Grosse-Ophoff, Hasler, Heineke & Moller, Reference Grosse-Ophoff, Hasler, Heineke and Moller2017).

Environmental perspective

Although some have questioned the environmental effectiveness of the SE (Martin, Reference Martin2016; Ricci, Reference Ricci2015), it is widely regarded as having significant potential to contribute to sustainability (Martin, Reference Martin2016; Ricci, Reference Ricci2015). Some concerns stem from the occasional neglect of community and environmental care by some users, while others focus on the system’s long-term impacts on communities, which are under scrutiny by regulators and governments (Marchi & Parekh, Reference Marchi and Parekh2016).

The true environmental impact of the SE remains uncertain at this stage of research (Liu & Chen, Reference Liu and Chen2020). Its inherent nature complicates regulation, posing challenges to ensuring its sustainability (Ma et al., Reference Ma, Rong, Luo, Wang, Mangalagiu and Thornton2019). Additional concerns include the rise of overconsumption patterns due to price reductions and increased market availability (Kauffman & Naldi, Reference Kauffman and Naldi2020), the escalation of traffic congestion and air pollution from decreased public transportation use (Clemons et al., Reference Clemons, Waran, Li, Hermes and Schreieck2021), and the increase in travel frequency and length of stay (Wirtz, So, Mody, Liu & Chun, Reference Wirtz, So, Mody, Liu and Chun2019).

All these factors likely have a negative environmental impact, casting doubt on the claim that the SE inevitably reduces resource consumption. This supports the argument that the SE may not be the path to sustainability nor accelerate the transition to it (Munkøe, Reference Munkøe2017). From a regulatory perspective, these environmental shortcomings are exacerbated by weak regulatory mechanisms and the absence of enforceable sustainability standards that would hold platforms accountable for their ecological claims (Zvolska et al., Reference Zvolska, Voytenko Palgan and Mont2019).

Theoretical implications

One of the key contributions of this study is its theoretical framework, which synthesizes diverse critiques of the SE and positions them within a broader academic discourse. Central to this perspective is the growing body of research that examines how digital platforms, often seen as decentralizing forces, actually concentrate power among a limited group of stakeholders, including platform owners and the algorithmic systems that govern user behavior (Srnicek, Reference Srnicek2017). Through the lens of this perspective, our study underscores how these platforms’ business models create inequalities and perpetuate control, particularly in their labor practices (Schor & Vallas, Reference Schor, Vallas, Heydari, Ergun, Dyal-Chand and Bart2023; Vallas & Schor, Reference Vallas and Schor2020). This theoretical perspective has become increasingly critical in explaining the growing tension between platform owners and users, with the latter often experiencing heightened precariousness and exploitation.

In parallel, existing literature on the role of legal and normative systems offers valuable insights into the broader forces shaping the development of platform-based models. The SE is currently undergoing a critical transition, where regulatory boundaries and societal pushbacks are challenging the legitimacy of many platforms (Gerwe, Reference Gerwe2024). As regulatory frameworks lag behind technological innovation, platforms exploit gaps in governance, often engaging in self-regulation that benefits their interests but fails to protect workers or consumers (Zvolska et al., Reference Zvolska, Voytenko Palgan and Mont2019).

Our analysis also reflects ongoing debates about the changing nature of work, particularly the structural vulnerabilities faced by those engaged in platform-based labor (Woodcock & Graham, Reference Woodcock and Graham2020). Research has shown that many gig workers face economic insecurity, inconsistent income, and minimal safety nets – conditions that have been intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic (MacEachen et al., Reference MacEachen, Meyer, Majowicz, Hopwood, Crouch, Amoako and Ilic2022). The crisis amplified existing inequalities, revealing how platforms were able to capitalize on surging demand while offering little in the way of protection for their workforce.

Through the integration of these frameworks, our study contributes to theory building by mapping out the structural dynamics of the SE and highlighting the critical intersections of the factors. We draw attention to the fragmented and contested nature of the SE, emphasizing how these platforms evolve within specific institutional contexts and how this evolution is shaped by both internal dynamics and external pressures (Gerwe, Reference Gerwe2024).

Managerial and policy implications

Our findings carry significant implications for policymakers operating in the increasingly complex and fast-moving landscape of the SE. Platforms often function within regulatory gray zones, where oversight is limited and accountability is diffused. While these gaps have enabled rapid innovation, they have also exposed consumers and workers to considerable risk. The pandemic has further highlighted the insufficiency of self-regulation, as many platforms capitalized on crisis conditions while offering little institutional protection to their workforce (Nuttah et al., Reference Nuttah, Roma, Lo Nigro and Perrone2023; Ravenelle, Reference Ravenelle2017). This underscores the urgent need for comprehensive regulatory frameworks that address labor rights, algorithmic governance, data privacy, and market concentration. Policymakers must move beyond reactive measures and develop anticipatory policies that can evolve alongside platform innovation.

In this context, a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach is unlikely to be effective. Our study emphasizes the importance of differentiated regulations based on platform typologies. For example, supplier-oriented platforms that rely heavily on gig labor demand stronger enforcement of labor protections, including fair wages, job security, and social benefits. Conversely, platforms that emphasize sustainability and community-building must be held accountable for their environmental and social claims through stricter transparency and impact reporting standards. By tailoring regulations to specific platform models and risk profiles, governments can strike a more effective balance between fostering innovation and safeguarding the public interest.

For platform managers, these findings present both a challenge and an opportunity. As regulatory and societal scrutiny intensifies, managers must adopt concrete governance practices that not only meet emerging compliance standards but also actively mitigate the risks inherent in platform-based models. This includes implementing clear, enforceable labor policies, such as minimum pay thresholds, transparent performance metrics, and grievance mechanisms, to reduce worker precarity and foster retention. Platforms should also invest in internal audits of algorithmic decision-making processes, particularly for worker evaluation and task assignment, to ensure fairness and accountability.

To strengthen trust, managers can establish third-party certification for environmental and social claims and provide publicly accessible reports on sustainability efforts. For instance, ride-sharing platforms could report on vehicle emissions or incentivize the use of electric vehicles, while accommodation-sharing platforms could track energy consumption and community impact in high-density rental areas. In addition, managers should create dedicated ethics or compliance roles responsible for monitoring evolving regulations and ensuring that platform policies remain adaptive and responsive. Embedding these functions into the organization signals long-term commitment and operational readiness.

Equally important is the alignment of platform values with consumer expectations. Increasingly, consumers are demanding accountability from digital platforms on issues ranging from labor conditions to climate impact. Platforms that demonstrate a genuine commitment to transparency, fairness, and sustainability are likely to enjoy greater trust and loyalty from users. Managers should view these shifts not merely as regulatory pressures but as opportunities to differentiate their brands and gain a competitive advantage in a saturated market. Embedding these values into the core business strategy is no longer optional; it is essential for long-term viability and responsible innovation.

Limitations and future research

While this study provides valuable insights into the structural challenges of the SE, there are limitations that should be addressed in future research. The focus on English-language publications and business-centric literature means that certain perspectives, such as those from urban studies or environmental policy, are underrepresented. Future research should broaden the scope to include cross-national comparisons and insights from other academic domains to enrich our understanding of the SE’s global impact.

Moreover, longitudinal studies are needed to examine how platform practices evolve in response to regulatory changes, societal pushbacks, and technological innovations. Future research could also explore the intersectionality of the five dimensions discussed in this study, exploring how labor conditions, environmental impacts, and regulatory issues intersect and amplify one another.