Sharing economy and the city

Sharing economy is a modern trend of the 21st century, which is based on new technologies. It is expanding across the world unpredictably fast, spreading from the digital to the physical urban world [McLaren and Agyeman, 2015; World Economic Forum (WEF), 2017]. Although different forms of cooperation in the production and consumption of goods have been observed in various civilizations over the centuries, sharing is now becoming a convenience rather than a survival mechanism [Belk, 2018]. The term “sharing economy” has recently become popular, together with the growing digitalization of the economy [Sundararajan, 2016, p. 5].

The role of technology in the development of the sharing economy is very fundamental because “with technology as facilitator, sharing opportunities can be scaled” [Perera and Albinsson, 2018, p. 4]. In a basic sense, sharing economy is linked to the information revolution, and it consists of only four types of activities: open-source software, online collaboration, file sharing, and peer-to-peer financing [Hamari et al., 2016]. In a broader sense, sharing economy is perceived as a significant change in the society, concerning many aspects of business and human life [Rifkin, 2000]. One of the essential characteristics of these changes is the social transformation from “having to using”.

The novelty and the importance of the changes are reflected in the dynamically growing number of scientific publications in which attention is paid to various aspects of the analyzed phenomenon [Botsman and Rogers, 2011; Sundararajan, 2016; Perera and Albinsson, 2018]. Despite that, there is still a lack of uniformity in the approaches used to define sharing economy and to assess this phenomenon. As the term “sharing economy” is primarily about the ways in which to organize the use of scarce resources, increasingly more concepts emerge on various aspects of its functioning. Collaborative consumption is one of these concepts; it emphasizes the manner in which to organize the exchange of goods. This term “encompasses any economic model based on sharing, swapping, trading or renting products and services – enabling access over ownership and continuous group interaction rather than one-time, linear buyer/seller relationships” [WEF, 2017, p. 7].

There are three types of driving forces that fuel sharing economy: economic, social, and environmental [WEF, 2017, p. 10]. The importance of these drivers varies across different groups of main actors. For example, sharing enterprises may be economically motivated (for-profit enterprises) but also socially or environmentally motivated (social enterprises, cooperatives, nonprofit enterprises, and so on). Moreover, the motivation of the users varies for different ages, life cycle stages, education levels, or sex groups [Böcker and Meelen, 2016]. For example, sharing is generally more popular among younger generations, males, and more-educated and single people; however, users in various sectors differ, with females and families with children showing higher interest in homesharing; furthermore, new groups of users such as businessmen emerge [Global Investor, 2015; Rimer, 2017]. The mosaic of motives of the main actors of the sharing economy causes the creation of various models of action.

As can be observed around the world, cities are special recipients of sharing economy start-ups because they create favorable conditions for their local development, attributable to the density of their population and intensity of social interactions, which are greater compared to the same in rural areas. Citizens create not only higher demand as individuals and groups but also structurally different demands, which stimulates the growth of sharing activities. The cities accumulate resources and create a specific innovative economic and sociocultural environment that inspires innovative activities, such as sharing activity.

The purpose of the paper is to analyze both positive and negative consequences of the chosen aspects of sharing economy on the cities. The analysis is based on the exemplification of innovative international sharing start-ups, such as Uber, BlaBlaCar, and Airbnb, in order to show the scale, intensity, and character of the impact of the emerging sharing activities. The analysis shows a mutual relationship between sharing economy companies and the city, which is discussed from the perspective of various stakeholders of the city. These dynamic relations include both the impact from the companies’ activities and the adaptation of the companies to the market response.

All the three analyzed companies are dominant players in different market segments of ridesharing and homesharing. The subject of the study is discussed exclusively based on the examples of the three selected profit-making enterprises operating on a global scale, which serves the purpose of the unification of the research field. The methodology comprises a systematic review of multiple sources, such as academic publications, periodicals, companies’ reports, and other reports presented by the European Union (EU), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the World Economic Forum (WEF). The methodology is based on the qualitative analysis of various secondary sources and uses the deductive method of research supported by comparative analysis of information and findings.

