Value Co-creation for sustainable consumption and production in the sharing economy in China

Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1148e1158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Value Co-creation for sustainable consumption and production in the sharing economy in China Yuge Ma a, Ke Rong b, c, *, Yining Luo b, Yong Wang b, Diana Mangalagiu a, d, Thomas F. Thornton a a

Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Institute of Economics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Institute for State-owned enterprises, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China d Neoma Business School, France b c

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 10 October 2017 Received in revised form 24 September 2018 Accepted 11 October 2018

Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) has traditionally treated consumption and production as separate domains of economic activities with different solutions for sustainability. In the emerging sharing economy, consumption activities are more and more integrated into the production process of shared goods and services, which provides novel arenas for sustainability in cities. Increasingly, these sharing business models are aiming to solve long-standing urban sustainability problems, such as insufficient daily transport, and its problems of polluttion. In this article, we integrate theories of the sharing economy, value co-creation and SCP to argue that the emergent forms of value co-creation between consumers and sharing businesses provide new opportunities for SCP. We use two emergent and representative sharing mobility businesses in China e a bike-sharing scheme called Mobike and an electric-vehicle-sharing scheme called EVCARD e as case studies to analyze the sustainability potentials of value co-creation. The social, behavioral, economic, and infrastructural obstacles encountered in realising such potentials are also identified. Based on these empirical results, we propose a framework to conceptualize the emerging patterns of value co-creation between governments, sharing business firms, and consumers in the sharing economy. We highlight the importance of understanding value co-creation for development of SCP theory and practice to guide the evolving sharing economy. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sharing economy Urban mobility Cleaner production Sustainable consumption and production Collaborative governance China Bike-sharing EV-Sharing

1. Introduction Since the Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) concept was introduced during the 1992 Rio World Summit on Sustainable Development, significant progress has been made in synergizing government regulations and industrial practices towards the aim of ‘doing more and better with less’ (UNEP, 2010). In 2015, SCP became the cornerstone of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production. SDG 12 defines SCP as ‘promoting resource and energy efficiency, sustainable infrastructure, and providing access to basic services, green and decent jobs and a better quality of life for all.’ Indeed, SCP has become one of the driving global norms to

* Corresponding author. Institute of Economics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Rong). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.135 0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

advance sustainaility thinking and action in both production and consumption arenas worldwide. Within the SCP literature, Cleaner Production (CP) and Sustainable Consumption (SC) are generally treated as two discrete domains (Cohen and Munoz, 2016). This dichotomy tends to provide sustainable solutions by targeting producers and consumers separately. Those solutions and goals are well elaborated in the 10year framework of programmes on SCP by SDG12. Generally, CP focuses on reducing carbon emissions, and resource consumption, during the extraction, production and affiliated processes leading to goods or services (Barber, 2007). SC is mostly concerned with reforming consumer behaviors and preferences in order to raise their awareness of sustainability, finding ways of purchasing more sustainably produced goods/services, as well as reducing material consumption levels (O'Rourke and Lollo, 2015). The dichotomy between CP and SC was developed for addressing sustainability problems in traditional products and services, such as in food, energy, water, mobility and other systems.

Y. Ma et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1148e1158

However, over the last two decades, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has changed dramatically the global supply and demand chains in many industries and businesses, as well as consumer behaviors, leading to a hybridization of consumption and production processes (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010). In many ICTenabled novel industries, the growing integration of production and consumption has provided new avenues for sustainable solutions, which the current dichotomy of the SCP scholarship does not adequately address. Despite increasing awareness of the need to connect the production and consumption sides of SCP among both international governments and leading industries (UNEP, 2012), the SCP scholarly literature to date has not effectively reflected this change. The hybridization of production and consumption is the most salient characteristic of the new sharing economy (Cohen and Munoz, 2016). The recent and fast-growing ICT-enabled sharing economy uses technology to connect different stakeholders e individuals, communities, companies, governments e to create value by sharing their excess capacities, or to create new capacities for sharable products and services (AoM, 2016). Engines of the new sharing economy can be disruptive and large scale digital sharing businesses, such as Uber and Airbnb, but also include not-for-profit and smaller scale sharing communities, such as Counchsurfing and local carpooling clubs (Acquier et al., 2017). In any sharing system, value co-creation between consumers and sharing firms/organizations is essential, as without it the sharing of products and services cannot function effectively (Lan et al., 2017). For example, the Airbnb system cannot function if the consumer is not proactive in matching with a host online, being respectful of the host's property (i.e., behaving according to local norms and laws), giving a rating and being rated by the host after the trip, etc. By contrast, in traditional hospitality industries, customers can be a pure product and service receiver/consumer, without such active and continuous inputs into the SCP system. Thus, the changing production and consumption relationships and networks in the new digital platform-based sharing economy require a new way of thinking about SCP. Cohen and Munoz (2016) argue, in the context of the sharing economy, that SCP should be treated as a continuum from sustainable consumption to sustainable production, to better understand the sharing businesses models (BMs) that are situated along this hybrid spectrum. The most disruptive and transformative sharing BMs often emerge in cities, and in crucial urban development systems, such as transport, housing and food. Therefore, the opportunities and challenges brought about by the growing business and social practices of the sharing economy are closely related to sustainability and are making significant social and environmental impacts, both locally and globally (Mclaren and Agyeman, 2015; Sundararajan 2016). This paper responds to the limitations brought about by the current dichotomy in the SCP literature by analysing the hybridization of the consumption and production processes, and by addressing the sustainability potentials and solutions of the sharing economy in the mobility sector in China. China is the world's largest carbon emitter and energy consumer, but is determined to transform itself into a low-carbon economy by radically advancing SCP in major industries and big cities (Qi et al., 2016; Vergragt et al., 2016) The success or failure of China's SCP and low-carbon transition will have immense impact on global sustainability. Correlatively, in the last five years, China has also experienced a rapid rise of the appbased sharing economy, especially in the urban mobility sector. This phenomenon has changed travel behaviors significantly, (re) configured urban infrastructures, and (re)shaped people's imaginations of cities (Ma et al., 2018). The Chinese case thus provides an interesting platform to explore the fast-changing relationship of SCP in the sharing economy in developing and transitioning

