Survey Results Participation in the Sharing Economy...Participation in the Sharing Economy Page 2...
Transcript of Survey Results Participation in the Sharing Economy...Participation in the Sharing Economy Page 2...
Survey ResultsParticipation in the Sharing Economy
October, 2017Alberta Andreotti, Guido Anselmi, Thomas Eichhorn, Christian Hoffmann, Sebastian Jürss, and Marina Micheli
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 2 Executive Summary
Participation Divide Only a minority of Europeans (27.8%) participate in the sharing economy. Participants are notably younger and of higher socio-economic status than non-participants. Sharing, thereby, is still an elite phenomenon.
Digital Divide Participants are significantly more avid and skilled Internet users than non-participants, particularly in terms of mobile Internet use. Internet access and use, thereby, is a key challenge for the development of the sharing economy.
Engagement Divide Comparing those participating as either consumers or providers, we find providers to be somewhat younger, of lower socio-economic status and more frequently male than consumers. Consumers are drawn to sharing by savings primarily, but also by fun – providers have a more varied set of reasons to participate.
Provider Divide There are some noticeable differences between those providing professionally or occasionally. Professional sharing occurs mostly in car-sharing, with providers being predominantly younger, male and lower SES participants. Occasional sharers, instead, are of higher SES. About half of providers consider sharing just a convenient side-income.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 3 Executive Summary
Population
Non-Participants(72.2%)
Participants(27.8%)
Consumers(18.7%)
Professionals(1.2%)
Providers(9.1%)
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 4
Introduction:Participation in the Sharing Economy1Differentiating awareness and levels of engagement
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 5 Overview of the Report
We differentiate participation from non-participation as well as levels or forms of participation. Based on a divides-model, we analyse key antecedents: motives, access and skills/capabilities. Finally we differentiate rationales for non-participation and explore outcomes for those who do participate.
Participation and Non-Participation
Sharing Motives
Reasons for Non-
Participation
Outcomes of ParticipationInternet Use
Self-Efficacy
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 6
Participation and Non-Participation in the Sharing Economy2Socioeconomic and skills differences between providers, consumers and abstainers
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 7
Sharing Participation is an Elite PhenomenonParticipants are younger, more educated, higher-income and have more Internet skills than non-participants. There is a participation divide in the sharing economy.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 8
Majority of Europeans familiar with sharing economy –but not participating
9.1%
18.7%
62.5%
9.7%
Provider Consumer Aware non-user Non-aware non-user
N = 6111 Users and Non-Users (categorized as Providers, Consumers, Aware and Non-aware non-users)
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 9 France and UK leading in sharing participation
N = 6111 Users; Distribution of classification for each country is displayed
9.1%
9.9%
15.7%
9.4%
7.2%
10.7%
3.1%
12.8%
11.4%
5.2%
10.1%
8.3%
5.2%
18.7%
14.6%
24.6%
15.4%
23.0%
19.2%
13.4%
13.6%
14.2%
17.6%
19.3%
21.3%
28.4%
62.5%
62.5%
56.6%
64.0%
63.2%
52.3%
65.7%
61.4%
65.3%
74.5%
65.9%
59.7%
59.2%
9.7%
13.0%
3.1%
11.2%
6.6%
17.9%
17.8%
12.2%
9.1%
2.8%
4.7%
10.7%
7.2%
Total
Denmark
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
UK
Provider Consumer Aware non-user Non-aware non-user
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 10 Active participants tend to be younger
13.6% 16.2%8.8% 5.0% 3.9%
27.2% 26.1%
18.1%14.0% 11.7%
51.2% 50.5%
63.6%70.6%
71.4%
7.9% 7.2% 9.4% 10.4% 12.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-65
Provider Consumer Aware non-user Non-aware non-user
N = 6111; Distribution of Provider, Consumer, Non-Users (Aware and Unaware) in different age groups is displayed
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 11 Men provide more frequently than women
7.4% 10.8%
19.4%18.0%
62.4% 62.6%
10.7% 8.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Women Men
Provider Consumer Aware non-user Non-aware non-user
N = 6111; Distribution of Provider, Consumer, Non-Users (Aware and Unaware) between men and women is displayed
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 12
Consumption particularly common among highly educated individuals
9.1% 7.6% 4.9% 7.6% 10.2% 13.9% 17.7%8.5%
7.9%
15.6%
25.6%25.0%
36.1%
68.2%62.6% 64.6%
66.6%
59.8% 56.6%
41.1%
22.7% 21.3% 22.5%10.1%
4.3% 4.6% 5.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
No formaleducation
Primaryschool
Lowersecondary
Highersecondary
Bachelor Master Doctorate orhigher
Provider Consumer Aware non-user Non-aware non-user
N = 6111; Distribution of Provider, Consumer, Non-Users (Aware and Unaware) in different levels of education is displayed
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 13
Consumption more common among higher-income individuals
8.2% 8.7% 9.6% 10.1%
14.6% 17.4% 20.8% 21.9%
63.2%63.9% 60.8% 61.6%
14.0% 10.0% 8.7% 6.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
1. Quartile 2. Quartile 3. Quartile 4. Quartile
Provider Consumer Aware non-user Non-aware non-user
N = 6111; Distribution of Provider, Consumer, Non-Users (Aware and Unaware) in different income levels is displayedQuartiles cut the distribution of income in approximately even quarters(e.g. first quartile represents the lowest 25% of the income distribution)
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 14 Non-participants have lower Internet skills
3.35 3.43
3.03
2.11
