Research Seminar Man 770

Sharing Economy Opportunities and Limitations

Seminar Thesis

Akshata Philar
Sabrina Wee

The Role of the Sharing Economy in Social Enterprises

Table of Contents
1. Introduction.......................................................................3
2. Definitions.........................................................................4

2.1 Social Entrepreneurship..........................................................4

2.2 The Sharing Economy..............................................................6

3. The Role of Sharing Economy in Social Enterprise.................8

3.1. Consumerism and the rise of Social-Sharing............................8

3.2. Sharing-out and Social Capital................................................9
3.3. Sharing Technology and Social Entrepreneurship...................12

4. Sharing Economy in Non-Digital Social Enterprises: Case

Studies................................................................................13

4.1. Collaborative consumption...................................................13

4.1.1. Product Service systems.................................................................14
4.1.2. Collaborative Lifestyle.....................................................................16
4.1.3 Redistribution markets.....................................................................17
4.2. Collaborative production landshare, WWOOF.......................19

5. Conclusion........................................................................ 21

1. Introduction
Sharing as an economic practice is not an entirely new phenomena, it has existed for
centuries in one form or another. An example would be the formation of cooperatives
during the Industrial Revolution that provided a source of livelihood and sustenance for
out of work mill workers (Porter, Scully 1987). Currently, apart from providing access to
livelihoods or additional incomes for people (eg Uber), sharing economies are helping to
create ecologically sustainable growth with several organisations encouraging people to
share assets rather than own them (Leismann, Schmitt, Rohn, Baedekar 2013).
The expansion of populations and establishment of industries changed the dynamic of
trade and instead of people selling to other people, individuals started organisations that
could harness economies of scale to mass produce commodities that could be sold at
lower prices with a greater distribution outreach to a large number of people. With the
growth of large manufacturers, it became increasingly difficult for smaller marginal
producers to sustain the drop in prices and they were slowly edged out of the market,
therefore concentrating market power in the hands of a few. Additionally with things being
mass produced, companies needed ways to sell their products in large volumes.
Corporations thus promoted consumerism by equating ownership with status and
reputation largely through marketing activities (Coen, 2008).

This paper aims to answer the question How do social enterprises adopt aspects of
sharing economy models to effectively deliver their social impact?

2. Definitions
2.1 Social Entrepreneurship
Social Entrepreneurship has been a focus of entrepreneurial studies particularly since the
early 90s. It is the juxtaposition of two important but often contrary economic ends.
Broken down, the concept has two elements Social and Entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship denotes the generation of economic value through the deployment of
resources. Social on the other hand alludes more to ensuring the distribution of
resources such that it benefits society at large.
There has been some dissonance on whether for-profit organisations i.e. those working
with a motive of generating surplus can also be considered social endeavours or whether
the term should exclusively define those organisations that are not for profit (Mair, Marti
2006).
For the purpose of this research paper, the authors contend that the definition of Social
Enterprises should also include those enterprises that work for the generation of funds
that can be ploughed back into the enterprise itself and therefore aim to generate an
economic surplus.
We therefore agree with the view expressed by researchers (especially in the early
2000s) that Social Enterprises can seek to create value for customers, but instead of full
remuneration going to investors, as is the case with commercial ventures, the surplus
benefits of organizational activity accrue primarily to targeted beneficiaries (Marshall
2010). Thus, this is basically the application of market-based methods to solve social
problems. Social entrepreneurship essentially marries two distinct and ostensibly
competing organizational objectives: creating social value and creating economic value
(Miller, Grimes, 2012).
The enterprises that we have chosen to highlight in the later part of our paper therefore
adhere to our understanding of what the concept subsumes. Our definition for Social
Entrepreneurship synthesizes our perspective. It is our contention that Social
Entrepreneurship is the identification of an opportunity that benefits society or a
community and creatively utilising physical and intellectual resources to fulfil it
with the unequivocal aim of benefiting society or a community, with or without
financial gain for the enterprise.