1149

countries. Through an in-depth qualitative comparative investigation of two representative green sharing mobility BMs e the free-floating bike sharing (FFBS) scheme named Mobike and the electric-vehicle (EV) sharing scheme called EVCARD e this paper identifies the major mechanisms of value co-creation that are reflecting the hybridization of the production and consumption processes and relations in the sharing economy. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the sharing economy, SCP and value co-creation and sustainability literature and analyzes the opportunity spaces for social and environmental sustainability brought about by novel forms of value co-creation in the green sharing mobility sector. Section 3 introduces the research methods and data collected, while section 4 presents the analysis of the case studies and findings, and identifies the key obstacles in realizing such sustainability potentials in the current socio-economic-infrastructural system of Chinese cities. The discussion in section 5, building on a critical analysis of the empirical data, proposes a framework for the collaborative production-consumption-regulation partnership, as a way towards better SCP in the context of the sharing economy in developing and transitioning countries. Section 6 provides the conclusions and limitations of the study. 2. Theoretical context In this section, we critically assess the latest studies from the sharing economy (2.1), SCP (2.2) and value co-creation and sustainability (2.3), in order to lay out the scholarly context for the empirical study. 2.1. Sharing economy: from consumer to consumer (C2C) to business to consumer (B2C) Sharing, as a social practice, is as old as human society (Belk, 2010). Yet today's Web 2.0 has enabled a new sharing economy, signalled by globally influential sharing businesses like Uber and Airbnb. At the same time, this new economy has become a highly controversial phenomenon, due to its major economic and social impacts (Belk, 2014). Acquier et al. (2017) argue that the modern sharing economy is, essentially, a contested concept that contains three organizing cores: 1. Access economy: a set of initiatives for sharing underutilized assets to optimize their use, compared to the conventional ownership-based economy. 2. Platform economy: a set of initiatives that mediate decentralized exchanges among peers through digital platforms. 3. Community-based economy: initiatives coordinating through non-contractual, non-hierarchical or non-monetized forms of interaction the performance of work, participation in projects or formation exchange relationships. Yet it is almost impossible to reconcile all three organizing cores, due to the constant tensions and paradoxes between them (Acquier et al., 2017). Martin (2016) and Murillo et al. (2017) further posit that unregulated commercial, political and technological forces, embodied in the modern sharing economy, might lead us towards a ‘capitalist nightmare’ instead of a ‘sustainable future’ (See Fig. 1). Although controversial, the sharing economy is, nevertheless, growing fast in developing and transitioning countries like China, where the trading volume of the sharing economy amounted to about 4.92 trillion Yuan (0.72 trillion USD) in 2017, which was an increase of 47.2% over the previous year, according to Chinese government data (SIC, 2018). Moreover, the sharing economy in China keeps changing and reinventing itself into innovative BMs,

1150

Y. Ma et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1148e1158

Fig. 1. Three organizing cores of the sharing economy. Source: Acquier et al. (2017).

which are aimed at generating a commercial and social impact in cities. There are two general types of BMs in the sharing economy. One is Consumer to Consumer (C2C) or Peer-to-Peer sharing, where individual participants are providers of shared products/services to other users through digital platforms, like Uber, Airbnb and TaskRabbit. The other is Business to Consumer (B2C) sharing, where firms are the major providers of shared products/services for registered users, such as Zipcar and most of the bike-sharing systems. Many studies have focused on the C2C model, characterized by the collaborative consumption of excess capacity among peers (Botsman and Rogers, 2011). The tension between the C2C model's peer-to-peer sharing culture (Access economy and Communitybased economy) and the capitalist force for market expansion and efficient technological power for centralizing big data collection and algorithm-based management (Platform economy), is increasingly studied in the socio-technical transition (Martin, 2016; Martin and Upham, 2016; Cockayne, 2016) and sociological literature (Srnicek, 2016; Standing, 2016; Schor, 2017; Ravenelle, 2017), and business and organization studies (Dreyer et al., 2017; Mair and €m, 2017). In contrast, limited Reischauer, 2017; Laurell and Sandstro research has addressed the B2C's BMs, and some authors have criticized the fact that the B2C model is de-facto a rental economy and hence should not be called a ‘sharing economy’ (Frenken and Schor, 2017). The B2C model is increasingly important to the sharing economy, especially in service areas where stability and the quality of supplies are fundamental for business success, such as transport and accommodation. The C2C model shares the excess capacities of individuals and organizations, so it is a form of sharing based on affluence (i.e. sharing the extra capacity of private cars where car ownership is relatively high). But in many developing countries, as well as remote areas in developed countries, resources are scarce (i.e. in 2015, car ownership in China is 12.50% 1 against 84.15% in the

1 http://www.mps.gov.cn/n2255040/n4908728/c5595634/content.html data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn¼C01.

http://

US 2). Therefore, new capacities need to be generated in the first place to provide adequate social services such as transport. The B2C sharing economy model generates such new capacities in the form of shareable products and services (access-based consumption) in contrast to ownership-oriented goods that are produced and exchanged in the traditional market economy. Also, to ensure stable and high-quality shared products/services across a range of geographic and business environments, C2C sharing companies are partially or completely adopting the B2C model, since they realized it was rather difficult to enforce rules on voluntary-based peer-topeer participation in the C2C model (i.e., it is unpredictable when and to what level these individuals are willing to share their excessive capacities). For example, the C2C ridesharing giant Uber has been in active conversations with several state governments in the US to provide reliable and affordable shared-rides for commuters to go to local train stations, where public transport is not cost-effective due to low population density or insufficient public funds.3 In China, after an initial introduction (2012-16) of the C2C sharing BMs such as Didi (the Chinese Uber-like company which merged with Uber's China operation in August 2016), the sharing economy has been rapidly shifting to the B2C model (Rong and Wang, 2017). In addition, the B2C model has been aligning itself with the sustainable goals of cities to contribute to greener and more affordable transport, through EV-sharing and bike-sharing schemes, as well as minibuses (Ma et al., 2018; Cohen and Kietzmann, 2014). Since this special issue is concerned with the latest industrial and commercial transitions in developing countries relating to SCP, we focus our analysis on the new and green B2C sharing BMs in the urban mobility sector of China. The next section elaborates on the contribution of the B2C sharing economy to SCP.

2.2. B2C sharing economy and SCP The sharing economy is not inherently sustainable, yet it provides huge sustainability potentials that can be realised within adequate social, economic, and political environments (OneEarth, 2015). From a Product Service System (PSS) perspective, Retamal (2017) identified six criteria that can be applied in assessing the sustainable impact of B2C sharing BMs: 1) using durable, quality goods; 2) intensifying use of goods; 3) enabling repair, take back and recycling of goods; 4) ensuring rental replaces purchase; 5) minimising transport and disposable packaging of goods; 6) reducing private vehicle kilometres travelled. Through case studies in developing country cities in Southeast Asia, Retamal (2017) found that the realization of the sustainable potentials in B2C sharing systems depends on market conditions and socioeconomic relationships in the local context, and urged for effective policy interventions to help facilitate SCP in the sharing economy. Drawing on the recent development of the sharing economy in China, Rong and Wang (2017) focused on the value chain, and showed that the B2C sharing BM (referred to as ‘Sharing Economy 2.0’ in their study) may contribute to general SCP in three crucial market constructs - production, marketing and consumption:

2 https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_ transportation_statistics/index.html https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/ number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/ https://www.census.gov/ programs-surveys/popest.html. 3 http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/uber-has-proposed-the-stategovernment-help-it-subside-rides-to-train-stations-rather-then-build-morecommuter-carparks/news-story/eb117643f7ca7619ecbc1f8341f26779.