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Provider Consumer Aware non-user Non-aware non-user
N = 6111; Arithmetic means are displayedInternet skills: 1-5 scale with 1-very low, 2-low, 3-average, 4-high, 5-very high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 15
The sharing economy is dominated by car- and home-sharing
5.5% 3.9% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5%
12.7% 14.7%4.6% 3.4% 3.2%
68.4% 62.6%
32.7% 30.3% 29.0%
13.5%18.8%
60.3% 63.8% 65.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Car-sharingservices
Home-sharingservices
Food-sharingservices
Goods-sharingservices
Finance-sharingservices
Provider Consumer Aware non-user Non-aware non-user
N = 6111; Distribution of user types in different services is displayed
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 16 Car-sharing most common in UK, home-sharing in France
Provider Consumer Aware Non-User Non-Aware
Denmark
Car-sharing 4.7% 10.1% 65.8% 19.4%
Home-sharing 5.9% 12.8% 58.5% 22.7%
Food-sharing 2.8% 6.1% 23.3% 67.8%
Goods-sharing 3.2% 4.9% 23.7% 68.2%
Finance-sharing 3.0% 4.5% 19.6% 72.9%
France
Car-sharing 13.4% 16.1% 66.8% 3.7%
Home-sharing 3.3% 24.8% 64.4% 7.5%
Food-sharing 1.2% 1.2% 26.3% 71.3%
Goods-sharing 1.4% 1.4% 30.1% 67.2%
Finance-sharing 1.2% 1.4% 28.3% 69.2%
Germany
Car-sharing 6.2% 10.4% 70.4% 13.0%
Home-sharing 3.8% 8.2% 70.4% 17.6%
Food-sharing 3.4% 4.2% 42.4% 50.0%
Goods-sharing 2.8% 2.2% 41.8% 53.2%
Finance-sharing 3.2% 2.6% 49.4% 44.8%
Ireland
Car-sharing 3.0% 12.6% 68% 16.4%
Home-sharing 5.0% 19.2% 65.2% 10.6%
Food-sharing 3.0% 5.6% 29.2% 62.2%
Goods-sharing 2.8% 3.2% 22.6% 71.4%
Finance-sharing 2.4% 3.4% 23.0% 71.2%
In percent
N = 6111
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 17 (continued)
Provider Consumer Aware Non-User Non-Aware
Italy
Car-sharing 6.0% 12.8% 61.8% 19.4%
Home-sharing 6.2% 16.5% 48.9% 28.4%
Food-sharing 2.6% 6.4% 41.2% 49.8%
Goods-sharing 2.8% 3.8% 30.6% 62.8%
Finance-sharing 2.8% 4.7% 28.6% 63.9%
Netherlands
Car-sharing 1.6% 4.5% 67.4% 26.6%
Home-sharing 1.4% 11.6% 64.3% 22.7%
Food-sharing 0.6% 1.4% 39.0% 59.1%
Goods-sharing 1.6% 2.1% 38.8% 57.6%
Finance-sharing 0.8% 1.6% 21.9% 75.8%
Norway
Car-sharing 6.8% 10.4% 66.0% 16.8%
Home-sharing 7.4% 12.2% 58.6% 21.8%
Food-sharing 4.2% 7.2% 31.4% 57.2%
Goods-sharing 3.8% 6.0% 27.6% 62.6%
Finance-sharing 5.8% 5.2% 24.2% 64.8%
Poland
Car-sharing 7.9% 13.2% 68.6% 10.3%
Home-sharing 2.8% 7.9% 52.9% 36.5%
Food-sharing 3.0% 3.7% 27.2% 66.1%
Goods-sharing 3.4% 3.2% 26.0% 67.5%
Finance-sharing 3.2% 3.2% 32.5% 61.1%
In percent
N = 6111
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 18 (continued)
Provider Consumer Aware Non-User Non-Aware
Portugal
Car-sharing 2.4% 13.4% 81.0% 3.2%
Home-sharing 3.2% 10.8% 70.9% 15.2%
Food-sharing 1.6% 2.4% 37.3% 58.7%
Goods-sharing 1.4% 1.6% 35.9% 61.1%
Finance-sharing 1.6% 1.2% 29.7% 67.5%
Spain
Car-sharing 8.4% 12.9% 72.7% 6.0%
Home-sharing 3.0% 16.3% 67.4% 13.3%
Food-sharing 2.2% 6.0% 33.7% 58.1%
Goods-sharing 2.1% 4.3% 29.4% 64.2%
Finance-sharing 2.1% 3.7% 30.1% 64.0%
Switzerland
Car-sharing 3.6% 14.2% 65.2% 17.0%
Home-sharing 3.0% 18.2% 62.6% 16.2%
Food-sharing 2.6% 5.1% 32.0% 60.3%
Goods-sharing 2.2% 4.0% 31.4% 62.5%
Finance-sharing 2.2% 3.8% 26.1% 68.0%
UK
Car-sharing 1.6% 22.0% 66.8% 9.6%
Home-sharing 2.4% 17.8% 67.6% 12.2%
Food-sharing 1.6% 5.6% 28.8% 64.0%
Goods-sharing 2.4% 4.0% 25.6% 68.0%
Finance-sharing 1.6% 3.4% 34.6% 60.4%
In percent
N = 6111
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 19
Providing goods- and finance-sharing is a particularly „young“ phenomenon
20.3
22.9
10.9
10.9
19.5
18.6
11.0
13.7
19.5
18.6
11.0
13.7
23.3
24.6
13.2
11.6
21.2
23.4
13.3
12.0
37.6
32.3
18.4
15.0
38.2
31.3
18.7
15.6
38.2
31.3
18.7
15.6
39.7
32.1
21.5
18.8
43.1
30.5
22.1
18.8
23.6
20.1
23.2
22.5
21.2
23.5
23.1
21.4
21.2
23.5
23.1
21.4
21.2
22.5
22.0
23.2
17.9
21.8
22.5
23.1
11.3
15.3
23.4
25.9
10.4
14.9
24.8
24.4
10.4
14.9
24.8
24.4
9.6
12.5
24.1
23.3
11.9
13.2
23.9
23.1
7.2
9.3
23.0
25.7
10.8
11.8
22.3
24.9
10.8
11.8
22.3
24.9
6.2
8.2
19.2
23.2
6.0
11.2
18.2
22.9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Car
-sh
arin
gH
om
e-sh
arin
gFo
od
-sh
arin
gG
oo
ds-
shar
ing
Fin
ance
-Sh
arin
g
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-65
N = 6111; Distribution of user types by age group in different services is displayed
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 20 Across services, men more readily provide than women
41.2
48.2
49.8
56.6
41.5
51.1
49.1
53.9
41.1
41.4
47.4
52.4
40.4
35.3
44.8
53.6
33.7
39.6
43.5
54.0
58.8
51.8
50.2
43.4
58.5
48.9
50.9
46.1
58.9
58.6
52.6
47.6
59.6
64.7
55.2
46.4
66.3
60.4
56.5
46.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Car
-sh
arin
gH
om
e-sh
arin
gFo
od
-sh
arin
gG
oo
ds-
shar
ing
Fin
ance
-sh
arin
g
Women Men
N = 6111; Ratio of women and men in different services is displayed
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 21
In car- and home-sharing (un)awareness is strongly related to education
N = 6111; Distribution of user types and their educational level in different services is displayed
2.1
1.5
3.3
6.7
4.6
1.6
2.8
6.8
7.5
3.6
2.2
4.0
2.6
5.3
2.3
3.9
2.6
4.6
2.3
4.0
6.9
5.5
11.2
26.9
5.8
5.2
11.5
22.3
7.5
6.8
11.6
13.4
9.3
6.3
10.4
13.7
9.3
7.6
11.2
13.2
36.1
36.0
43.9
43.1
35.7
32.5
43.8
46.9
37.0
42.1
42.8
42.4
37.1
36.7
43.4
42.4
33.8
40.1
43.8
42.2
25.7
32.9
25.0
13.6
29.0
32.5
25.6
13.7
24.0
26.8
25.1
24.0
27.8
30.4
24.8
23.9
30.5
25.9
24.1
24.4
23.3
18.7
14.2
7.3
20.7
21.2
14.0
8.9
17.8
14.6
15.7
13.5
19.9
13.5
15.8
13.5
17.9
14.7
15.6
13.7
5.4
5.4
2.0
1.7
3.7
6.9
2.0
1.0
6.2
5.7
2.2
2.4
3.3
7.7
2.9
2.2
5.3
7.1
2.6
2.3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Car
-sh
arin
gH
om
e-sh
arin
gFo
od
-sh
arin
gG
oo
ds-
shar
ing
Fin
ance
-Sh
arin
g
No formal education Primary school Lower secondary Higher secondary Bachelor Master Doctorate or higher
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 22
Consuming sharing services is positively related to income