The first section of the paper is focused on the conceptual approach to sharing economy. It underlines the novelty of the processes and the importance of the influence of sharing economy companies. It is seen all over the world as a process forcing deep and comprehensive changes in the global economy and is, as such, perceived from the perspective of a changing paradigm.

The second section highlights the role of cities as places, which are reflections of glocalization [Kuciński, 2011] with reference to the sharing economy. The urban perspective is initially analyzed with regard to the spatial expansion of the exemplified sharing activities of Uber, BlaBlaCar, and Airbnb. It presents the local impact of these companies in different cities worldwide. This is discussed in terms of the complex relations between different groups of stakeholders with diverse interests.

The third section comprises the discussion and conclusions from the study, revealing the complexity of the interactions that result from the expansion of the sharing services (ridesharing and homesharing), transforming cities around the world into “more sharing” cities. The research shows that the novel and intensive character of changes imposed by rapidly developing sharing economy start-ups creates huge opportunities but also threats and challenges, which are addressed globally and locally and, as such, are subject to the continuous supervision of local governments, which act as both promotors and inhibitors on behalf of the interests of all stakeholders and the general city. They support and regulate the sharing practices during the continuous process of adjustment of activity of sharing economy start-ups, whose impact reveals strong transforming (both creative and destructive) power for the city and its stakeholders. The study shows that the expansion of sharing services, with the inherent complexity of interactions, transforms cities into more sharing spaces with increasing peer–to-peer architecture, resulting in more collective social coexistence and more sustainable background for development, however with some uncertainty related to wealth stratification due to the complexity of conflicting interests of city’s stakeholders.

The sharing paradigm can be approached strictly from an economic perspective of owned goods (e.g., pooling or allocation of resources) or, more broadly, in a sense of sharing things, services, and activities [McLaren and Agyeman, 2015] (Table 1).

The novelty, complexity, and comprehensiveness of the sharing economy are expressed in the differentiation of the terms that are used to define, describe, and analyze the processes associated with sharing. It may lead to oversimplification, when the terms are being used interchangeably, or misunderstanding, when separate division is used because many sharing companies can be labeled under different terms depending on the character of their activity: collaborative consumption [Botsman and Rogers, 2011]; collaborative economy [Aluchna and Rok, 2018]; peer-to-peer economy [Brescia, 2016]; circular economy [Andersen, 2007]; access economy [Denning, 2014]; or gig economy [Friedman, 2014]. Such comment refers also to Uber, BlaBlaCar, and Airbnb’s activities, which are the company cases analyzed in the paper. These companies are classified not only as sharing economy start-ups; due to the exposition of different features of their activities, they are also presented as follows: parts of collaborative consumption, benefiting from the exchange of assets between individuals; peer-to-peer economy, enabling the sharing of assets between individuals [Botsman and Rogers, 2011]; or collaborative economy [WEF, 2017], linking providers of services and users in ways that bypass traditional institutions.

The term “sharing economy” has become very commonly used as the best term describing this changing paradigm. However, it does not mean that academic and public discourse around sharing has stopped [the problem with defining such complex phenomena is exemplified in the extended discussion over the term “culture”, as discussed by Brdulak, 2011]. Commenting on this issue, Teffer [2017] argues that it is rather an umbrella term combining different aspects, such as behavior, benefit, business model, market structure, and status of participation, in the process of sharing.

Although the process of sharing is perceived in different ways, its major characteristics is the new role of consumers, whose behavior has been transforming from “having” to “using”, as a result of the technological progress seen in constantly increasing digitalization of the economy [Sundararajan, 2016]. The changes from “Generation Me” to “Generation We”, for whom sharing, participation, and collaboration become fundamental values, are possible due to the availability of infrastructure for participation and the “immersion” of its users in innovative information and communication technology (ICT) platforms, specifically online social networks and mobile devices. Due to the accessibility of the Internet, the network necessary for sharing has the capability to redefine its scope, meaning, and possibility, thus transforming principles into the behavior of the “we” mind-set [Botsman and Rogers, 2011, 51–55].