Y. Ma et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1148e1158

1. Production: the B2C sharing BM can better realize the circular economy principle in lowering the carbon footprint of the shared products and services by higher quality, and durability and lower resource consumption, during the value creation process (Ueda et al., 2009). In the context of resource scarcity, B2C sharing schemes may help to generate new capacities needed for delivering sufficient services through cleaner production (CP), such as a better quality of shared bikes that can be used for longer periods compared to traditional ones. The B2C sharing BM helps to share the higher cost incurred in improving quality and durability, giving higher incentives to producers to invest in CP. 2. Marketing: the B2C sharing BM replaces traditionally marketed products with PSS, in which a consumer's needs can be fulfilled through the provision of targeted and more dematerialized services (Mont, 2002; Vargo and Lusch, 2010). This change of the product and service structure also reduces the pressure on marketing and distribution, because the shared services and products can reach the consumers more directly, lowering resource consumption during the process (Annarelli et al., 2016, Manzini, 2001). In addition, digital platform, widely deployed in the B2C sharing economy, provides the technological foundation for a more efficient resource use during the marketing process. 3. Consumption: the B2C sharing BM may increase the uses-tolifespan ratio of the product or service by sharing with multiple people at different times, and maximizing its functionalities through collaborative consumption (Daunoriene_ et al., 2015). It may also fulfill a real need, such as the daily transport of consumers with access-based consumption compared to the previous ownership-based model, reducing overall resource consumption to meet the same level of demand (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). But there is also a risk that the cheaper price of collaborative consumption may increase demand (Parguel et al., 2017). To summarize, through restructuring the value chain and adopting PSS constructs, the B2C sharing economy makes both direct and indirect contributions to SCP and general sustainability (See Fig. 2). While green manufacturing technology traditionally has been considered a driver of cleaner production (Kong et al., 2016; Rehman et al., 2016; Thurner and Roud, 2016; Kohtala, 2015), in the sharing economy the circular value chain capitalizes on multiple domains in realizing SCP (Zhao et al., 2017; Wu and Zhi, 2016). In certain areas, the B2C sharing economy is proactively promoting low-carbon solutions in cities, such as green transport in the form of bike-sharing and EV-sharing. Indirectly, the disruptive change brought about by the B2C sharing businesses in green transport in Chinese cities has accelerated a dynamic societal process of adaption, learning and action towards sustainability through multi-stakeholder interactions addressing the challenges and opportunities of this innovative BM (Hira, 2017; TUPDI, 2017).

Fig. 2. B2C sharing economy and SCP.

1151

2.3. SCP and value co-creation in the B2C sharing economy To realise the sustainable potentials of the B2C sharing business, a deep understanding of the changing socio-economic relationships happening in the system and their implications for SCP is essential (Fuchs and Lorek, 2005; Lorek and Spangenberg, 2014; Akenji, 2014; Vieira and Amaral, 2016). In a recent review, Geels et al. (2015) frame the current SCP literature as a reformist - revolutionary dichotomy. On the one hand, the orthodoxical ‘reformist’ position focuses on firms pursuing eco-innovations and consumers buying eco-efficient products. This position has developed away from the dominant focus on pollution control and green products to also includie consumption behaviors that underpin the resource intensity society (Clark, 2007; Berg and Hukkinen, 2011). In parallel, there is the second ‘revolutionary’ position that presents a radical critique of the mainstream ideas, urging for the replacement of capitalism, materialism and consumerism with frugality, self-sufficiency and localism (Webb, 2012). Geels et al. (2015) argued that both positions are problematic: the former's limited potential is in facing the issues of climate change, and the latter's is in its political unpalability. Instead, by integrating the muli-level perspective (MLP) from sociotechnical studies into SCP scholarships, they proposed a ‘reconfiguration’ position that focuses on the transitions in socio-technical systems and daily life practices towards SCP, as a way to go beyond the dichotomy and to offer more sustainability potentials for SCP research. While the ‘reconfiguration’ position helps to broaden the analytical angles of SCP literature from individual firms and consumers to industries and societies (Geels et al., 2015), the inherent limitation of MLP results in its insufficient attention to the emerging socio-economic and political relationships in today's fastchanging economies (Sorrell, 2017). In the context of the B2C sharing economy, shared products and services are more and more co-produced by producers and consumers together, blurring the boundaries between consumers and firms, consumers and peers, and between consumers and labour (individual producers) (Joore and Brezet, 2015). This change is deeply social and political, because it reflects not only a reconfiguration of the general sociotechnical systems, but also a restructuring of social and economic actors, relationships, networks and cognitions (Lan et al., 2017). Ritzer (2014, 2015) used the concept of ‘prosumption’ to describe this structural change, In the recent decade, ICT, especially smartphone-based Apps, had increased the level of consumer involvement in the production process and relations in today's sharing economy, while it has also decreased its cost (Rayna, 2008). Taking a step further, Rayna and Striukova (2016) conceptualized the structural hybridization between consumption and production processes and roles as ‘value co-creation’. The concept of value cocreation was originally developed by management and organization scholars, which mainly focuses on enhancing a cooperative strategy (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004) and consumer experience (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) through supporting and leveraging the co-production process between consumers and firms. It particularly emphasized a mutual learning process between consumers and firms in order to co-create mutually desired values (Payne et al., 2008). We consider the concept of value co-creation as a novel starting point to go beyond the SCP literature's ‘reformistrevolutionary dichotomy’ at a more social-cognitive level (i.e. the learning process as well as relationship and role changes) compared to the ‘reconfiguration position’ suggested by Geels et al. (2015). The sharing economy requires consumers to perform value cocreation via multiple roles and duties, such as sharing their idle goods and spare capacities to serve other consumers, or helping to

1152

Y. Ma et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1148e1158

maintain a sharing environment (Eden, 2015). Some researchers have criticized the value co-creation paradigm, as being exploitative of consumers, since there are not enough rewards provided by firms in return for consumers' contributions (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Eckhardt and Bardhi, 2015; Belk, 2014). While this is possible in some cases, in the B2C sharing BMs, consumers' contributions are fundamental for any sharing activity to happen (Hertler and Tasso, 2015, Schaefers et al., 2016a,b)). Consumers in B2C sharing models choose to use the service themselves, and so participate in value co-creation with the firm and other customers, voluntarily, with various motivations and intentions (Barnes and Mattsson, € cker and Meelen, 2017). 2017; Bo Indeed, value co-creation, between sharing participants and firms, is the central action field transforming the previously distinct production and consumption domains towards realising SCP goals (Frei, 2005; Firnkorn and Müller, 2011; Habibi et al., 2016). However, there are multiple obstacles encountered during the value cocreation processes in the B2C sharing systems that obscure its sustainability potential (Lan et al., 2017), especially the massive user and non-user misbehavior due to a lack of ownership and social supervision (Schaefers et al., 2016a,b). Our study will address this understudied area through an in-depth qualitative analysis of two cases (4.1), which is aiming to map out the political, economic and ethical gaps faced in value co-creation towards SCP in China's fast developing sharing mobility sector (Section 4.2). We will also discuss how to achieve urban sustainability through enhancing value co-creation in the sharing economy (Section 5).