5.1
3.7
2.5
2.1
2.2
5.5
3.7
2.2
2.4
2.1
6.1
3.8
1.9
2.2
2.2
5.3
4.7
3
3.2
3.5
10.7
10.5
4.7
3.2
2.8
12.2
12.6
4
2.7
2.8
13.3
17.1
4.9
3.6
3.6
14.6
18.3
5
4.2
3.8
67.8
57.4
30.8
27.9
27.3
69.1
64.1
32.1
30
29.5
68.1
63.6
33.7
30.1
29.1
68.2
64.9
34
33
30
16.4
28.4
62.1
66.8
67.7
13.2
19.6
61.7
64.9
65.6
12.5
15.5
59.5
64.1
65.2
11.9
12
58.1
59.7
62.8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Car-sharing
Home-sharing
Food-Sharing
Goods-sharing
Finance-Sharing
Car-sharing
Home-sharing
Food-Sharing
Goods-sharing
Finance-Sharing
Car-sharing
Home-sharing
Food-Sharing
Goods-sharing
Finance-Sharing
Car-sharing
Home-sharing
Food-Sharing
Goods-sharing
Finance-Sharing
1. Q
uar
tile
2. Q
uar
tile
3. Q
uar
tile
4. Q
uar
tile
Provider Consumer Aware Non-user Non-Aware Non-user
N = 6043; Distribution of user types by services in different income quartiles is displayed
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 23 Non-aware non-users have very low Internet skills
N = 6111; Arithmetic means are displayedInternet skills: 1-5 scale with 1-very low, 2-low, 3-average, 4-high, 5-very high
3.313.44 3.45
3.09
2.27
3.47
3.233.42
3.15
2.34
3.35 3.34 3.33 3.33
2.86
3.403.27
3.42 3.35
2.87
3.31 3.28 3.35 3.37
2.88
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
I have offered something as aprovider.
I have offered something as aprovider and have used as a
consumer.
I have used something as aconsumer.
I have heard of this but never used it. I have never heard of this.
Car-sharing services Home-sharing services Food-sharing services Goods-sharing services Finance-sharing services
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 24 Key Insights into Sharing Participation
• A majority of respondents is not engaged in the sharing economy. Only 18.7% report having consumed sharing services, 9.1% say they have offered a service as a provider. The largest share (62.5%) have heard of sharing services, but have not used any themselves.
• Among the twelve surveyed countries, France and UK show the highest share of sharing participants – however while UK has a large share of consumers, France features the highest proportion of sharing providers.
• Sharing participation is most common among young, well-educated, higher income Europeans. Lower-education respondents do provide some sharing services, but levels of consumption rise rapidly with rising educational attainment.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 25 Key Insights into Sharing Participation (contd.)
• The European sharing economy is largely comprised of car- and home-sharing – other services show much lower overall levels of participation. Those not aware of car- and home-sharing feature particularly low levels of education and Internet skills.
• While consuming home-sharing services is more common among higher-income individuals, the same doesn’t hold for car-sharing, which is quite equally common across income quartiles.
• Young male Europeans are more ready to experiment with smaller, unfamiliar services.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 26
Sharing Motives among Participants and Non-Participants3The importance of financial, social, societal benefits and fun for (non-)participants
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 27
It’s all about (Saving) Money – and FunFinancial benefits dominate consumers’ motives to participate in sharing, followed by fun. Providers show a more varied set of participation motives.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 28
While financial benefits are most important for all types of respondents, consumers are especially keen
3.2
9
3.0
4
2.9
0
2.8
7
3.6
8
2.4
9
2.3
8 2.7
02.9
5
2.6
9
2.6
9
2.6
2
2.4
4
2.4
5
2.4
5
2.4
0
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Financial benefit Social responsibility Meeting people Fun
Provider Consumer Aware non-user Non-aware non-user
N = 6111; Arithmetic means by user type are displayedImportance of motives: 1-5 scale with 1-not at all, 2-to a small extent, 3-to a moderate extent, 4-to a large extent, 5-very much
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 29
Income particularly important for providers in German, Denmark and Ireland
3.56
3.44
3.28
3.42
3.65
3.19
2.88
3.17
3.62
3.26
2.81
3.15
3.29
3.00
3.29
2.74
3.03
3.39
2.69
2.78
2.95
3.50
3.04
2.81
3.08
3.04
2.76
3.10
2.45
2.69
3.11
2.56
2.72
3.31
3.42
2.72
2.81
3.04
2.90
2.86
2.68
2.66
2.83
3.14
2.88
2.72
3.05
3.50
2.72
2.86
3.04
2.87
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Denmark
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
UK
Total
Financial benefit Social responsibility Meeting people Fun
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 30
Younger providers more geared towards social motives
N = 556; Arithmetic means for providers by age groups are displayedImportance of motives: 1-5 scale with 1-not at all, 2-to a small extent, 3-to a moderate extent, 4-to a large extent, 5-very much
2.92
2.92
2.74
2.97
2.76
3.08
2.99
2.76
2.65
2.88
3.03
3.19
2.97
2.87
2.82
2.91
3.49
3.33
3.25
3.22
1 2 3 4 5
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-65
Financial benefit Social responsibility Meeting people Fun
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 31 Male providers more interested in meeting people
3.28 3.293.08 3.01
2.832.952.86 2.88
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Women Men
Financial benefit Social responsibility Meeting people Fun
N = 556; Arithmetic means for providers by gender are displayedImportance of motives: 1-5 scale with 1-not at all, 2-to a small extent, 3-to a moderate extent, 4-to a large extent, 5-very much
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 32
2.88
2.57
2.68
2.97
3.33
2.94
2.64
2.81
2.99
3.16
2.88
2.67
2.88
3.20
3.39
2.81
2.77
3.10
3.47
3.83
1 2 3 4 5
Very low
Low
Average
High
Very high
Financial benefit Social Responsibility Meeting people Fun
Skilled providers particularly geared towards financial benefits