The new position of consumers in the sharing economy is emphasized by Frenken and Schor [2017] in their words defining sharing economy as “consumers granting each other temporary access to under-utilized physical assets (idle capacity), possibly for money”. This aspect is stressed also by Sundararajan [2016, p. 27], who sees one of the basic characteristics of sharing economy as the new opportunities it creates related to sharing, ranging from sharing assets and skills to sharing time and money, which are to be used at levels closer to their full capacity. PwC highlights the role of contemporary technology in providing benefit of access to consumers, which is put in the following way: “sharing economy uses digital platforms to allow customers to have access to, rather than ownership of, tangible and intangible assets” [Vaughan and Hawksworth, 2014].

The EU, at the beginning of changes associated with the emergence of the sharing paradigm, used the term “collaborative consumption”. The present approach highlights the concept of “sharing economy” and the participation of business providers, defining it as “business models where activities are facilitated by collaborative platforms that create an open marketplace for the temporary usage of goods or services often provided by private individuals” [A European Agenda for Collaborative Economy, 2016].

Considering the above-presented approach to the herein-discussed phenomenon, sharing economy can be defined as “organized interactions in which individuals and entities exchange with others the untapped surplus or idle capacity of their assets, typically for some type of payment or service” [WEF, 2017, p. 6]. The specification of this new market is seen in the use of digital technologies to match buyers and sellers; capitalizing on idle capacity and trust verification (through, e.g., peer review ratings, third-party validation). Such an approach asserts the economic behavior of individual actors related to the more optimal management of resources.

The specific nature of assets results in the scenario that they are used as both a possibility and an opportunity with regard to idling capacity, which enables the respective actors to use their untapped social, economic, and environmental value [Botsman, 2015a]. The environmental aspects are often highlighted while discussing the effects of various sharing activities, because sharing by changing needs and habits contributes, as a principle, to increasing usage of goods and saving of resources. Therefore, the sharing economy is often described as a new relationship, which saves resources and energy and creates local jobs [Stahel, 2016]; moreover, it is also generally expected to be highly ecologically sustainable [Prothero et al., 2011].

The scale and intensity of the sharing economy have been expanding extremely rapidly. According to the estimates of the OECD [2016], the global revenue of the sharing economy is expected to increase from $26 billion to $335 billion over the period between 2013 and 2025. It denotes a nearly 13-fold rise just within a little more than a decade. One of the aspects of this rise associated with the intensity of connections is seen in the unprecedented increase in the number of things connected, which is even described as an explosion. It is perceived to triple to 30 by 2020 up from 10 in 2014; this figure is also estimated to increase to >100 within the span of the next 30 years. Automatization and robots will have an increasingly important role in the new economy.

The sharing economy has already started to change the socioeconomic life in cities as areas naturally suitable to be tailored to sharing. Generally speaking, the pragmatic character of sharing embodied in human nature is evident. The changes can be highlighted within the context of the statement that sharing economy is about organizing our lives and our cities [Dodwell, 2018]. Cities, as natural environments for sharing, favor these processes also in the strictly economic sense reflected in business behaviors. Sharing companies use the socioeconomic benefits offered by cities, drawing on the various categories of resources concentrated in cities, particularly bigger cities, such as the population and its demographic and cultural characteristics, talents, and skills; capital; market; and dense infrastructure, including ICT and research and educational facilities. The “popularity of smartphones” in cities and “lower data costs”, together with “high population density”, are crucial drivers for urban sharing [WEF, 2017, p. 10]. Cities create high potential of demand, resulting in highly increasing general level of demand for sharing practices and a widening range of needs, from food and tools to cars and homes, which are being increasingly shared. Sharing companies can grow very fast in many cases due to critical mass, which can be reached in cities as they are population-dense areas enabling successful connections.