3. Research methods and data Drawing on the literature of case study research and qualitative methods (Flyvbjerg, 2006), we adopt an iterative theory building from case study approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser, 1992) using first and secondary data from the newly emerged sharing mobility sector in Shanghai and Beijing. In this part, we will introduce our research design, including data collection, case selection and interview protocol. In terms of the data collection, we use the strategy of data triangulation (Yin, 2008) by collecting data from three source: 1) 50 stakeholders' interviews as the primary data in this research, from June 2016 to August 2017: such in-depth interviews were conducted with representative actors in the B2C sharing business, primarily with 10 interviewee from Mobike and 9 interviewee from EVCARD in Shanghai and Beijing. The actors include co-founders and management teams of the selected companies. In terms of the rest interviewee, we interview active user groups and clubs, policy makers in the transport-related sections of municipal administrative and regulative bodies, government and university think tanks specialising in SCP, as well as management and strategy team in major automobility companies in Shanghai and Beijing. The choice of the interviewees was grounded in the principle that all stakeholders that have a substantive function in the B2C sharing mobility business concerning SCP need to be considered. 2) besides, we do the observation from policy forum and stakeholder workshops, where more than 20 stakeholders attended and discuss the collaborative governance of SCP in the B2C sharing. These activities we regarded as the group discuss, generated more understanding of SCP in the sharing economy. 3) thirdly, the secondary data as the supportive data were collected such as open access company information, legislative acts, plans of local development, business and media reports. All of these secondary data were utilized for gaining a holistic perspective of

the cases on the one hand, and for triangulating informants' statements and researchers' observations from workshops and forums, on the other. In terms of the case selection, the reasons we selected these two cases are: firstly, those two cases (Mobike and EVCARD) are two of most representatives of the B2C sharing business model in China; secondly, the SCP processes and the relationships to realize the value co-creation we intend to analyse are significant in the cases, which could demonstrate such interaction very much. Regarding to the interview protocol, we have the following rules: 1) we will collect the data from the view of processes and obstacles encountered in value co-creation; (2) the data of the changing socio-economic networks and relationships emerged and its impact on value co-creation will also be collected; and (3) we will also observe and record the impact of value co-creation on SCP in the B2C sharing business. 4. Case analysis and findings Low-carbon transport is the only key contributor to urban CO2 emissions that is still growing today, while the other two e building and industry e have been steadily declining in large cities (UNHabitat, 2016). Value co-creation is key in maintaining a sustainable and well-functioning public transport system (Gebauer et al., 2010). Recent developments of B2C sharing BMs have provided important support to public transport systems in terms of using bike-sharing to solve the ‘last mile’ transport problem, and EVsharing to provide an alternative and green commute (Cohen and Kietzmann, 2014). Novel patterns of value co-creation have emerged from the new practice of those B2C sharing BMs, opening new arenas to facilitate SCP. In this section, we analyze two typical and important B2C sharing cases e Mobike and EVCARD e to ascertain the value of co-creation processes and their potentials for sustainability in the sharing economy. Mobike, a private start-up founded in Shanghai in April 2016, made a breakthrough in China by introducing innovative freefloating bike sharing (FFBS) services to customers. The former station-based bike sharing programs, promoted by local governments, failed to have a significant impact on changing citizens' travel behaviors in China (Zhang et al., 2015). In contrast, the innovative FFBS, featuring convenient access and transaction, has proved to be an effective solution for daily commuters by developing a sustainable inter-modal public transportation system of subway plus bike, when compared to the use of private cars and taxies (Wu and Xue, 2017). EVCARD is China's first EV sharing platform, established in Shanghai in 2015 as part of the national strategy of promoting EV and low-carbon transport. EVCARD is a municipal governmentowned enterprise and provides a smart EV rental service for registered users at a price of 15 yuan (US$2.4) for the first 30 min, and then 0.5 yuan for each additional minute, with a total daily cap of 180 Yuan. As of February 2018, EVCARD was the largest EVsharing company in China serving around 1 million registered users with over 2000 stations and 8000 EVs in Shanghai. Our analysis will first map out the value co-creation processes and obstacles in the two cases (4.1), and then summarize their challenges in realising SCP (4.2). 4.1. Mapping value co-creation processes and obstacles in lowcarbon mobility B2C sharing models Value co-creation between users (consumers) and firms (producers) performance is required at every step of the usage process, and thus is crucial for the sharing system's functioning.

Y. Ma et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1148e1158

1153

Table 1 Value co-creation in Mobike.

Value cocreation

Producer Consumer

Roles in the service

Service provider Service obtainer

Sustainability challenge

Problem 1 Problem 2

Step 1: Locating and finding a bike

Step 2: Placing and unlocking a bike

Step 3: Riding

Step 4: Returning and Reporting

Operation and maintenance & GPS The last user's proper parking; User A's searching & locating The company; the last user; User A User A; non-user citizens

Support system (smart lock)

Updating and managing the PSS

User A's unlocking the bike

Obtaining transportation data User A's consumption

User A's proper parking

The company; User A

The company

The company; User A

User A; non-user citizens

User A

Defective app Defective lock

Illegal riding Traffic order affected

Users; The company; non-user citizens Illegal parking Stealing or hidding bikes for self-use

Broken bikes out of service Orderlessness due to over competition Defective lock

In the case of Mobike, as shown in Table 1, the first step of using FFBS is the user (User A) finding a nearby bike by using the GPS services offered on the mobile app. The provision of available bikes relies not only on the management of the firm, but also on the performance of the previous user, since the last user must park the bike in public parking spaces, without damage or obstruction, so that the next user can access it. In this context, the collaboration between the company, the last user and the next user (and, more passively, the custodian of public spaces used in the scheme) is naturally formed for the efficacious circulation of the shared bikes, even though the whole process is self-service. After successfully locating a bike, in the second step, the user unlocks it by scanning the QR code on the bike using the mobile app. Compared to traditional bike rental systems, the QR code-enabled smart lock is easier to be disrupted if a user decides to engage in vandalism, such as destroying the QR code displayed on the bike (e.g., by defacing it, as in Fig. 3, in contrast to cutting the physical lock of a traditional bike, which is much more difficult to do). The FFBS cannot function should such vandalism occur, making the system especially vulnerable to misbehavior. In the third step, when riding a bike, misbehavior can happen when some users ride the bike on the wrong side of the road, carry children or heavy and/or over-sized

Fig. 3. Example of destroyed QR code.

luggage on the bike, which may cause safety issues on the one hand, and damage to the bike on the other. One of the sustainable benefits of B2C shared goods and services is the higher durability that reduces wastes and emissions over the product's lifetime. However, the lack of ownership in the access-based economy may accentuate user negligence and misbehavior, thus shortening the life span of shared bikes, and hindering the sustainable potential of this innovative BM. After riding, in the fourth and last step, the user has the responsibility to park the bike within legal parking areas for the next user to access the bike easily. Like Mobike, EVCARD also requires users to actively participate in the co-creation of its sustainable value e green transport e at every step of usage. As shown in Table 2, first, the user needs to find an available EV nearby, check its remaining battery, and book it, all via the app. Secondly, the user goes to the nearby station to claim the booked car. EVCARD relies on its own self-service rental stations to charge EVs while not in service, because charging facilities are still scarce in Chinese cities. Thirdly, during the driving process, a user needs to drive properly to ensure the vehicle maintains its operating capacity. Some users tend to manipulate the rule in order to gain more personal benefits, at the risk of violating the sharing system's rules and other people's welfare. For example, interview data shows that some users are professional drivers who take out cars from EVCARD to drive drunk people home at night in order to earn a profit. Since the EV-sharing system was designed as a green transport mode for daily commuters' own use rather than for taxi services, such behavior may damage the product and service in ways that shorten its life span, thus compromising the sharing system's environmental and social sustainability. After the trip, to complete the value co-creation process, consumers need to clean the car used before returning it. Misbehaviors, such as leaving rubbish or deliberately damaging the car, were frequently reported by the next user in the EVCARD user club's social media during its early stages. Such behaviors can halt the next transaction (i.e. the next user refuses to rent the EV once he/she detects the issue). Furthermore, the return step also includes users recharging the car. During this process, the user, who has completed her own trip, is required to take up the role of a service provider by recharging the EV for the next user. Preventing a user's negative performance is more challenging in the B2C sharing BM like EVCARD, when compared to the traditional business environment when a rider/driver uses his/her own vehicle. Lack of incentives (access-based instead of ownershipbased consumption), absence of supervision, weak sense of responsibility, difficulties in finding a legal parking space and other factors may all contribute to misbehaviors in the form of illegal parking and/or riding, damaging or hiding the vehicles deliberately.