N = 556;, Arithmetic means for providers by Internet skills are displayedImportance of motives: 1-5 scale with 1-not at all, 2-to a small extent, 3-to a moderate extent, 4-to a large extent, 5-very much
Internet skills: 1-5 scale with 1-very low, 2-low, 3-average, 4-high, 5-very high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 33
2.86
2.79
2.68
2.61
2.44
2.63
2.55
2.37
2.44
2.42
2.56
2.42
2.31
2.27
2.32
3.73
3.78
3.70
3.58
3.52
1 2 3 4 5
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-65
Financial benefit Social responsibility Meeting people Fun
Younger consumers consider sharing more fun
N = 1143; Arithmetic means for consumers by age group are displayedImportance of motives: 1-5 scale with 1-not at all, 2-to a small extent, 3-to a moderate extent, 4-to a large extent, 5-very much
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 34 Social motives less important for high-income consumers
3.6
9
2.6
0 2.8
4
2.6
7
3.7
6
2.4
9 2.7
9
2.6
9
3.7
0
2.3
4
2.6
9
2.4
5
3.6
3
2.2
1
2.5
6
2.2
7
1
2
3
4
5
Financial benefit Meeting people Fun Social responsibility
1. Quartile 2. Quartile 3. Quartile 4. Quartile
N = 1143; Arithmetic means for consumers by income quartiles are displayedImportance of motives 1-5 scale with 1-not at all, 2-to a small extent, 3-to a moderate extent, 4-to a large extent, 5-very much
Quartiles cut the distribution of income in approximately even quarters
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 35
High-skilled consumers experience sharing as more fun – and financially attractive
N =1143; Arithmetic means for consumers by Internet skills are displayedImportance of motives: 1-5 scale with 1-not at all, 2-to a small extent, 3-to a moderate extent, 4-to a large extent, 5-very much
2.28
2.55
2.65
2.75
2.89
2.36
2.22
2.33
2.47
2.44
2.33
2.48
2.44
2.52
2.52
3.11
3.60
3.58
3.75
3.88
1 2 3 4 5
Very low
Low
Average
High
Very high
Financial benefit Social Responsibility Meeting people Fun
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 36
Particularly older aware non-users assume primarily societal benefits
N = 3818; Arithmetic means for aware non-users by age group are displayedImportance of expected benefits: 1-5 scale with 1-not at all, 2-to a small extent, 3-to a moderate extent, 4-to a large extent, 5-very much
2.88
2.80
2.63
2.61
2.39
2.89
2.88
2.71
2.64
2.51
3.07
2.98
2.94
2.88
2.71
3.24
3.17
3.05
2.92
2.58
1 2 3 4 5
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-65
Financial benefit Social responsibility Meeting people Fun
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 37
Lower-educated aware non-users see less of a societal benefit
N = 3818; Arithmetic means for aware non-users by education are displayedImportance of expected benefits: 1-5 scale with 1-not at all, 2-to a small extent, 3-to a moderate extent, 4-to a large extent, 5-very much
2.80
2.612.73
2.973.02 3.04
2.83
2.47
2.782.66
2.892.98 3.01 2.97
2.60 2.60 2.63 2.652.78 2.76 2.74
2.47 2.492.58 2.62 2.67 2.66
2.51
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
No formal education Primary school Lower secondary Higher secondary Bachelor Master Doctorate or higher
Financial benefit Social Responsibility Meeting people Fun
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 38
High-skilled aware non-users generally expect more benefits from sharing
N = 3818; Arithmetic means for aware non-users by Internet skills are displayedImportance of expected benefits: 1-5 scale with 1-not at all, 2-to a small extent, 3-to a moderate extent, 4-to a large extent, 5-very much
2.33
2.58
2.66
2.66
2.74
2.40
2.61
2.70
2.76
2.85
2.33
2.48
2.44
2.52
2.52
2.56
2.80
3.00
3.03
3.18
1 2 3 4 5
Very low
Low
Average
High
Very high
Financial benefit Social Responsibility Meeting people Fun
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 39
Non-users mostly associate the sharing economy with ride-sharing
47.64
54.04
44.11
47.64
39.39
43.94
52.02
44.28
52.36
45.96
55.89
52.36
61
56.06
47.98
55.72
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Rent an apartment
Catch a ride
Find a workspace
Borrow a tool
Share food with others
Host someone in my home
Take someone on a ride in my car
Share one of my tools
Yes No
N = 594, Non-aware non-usersSample question: ‚What do you think sharing platforms can be used for?‘
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 40
Older non-aware non-users also assume more social benefits
N = 594; Arithmetic means for non-aware non-users by age group are displayedImportance of expected benefits: 1-5 scale with 1-not at all, 2-to a small extent, 3-to a moderate extent, 4-to a large extent, 5-very much
2.86
2.67
2.40
2.21
2.25
2.78
2.69
2.32
2.39
2.34
2.75
2.63
2.44
2.48
2.38
2.84
2.51
2.50
2.33
2.31
1 2 3 4 5
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-65
Financial benefit Social responsibility Meeting people Fun
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 41 Key Insights into Sharing Motives
• Financial benefits are the most important motivational driver of participation in the sharing economy – both in terms of providing and consuming. However, financial benefits play a much more dominant role for consumers, compared to providers.
• Providers estimate social responsibility and social interaction motives significantly higher than consumers. Younger providers, especially, consider financial benefits less relevant than older cohorts. For them, providing is more about meeting people and exercising social responsibility.
• Higher income consumers are especially driven by financial benefits, ranking other motives consistently lower than lower-income consumers do.
• Aware non-users consider financial benefits less of a boon of sharing services than actual consumers do, but rate social responsibility and social interaction more highly. This could be due to biases in platforms’ marketing efforts and public discourse. This is especially true for older non-users (as younger ones may have heard more first-hand user accounts).