2.2 The Sharing Economy

There is currently no agreed upon definition for the sharing economy and it is often used
interchangeably with collaborative consumption. However, in order to proceed with the
paper, we would need to establish a working definition for the term. Hence, we would
explore some of the definitions the authors had based our working definitions on but
would not go in-depth on the topic as it would not serve the purpose of the paper.
Rachel Botsman, the co-author of the book Whats mine is yours defines the sharing
economy in her later article as an economic model based on sharing underutilized assets
from spaces to skills to stuff for monetary or non-monetary benefits that is largely focused
on the peer to peer market. (Botsman, The Sharing Economy Lacks A Shared Definition,
2015)
She had further defined collaborative economy in the same article quoted above as an
economy built on distributed networks of connected individuals and communities as
opposed to centralized institutions, transforming how we can produce, consume, finance
and learn. (Botsman, The Sharing Economy Lacks A Shared Definition, 2015). The
authors believe that the sharing economy comprises of aspects Botsman had in her
definition of collaborative economy.
We establish our working definition as the sharing economy is an economic model
based on sharing things between two or more parties (individuals, enterprises) to
produce, consume, learn or finance for monetary or non-monetary benefits. The
things shared can be tangible (cars, housing) or intangible (time, skills, knowledge) and
the ownership of these things can belong to either the parties directly involved or a third
party.
Our definition of sharing is the same as the one found in Belk (2007): the act and
process of distributing what is ours to others for their use as well as the act and process of
receiving something from others for our use. (p.127) He further posits that the period of
time for receipt of the shared items may be indefinite or prescribed and the share may be
for exclusive use of for use by others as well. (Belk R. , 2007)

3. The Role of Sharing Economy in Social Enterprise

3.1. Consumerism and the rise of Social-Sharing
Economist Paul Ekins (pg 244, 1991) defines consumerism as a culture where the
possession and use of an increasing number and variety of goods and services is the
principal cultural aspiration and the surest perceived route to personal happiness, social
status, and national success. In simpler words, there is an increasingly common pattern
across cultures to find meaning, contentment, and acceptance primarily through what we
consume. This has a deep impact not only on society by increasing inequalities, but also
an irreparable ecological impact. Estimates suggest that humanity now uses 1.31 time the
resources that can sustainably be sourced from existing productive land and sea
resources (Assadourian, 2010).
A paradigm change in thinking came in during the economic crisis of 2009. Researchers
Kallis, Martinez and Norgaard termed the crisis a result of unsustainable growth.
Irresponsible borrowing and the cultivation of fake expectations in the housing market
were not accidents, but a systemic failure of a system struggling to keep up with growth
rates that could not be sustained by its biophysical base (the real economy).
Furthermore, the crisis marks a failure of economicism, the doctrine of mainstream, neoclassical economics which refuses to accept any material reality beyond the beliefs of
investors and consumers. Additionally, there was an increased awareness about the
need for sustainability. Corporations renewed their efforts and consumer groups sought
solutions against the backdrop of the impending energy crises, ongoing environmental
degradation, and the global financial meltdown. (Albinsson & Perera 2012)
Apart from the crisis of sustainability, 2009 also saw largescale retrenchment in the United
States. The unemployment rate grew from 5% in 2008 to 10% by mid 2009. World over
there was a chain reaction with several economies either going to stagnation or muted
growth. Consumer sentiment too declined significantly during this period combined with a
shrinking GDP in the US of 5.4% and a pessimistic outlook on the economy (Rooney,
2009). On an individual level the effect was that consumers were less willing to spend
money on services and commodities that were considered discretionary and also an
immediate need to find an alternate source of income for those who were out of work.
Economic instability and large redundancies leading to a drop in disposable incomes
during the downturn of 2009 forced consumers to re-examine their motivations to own
assets (Bardhi, Eckhardt 2012).
It was at this time that several sharing economy organisations were created.

Researchers Marti and Mair (pg 37, 2006) social entrepreneurship in their paper. They
said First, we view social entrepreneurship as a process of creating value by combining
resources in new ways. Second, these resource combinations are intended primarily to
explore and exploit opportunities to create social value by stimulating social change or
meeting social needs. And third, when viewed as a process, social entrepreneurship
involves the offering of services and products but can also refer to the creation of new
organizations. When viewed in the context of sharing economy enterprises, they were
started for the very same reasons.

