The sharing economy has evolved and spread to various sectors of the economy. Its early idea linked to the creation of more sustainable uses of resources. Since then, the development of the sharing economy has included a professionalization with self-employed suppliers rather than peers, and the question is whether the platforms following this development maintain the focus on sustainability. This paper describes and classifies the sustainability connotation of sharing economy platforms. It analyses 121 platforms derived through social media analytics to figure out whether they describe themselves as sustainable. The findings suggest that the sustainability connotation closely connects to specific sectors such as fashion, on-demand services and logistics. Meanwhile, the dominant role model platforms do not communicate about being sustainable. These findings contribute to previous research through (1) giving a systematic empirical account on the way various sharing economy platforms describe themselves in terms of sustainability, (2) pointing out the differences among the platforms, and (3) indicating the diversity in sustainability connotation among various sectors of the economy.
Geissinger, A., Laurell, C., Öberg, C., Sandström, C. (2019) How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 206, pp. 419-429. Available here.
Christian Sandström intervjuas i tidningen Karriär om arbetsmarknaden och tekniken, länk här.
Together with Mattias Axelson and Joakim Netz, a paper on business model perspectives on the public sector has been published in Creativity and Innovation Management. Abstract below:
“We explore how the literature on business models can explain the outcomes of innovation attempts in the public sector. Our findings suggest that governments can access a well-developed knowledge domain for a public sector area but have a weak ability to propagate its value for society. Drawing on the business model literature concerning interdependence and distributed agency, we illustrate how a collective action problem related to innovation may arise in the public sector. We illustrate this new category of public innovation challenge with the (failed) case of the Swedish civil contingencies system and subsequently discuss a new line of inquiry for future research.”
Axelson, M., Netz, J., Sandström, C. (2016) Innovation Challenges in the public sector – a business model perspective, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol26(4), December 2017, pp. 370–378.
Min kritik av forskning kring disruptiva innovationer återges hos Teknikföretagen. Jag förespråkar en flerdimensionell och tvärvetenskaplig ansats och poängterar att alltför stor tilltro till enskilda forskare och teorier är vanskligt.
Intervjun kan läsas här.
Tillsammans med Nils Karlson har jag författat skriften Digital Disruption – Konsekvenser för företagande, individer och samhälle. Med utgångspunkt i forskning på området går boken på ett lättfattligt vis igenom digitaliseringens implikationer. Skriften kan laddas ner här.
Our paper Public policy academic entrepreneurship is now published in the Journal of Technology Transfer.
Sandström, C., Wennberg, K., Wallin, M. Zherlygina, Y. (2016) Public Policy for Academic Entrepreneursip: A review and critical discussion, Journal of Technology Transfer, doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9536-x.
Abstract follows below:
“This article provides a critical review and discussion of current literature on technology transfer, incubators, and academic entrepreneurship. Drawing upon the notion of robustness in social systems and public choice theory, we review, code, and taxonomize 166 studies to assess the likelihood that these initiatives will generate innovation and economic growth. We find that academic entrepreneurship initiatives are characterized by conflicting goals, weak incentive structures for universities and academics, and are contextually dependent upon factors such as university strength. Our results suggest that there are critical boundary conditions that are unlikely to be fulfilled when universities and policymakers enact policies to support academic entrepreneurship initiatives. Policymakers therefore need to be cautious in the potential design of such initiatives. We discuss how technology transfer from universities might be better achieved through alternative mechanisms such as contract research, licensing, consulting and increased labor mobility among researchers.”
In a recent publication in Journal of Management, Foss and Saebi (2016) highlight our contribution to literature on business models, stating that we emphasize the open nature of the business model construct. The quote can be found here:
“Furthermore, as firms increasingly depend on external sources of resources and capabilities, adopting a network or open system perspective (Ber-glund & Sandström, 2013) becomes imperative. Specifically, as Berglund and Sandström (2013) point out, more research is needed not only on the intrafirm challenges to BMI (e.g., managerial cognition, experimentation) but also on the intersecting and conflicting demands in these network relationships that pose constraints on the ability of the focal firm to innovate its BM and to appropriate value from external resources.”
Intervjuad i Dagens Nyheter om innovationers uppkomst och skillnaden mellan forskning och innovation.
“Det finns en idé bland politikerna om att forskning på universiteten är motorerna i innovationsprocessen. Och visst, det finns exempel på sådana uppfinningar, men kanske är universitetens främsta roll att utbilda innovativa och entreprenöriella människor.”
Jag skriver tillsammans med Christofer Laurell på SvD Brännpunkt om delningsekonomins konsekvenser för etablerade branscher och lagstiftning. Artikeln kan läsas här.
I published a piece in MIT Technology Review assessing the disruptive potential of Tesla. Applying theory on disruptive innovation is by no means a simple task. The article can be found here.