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 42
Internet Access as Precondition for Sharing Participation4The relationship between Internet use frequency, access device use and (non-) participation
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 43
There is a Digital Divide in the Sharing EconomyNon-participants in the sharing economy use the Internet less frequently than participants, particularly through mobile devices. Internet skills play a key role in distinguishing participants from non-participants.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 44 Daily Internet use is the norm throughout Europe…
0.7% 1.0%7.4%
53.9%
37.0%
Less often Weekly Once a day Several times a day Almost constantly
N = 6111; PercentagesInternet use frequency: 1-5 scale with 1-less often, 2-weekly, 3-once a day, 4-several times a day, 5-almost constantly
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 45
... but sharing participants are more avid Internet users than non-participants
0.2% 0.… 0.5% 3.0%0.5%
0.4% 1.0%2.2%6.1%
3.3%7.6%
15.5%
43.3% 50.3%
56.4%
54.5%
49.8% 45.8%
34.4%24.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Provider Consumer Aware non-user Non-aware non-user
Less often Weekly Once a day Several times a day Almost constantly
N = 6111(Providers: 556; Consumers: 1143; Aware non-users: 3818; Non-aware non-users: 594)
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 46 “Always on” particularly common in Italy and Spain
N = 6111Internet use frequency: 1-5 scale with 1-less often, 2-weekly, 3-once a day, 4-several times a day, 5-almost constantly
2.0
1.0
2.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.2
0.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.6
1.0
6.9
10.2
11.4
7.2
6.4
5.4
6.8
7.5
7.8
4.3
9.1
6.2
7.4
59.3
51.7
56.0
58.8
38.9
62.6
64.8
56.4
48.7
42.5
52.2
56.6
53.9
31.4
36.3
30.2
33.0
52.4
31.0
27.6
34.1
41.9
50.7
37.5
36.2
37.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Denmark
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
UK
Total
Less often Weekly Once a day Several times a day Almost constantly
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 47 An age divide persists among Europeans
5.4%
5.2%
7.8%
9.5%
16.1%
49.1%
45.5%
53.7%
58.8%
60.2%
45.5%
49.3%
38.4%
31.7%
23.8%
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-65
Less often Several times a day Almost constantly
N = 6111; reduced scaleOriginal Internet use frequency: 1-5 scale with 1-less often, 2-weekly, 3-once a day, 4-several times a day, 5-almost constantly
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 48 Slight gender divide in terms of access frequency
0.8% 0.6%1.1% 0.9%
7.4% 7.4%
57.5%
50.4%
33.2%
40.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Women Men
Less often Weekly Once a day Several times a day Almost constantly
N = 6111Internet use frequency: 1-5 scale with 1-less often, 2-weekly, 3-once a day, 4-several times a day, 5-almost constantly
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 49 Education is still a major factor in Internet use
9.1%1.4% 1.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.9% 0.6%
4.5%
4.3% 2.5% 0.7% 0.8% 1.9%
18.2%
11.4% 12.3%
8.6% 4.7% 3.4% 6.3%
54.5%
56.4% 55.1%
54.0%54.5%
51.9%48.7%
13.6%
26.5% 28.7%36.2%
39.9%43.8% 42.4%
No formaleducation
Primary School Lower secondary Higher secondary Bachelor Master Doctorate or higher
Less often Weekly Once a day Several times a day Almost constantly
N = 6111Internet use frequency: 1-5 scale with 1-less often, 2-weekly, 3-once a day, 4-several times a day, 5-almost constantly
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 50 …as is income
1.6
%
1.4
%
9.4
%
49
.9%
37
.7%
0.5
%
1.2
% 7.9
%
52
.0%
38
.5%
0.3
%
0.6
% 6.3
%
55
.6%
37
.1%
0.3
%
0.8
% 5.7
%
57
.9%
35
.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Less often Weekly Once a day Several times a day Almost constantly
1. Quartile 2. Quartile 3. Quartile 4. Quartile
N = 6111Internet use frequency: 1-5 scale with 1-less often, 2-weekly, 3-once a day, 4-several times a day, 5-almost constantly
Quartiles cut the distribution of income in approximately even quarters
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 51
0.2%
0.7%
5.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.6%
1.6%
4.0%
1.7%
2.7%
6.0%
12.4%
21.3%
34.7%
50.8%
59.3%
61.5%
55.2%
63.4%
46.1%
34.0%
23.9%
14.2%
Very high
High
Average
Low
Very low
Less often Weekly Once a day Several times a day Almost constantly
Internet skills closely related to use frequency
N = 6111Internet use frequency: 1-5 scale with 1-less often, 2-weekly, 3-once a day, 4-several times a day, 5-almost constantly
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 52
Smartphone most frequently used access device: potential prerequisite to sharing participation
N = 6111Internet use frequency: 1-5 scale with 1-less often, 2-weekly, 3-once a day, 4-several times a day, 5-almost constantly
Quartiles cut the distribution of income in approximately even quarters
10.0%
13.6%
33.4%
37.5%
73.3%
22.6%
20.5%
21.2%
30.7%
17.6%
14.3%
14.7%
10.5%
10.4%
3.7%
27.4%
27.9%
18.1%
13.6%
3.4%
25.7%
23.3%
16.7%
7.8%
1.9%
Smartphone
Laptop
Desktop PC
Tablet
Gaming console
Never Sometimes About half the time Most of the time Always
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 53
Smartphone use distinguishes participants and non-participants
24.8%
28.8%
34.6%
42.9%
6.3%
3.1%
11.3%
18.7%
8.6%
7.4%
14.4%
24.7%
24.5%
29.0%
39.8%
51.5%
49.8%
63.4%
78.2%
83.2%
22.8%
24.8%
20.6%
17.0%
13.8%
15.6%
25.7%
24.2%
19.4%
17.4%
21.8%
19.2%
31.1%
34.5%
30.8%
22.2%
24.3%
22.9%
16.1%
10.9%
12.8%
13.5%
9.8%
7.6%
14.2%
15.7%
14.3%
11.3%
19.1%
19.9%
13.2%
9.9%
16.7%
11.2%
9.9%
6.2%
10.4%
6.1%
2.2%
2.5%
21.2%
19.1%
18.0%
14.5%
32.2%
32.9%
25.9%
22.7%
28.6%
31.8%
27.2%
24.2%
17.3%
16.3%
12.5%
12.1%
9.7%
5.5%
1.7%
18.3%
13.8%
17.1%
18.0%
33.5%
32.7%
22.8%
23.1%
24.3%
23.4%
23.3%
21.9%
10.4%
9.1%
7.0%
7.9%
5.8%
2.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
Provider
Consumer
Aware non-user
Non-aware non-user
De
skto
p P
CSm
artp
ho
ne
Lap
top
Tab
let
Gam
ing
Co
nso
le
Never Sometimes About half the time Most of the time Always
N = 6111Access device use: 1-5 scale with 1-never, 2-sometimes, 3-about half the time, 4-most of the time, 5-always
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 54 Key Insights into Sharing Preconditions
• Daily – and especially constant – Internet use is much more common among providers and consumers of sharing services than among non-users. Non-aware non-users use the Internet less frequently than all other groups, while providers have the largest share of “always-on” Internet users.
• As participation in the sharing economy is clearly linked to Internet use, a number of digital divides need to be taken into account: an age divide, a gender divide, an educational divide, an income divide and a skills divide. In other words: Younger, well-educated, higher income, male and highly skilled individuals use the Internet most frequently and are more engaged in the sharing economy.
• Smartphone use most clearly distinguishes participants from non-participants in the sharing economy, with consumers being slightly more avid users than providers. Smartphone use is, again, especially frequent among younger, well-educated, higher income and highly skilled Europeans.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 55
Sharing Self-Efficacy of Non-Users5Do non-participants lack confidence in their ability to use sharing services?