1154

Y. Ma et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1148e1158

Table 2 Value co-creation in EVCARD.

Value co-creation

Producer Consumer

Roles in the service

Service provider Service obtainer

Sustainability challenge

Problem 1 Problem 2

Step 1: Reserving a car

Step 2: Claiming the car

Step 3: Driving

Step 4: Return and charging

Rental system & station management User A reserving a car with enough range The company; the last user; User A User A

Support system (GPS & smart lock) User A finding the station and claiming the car The company; User A

Tracking trip & remaining range User A0 driving

Checking & maintenance

User A

Car shortage in the nearby station Defective app

Difficulties in finding the station Defective smart-card

This risk is conceptualized as ‘what is yours is mine’ by Slee (2015), against the utopian view of the collaborative consumption - ‘what is mine is yours’ - originally proposed by Botsman and Rogers (2011). In reaction to this frequent misbehavior, both Mobike and EVCARD issued a credit-scoring policy to punish misbehavior and to incentivize consumers help detect and prevent other people's misbehavior. A user who enhances the sharing system by reporting broken vehicles or others' violation of the rules earns credits, while those who abuse the rules are punished by a reduction of their credit scores. The rental price is adjusted dynamically according to the score. The credit-scoring system facilitates users' selfregulation and provides a framework of value co-creation in maintaining the sharing system between consumers and producers. The drawback is that it may only be effective to pricesensitive users, and the firm has exclusive control over the pricing of incentives and disincentives in the credit scoring economy. In addition to the value co-creation between consumers and firms, the collaboration between firms and governments, as well as society (non-user citizens), is also important to fulfill the sustainable potential of the B2C sharing economy. For instance, to ensure accessible services to mass customers and to gain more of a market share, FFBS start-ups, encouraged by their venture capitalist supporters, have been competing fiercely in this emerging marketplace through placing huge numbers of bikes into the city. The unreasonable flooding of shared bikes has led to piles of bikes occupying public spaces, a typical tragedy of commons that also violates SCP and circular economy principles through massive oversupply. There were more than 30 FFBS companies providing more than 16 million bikes in China at the peak time 4; a large part of which are not well deployed and utilized. The oversupply produced nearly 300,000 tons of waste of scrap metal, affecting environmental sustainability significantly.5

4.2. Challenges of realizing SCP through value co-creation in the B2C sharing economy The B2C sharing economy in the mobility sector has brought significant opportunity spaces for urban sustainability by promoting biking and EV via convenient and affordable shared services. In the year of 2016, the total number of car journeys, in the 50 cities where Mobike operates, fell by 3% since the bike sharing programs were launched, which helped to reduce air pollution, fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in cities (TUPDI, 2017). The same report also finds that 51% of Mobikes' bikes are used near subway stations in Shanghai, a strong indicator that this new model

5

http://www.mot.gov.cn/jiaotongyaowen/201708/t20170831_2910604.html. http://www.infzm.com/content/125129.

User A; non-user citizens Difficulties in starting the car up Insufficient range of EV

Users; The company; nonuser citizens Lack of parking spaces nearby Return without charging or cleaning

of transportation, provided by B2C sharing business, effectively promoted the co-benefit use of the subway, complemented by biking for ‘the last mile’, and is thus further reducing GHG emissions when compared to driving. The same happens for EV-sharing: according to Chinese government data, in the first half of 2017, the total number of shared cars, provided by 40 Chinese car sharing enterprises, reached 40,000, more than 95% of which are new energy vehicles.6 However, the disruptive rise of the B2C sharing economy has posed several challenges for its promises of sustainability. As our comparative case mapping shows, value co-creation between consumers and producers is required in every step of the B2C sharing process, which becomes a crucial force to realize the sustainable potentials (green transport in the present cases) of this innovative BM. In some cases, the value co-creation field extends beyond the sharing firm and users into the wider society, requiring positive and active support from non-user citizens and governments to enable sustainability in the sharing economy. However, the empirical data also show that user as well as non-user misbehavior quite often affects the value co-creation process. In the long run, social trust, one of the bases of the sharing economy (Botsman, 2017; Celata et al., 2017), might be irreversibly harmed should firms and governments fail to discourage misbehavior and encourage positive value co-creation user behaviors. Preventing misbehavior and encouraging positive behaviors from users and the wider society is an urgent task that companies and governments both face. Apart from the social and behavioral obstacles, there were also economic and infrastructural factors and the tragedy-of-the commons misuses of public spaces, which were found to be disenabling the value co-creation process towards sustainability in the B2C sharing systems. Economically, the B2C sharing companies and their supporting venture capitalists believe in a winner-takes-all model (Srnicek, 2016; Murillo et al., 2017; Munoz and Cohen, 2017; Martin et al., 2017) in which, after the initial market success, companies start to prioritize rapid market expansion over sustainability objectives.7 Apart from oversupply overwhelming the public spaces, the fierce market competition also poses the risk of ‘bad money driving out good’, because companies using poorer quality bikes gain a short-run advantage compared to those which provide longer durability yet more expensive ones. Oversupply, and poor quality issues with using shared goods, offer negative incentives for consumers to participate in value co-creation towards sustainability. On the contrary, EVCARD, thanks to its government background, and higher market entry requirements of EV-sharing

6

4

The company

User As cleaning, return and charging The company; User A

http://www.mot.gov.cn/jiaotongyaowen/201708/t20170808_2805806.html. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/mobike-founder-says-it-is-moreinterested-in-expansion-than-profits.html. 7

Y. Ma et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1148e1158

compared to bike-sharing, naturally gained a monopoly status in Shanghai, preventing over-competition and over-supply, more effectively. Yet it also has encountered problems when negotiating with private parties for parking and charging facilities, which is challenging the future economic and social sustainability of this BM. In terms of infrastructure, the cities' master plans did not foresee the dramatic rise of the B2C sharing BM that is promoting biking and EV-sharing, so the physical infrastructure, as well as the institutional settings, were not well prepared enough to nurture the new models of green transport. Infrastructure, such as sufficient bikes lanes and EV charging facilities, take time to plan, negotiate and develop. The process often takes years if not decades (Lin, 2001). While the B2C sharing BM brought more than a million shared bikes into the city within 18 months, putting tremendous pressure on infrastructure, government, and users. One of the reasons for user misbehaviors was the lack of infrastructure to support benign behaviors. For instance, where there is no bike lane available, Mobike riders must risk riding in the pedestrian areas or car lanes. Within this context, the inadequate infrastructure poses a serious challenge for consumers to participate in a positive value co-creation process due to lack of alternatives. In the case of EVsharing, the general lack of charging facilities in Chinese cities makes private EV owners often take advantage of the EV-sharing stations to charge their own electric cars.8 It discourages value co-creation from the EV sharing scheme users, because such a situation requires them to deal with complex situations involving arguing and negotiating with strangers, which significantly affects their own convenience.