3.2. Sharing-out and Social Capital

Sharing Economy and Social Entrepreneurship share theoretical underpinnings, Social
enterprises are formed as a response to the ineffectiveness of traditional solutions
combined with a prosocial motivation or compassion to alleviate suffering (Miller, Grimes,
McMullen, Vogus, 2012). The sudden prominence and proliferation of sharing economy
enterprises after the economic downturn illustrates precisely this very phenomena.
Economist Juliet Schor (2011), in writing about an alternative economy, referred to the
increase in sharing, bartering, and other exchanges in society as a wave of social
innovation fueled by the sustainability movement, facilitated by the Internet, and brought
into the mainstream by the economic downturn (Albinsson, Perera 2012).
The congruencies worth noting in the paragraph above are that both social enterprises
and sharing economy enterprises seek to remedy the imbalance in resource distribution.
Social enterprises however may employ traditional economic business models to meet
that end while sharing economy enterprises encourage commerce between people,
cutting out bigger organisations and utilising existing assets. As researcher Russell Belk
explains it, sharing economy enterprises encourage the sharing-out of owned resources.
(Belk R. , Sharing, 2010) For instance, organisations are encouraging consumers to share
idle assets such as white goods and also consumables to promote sustainable lifestyles
and accrue benefits of ownership through access whilst spending less money. The
Sharehood is an example of such a community-based initiative. According to its owner
Theo Kitchener, the main aim of the organisation is to build joyful, sustainable and
resilient communities by encouraging people to get to know their neighbours and share
time, skills, and resources with them. (Anderon, 2011). Within this model, participants can
reduce individual household outlay on equipment and also environmental impact, by
reducing the total number of required goods. Organisations such as this, and most other
examples of the sharing economy demonstrate the sharing-out of resources.

According to Belk, when sharing involves dividing something between relative strangers or
when it is an act such as providing someone with spare change, directions, or the time of
day, it is described as sharing out. This sharing out results in the deepening of
generally weaker community bonds. As researchers Albinsson and Perera (2012)
discovered during their research, communities that participated in sharing (out) economy
initiatives displayed prosocial behaviour

Showing a heightened sense of community

Being more amenable to sharing skills and goods

Having feelings of reciprocity and generosity towards the community

Social Enterprises that seek either public funding or involvement seek to build similar
behaviours in their targeted communities, this sort of pro-social behaviour can be termes
as social capital.
Social capital can be understood roughly as the goodwill that is engendered by the fabric
of social relations and that can be mobilized to facilitate action (Adler & Kwon, 2002). It
refers to the norms and networks that enable people to act collectively (Woolock &
Narayan 2000). Social capital is productive in that it makes the achievement of certain
ends possible, which would otherwise have not been possible in its absence (Coleman,
1988). Social capital is crucial for social enterprises since it helps it generate a greater
buy-in from participants and the communities it serves. The organisations success often
depends on its embedment within the local community (Evers, 2001).
Social capital helps enterprises because it creates networks of civic engagement that
foster sturdy norms of generalized reciprocity and encourage the emergence of social
trust. Such networks facilitate coordination and communication, amplify reputations, and
thus allow dilemmas of collective action to be resolved (Putnam, 1995). Social enterprises
that employ sharing economy models would thus be able to mobilise more support. While
the drivers of social capital are subjective and dependent on the operational sphere of the
enterprise, however, broadly there are two schools of thought: 1) that looks at social
capital as a bridge between the organisation and external stakeholders and 2) as a
connecting force within the participants or in other words cohesiveness within the group.
Within the context of this paper however we view social capital as the general relationship
between enterprise, the community within which it operates and potential participants.
The authors of this paper posit that sharing economies help build social capital which is
crucial for social enterprises. Social capital is critical in instigating cohesive action and the

intensity of it is dictated by certain intra-group traits (Woolcock, 1998). The measurement

of social capital will therefore be by proxy, through the measurement of its dimensions as
highlighted in the Integrated Questionnaire for Measurement of Social Capital by
Woolcock et al (2003)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Groups and Networks

Trust and Solidarity
Collective Action and Cooperation
Information and Communication
Social Cohesion and Inclusion
Empowerment and Political Action

Measurement of actual levels of social capital generated by enterprises on these

dimensions is out of the scope of this paper. The authors would however like to present
the hypothesis that social enterprises that utilise sharing economy models in their
operations see higher levels of social capital and therefore better engagement in their
communities and also propose this to be an area of further exploration.