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 56
Non-Aware Non-Users face a large Skills DivideWhile non-participants generally have relatively low confidence in their ability to use sharing services, this is especially obvious among those unfamiliar with the sharing economy.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 57
Aware non-users are relatively confident they could consume sharing services
3.11
3.07
3.01
3.00
3.00
2.99
2.82
2.62
1 2 3 4 5
Catch a ride
Borrow a tool
Rent an apartment
Find a workspace
Take someone on a ride in my car
Share one of my tools
Share food with others
Host someone in my home
N = 3818, aware non-users; Arithmetic means are displayed1-5 scale with 1-strongly disagree, 2-somewhat disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-strongly agree
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 58
Non-aware non-users are less confident in their skills, even in terms of consumption
2.25
2.46
2.47
2.48
2.49
2.50
2.52
2.56
1 2 3 4 5
Host someone in my home
Share one of my tools
Take someone on a ride in my car
Share food with others
Rent an apartment
Borrow a tool
Find a workspace
Catch a ride
N = 594, non-aware non-users, Arithmetic means are displayed1-5 scale with 1-strongly disagree, 2-somewhat disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-strongly agree
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 59
Italian, Danish and Portuguese aware non-users are relatively confident in their use skills
Rent a apartment
Catch a rideFind a
workspaceBorrow a
toolShare foodwith others
Host someonein my home
Take someonein a ride in
my car
Share one ofmy tools
Denmark 3.19 3.30 3.03 3.09 2.97 2.96 3.10 3.03
France 2.90 3.07 2.73 3.14 2.65 2.54 3.07 3.01
Germany 2.62 3.04 2.47 2.91 2.54 2.25 2.86 2.78
Ireland 3.30 3.08 3.19 3.10 2.82 2.88 2.85 3.03
Italy 3.18 3.20 3.20 3.03 2.87 2.69 3.16 3.10
Netherlands 2.81 2.90 2.83 3.00 2.82 2.58 2.93 2.92
Norway 3.21 3.19 2.81 3.19 2.75 2.64 3.12 3.07
Poland 2.92 3.40 3.40 3.15 3.20 2.75 3.27 3.01
Portugal 3.26 3.16 3.39 3.21 2.96 2.68 3.04 3.17
Spain 2.97 2.91 3.13 2.99 2.75 2.37 2.92 2.94
Switzerland 2.76 3.05 2.81 3.07 2.68 2.48 2.96 3.00
UK 3.04 3.02 2.92 2.94 2.73 2.66 2.74 2.84
Total 3.01 3.11 3.00 3.07 2.82 2.62 3.00 2.99
N = 3818, aware non-users; Arithmetic means by country are displayed1-5 scale with 1-strongly disagree, 2-somewhat disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-strongly agree
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 60
With the exception of young pupils, self-efficacy rises with education
3.1
3
2.8
6
2.7
4 2.9
8 3.1
6
3.1
2 3.3
4
3.2
0
3.0
6
2.9
0 3.1
0
3.1
7
3.2
3 3.3
5
3.3
3
2.8
8
2.7
4 2.9
8 3.1
3
3.0
9 3.2
0
3.0
7
2.9
8
2.9
0 3.0
3 3.2
0
3.1
3 3.2
6
3.0
7
2.7
3
2.7
1
2.7
9
2.8
6
2.9
2
2.9
4
2.6
7
2.6
8
2.4
4 2.5
7 2.7
0
2.7
7 2.9
7
3.0
0
2.8
8
2.8
2 2.9
7 3.0
8
3.1
4
3.4
0
3.0
7
2.8
4
2.7
6 2.9
7 3.1
2
3.0
7 3.3
1
1
2
3
4
5
No formal Primary school Lower secondary Higher secondary Bachelor Master Doctorate andhigher
Rent a apartment Catch a ride Find a workspace
Borrow a Tool Share food with others Host someone in my home
Take someone in a ride in my car Share one of my tools
N = 3818, aware non-users; Arithmetic means by education are displayed1-5 scale with 1-strongly disagree, 2-somewhat disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-strongly agree
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 61 Sharing self-efficacy rises with Internet skills2
.79 2.9
3
2.9
9 3.1
2
3.1
6
2.8
2 3.0
0 3.1
3
3.2
3
3.2
3
2.7
6 2.9
6
3.0
0
3.0
6
3.1
3
2.8
1 2.9
6 3.0
9
3.1
7
3.2
1
2.7
8
2.7
9
2.8
2
2.8
4
2.8
5
2.4
6
2.5
6
2.5
9 2.7
2
2.7
1
2.7
5 2.9
0 3.0
4
3.0
7
3.1
2
2.7
6 2.9
0
2.9
9 3.0
9
3.1
4
1
2
3
4
5
Very low Low Average High Very high
Rent a apartment Catch a rideFind a workspace Borrow a toolShare food with others Host someone in my homeTake someone in a ride in my car Share one of my tools
N = 3818, aware non-users; Arithmetic means by Internet skills are displayed1-5 scale with 1-strongly disagree, 2-somewhat disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-strongly agree
Internet skills: 1-5 scale with 1-very low, 2-low, 3-average, 4-high, 5-very high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 62 Key Insights on the Self-Efficacy of Non-Users
• Aware non-users are more confident in their ability to use sharing services than non-aware non-users – particularly for consumptive purposes. Interestingly, while actual participation in the sharing economy focuses primarily on car- and home-sharing, non-participants focus more on tasks such as borrowing a tool or finding a workspace.
• While self-efficacy doesn’t significantly vary among non-aware non-users, we find that among aware non-users, sharing self-efficacy is related to general Internet skills, with more educated individuals showing more of both.