5. Discussion The social, behavioral, economic and infrastructural obstacles encountered in the value co-creation processes of the B2C green mobility BMs require new ways of thinking about SCP. Our case study findings may contribute to the future theoretical development of SCP in the context of developing countries in two ways. First, the SCP literature needs not only to acknowledge the blurring boundaries between production and consumption in the emerging sharing economy (Cohen and Munoz, 2016), but also to pay attention to the changing roles and relations between producer, consumer and governments during the restructuring process brought about by the digital sharing economy. As Fig. 4 shows, in contrast to the conventional model, where government regulates cleaner production activities while encouraging consumers to purchase sustainably produced goods in the market place in the B2C sharing environment, both producers and consumers are sharing the regulatory responsibilities during the value co-creation process to promote sustainability:  Producers as co-regulators: since B2C sharing businesses are providing green transport that may enable better public transport, their proper functioning becomes a part of the city's mobility infrastructure. The firms' management of shared bikes and EVs is vital in maintaining order of a city's scarce road and parking resources. Producers, in this way, play part of the role that was previously performed by the government. In addition, using the big data platforms, B2C sharing firms can detect individual law violations (i.e. illegal car riding and car accidents) much easier than governments. Some of the car-sharing firms

8 https://top.sina.cn/zx/2017-07-11/tnews-ifyhwehx5698415.d.html? cre¼wappage&mod¼r&loc¼2&r¼9&doct¼0&rfunc¼0&none.

1155

Fig. 4. Changing roles of government, producer and consumer.

are indeed required by the municipal government to share such data to help the government better manage urban traffic.  Consumers as co-regulators: as the empirical data shows, the accumulation of consumer misbehaviors in the B2C sharing system may cause a serious dysfunction in the sharing process and in public spaces (i.e. massive illegal parking and riding), threatening urban sustainability. Consumers' active value cocreation behaviors, such as helping the system detect and prevent misbehavior through reporting, are already contributing significantly to the maintenance of the bike-sharing systems (Lan et al., 2017). In this context, consumers not only contribute to the firms' sustainable value creation process, but also play part of the government's role in regulating public spaces and safeguarding social sustainability, which arguably goes beyond the sustainable contribution of collaborative consumption and risks putting too much responsibility on users (Barnes and Mattsson, 2016). Second, apart from producers and consumers cultivating new arenas of collaboration within urban governance, governments are also playing the role of co-producers and co-consumers in novel ways in the B2C sharing economy:  Governments as co-producers: government's policy and infrastructure support is crucial for the B2C sharing BM to survive and thrive. In the case of EVCARD, the government was behind the initial business idea of using the B2C sharing model to promote EVs. Without the strong and continuous government support in terms of granting car licenses, subsidizing EV purchase and allocating parking resources, the capital-intensive EV sharing BMs could not have taken off so vastly and smoothly in China. In the case of Mobike, the government is the key player in building a sustainable biking environment by providing adequate, enforceable, road and parking resources. That is to say, the government is a key supplier and insurer of the enabling environment for the B2C sharing models, and therefore, a defacto co-producer in the value chain of green transport.  Governments as co-consumers: indeed, the government is among the first to adopt the green and new transport mode provided by the B2C sharing economy; setting an example for individual consumers to follow. Especially in the case of EVCARD, the first mass adoption of the innovative EV-sharing system is the Shanghai government's civil servant system, which replaced its previous official chauffeured car system with the EVCARD

1156

Y. Ma et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1148e1158

service. Considering that in China, official chauffeured cars are an important contributor to traffic and pollution because their quantity and type of emissions are not regulated and are underreported, this action sent a strong signal to society to encourage the adoption of EV-sharing. The government contributes to the value co-creation towards sustainable transport as a pioneer consumer, in its interactions with other institutional and individual consumers. Understanding the changing socio-economic relationships, during the value chain reconfiguration in the sharing economy, leads to reshaping the SCP framework, which is facing pressing challenges to realise the significant sustainable potentials provided by the BM innovation of the B2C sharing economy, especially in the context of resource scarcity in developing countries. Compared to the traditional SCP model that regards sustainable consumption and production as separate constructs with separate solutions, our findings highlight the importance of integrating CP and SC in the SCP framework during the rapidly restructuring value chains in today's business world (Pitelis, 2009). This integrated view, focusing on realising sustainability through enhancing value cocreation, prepares the foundation for SCP studies to go beyond the conventional SCP solutions, which target producers, consumers and governments as autonomous actors. Instead, the new yet disruptive BMs, as well as the specific social and political enabling environment for value co-creation towards sustainability, requires a more holistic and integrative perspective of SCP that helps reconfigure emergent consumer-producer-government partnerships towards that end. Our empirical analysis also indicates the pressing issue about how to take the disruptive potential of sharing economy innovations towards both sustainability and equitability, in an environment that is presently characterized by winner-take-all and short-term market capture strategies designed for monopoly rather than shared business spaces. Yet these disruptive innovations create new niches and micro-environments as well. Currently the sharing economy business models rarely support a triple bottom line, and it is likely that they will not unless firmly regulated by both government and consumers. While the sociotechnical transitions theory has yielded insights into the stages of development among technical innovations (Hodson et al., 2017; Geels et al., 2016), it has less to offer concerning the radical organizational innovations and socio-economic relation change, exhibited in the sharing economy. Compared to the ‘reconfiguration position’ proposed by Geels et al. (2015), our framework, from the value co-creation perspective, goes beyond the reformistrevolutionary dichotomy of the SCP literature to a deeper level addressing a relational and role change between consumers, firms and governments in the sharing economy, structurally. Building on our study, the power dynamics and partnerships between these three stakeholders in the evolution and stabilization of shared economy social-ecological systems is a topic worthy of further study. 6. Conclusion This paper is among the first to address the changing consumerproducer-government relations and processes that have emerged from the fast developing B2C sharing economy in China from a value co-creation's perspective. Its comparative qualitative case studies of representative B2C sharing businesses contribute to an original and timely analysis of this globally influential commercial and social innovation in the context of developing and transitioning countries. Through a literature review of the sharing economy, SCP and