3.3. Sharing Technology and Social Entrepreneurship

As noted in the paper Is Sharing Really caring? ()offline peer-to-peer (P2P) marketplaces
existed long before their online counterparts. At their simplest, P2P marketplaces enable
individuals to transact directly rather than through a third- party retailer. Familiar offline
examples include bustling marketplaces like farmers markets, craft fairs, and flea markets.
Although participants might be required to pay a booth fee, these markets enable vendors
to transact directly with customers (Cheng, 2014). P2P activities are also a common
feature of the informal economyoften characterized as commercial activity that is
unregulated and untaxed. The Internet and especially Web 2.0 has brought about many
new ways of sharing as well as facilitating older forms of sharing on a larger scale (Belk,
2014)
Technology has helped sharing economy initiatives to scale up immensely. It has helped
people create communities that can share resources with each other. Greater access to
technology and proliferation of the internet, created mediums where people could
communicate faster and information asymmetries could be eliminated. Suppliers and
consumers could connect with each other without the requirement of an intermediary.
Specifically with the sharing economy moving online (eg. Craigslist), consumers also
receive greater access to information which helps manage risk and build trust.
Social enterprises that have sharing economy business models benefit greatly from
increasing confidence in online businesses as it induces more people to participate. It also
helps mobilise resources from around the world more effectively towards a social cause. A
socially relevant example would be an organization called Rang De. Rang De is a
microfinance provider based in India that uses social media to support rural entrepreneurs
in the lower strata of society by helping them get microloans. The loan amounts can be as
little as 50 euros and individual social investors can invest as little as 2 euros to fund
projects. The lenders are repaid the whole loan amount plus an interest rate lower or
equal to the prevalent bank rate. Without technology, connecting urban micro investors
with rural entrepreneurs would have been considerably harder.

4. Sharing Economy in Non-Digital Social Enterprises:

Case Studies
In the case studies below we demonstrate how Sharing Economy models have been used
by social enterprises to further their cause and create meaningful change. The enterprises
we have showcased mainly have non-digital business models, i.e. they deal with nondigital goods although they might be on digital platforms, except for Khan Academy.
There are two types of sharing economies as identified by John: the economies of
production and the economies of consumption. (John, 2012)

4.1. Collaborative consumption

Felson and Speath introduced the term collaborative consumption in 1978 in a journal
article discussing car sharing and defines it as events in which one or more persons
consume economic goods or services in the process of engaging in joint activities with
one or more others. (Felson & Speath, 1978, p. 164) Although it is doubtful that their
definition is a prediction of the current trends we are observing in collaborative
consumption definitions such as the examples provided by Botsman (Botsman & Rogers,
What's mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption, 2010), the social enterprises
selected to in the paper also exhibits traits found in the definition.
In Belk's paper, he defines collaborative consumption as people coordinating the
acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation. (Belk, 2013, p.
1597) His definition also included trading, bartering, and swapping, which involves giving
and receiving non-monetary compensation. He however excludes gift giving and sharing
activities that do not involve a form of compensation. (Belk, 2013)
The authors have adopted Botsmans method of dividing collaborative consumption into
three segments - product service systems, redistribution markets and collaborative
lifestyles. (Botsman, The Sharing Economy Lacks a Shared Definition, 2013) It is however
to be noted that Botsman regards the sharing economy as part of collaborative
consumption whereas the authors have divided the sharing economy into collaborative
consumption and collaborative production. Additionally, we have not taken her definitions
entirely in these segments.

4.1.1. Product Service systems

The first category of product service systems is where consumers share a given resource
but do not necessarily own them or have to pay a fee for them. When participants do not
directly own the items, the delivery model resembles more of a business to consumer
(B2C) structure where the enterprise usually owns the inventory and participants
interaction with the business is of a borrower-lender relationship while the participants
themselves are sharing the resource. Such a system in the early days would have been
public sharing services like public libraries or the use of public transportation.
In a study conducted by Latitude, the participants first identified sharing as borrowing or
lending an item for free before perceiving sharing as co-owning an item with others.
Borrowing and lending that could lead to monetary gains on one end was also deemed as
sharing by more than half of the survey's respondents but viewed with terms like renting
or buying and selling used items. (Latitude, 2010)
There are currently some sharing economy enterprises that have based their business
models on the concept of borrowing and lending such as Zipcar. In a paper by Belk
(2010), he had proposed that access models such as the car sharing model represents a
case of share-out. Prior research had also suggested sharing in the form of borrowing
and lending as a theoretical framework that explains access based consumption under not
for profit and more social contexts in which participants consume from a commons such
as a toy library in the case of the paper. (Ozanne & Ozanne, 2011)
Our selected social enterprise demonstrates a B2C model where participants share
resources owned directly by the enterprise. Started by Erik Hersman in March 2010,
Nairobi's Innovation Hub (iHub) is a social enterprise providing a physical space that is
sufficiently equipped for young entrepreneurs to meet and work. The young entrepreneurs
share the space and the equipment that comes along with it with a three tier level
membership system White, Green and Red, with Red membership as the highest and
only fee-required tier after a green member had completed his 6 month period and has a
minimum viable product or service. The enterprise focus is on the technology community
and defines their space as a part open community workspace (co-working), part investor
and VC hub and part incubator. (Nairobi's Innovation Hub, 2015)
Members have access to internet connectivity, mentorship and the possibility of funding
from the international venture community. Having a co-working space allows young
entrepreneurs, technologists, designers, researchers, programmers and investors to come
together and hold discussions and possibly make deals.