• Low sharing self-efficacy among non-participants could constitute an obstacle to participation. It is, however, especially weak among the group of non-aware non-users, who are characterized by higher age, lower education, lower income, low Internet skills and less frequent Internet use.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 63
Reasons for Non-Participation in the Sharing Economy6Reasons for non-participation given by those who abstain from the sharing economy
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 64
Privacy and Legal Concerns constitute Key ObstaclesAside from negative attitudes towards using other people’s items and towards interacting with strangers, insecurity in terms of privacy protection and legal standing are key reasons for abstaining from providing and consuming sharing services.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 65
Privacy concerns and legal concerns key reasons for not providing sharing services
3.47
3.37
3.26
3.25
3.15
3.07
2.97
2.92
2.89
2.86
2.82
2.81
2.46
I don't like to share my things
I don't trust them with my data
I don't feel legally secure using them
I don't want to interact with strangers
I don't trust these corporations
I don't see a use in them
They are not available where i live
I don't know what the are for
They are too cumbersome to use
I don't need the extra income
I don't think anyone is helped by using sharing platforms
I don't support the idea of a 'sharing platform / sharingeconomy'
I cannot use it because I am missing a requirement
N = 3818; Arithmetic means for providing are displayed1-5 scale with 1-strongly disagree, 2-somewhat disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-strongly agree
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 66
Reasons for non-use generally more important for low-skilled users
I don‘t see a use inthem
I don‘t know what they are for
I don‘t trust them with my data
I don‘t feel legally secure using them
They are not available where I
live
They are too cumbersome to
use
I cannot use it because I am
missing a requirement
Very low 3.45 3.53 3.57 3.55 3.16 3.27 2.94
Low 3.17 3.16 3.44 3.34 3.03 3.01 2.66
Average 3.03 2.95 3.37 3.27 2.95 2.89 2.46
High 2.98 2.72 3.32 3.20 2.98 2.78 2.29
Very high 2.89 2.41 3.23 3.03 2.81 2.60 2.09
Total 3.07 2.92 3.37 3.26 2.97 2.89 2.46
Skill
Ind
ex
N = 3818; Arithmetic means for providing by Internet skills are displayed1-5 scale with 1-strongly disagree, 2-somewhat disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-strongly agree
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 67
Reasons for non-use generally more important for low-skilled users (continued)
I don‘t like to share my things
I don‘t need the extra income
I don‘t want to interactwith
strangers
I don‘t think anyone is helped by using
sharing platforms
I don‘t trust thesecorporations
I don‘t support the ides of a sharing platform/
economy
Very low 3.66 3.06 3.54 3.20 3.45 3.24
Low 3.45 2.91 3.30 2.96 3.23 2.96
Average 3.43 2.78 3.24 2.79 3.11 2.76
High 3.48 2.87 3.19 2.71 3.07 2.69
Very high 3.48 2.86 3.11 2.62 3.05 2.63
Total 3.47 2.86 3.25 2.82 3.15 2.81
Skill
Ind
ex
N = 3818; Arithmetic means for providing by Internet skills are displayed1-5 scale with 1-strongly disagree, 2-somewhat disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-strongly agree
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 68
Users avoid sharing services when they can afford alternatives
2.37
2.73
2.81
2.87
2.88
2.94
3.02
3.15
3.17
3.17
3.23
3.24
3.25
3.36
1 2 3 4 5
I cannot use it becaue I am missing a requirement
I don't think anyone is helped by using sharing…
I don't support the idea of a 'sharing platform /…
They are too cumbersome to use
They are too expensive
I don't know what they are for
They are not available where I live
I don't trust these corporations
I don't want to unteract with strangers
I don't see a use in them
I can afford other services
I don't feel legally secure using them
I don't like to use things from others/used things.
I don't trust them with my data
N = 3818; Arithmetic means for consuming are displayed1-5 scale with 1-strongly disagree, 2-somewhat disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-strongly agree
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 69
Again, lower skilled non-consumers see more obstacles to using sharing services
I don‘t see a use inthem
I don‘t know what they are for
I don‘t trust them with my data
I don‘t feel legally secure using them
They are not available where I
live
They are too cumbersome to
use
I cannot use it because I am
missing a requirement
Very low 3.57 3.67 3.60 3.47 3.18 3.25 2.82
Low 3.26 3.17 3.42 3.36 3.06 3.00 2.57
Average 3.10 2.94 3.35 3.23 2.99 2.84 2.36
High 3.10 2.75 3.28 3.15 3.04 2.78 2.23
Very high 3.06 2.43 3.24 3.05 2.91 2.65 2.03
Total 3.17 2.94 3.36 3.23 3.02 2.87 2.37
N = 3818; Arithmetic means for consuming by Internet skills are displayed1-5 scale with 1-strongly disagree, 2-somewhat disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-strongly agree
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 70 (continued)
I don‘t like to use things from others/
Used things
They are too expensive
I can afford other services
I don‘t want to interact with
strangers
I don‘t think anyone is helped by
using sharing platforms
I don‘t trust thesecorporations
I don‘t support the ides of a sharing
platform/ economy
Very low 3.44 3.11 3.27 3.40 3.14 3.36 3.14
Low 3.32 3.00 3.24 3.25 2.90 3.25 2.98
Average 3.21 2.85 3.20 3.14 2.70 3.11 2.75
High 3.19 2.81 3.23 3.13 2.57 3.12 2.72
Very high 3.22 2.73 3.23 3.02 2.53 3.02 2.60
Total 3.25 2.88 3.23 3.17 2.73 3.15 2.81
N = 3818; Arithmetic means for consuming by Internet skills are displayed1-5 scale with 1-strongly disagree, 2-somewhat disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-strongly agree
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 71 Key Insights on Non-Participation
• A general dislike for sharing or using other peoples’ objects ranks very highly among the reasons given for non-participation, as does resistance to interacting with strangers.
• Non-participants also rarely say that they are excluded from sharing because they lack a necessary requirement (such as a car, space or object to share, an access device or credit card).