McLaren and Agyeman [2015, p. 28] stress that, in recent periods, sharing behaviors have spread from cyberspace to urban space across the world, which is seen in the growing interest in promotion of sharing-related practices in cities. Cities remain under the increasing influence of the sharing economy because many service providers and producers offer new services with sharing access. Implementation of the attributes of sharing economy, seen in peer-to peer-architecture, opens up new possibilities for their functioning and growth (sharing of resources, as well as entrepreneurial and collective participation), which are based on change and adaptation to change. This model is important for them because it may ease many problems of their functioning and thus stimulate their growth. The ICT-enabled urban sharing offers novel and promising ways of interaction and resource use between urban actors [Zwolska et al., 2018].

Cities that are recognized within the sharing paradigm are described using the term “sharing cities” [Gorenflo et al, 2018]. This term refers directly to the idea of sharing, which is usually treated as embracing a broader context rather than just the economic perspective of sharing of underused assets. Considering the case for “sharing cities”, MacLaren and Agyeman [2015, p. 4] emphasize that this means the understanding of cities as shared spaces and also as spaces that are shared fairly. Sharing behaviors multiply through the establishment of sharing norms and trust building online [McLaren and Agyeman, 2015, p. 28]. They help to overcome the obstacle of “stranger danger” associated with the novelty of an offer and strengthen the social basis for the reshaping of cities into “sharing cities”. By adopting the “sharing paradigm” enabled by ICT technology, cities have been changing their economic, sociocultural, and environmental characteristics, which gives them the opportunity to lead the transition toward sustainability.

Cities introduce sharing behaviors through online markets and, for this reason, they are called “the original sharing platform”. It was the role assigned by Jay Nath – the first chief innovation officer in San Francisco – while discussing the character of changes in the city and the region, which became the experimental field for implementation of the idea of sharing, because of the status of being the home city of the most innovative sharing companies in the world (in the context of ridesharing and homesharing).

Due to the scale and intensity of sharing economy activities enabled by technological progress, sharing economy is being perceived as an emerging and novel phenomenon and, as such, is gaining the interest of business and public sectors, government entities, academy and mass media, and also society, whose members increasingly act as users of sharing practices. Analyzing the changes taking place nowadays, it is, however, necessary to keep in mind the universal and historical role of sharing and its embeddedness in socioeconomic relations through human history.

The sharing economy processes, which bring together various actors (sharing companies, citizens as providers or users of sharing practices, and governments) embrace different spatial levels. The ICT-enabled urban sharing is regarded as a particularly promising example of smart innovation [Zwolska et al., 2018]. Activities that are contributing to urban sharing have much in common with those promoted by smart city agendas in terms of values and comprehensive goals contributing to digital-led sustainable growth, because both phenomena (urban sharing and smart city) “frame the concepts of innovations led by citizens’ and consumers’ needs functioning in well-defined communities, whose aim is to share resources” by taking advantage of ICT [Zwolska et al., 2018]. For example, urban sharing organizations are included in the Greater London Authority’s efforts under the agenda of the Smart London Plan, while mobility organizations are cooperating with Transport for London – the authority responsible for operating public transport in London, which is heavily involved in the smart mobility plan for London (Urban sharing in London, 2019).

A sharing economy implies a disruptive and creative impact on a city and its citizens, who are under pressure for the necessary adjustment to the rapid changes. They are exemplified in the innovative processes forced on them by the rapidly developing global companies of the sharing economy, such as Uber, BlaBlaCar, and Airbnb. Although the activity of the three sharing economy companies discussed in the paper is limited to selected areas of the sharing economy, they have already put a huge and transforming urban impact in many countries of the world. The analyzed start-ups represent very successful profit-making international sharing companies leading in innovative changes in their respective urban market segments such as ridesharing and homesharing. Their economic success is seen in their global urban path (so far, only BlaBlaCar has a more regional-oriented strategy of development) and the very fast internal expansion seen in many cities around the world. It is worth noticing that after 8 years of its functioning, Uber was still presented by its cofounders as a modern start-up experiencing continuous development, seen in the increasing network of city-based independent businesses [Bartczak, 2015].