Through its website, iHub also allows job postings and further promotes through their
website offline events that they organises or hosts in their office space. In a region where
the governments lack speed of savviness to build the necessary infrastructure to support
entrepreneurial tech activity, (Hersman, 2012) iHub is serving an unfulfilled need. As a
testimonial to iHubs mission of catalysing and growing the Kenyan tech community, iHub
has seen over 50 companies spun out of their community in the last 3 years. (Nairobi's
Innovation Hub, 2015)
As noted, the participants in this case study do not actually own the workspace and the
equipment in it but are still able to enjoy the benefits that come with it. It is in this case as
stated by Kevin Kelly in his article that access is better than ownership. (Kelly, 2009)The
authors however are not taking a stand on any one of the two options being superior and
posit that the advantage over the other differs on a case basis.
We offer counter examples of sharing in the form of co-ownership, such as those found in
collective farms like the Israeli kibbutzim. As emphasised by Spiro (1956), the kibbutz is
an agricultural village where with only minor exceptions, all property is collectively owned.
(Spiro, 1956) The kibbutz also serves as an early example of another aspect of the
sharing economy that we would highlight in the preceding segments - collective
production.
The authors also found it interesting to note that the number of these communities started
decreasing in the 1990s after a steady rise from the first kibbutz in 1910 when factors
such as economic crises and globalisation started to affect them negatively. (Tzer, 2014)
It was yet another economic crisis that again drove the sharing economy a decade or so
later (Botsman & Rogers, What's mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption,
2010) but the numbers had not rose as noted in 2008. (Tzer, 2014)

4.1.2. Collaborative Lifestyle

The collaborative lifestyle segment is when participants come together to share and
exchange tangible assets through borrowing and lending between peers and also
intangible assets such as time and skills. There is a greater emphasis on ownership by
direct participants as compared to the first segment of product service systems.
A social enterprise that adopts this aspect of the sharing economy model is Streetbank.
Streetbank provides a platform for neighbours to connect and share with each other. With
a free to join model, the social enterprise's mains aims are to promote enjoying one's
things and one's neighbours more. (Streetbank, n.d.) Streetbank's Founder, Sam

Stephens, communicated that they had saved members over 200,000 pounds in 2014.
Streetbank also incorporates gifting where neighbours give away used things. A peer to
peer (P2P) model, involving tangible and intangible goods, Streetbank serves mainly as a
platform in connecting the community. According to its website, there are currently over
60,000 members sharing tools worth approximately 1.5 million pounds (Streetbank, 2015)
and it was voted one of The Times' top 50 websites you cannot live without. (The Times,
2013) Streetbank estimates that they are providing access to anyone joining Streetbank
an average of 7493 worth of things and skills at no cost and within a mile of their home.
They had further estimated saving 184 tons from landfill in 2014 and facilitating the
meeting of 1500 people every month. (Streetbank, 2014)
A study on the car-sharing industry had found that in contrast to the altruistic model of
sharing, market-mediated access of this type is primarily guided by self-serving and
utilitarian motivation rather than prosocial motivations. As commonly found in car sharing,
the type of access focused on in the study uses tangible objects for short time periods
with clear property boundaries. (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012)
In contrast, we see the social value that social enterprises like Streetbank is bringing
through adoption of the sharing model. Numerous testimonials can be found on how
through the website, consumers had been able to make a connection with their
community aside from the money savings. In a society like the UK where a 2013 research
had showed that 70 per cent of people unable to recall their neighbours full names.
(Churchill Home Insurance, 2013), Streetbank is helping to foster a stronger community
connection.

4.1.3 Redistribution markets

Redistribution markets function by encouraging unwanted or underused goods to be
redistributed by the owner to another- Thus items are shared through a transfer of
ownership. These Peer to Peer exchanges are also more efficient since no additional
resources are used to create assets. The assets already in the possession of the
community are either gifted or exchanged within the community.
Redistribution markets are directly linked with de-growth. Authors Martinez Alier, Pascual,
Dominique, and Zaccai (2010) define de-growth as a voluntary societal shrinking of
production and consumption. Several authors also consider redistribution between peers
to be part of the downshifting movement. Authors Nelson and Rademacher (2007) explain

it as a phenomena where people become downshifters As a result of reduced incomes or

a desire for a less materialistic life. Downshifters try to repair, reuse, share, and make
goods rather than buy them. Downshifting is often conflated with a higher degree of
activism and ecological awareness.