• Higher education and income individuals do not need the additional income from sharing or can afford to use other, presumably more comfortable services. Lower-education and -income individuals generally seem more insecure towards the sharing economy.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 72
Outcomes of Participation in the Sharing Economy7A look at non-economic (consumers and providers) and economic (providers) outcomes of participation
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 73
Few Provide Professionally, Most Enjoy the Side-IncomeGenerally, there is little reciprocity involved in the sharing economy, few ever share repeatedly with each other. Among providers, most participate to earn a side-income. A few rely on sharing for their livelihood, however – and require particular attention.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 74 Sharing economy consumers rarely reciprocate
73.1%
19.0%
7.9%
Low Middle High
N = 1143, consumersSocial reciprocity index: 1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 75 Low reciprocity is common…
68.9%
89.6%
74.0%
70.4%
65.7%
79.7%
69.1%
62.5%
70.5%
61.2%
80.6%
76.8%
73.1%
20.3%
8.0%
18.2%
22.6%
23.5%
15.9%
19.1%
30.6%
21.6%
25.2%
15.7%
14.1%
19.0%
10.8%
2.4%
7.8%
7.0%
10.8%
4.3%
11.8%
6.9%
8.0%
13.6%
3.7%
9.2%
7.9%
Denmark
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
UK
Total
Low Middle HighN = 1143, consumers by country
Social reciprocity index: 1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 76 …but less common among ‘millennials’
81.9%
77.4%
74.2%
68.9%
68.5%
13.4%
16.9%
19.0%
19.0%
24.5%
4.7%
5.6%
6.7%
12.1%
6.9%
55-65
45-54
35-44
25-34
18-24
Low Middle High
N = 1143, consumers by age groupSocial reciprocity index: 1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 77 Women reciprocate less than men
68.7%
77.3%
20.9%
17.2%
10.4%
5.6%
Men
Women
Low Middle High
N = 1143, consumers by genderSocial reciprocity index: 1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 78 Internet skills foster reciprocity
Social Reciprocity Index
Skill
Ind
ex
Low Middle High
Low 78.6% 78.6% 6.8%
Average 75.8% 75.8% 6.3%
Medium High 71.5% 71.5% 7.3%
Highest 71.6% 71.6% 9.5%
Total 73.1% 73.1% 7.9%
N = 1143, consumers by Internet skillsSocial reciprocity index: 1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-highSkills index reduced by aggregating highest and lowest values
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 79 No effect of platforms on reciprocity
N = 1143, consumers by platformSocial reciprocity index: 1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-high
75.2%
79.6%
72.3%
73.0%
41.5%
17.9%
13.2%
20.9%
19.0%
43.4%
6.8%
7.3%
6.8%
8.0%
15.1%
Blablacar
Airbnb
Uber
Others
No answer
Low Middle High
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 80 Providers reciprocate more than consumers
52.2%
31.3%
16.2%
73.1%
19.0%
7.9%
Low Middle High
Providers Consumers
N = 1699Social reciprocity index: 1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 81
Reciprocity relatively high among Portuguese, British and Italian providers
56.0%
78.8%
63.8%
44.4%
38.6%
68.8%
39.1%
56.9%
34.6%
46.3%
47.6%
38.5%
26.0%
17.5%
17.0%
36.1%
35.1%
18.8%
50.0%
36.2%
30.8%
25.9%
45.2%
34.6%
18.0%
3.8%
19.1%
19.4%
26.3%
12.5%
10.9%
6.9%
34.6%
27.8%
7.1%
26.9%
Denmark
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
UK
Low Middle HighN = 1699
Social reciprocity index: 1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 82 ‘Millennial’ providers also reciprocate more
68.0%
58.0%
57.7%
48.1%
44.4%
28.0%
34.8%
27.6%
30.1%
37.0%
4.0%
7.2%
14.6%
21.8%
18.5%
55-65
45-54
35-44
25-34
18-24
Low Middle High
N = 556, providers by age groupSocial reciprocity index: 1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 83 Reciprocity more common among male providers
44.7%
63.9%
37.4%
22.5%
17.9%
13.7%
Men
Women
Low Middle High
N = 556, providers by genderSocial reciprocity index: 1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 84 Internet skills have a stronger effect for providers
Social Reciprocity Index
Skill
Ind
ex
Low Middle High
Low 67.3% 25.0% 7.7%
Average 53.8% 36.6% 9.7%
Medium High 52.0% 37.3% 10.7%
Highest 47.8% 23.1% 29.1%
Total 52.5% 31.3% 16.2%
N = 556, providers by Internet skillsSocial reciprocity index):1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-highSkills index reduced by aggregating highest and lowest values
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 85 The Uber effect: professional reciprocity
71.8%
53.7%
26.0%
53.5%
40.7%
19.5%
31.4%
38.0%
32.6%
40.0%
8.7%
14.9%
36.0%
14.0%
19.3%
Blablacar
Airbnb
Uber
Others
No answer
Low Middle High
N = 556, providers by platformSocial reciprocity index: 1-3 scale with 1-low, 2-middle, 3-high
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 86 Economic outcomes: Few are ‘professional sharers’
13.7%
37.6%
48.7%
Is my main source of income Is a good way of supplementing mymain income
Is just something I earn on the side,but I don't really need it
N = 556Sample question: ‚The income i get from providing on the sharing platform…‘
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 87 Millennials are more likely to be ‘professional sharers’
14.8%
18.0%
10.6%
11.6%
4.0%
43.5%
40.3%
34.1%
29.0%
34.0%
41.7%
41.7%
55.3%
59.4%
62.0%
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-65
Is my main source of incomeIs a good way of supplementing my main incomeIs just something I earn on the side, but I dont really need it
N = 556, providers by age groupSample question: ‚The income i get from providing on the sharing platform…‘
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 88 Professional sharing is a low-skilled job
Skill
Ind
ex
Main source of income
Supplementing main income
Income earned on the side
Low 21.2% 36.5% 42.3%
Average 17.2% 39.3% 43.4%
Medium High 8.5% 46.9% 44.6%
Highest 13.7% 27.5% 58.8%
Total 13.7% 37.6% 48.7%
N = 556, providers by Internet skillsSample question: ‚The income i get from providing on the sharing platform…‘
Skills index reduced by aggregating highest and lowest values
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 89 ‘Uber’ jobs and professional sharing
3.4%
9.1%
24.0%
15.1%
23.3%
22.1%
44.6%
38.0%
29.1%
52.0%
74.5%
46.3%
38.0%
55.8%
24.7%
Blablacar
Airbnb
Uber
Others
No answer
Is my main source of income
Is a good way of supplementing my main income
Is just something I earn on the side, but I dont really need it
N = 556, providers by platformSample question: ‚The income i get from providing on the sharing platform…‘
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 90 Key Insights on the Outcomes of Participation
• Across countries, we find that consumers do not seem inclined to have repeated interactions with those met on sharing platforms. Neither Internet skills nor the preferred platform (e.g., Airbnb, Uber, Blablacar) positively relate to reciprocity.
• Men have a slightly stronger preference for reciprocal relations, which may be related to issues of personal safety. Moreover ‘millennials’ (aged 18 to 34) seem to be more willing to entertain repeated exchanges with other users.
• Providers are generally more willing to reciprocate (particularly southern Europeans). However, this may be motivated by a desire foster a community of committed customers.
• Few providers exclusively rely on sharing services for their income. Users with low Internet skills are more likely to be ‘professional sharers’, implying that ‘professional sharing’ may be a low-skill (and low-income) occupation.
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 91
Conclusions8
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 92 Summary of Results
• Participants are younger, more educated, and higher-income than non-participants.
• Participants are more avid and skilled Internet users, particularly in terms of mobileusage.
• Participation mostly in car-and home-sharing.
• Privacy and legal concerns are key obstacles to participation – aside fromdislike of used goods.
• Consumers are on average more educated, higher income and somewhat olderthan providers. They also have higher Internet skills.
• Higher Internet skills are related to more perceived benefits from sharing.
• Consumers are primarily driven by financial benefits and fun. They stop participating when they can afford more comfortable alternatives.
• Most providers participate to earn a side income – they do not rely on sharing for a livelihood.
• The largest share of ‘professional sharers’ is found in car sharing (Uber) and among younger participants. They tend to be lower-SES.
• Professional sharers are especially keen to generate social capital, i.e. to foster a customer base.
Participation DivideDifferences between participation and non-participation
Engagement DivideDifferences between consumers and providers
Provider DivideDifferences between professional and occasional providers
Participation in the
Sharing Economy
Page 93
thank you for your considerationPs2Share – Power, Privacy and Participation in the Sharing Economy Consortiumps2share.eu