value co-creation, and supported by empirical evidence of the green sharing mobility sector in China, we demonstrate that the B2C sharing BM, which is currently under-studied by scholars of both the sharing economy and SCP, provides a significant opportunity space for urban sustainability under resource scarcity. Facing the increasing hybridization of consumption and production activities, as well as the restructuring of value chains in the new sharing economy, we provide a novel framework to understand the reconfiguration of roles and relationships of key stakeholders emphasizing their value co-creation mechanisms, which are featured and conceptualized as ‘consumers and producers as coregulators’ and ‘governments as co-producers and co-consumers’. Such an understanding prepares the ground for a more holistic and integrated SCP theory and the development of practice concerning the sharing economy. 7. Future research Apart from unpacking the opportunities, our study also highlights the substantial challenges brought about by the B2C sharing BMs that are hindering sustainability. We argue that new and dynamic coordination mechanisms of urban governance are required to engender the emerging patterns of value co-creation towards a triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997) vision of social, economic, and environmental sustainability shared among all stakeholders in the new sharing economy. The value co-creation and co-regulation mechanism act as a beneficial linkage between government, producer and consumer and more official institutions to enhance the dialogues between them are imperative in future urban governance. This paper suggests a number of other further areas for the study of SCP, the sharing economy and socio-technical studies that will help to advance sustainability theories and practices in developing and transitioning countries. This study is qualitative and explorative in nature, but will benefit from future quantifiable studies on the impact of the sharing economy on SCP (i.e. lifecycle analysis) as well. Acknowledgement This research is supported by EU Horizon 2020 GREEN-WIN Project (No.642018), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71872098, 71834006), Beijing Excellent Talent training Program, the research project （No.2018THUISOE07）of the institute for state-owned enterprises Tinghua University, ‘Tang Young Scholar Awards’, Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program No.2016THZWYY12. References Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., Pinkse, J., 2017. Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: an organizing framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 1e10. Akenji, L., 2014. Consumer scapegoatism and limits to green consumerism. J. Clean. Prod. 63, 13e23. Annarelli, A., Battistella, C., Nonino, F., 2016. Product service system: a conceptual framework from a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 1011e1032. AoM (Academy of Management), 2016. Call for Papers: Business Models, Ecosystems, and Society in the Sharing Economy. Available. http://aom.org/ Publications/AMD/Call-for-Papers–Business-Models,-Ecosystems,-and-Societyin-the-Sharing-Economy.aspx [2016, 11/03]. Barber, J., 2007. Mapping the movement to achieve sustainable production and consumption in North America. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (6), 499e512. Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G.M., 2012. Access- based consumption: the case of car sharing. J. Consum. Res. 39 (4), 881e898. Barnes, S.J., Mattsson, J., 2017. Understanding collaborative consumption: test of a theoretical model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 118, 281e292. Barnes, S.J., Mattsson, J., 2016. Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: a four- stage Delphi study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 104, 200. Belk, R., 2014. You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption online. J. Bus. Res. 67 (8), 1595e1600.

Y. Ma et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1148e1158 Belk, R., 2010. Sharing. J. Consum. Res. 36 (5), 715e734. Berg, A., Hukkinen, J.I., 2011. Beyond effectiveness: the uses of Finland's national programme to promote sustainable consumption and production. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (16), 1788e1797. €cker, L., Meelen, T., 2017. Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motiBo vations for intended sharing economy participation. Environ. Innov. Soci. Trans. 23, 28e39. Botsman, R., 2017. Who can you trust?: How Technology Brought Us Together - and Why it Could Drive Us Apart. Penguin Books, London. Botsman, R., Rogers, R., 2011. What's Mine Is Yours: How Collaborative Consumption Is Changing the Way We Live. Rev. & updated edn, Collins, London. Celata, F., Hendrickson, C.Y., Sanna, V.S., 2017. The sharing economy as community marketplace? Trust, reciprocity and belonging in peer-to-peer accommodation platforms. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 10 (2), 349e363. Clark, G., 2007. Evolution of the global sustainable consumption and production policy and the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) supporting activities. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 492e498. Cockayne, D.G., 2016. Sharing and neoliberal discourse: the economic function of sharing in the digital on- demand economy. Geoforum 77, 73e82. Cohen, B., Kietzmann, J., 2014. Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ. Environ. 27 (3), 279e296. ~ oz, P., 2016. Sharing cities and sustainable consumption and proCohen, B., Mun duction: towards an integrated framework. J. Clean. Prod. 134 (Part A), 87e97. _ A., Draksaite, _ A., Snieska, V., Valodkiene, _ G., 2015. Evaluating sustainDaunoriene, ability of sharing economy business models. Proced.-Soc. Behav. Sci. 213, 836e841. Dreyer, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hamann, R., Faccer, K., 2017. Upsides and downsides of the sharing economy: collaborative consumption business models' stakeholder value impacts and their relationship to context. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 87e104. Eckhardt, G., Bardhi, F., 2015. The Sharing Economy Isn't about Sharing at All [Homepage of Harvard Business Review] [Online]. Available. https://hbr.org/ 2015/01/the-sharing-economy-isnt-about-sharing-at-all [2017, 3/22]. Eden, S., 2015. Blurring the boundaries: prosumption, circularity and online sustainable consumption through Freecycle. J. Consum. Cult. 17 (2), 265e285. Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Building theories from case- study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14 (4), 532e550. Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone, Oxford. Firnkorn, J., Müller, M., 2011. What will be the environmental effects of new freefloating car- sharing systems? The case of car2go in Ulm. Ecol. Econ. 70 (8), 1519e1528. Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case- study research. Qual. Inq. 12 (2), 219e245. Frei, F.X., 2005. Zipcar: Influencing Customer Behavior [Homepage of Harvard Business Review] [Online]. Available. https://hbr.org/product/zipcarinfluencing-customer-behavior/605054-PDF-ENG [2017, 3/22]. Frenken, K., Schor, J., 2017. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ. Innov. Soci. Trans. 23, 3e10. Fuchs, D., Lorek, S., 2005. Sustainable consumption governance: a history of promises and failures. J. Consum. Pol. 28 (3), 261e288. Gebauer, H., Johnson, M., Enquist, B., 2010. Value co- creation as a determinant of success in public transport services. Manag. Serv. Qual. 20 (6), 511e530. Geels, F.W., Berkhout, F., Van, D.P., 2016. Bridging analytical approaches for lowcarbon transitions. Nat. Clim. Change 6 (6), 576. Geels, F.W., McMeekin, A., Mylan, J., Southerton, D., 2015. A critical appraisal of Sustainable Consumption and Production research: the reformist, revolutionary and reconfiguration positions. Global Environ. Change 34, 1e12. Glaser, B.G., 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press, Mill Valley. Habibi, M.R., Kim, A., Laroche, M., 2016. From sharing to exchange: an extended framework of dual modes of collaborative nonownership consumption. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 1 (2), 277e294. Hertler, K., Tasso, N., 2015. Dare to Share: User Value Co-creation in the Sharing Economy. Lund University. Hira, A., 2017. Government-driven sharing economy: lessons from the sharing city initiative of the seoul metropolitan government. J. Develop. Soc. 33 (2), 223. Hodson, M., Geels, F.W., Mcmeekin, A., 2017. Reconfiguring urban sustainability transitions, analysing multiplicity. Sustainability 9 (2), 299. Jaeger-Erben, M., Rückert-John, J., Sch€ afer, M., 2015. Sustainable consumption through social innovation: a typology of innovations for sustainable consumption practices. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 784e798. Joore, P., Brezet, H., 2015. A Multilevel Design Model: the mutual relationship between product- service system development and societal change processes. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 92e105. Kohtala, C., 2015. Addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: an integrated literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 654e668. Kong, D., Feng, Q., Zhou, Y., Xue, L., 2016. Local implementation for greenmanufacturing technology diffusion policy in China: from the user firms' perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 129, 113e124. Lan, J., Ma, Y., Zhu, D., Mangalagiu, D., Thornton, T.F., 2017. Enabling value cocreation in the sharing economy: the case of Mobike. Sustainability 9 (9), 1504. € m, C., 2017. The sharing economy in social media: analyzing Laurell, C., Sandstro tensions between market and non- market logics. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 58e65. Lin, S., 2001. Public infrastructure development in China. Comp. Econ. Stud. vol. 43