Sharing companies develop their activity mainly in cities as these are densely populated places providing various locational advantages, which are the catalyst for innovative changes. Such an urban environment creates and stimulates interactions through the abundance of quickly developing sharing platforms and their fast progress. Sharing economy companies rapidly transform cities around the world. It is reflected in the increasing number of cities that are being influenced by the sharing economy; the impact is economic, sociocultural, political, and also environmental, which is differentiated locally. Successful monetization of the process of sharing instead of real sharing has many consequences for a city’s functioning, which are both positive and negative. The fact that such companies as BlaBlaCar, Uber, or Airbnb turn ridesharing and couch sharing into multimillion businesses causes an ongoing public debate [Cowan, 2015]. The companies illustrate the disruptive potential of the sharing economy, which is especially highlighted while discussing the impact of large, international, quickly expanding companies involved in the sharing economy. As disruptive businesses, they have a tremendous and complex impact on the economy at different levels. It is worth noting that although Uber was established in 2009, later than the term “sharing economy”, the word “uberization” began to be used regularly as its synonym to emphasize the scale of changes, as well as to show its negative aspects [Gross, 2017]. Donald [2017], commenting on Uber’s impact, stated that it became “one of the most vexing problems facing cities today, because it exploded on the market without much warning, leaving policymakers to react quickly”.

The sharing economy unleashes the various interests of different urban actors involved in the city’s growth machine [Moloth, 1976]. The impact of the analyzed sharing companies threatens existing local structures and sparks activities defending economic local status quo. The disruptive influence of sharing economy companies leads to local conflicts, expressed in the opposing approaches of different stakeholders: incumbent companies and sharing economy companies. The incumbents argue that the companies achieve high incomes by using unfair competition, which causes a reduction in demand for taxi services and a subsequent drop in revenues and wages for the taxis and hoteliers. Sharing economy startups are developing extremely quickly because they have small entry capital barriers and vast potential for demand as they offer services in a new way [Rutkowska-Gurak, 2016] and at very low prices (the impact of price changes on the shrinkage of local markets is seen largely in Poland with reference to the BlaBlaCar price policy; see Stankiewicz, 2018). The peer-to-peer business model allows these companies to reduce all costs related to ownership (does not refer to Uber) or costs related to employment (Uber relies on private contractors), allowing citizens/clients to act as both third-party service providers and users of the services, while keeping to themselves the position of intermediaries. Both parties are financially motivated and have a common goal, such as gaining increasing number of consumers and maximizing income from them. The fast development of the discussed companies shows that scale enabled by technology becomes a base for their business models (and constitutes a characteristic feature for all business models of the sharing economy). It is a condition for their functioning and business operations and constitutes a base for their competitive advantage. Fast and aggressive accumulation of large value in a short run by some sharing companies such as Uber, which has little to do with sharing (which is contrasting, e.g., with BlaBlaCar’s model) is a reason for the criticism of such business models [Cicharska et al., 2018, p. 128] or for just excluding Uber from the category of sharing companies (Botsman, 2015b).

Fast-developing sharing economy companies have been radically modifying existing local markets and business models, leading to a change in the structure of market segments such as transportation and accommodation. This disruptive economic influence is being partially diminished through the positive socioeconomic effects, expressed in the entrepreneurial character of the sharing economy. It is seen not only in the rapid growth of sharing start-ups but also in the inclusion of different groups of citizens, mainly nonprofessionals, as service providers. The unconventional supply of cheaper services positively influences the individual budgets of citizens. It also has a positive multiplying effect on a city’s economy (shift of demand to new groups of citizens), including the strengthening of a city’s economic base (e.g., tourist function). The sharing economy quickens the better utilization of underused assets (cars, apartments), enables savings on individual assets, encourages sharing of resources, and induces the multiplication of environmental benefits (projected drop in total sales of cars). By promoting new business models and new management of resources by different categories of individual actors, the sharing economy helps to optimize productivity.