Gifting between peers: Freecycle

Gifting denotes a one-way transaction where the giver expects nothing in return. Belk in
his paper Why not share rather than own? (2007) writes that the gifting economy should
not be misconstrued with the sharing economy. The authors of this paper would like to
draw a line of distinction between the classification of gifting in Belks paper and as it is
understood in the context of this paper. Gift Economy (as per Belk) is one where the giver
expressly purchases an asset with the intention of giving it to another. It implies the
creation of new assets. Gifting between peers for the context of this paper wishes to
highlight transactions where participants offer existing, owned and underutilised assets
(physical or non-physical) with no expectation of return of any kind. There are several
movements organized and unorganized that could be classified as Peer to Peer Gifting,
the examples we would like to highlight in this paper is that of an organization called
Freecycle.
Freecycle has been in existence since 2003 and was started by Deron Beal when he was
trying to mobilise his community to recycle more. What he and his team of volunteers
however found was that a lot of the items being recycled could in fact be used in their
existing condition. The team tried to collect reusable items and give it to charities and
shelters in case they could have alternate uses for them by driving around with the objects
to each location. To make the work easier and more organized Beal was able to
eventually create a website that lists every item and people who live within the vicinity can
claim it. It has since grown to a significant global movement with over 5000 communities
spread over 85 countries. Each community or group has its own webpage so that
communities can redistribute their surplus assets locally since requirement of transport
would expend more resources.
Freecycle however has certain requirements for a community to be considered part of its
network, primary of which is that the goods should be given away for free. The givers
should not expect any reimbursement financial or otherwise. Freecycle is also a nonprofit. No fee is charged for any transaction. Funds for running the website are generated
from advertising revenue and sale of branded merchandise.

Exchange between Peers: Tradeschool

Exchange between peers as the name suggests runs on the premise that participants
would give away an owned asset (physical or intellectual) to another in return for
something they need. Also termed as Barter economy, estimates suggest that the trade in
this kinds of peer to peer exchange might be in the range of $12 billion per year
(Spitznagel, 2012). Exact figures would be hard to find since a large part of the dealings
occur in the informal economy.
Even within the peer to peer exchange there are variations based on how localized an
organization is. For instance there are several websites like yerdle.com for instance which
cater to a much wider audience, where members can list items and generate points for
each item they are able to give away and can then use the points to get other items that
have been posted by other users. Exchange can also be in the form of non physical items
like in the case of Tradeschool where people within communities can teach each other
skills.
Tradeschool is a barter-for-knowledge network which was formed in the year 2010 in New
York by SocialCare Ideas Factory with the aim of making practical tools skill available to a
larger section of the population who may not necessarily have access to educational
facilities to learn them. The first Tradeschool event attracted 800 people and lasted 35
days.
As per the founders of the movement, they wanted to use skills as a currency to empower
people and provide opportunities. The organization believes that it is possible for
everyone to contribute meaningfully to development, even if they do not have financial
resources to do so. Tradeschool was born with the idea that social-learning can help
bridge the gaps of inequality in society. How it works is, communities are encouraged to
create groups of participants who would like to learn from one another. Instructors who
decide to conduct a session can then decide how they would like to be reimbursed. While
no money can be exchanged, students can be asked for help (for instance to move
furniture) or to bring vegetables or even to teach a skill to the instructor.
Trade school offers development tools for people interested in creating schools in other
parts of the world, by offering to set up a free website and support from staff. Trade School
has grown and now has affiliates in Europe, Asia and South America with schools in over
50 cities