1157

(2), 83. Lorek, S., Spangenberg, J.H., 2014. Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy e beyond green growth and green economies. J. Clean. Prod. 63, 33e44. Ma, Y., Rong, K., Mangalagiu, D., Thornton, T.F., Zhu, D., 2018. Co-evolution between urban sustainability and business ecosystem innovation: evidence from the sharing mobility sector in Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 188, 942e953. Mair, J., Reischauer, G., 2017. Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: institutional research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy organizations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 11e20. Manzini, E., 2001. Product-service systems: using an existing concept as a new approach to sustainability. J. Des. Res. 1 (2), 27. Martin, C.J., 2016. The sharing economy: a pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol. Econ. 121, 149e159. Martin, C.J., Upham, P., 2016. Grassroots social innovation and the mobilisation of values in collaborative consumption: a conceptual model. J. Clean. Prod. 134 (Part A), 204e213. Martin, C.J., Upham, P., Klapper, R., 2017. Democratising platform governance in the sharing economy: an analytical framework and initial empirical insights. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1395e1406. McLaren, D., Agyeman, J., 2015. Sharing Cities: a Case for Truly Smart and Sustainable Cities. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Mont, O.K., 2002. Clarifying the concept of producte service system. J. Clean. Prod. 10 (3), 237e245. Munoz, P., Cohen, B., 2017. Mapping out the sharing economy: a configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 21e37. Murillo, D., Buckland, H., Val, E., 2017. When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: unravelling the controversies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 66e76. OneEarth, 2015. Local Governments and the Sharing Economy. LocalGovSharingEcon.com, Vancouver. O'Rourke, D., Lollo, N., 2015. Transforming consumption: from decoupling, to behavior change, to system changes for sustainable consumption. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40, 233e259. Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., 2008. Managing the co-creation of value. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 36 (1), 83e96. Parguel, B., Lunardo, R., Benoit-Moreau, F., 2017. Sustainability of the sharing economy in question: when second-hand peer-to-peer platforms stimulate indulgent consumption. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 48e57. Pitelis, C.N., 2009. The Co- evolution of organizational value capture, value creation and sustainable advantage. Organ. Stud. 30 (10), 1115e1139. Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2004. Co-creating unique value with customers. Strat. Leader. 32 (3), 4e9. Qi, Y., Stern, N., Wu, T., Lu, J., Green, F., 2016. China's post-coal growth. Nat. Geosci. 9 (8), 564e566. Ravenelle, A.J., 2017. Sharing economy workers: selling, not sharing. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 10 (2), 281e295. Rayna, T., 2008. Understanding the challenges of the digital economy: the nature of digital goods. Commun. Strat. 71, 13e36. Rayna, T., Striukova, L., 2016. Involving consumers: the role of digital technologies in promoting ‘ prosumption’ and user innovation. J. Knowled. Econ. 7, 1e20. Rehman, M.A., Seth, D., Shrivastava, R.L., 2016. Impact of green manufacturing practices on organisational performance in Indian context: an empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 427e448. Retamal, M., 2017. Product-service systems in Southeast Asia: business practices and factors influencing environmental sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 143, 894e903. Ritzer, G., Jurgenson, N., 2010. Production, Consumption, Prosumption: the nature of capitalism in the age of the digital 'prosumer. J. Consum. Cult. 10 (1), 13e36. Ritzer, G., 2014. Prosumption: evolution, revolution, or eternal return of the same? J. Consum. Cult. 14 (1), 3e24. Ritzer, G., 2015. Automating prosumption: the decline of the prosumer and the rise of the prosuming machines. J. Consum. Cult. 15, 407e424. Rong, K., Wang, Y., 2017. Sharing economy 2.0: born sharing. Harvard Bus. Rev. China 9, 122e126. Schaefers, T., Lawson, S., Kukar-Kinney, M., 2016a. How the burdens of ownership promote consumer usage of access- based services. Market. Lett.; A J. Res. Market. 27 (3), 569e577. e Moeller), S., Ferraro, R., 2016b. Contagious Schaefers, T., Wittkowski, K., Benoit (ne effects of customer misbehavior in access- based services. J. Serv. Res. 19 (1), 3e21. Schor, J.B., 2017. Does the sharing economy increase inequality within the eighty percent?: findings from a qualitative study of platform providers. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 10 (2), 263e279. SIC (State Information Center), 2018. China Sharing Economy Development Report 2018. State Information Center, Beijing. Slee, T., 2015. What's Yours Is Mine: against the Sharing Economy. OR Books, New York, New York; London, England. Sorrell, S.R., 2017. Explaining Sociotechnical Transitions: a Critical Realist Perspective (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2986263). Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. Srnicek, N., 2016. Platform Capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge. Standing, G., 2016. The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay. Biteback, London.

1158

Y. Ma et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1148e1158

Sundararajan, A., 2016. The Sharing Economy: the End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-based Capitalism. MIT Press. Thurner, T.W., Roud, V., 2016. Greening strategies in Russia's manufacturing e from compliance to opportunity. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (4), pp2851epp2860. Tsinghua Urban Planning and Design Institute (TUPDI), 2017. 2017 China Bike Sharing and Urban Development Report. TUPDI, Beijing. ncza, J., Monostori, L., 2009. Value creation and decisionUeda, K., Takenaka, T., Va making in sustainable society. CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 58 (2), 681e700. UN-Habitat, 2016. Urbanization And Development: Emerging Futures. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), Nairobi, Kenya. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2010. ABC of SCP: Clarifying Concepts on Sustainable Consumption and Production. UNEP, Paris. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2012. Global Outlook on Sustainable Consumption and Production Policies: Taking Action Together. UNEP, Paris. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2010. From repeat patronage to value Co- creation in service ecosystems: a transcending conceptualization of relationship. J. Bus. Market Manag. 4 (4), 169e179. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Market. 68 (1), 1e17. Vergragt, P.J., Dendler, L., de Jong, M., Matus, K., 2016. Transitions to sustainable

consumption and production in cities. J. Clean. Prod. 134, pp1epp12. Vieira, L.C., Amaral, F.G., 2016. Barriers and strategies applying Cleaner Production: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 5e16. Webb, J., 2012. Climate change and society: the chimera of behaviour change technologies. Sociology 46 (1), 109e125. Wu, F., Xue, Y., 2017. Innovations of Bike Sharing Industry in China: a Case Study of € ring och Mobike's Station-less Bike Sharing System. KTH, Industriell Marknadsfo € rskap. Entrepreno http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid¼diva2% 3A1111732&dswid¼8784. Wu, X., Zhi, Q., 2016. Impact of shared economy on urban sustainability: from the perspective of social, economic, and environmental sustainability. Energy Proced. 104, 191e196. Yin, R.K., 2008. Case Study Research and applications: Design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Zhang, L., Zhang, J., Duan, Z., Bryde, D., 2015. Sustainable bike-sharing systems: characteristics and commonalities across cases in urban China. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 124e133. Zhao, X., Li, Y., Xu, F., Dong, K., 2017. Sustainable collaborative marketing governance mechanism for remanufactured products with extended producer responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1020e1030.