One of the important social consequences of sharing economy causing social changes is the creation of sharing communities, whose participants’ values and norms are shaped and reshaped, contributing to the multiplying and strengthening of sharing behaviors. As McLaren and Agyeman [2015, p. 28] underline, establishment of sharing norms and trust building online is a key condition for the multiplying of sharing behaviors. Using the same platform allows to “create a unique space” for the functioning of established communities. Sharing behaviors increasingly characterize younger generations, which constitute the major category of users of sharing practices. The younger generations appreciate the new features of sharing businesses, such as mobility, freedom of activity, variety of choice, and flexibility. Sharing behaviors are reflected in the new approach to ownership, expressed in the changing of attitudes and mind-sets from having to using.

In general, citizens who use sharing practices present a positive approach to the sharing economy companies. However, the characteristics of users of sharing platforms imply uneven access to the service. It is stressed that sharing companies such as Uber create selective income opportunities, which are favorable only for one group of citizens, namely, those who are young, single, the mobile, and able-bodied, whereas traditional transportation companies are left with the others (elderly people who are less digitalized, families with children, and so on), creating a gap in income and opportunity between the two types of services operating for different segments of the population [Norman, 2015].

Another questionable aspect associated with sharing practices, which arouses social concern and local protests of citizens, appears when they disturb the functioning of their local neighborhoods, which occurs in the case of rentals of apartments through Airbnb listings (e.g., in Spanish cities).

The city authorities, who favor a special status in the city growth machine, are engaged in a more multidimensional way in the conflicts arising on the urban scene. Their approach has to be more ambiguous and their position more balanced as they represent the general perspective of a city’s socioeconomic interests. The activity of local governments with reference to the sharing economy is relatively pragmatically oriented toward sharing practices [Zwolska, 2017]. On the one hand, they observe the painful loss in tax payments due to the negative effect of the growing market of black economy on the city budget. Depending on the character and scale of the local impact of sharing businesses, the city authorities are under moderate-to-high pressure from dissatisfied traditional business entities, which are important contributors to current city budgets. On the other hand, the authorities realize that new peer-to-peer activities have huge social support as nourishing a new kind of entrepreneurship for various groups of people, resulting in both the earning and the saving of money by citizens, supported by the additional impact of new socialization. This part of local society, which is more attributed to younger generations, has to be also taken into consideration not only, from the perspective of fulfilling needs, which is the basic purpose of a city’s development but also from the perspective of the voting power of those who treat the sharing economy as contributing to life betterment. The entrepreneurial and digital character of the sharing economy constitutes a crucial force for the betterment of living conditions for many citizens, including disadvantaged groups of people, helping to build trust and enable social inclusion of strangers [WEF, 2017]. The inclusive character of the impact of the sharing economy from the societal point of view is, however, weakened by the exclusion of other groups of citizens, who are not technologically capable of following the rules of the digital market of sharing services. However, some barriers for sharing are partially surmountable by increasing the trust of the community to this new category of services. This explanation can be addressed to the results of the BCG survey [Wallenstein and Shelat, 2017] devoted to this issue, which reveals that nonusers cited three main reasons against the use of sharing platforms, namely, convenience of ownership, distrust of the sharing platforms that they have never used before, and unwillingness to share payment information.

One more perspective of the urban impact of sharing enterprises is resource oriented. The sharing economy highlights the environmental aspect of socioeconomic sharing behaviors due to the promotion of the usage of underused assets, resulting in reduction of pollution and consumption of media. Although environmental aspects are fundamental for a discussion about the sharing economy’s potential, its basic three benefits, which attract consumers to sharing economy – as the BCG reports, are the following: variety, access to better products and services, and the ability to have a unique experience. The environmental dimensions, such as reducing the carbon footprint and societal relations, i.e., connecting with interesting people, are ranked lower [Wallenstein and Shelat, 2017]. It shows the high complexity of interests and expectations of the various stakeholders of a city. Local expression of these compound interactions is expressed in both unified and place-specific manners (Table 4).