4.2. Collaborative production landshare, WWOOF

As with the many terms in the paper, collaborative production is also often used
interchangeably with crowdsourcing, commons based peer production, peer production, to
name a few. The authors define collective production in the sharing economy as when
participants produce goods and services collaboratively, collectively or cooperatively.
It is widely understood that aside from being able to share tangible things like ones food
or car, we are also able to share intangible things like ideas and knowledge. Hence, the
following case studies explores collaborative production in the form of tangible items
(Landshare) and intangible items (Khan Academy)
Launched in 2009 and spearheaded by celebrity chef and TV personality Hugh FearnleyWhittingstall, Landshare is a social enterprises initiative to promote garden sharing and
currently has over 74,000 members. (landshare, n.d.) Landshare offers itself mainly as a
platform to connect people who are willing to share their available plots of lands (sharers)
and people who are looking to cultivate their own food but lack the land resource
(growers). Additionally, people who simply want to help in any way be it the sharing of
knowledge of lending of tools to helping out on the plot are also welcomed to participate
(helpers). Landshare fosters a community and provides relevant support through providing
documentation for agreements between sharers and growers to instructions on gardening.
Through helping to establish partnerships between hospice care to dementia patient
hospitals and volunteers, Landshare is producing intangible and hard to measure but
nonetheless valuable benefits to the community. This is exemplified in a case study found
on their website for the partnership between a dementia care home and a primary school
with the home involving the local community in the homes vegetable garden. Through
this, the home is able to provide the residents with gardening activities that provide
several benefits from helping to relieve their boredom to providing them a sense of
usefulness. Working together with the children on gardening activities also provide a
common topic for discussion and hence help foster relationships. The children
volunteering also gain from learning additional gardening skills and learning how to relate
to people from other generations.
The collaborative production of intangible goods is highly related to a term coined by
Harvard Law School professor Yochai Benkler - commons-based peer production. The
term is defined as a sociotechnical form of production. Individuals autonomously decide to
cooperate in group collectives, regardless of size, to contribute towards a common goal

and to produce a shared outcome. (Benkler, 2006). In his book, Benkler identified two
main reasons for the emergence of peer production. The first being the access to basic
physical capital that allowed the creation of digital materials and communication and
cooperation with others regardless of geographical distance. The second is the possibility
of tapping into a big pool of human interest, talent, knowledge and experience, where
people are willing to contribute and share for a cause they have an interest in. (Benkler,
2006)
The social enterprise, Khan Academy had adopted the collaborative production model into
its business model for expansion purpose. Khan Academy started out with Salman Khan
providing micro-lectures through videos to his family members via another P2P platform,
Youtube. Word spread and students all around the world began using his videos to learn.
Students as well as their parents and teacher are now able to receive instant feedback
and track their progress through the online dashboard.
In 2010, Khan Academy started porting their video lectures and tests into over 16 foreign
languages to extend their outreach to the non-English speakers. Lead by Khan Academy
Dean of Translations Bilal Musharraf, the project crowd-sourced volunteers from the
Internet to work with Khan Academy supervisors to create foreign language and closedcaption translations and voiceovers for the lectures. Each language has an official
Language Advocate whose job is to review subtitles and audio dubs translations for
accuracy and fluency. Translators are usually expected to invest a significant amount of
time as seen in Khan Academys Bangla project where volunteers were expected to invest
at least 20 hours a week. (Ungerleier, 2012)
Additionally, Khan also harnessed the community within to monitor collaborative
consumption of the videos through policing comments and answering questions. Hence
allowing Khan Academy to concentrate on its main activities producing quality microlectures. (John, 2012)
In this case study, we see a social enterprise adopting the sharing economy model aspect
of collaborative production as well as collaborative consumption to aid in their expansion.

5. Conclusion
The case studies and examples cited through the paper We seek to highlight how
utilisation of sharing economy models help these enterprises reach a larger audience,
generate social capital and and make a bigger impact which could not have otherwise
been possible in a more traditional business setting. There are questions however that
remain unanswered due to the lack of information available in the public domain for social
enterprises. It would be interesting to contrast the growth of enterprises which do not
utilise a sharing economy model to those that do using non financial metrics, like gain in
social capital for the community.

In furtherance of this paper, we would therefore

recommend a qualitative or quantitative study could be conducted to analyse the gains in

social capital for social enterprises that utilise the sharing economy versus those that do
not.
As documented, the sharing economy was historically born out of more altruistic
motivations, with a view to provide resources for those who have been disenfranchised
from the traditional economy. However the organisations we see today in the guise of
sharing economy do not truly fulfill this need. Governments, social groups and labou
unions alike have been concerned about the lack of oversight. This is especially alarming
for individuals for whom the sharing economy is the sole source of employment since they
do not receive the same benefits (healthcare and pension) that they would otherwise.
Additionally the sharing economy is also threatening existing businesses that employ
possibly millions of people and is unable to cope with competition due to governmental
regulations for the protection of the employees (taxi unions for instance). Therefore social
enterprises should now utilise more aggressively the tools available to address these
needs. For instance Tradeschool wants to utilise its peer to peer education model to
address racial discrimination and biases.

Bibliography

Belk, R. (2013). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative
consumption online. Journal of Business Research.