Taking the above considerations into account, local governments (supported also by national governments) act as regulators by limiting the scale of activity of the selected sharing start-ups (cases of Uber and Airbnb) by the imposition of laws and regulations for sharing platforms, to ensure the rights of all participants and other city users such as incumbents and opposing groups of citizens. They also play the role of facilitators and collaborators participating in innovation programs and acting as partners with Uber, BlaBlaCar, and Airbnb by promoting ridesharing (e.g., BlaBlaLines, Mytaximatch) and by cooperating with Uber concerning betterment of the existing urban transportation (Uber Movement) and implementation of new modes of transport (self-driving cars, electric flying vehicles). Generally speaking, local governments can act as promoters or inhibitors and fulfill selective urban policies, which is evidenced well in London. Although the city declares [The Sharing Economy in London] the promotion of urban sharing organizations (USOs), such as support for a pioneer nationwide trade association of nonprofit and for-profit sharing organizations (SOs) or support to mobility organizations or the platform JustPark (by the Mayor of London), the authorities underline the necessity of control over some large SOs, which is reflected in the restrictions imposed on Uber and Airbnb, conditioned by public safety and security implications and the necessity for counteracting the exacerbation of the city’s housing crisis [The Sharing Economy in London,; WEF, 2017]. It is symptomatic that the processes for regulation of sharing companies’ activity start to be the subject of continuous revision based on empirical evidence, which is exemplified with regard to London’s urban policy related to Uber. Although this ridesharing company temporarily lost its license to operate in London, which took place in September 2017, the renewal of its activity with London’s transport authorities was possible under new terms, such as, for example, obtaining medical certificates for its drivers and carrying out criminal background checks to reduce physical risk to users and service providers [The Sharing Economy in London; WEF, 2017].

The complexity and differentiation of sharing practices embrace a whole city’s economy and spread across selected sectors such as transportation, the activity of which is not limited to traditional modes of transport but also involves new vehicles such as shared scooters designed initially for “last mile” commuting. Even such nonrevolutionary vehicles such as shared scooters, which were implemented in 2017 (Uber also acts as one of the operators on the e-scooter market), have been arousing such controversies (for security reasons) that San Francisco, which has a particular status on the sharing market, tried to impose a total ban on their services, and other American cities, such as Nashville and Portland, are planning to ban or limit the activity of its operators [Garrity, 2019].

The sharing economy uses the attributes of cities in terms of being “platforms for innovations”, where innovations can thrive, leading to change, novelty, and transformation toward more “sharing cities”. The fast development of sharing practices is possible due to new, flexible business models offering great economic value, quality, and variety, which have unexpectedly quickly overcome the barriers of social distrust, which is seen in the market response showing rising investments of venture funding in new sharing start-ups, in particular, in ridesharing and homesharing, since 2010. The economic benefits of sharing, combined with increasing protections of their users, and the gathering trust in terms of user reviews contributed to the growth of communities of users of sharing services, leading to fast transformation and unification of values making sharing a social norm.

The analyzed for-profit sharing start-ups (Uber, BlaBlaCar, and Airbnb) used the potential created by the sharing economy, such as quickly rising societal support and starting operations in a favorable period for such a business offer, namely, in the period of the world crisis. The huge support of venture funds, the right choice of the operating field, and a far-reaching strategy, including a policy of continuous innovation and global expansion, allowed these three start-ups to become global players with tremendous impact at both global and local levels.

The urban context of the above influence caused the cities to become a special arena for the sharing economy’s takeoff. Over time, the disruptive character of these for-profit sharing start-ups, called “large sharing vanguards”, started to create unprecedented challenges for urban authorities in the quickly transforming urban scene. Deep inner-city expansion by the new participants of the city’s economic and social life revealed conflicting interests of the different stakeholders in the city (Table 4). Their disruptive visibility in many cities around the world diversified the emerging array of urban sharing organizations, somehow disturbing the simplicity of the positive picture of sharing as enabling the transformation of the urban economy from excess to access in the environmental spirit of changes, resulting in increasing prosperity of urban inhabitants. Rapidly escalating processes related to the sharing economy forced adaptive regulative processes at the national and local levels, contributing to locally specific forms of legislative regulations, subject to processes of constant changes based on empirical evidence. Such activities are aimed at maintaining a balance between the creative freedom for businesses and the necessary regulations protecting the interests of all stakeholders of the city.

The conducted analysis gives the basis for understanding the importance of the impact of sharing companies on the city and on each group of a city’s stakeholders. The adopted approach focused on the analysis of global sharing economy companies, representing for-profit business models in two economy sectors (ridesharing, homesharing), acting formerly as sharing economy innovative start-ups enabled to follow the pace and scale of changes imposed by their activity. The findings should be treated as the basis for a better pragmatic approach referring to regulations of activities of such companies, first, because their products are often ahead of the existing legal environment and, second, because the scale of the disturbing impact of some of them is too heavy for local markets.

Sharing city is a phenomenon difficult to grasp in its entirety, not only because of its complexity but also its variability. Even limiting the perspective for analyzing the impact of for-profit corporations in this sector on the functioning of cities allows one to notice not only the scale of influence but also the heterogeneity of consequences for individual groups of stakeholders. Moreover, the identified consequences are not constant over time but are subject to change due to the multilateral interaction between different players – the results are altered with changes in the strategies of the corporations themselves, as well as with the adaptive actions of other stakeholders. An example would be the changing rules of the game of local and state authorities, which attempt to introduce regulations aimed at limiting the negative impact of sharing economy enterprises on the city’s stakeholders, e.g., tax regime, licensing, and insurance legislation related to Airbnb in Prague (and other Czech cities), new license law for Uber in London, restrictions on renting flats in Barcelona, and ban on e-scooters in San Francisco.

The analysis also shows that externalities occur at every stage of the life cycle of the sector’s enterprises – start-up, growth, and decline. Given the dynamics of the sector, the process of adjusting regulations to protect the most vulnerable groups of stakeholders is a continuous process – problems cannot be solved once and for all - the changing paradigm requires constant attention from governmental bodies to reduce market failure.

Sharing companies are changing not only present-day life in cities but also the future of the cities, contributing to irreversible and revolutionary changes, and, as such, they should be intentionally included in the smart cities’ model of development. However, the impact of sharing economy should be locally shaped and regulated by the cities’ authorities who represent the “general city interest”, to ensure environmentally friendly, sustainable, smart development linking all city’s stakeholders and strengthening social participation as a result of access to the underused assets or services, better resource availability, and improvement in living conditions. The research shows that the expansion of sharing services, with the inherent complexity of interactions, transforms cities into more sharing spaces, with increasing peer-to-peer architecture, resulting in more collective social coexistence and more sustainable background for development, however with some uncertainty related to wealth stratification due to the complexity of the conflicting interests of a city’s stakeholders.

The ongoing processes related to sharing economy in cities, as the analysis confirms, are complex and multidimensional in character and affect the economy and society, which justifies the need for further in-depth research and studies. Following the discussed topic, it is worthwhile to study the impact of the analyzed sharing start-ups on selected cities more in depth, taking into consideration the economic or sociocultural and/or environmental dimension. Analyzing the impact of sharing start-ups, the issue of collaboration among cities is also worth noting. Considering the analyzed topic, the following questions arise: (1)

If and how to regulate the activity of sharing start-ups at the city level, particularly those, such as Uber, BlaBlaCar, and Airbnb, whose activity is very expansive and reshaping the existing cities’ socioeconomic structures?

The sharing economy arouses many expectations but also fears and objections. The question is how to include sharing organizations in the city’s growth machine for the general benefit of the city’s economy and the lives of its citizens. Despite the fact that it is difficult to foresee long-term trends on the market, it is likely that the sharing economy will escalate its economic influence in various urban market segments and that it will strengthen its local social impact. However, legislative regulations tend to diminish the inappropriate business advantage of sharing start-ups such as Uber and Airbnb, which grew on the supply– demand gap and the ability to function over the existing regulatory system. Obeying rules prepared for this category of new companies could change their global position as well as their local manifestation on the global urban scene in the medium- or long-term run. Another issue that is being observed is the start of the process of the gradual partial inclusion of incumbent businesses into the so-called new sharing economy in sectors experiencing the highest business risk such as the hotel industry. One thing seems certain: sharing economy is on the way to transform cities around the world. This transformation should be included in the cities’ strategies and not left out of continuous supervision.