Botsman, R. (2013, November 21). The sharing economy lacks a shared

definition.

Retrieved

from

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3022028/the-sharing-

economy-lacks-a-shared-definition

Gore, E. M. (2014, March 3). Nonprofits Should Lead the Sharing Economy.
Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Hamari, J. S. (2015). The sharing economy: Why people participate in

collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology,.

Havas Worldwide. (2014). The New Consumer and The Sharing Economy. Havas
Worldwide.

Sundararajan, A. (2013, Jan 3). From Zipcar to the Sharing Economy. Harvard
Business Review.

The rise of the sharing economy. (2013, Mar 9). The Economist.

(2014). The Sharing Economy. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC.

World Economic Forums Young Global Leaders. (2013). Circular Economy

Innovation & New Business Models Dialogue. World Economic Forun.

Wosskow, D. (2014). Unlocking the sharing economy An independent review .

London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Bruin, A. D., & Shaw, E. (2011). Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship:
Extending Theory, Integrating Practice. International Small Business Journal.
doi:10.1177/02662426110290010101

Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Strategic
entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic
Management Journal. doi:10.1002/smj.196

Kobia, M., & Sikalieh, D. (2010). Towards a search for the meaning of
entrepreneurship.

Journal

of

European

Industrial

Training.

doi:10.1108/03090591011023970

Mair, J., & Mart_, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of

explanation,

prediction,

and

delight.

Journal

of

World

Business.

doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002

Marshall, R. S. (2011). Conceptualizing the International For-Profit Social

Entrepreneur. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0545-7

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business
models to serve the poor. Business Horizons. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2004.11.006

Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management.

doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(02)00225-8

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise Of Entrepreneurship As A

Field Of Research.

Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a Reconciliation of the Definitional

Issues in the Field of Corporate Entrepreneurship.

Urban, B. (0). Creating value and innovation through social entrepreneurship.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04502-8_5

Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative

consumption online.Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595-1600.

Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of

explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of world business, 41(1), 36-44.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American

journal of sociology, S95-S120.

Evers, A. (2001). 17 The significance of social capital in the multiple goal and
resource structure of social enterprises. The emergence of social enterprise, 4,

296.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a

theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and society, 27(2), 151-208.
Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development

theory, research, and policy. The world bank research observer, 15(2), 225-249.
Dudwick, N., Kuehnast, K., Jones, V. N., & Woolcock, M. (2006). Analyzing social
capital in context. A guide to using qualitative methods and data.

Newton, K. (2001). Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. International

Political Science Review, 22(2), 201-214.

Putnam, R. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Canadian

Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 41-51.

Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., Vogus, T. J., & Miller, T. L. (2013). Studying the
origins of social entrepreneurship: compassion and the role of embedded

agency. Academy of management review,38(3), 460-463.

Porter, P. K., & Scully, G. W. (1987). Economic efficiency in cooperatives. Journal

of law and economics, 489-512.

Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., & Baedeker, C. (2013). Collaborative
consumption: towards a resource-saving consumption culture. Resources,2(3),

184-203.
Assadourian, E. (2010). Transforming cultures: from consumerism to

sustainability. Journal of Macromarketing, 30(2), 186-191

Erickson, R. J. (1997). Paper or plastic?: energy, environment, and consumerism

in Sweden and America. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Albinsson, P. A., & Yasanthi Perera, B. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st
century: Building community through sharing events. Journal of consumer

Behaviour, 11(4), 303-315.

Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: the case of car

sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881-898.

Schor, J. (2010). Plenitude: The new economics of true wealth. New York: Penguin

Press.
Anderson, L (2011) 10 questions for theo kitchener, founder of the Sharehood:

collaborativeconcumption.com
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new

concept. Academy of management review, 27(1), 17-40.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of

democracy, 6(1), 65-78.

Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative
consumption online.Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595-1600.

Cheng, D. (2014). Is sharing really caring? A nuanced introduction to the peer economy.
Ekins, P. (1991). A Sustainable consumer society: A contradiction in terms?. International
Environmental Affairs, 3(4), 243-258.
Martnez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F. D., & Zaccai, E. (2010). Sustainable de-growth:
Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological
Economics, 69(9), 1741-1747.
Nelson, M. R., Rademacher, M. A., & Paek, H. J. (2007). Downshifting consumer=
upshifting citizen? An examination of a local freecycle community. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 141-156.
Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own?.The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 611(1), 126-140.
Rooney, B. (2009) Consumer Confidence Plummets, cnnmoney.com