Only Platformization? No, Community First!

Abstract

This study explores the sharing economy through the lens of service ecosystem theory, focusing on how resource integration and value co-creation enhance competitiveness. Using a conceptual framework and case study analysis of platforms like Airbnb and Uber, the research examines the systemic interactions among actors within these ecosystems. The findings highlight the dual role of these platforms as drivers of innovation and instruments of platform capitalism. Practical and theoretical contributions include strategies for fostering resilience and sustainability in dynamic market environments.

1. Introduction

In the economic scenario of recent years, we have witnessed various types of changes (more or less radical) in all sectors: the advancement and diffusion of new technologies, the evolution of managerial strategies and techniques, the proposal of innovative business models, more careful participation of the end user, and a greater awareness of consumption are just some of the examples of the continuous change in progress. The growing uncertainty that derives from this pushes many companies, or groups of companies, to find increasingly streamlined forms of organization, sometimes even modular; the need to face the resulting negative contingencies forces anyone involved in venture capital and interested in the fate of a company to always imagine alternative ways to maintain their competitiveness, often hypothesizing new forms of aggregation and/or collaboration.

In recent years, the sharing economy has emerged as a disruptive force, yet existing research still needs to fully explore the systemic interconnections within these evolving business models.

However, despite the extensive attention given to the sharing economy in the literature, more research must focused be on the systemic interactions of various actors within these ecosystems. Most research has focused on isolated aspects, such as consumer participation and digital platforms, without a comprehensive framework integrating service ecosystems. The systemic vision provides a holistic framework for understanding the dynamics of the sharing economy.

This study addresses this gap by exploring the sharing economy through the service ecosystem lens, providing a holistic perspective on resource integration, value co-creation, and competitiveness.

The condition of uncertainty stimulates the continuous vital processes of updating and innovation, often intending to anticipate possible future changes in a constant and virtuous feedback cycle of reinforcement and re-balancing [1]. To contextualize this study, we build upon the growing body of work that has explored the evolving dynamics of the sharing economy. Previous studies [2,3] have predominantly focused on digital platforms, resource-based perspectives, and the individual roles of participants. However, there needs to be more understanding of how these perspectives interact within a broader systemic framework, particularly regarding service ecosystems and value co-creation. By addressing these gaps, this research aimed to provide a more integrated understanding of how actors within the sharing economy interact and create value.

The service ecosystem perspective can, in this sense, support companies, understood as systems, to keep their value proposition competitive over time. For this reason, this work will try to answer the following research questions:

R.Q.1: How can the principles of the service ecosystem framework enhance our understanding of the sharing economy’s systemic interconnections?

R.Q.2: What patterns do you pursue to co-create value to be competitive in the sharing economy ecosystem?

This work, in general, aims to explore how the concepts of the systemic vision can offer a new perspective on the sharing economy to provide ideas on how to compete in this context, highlighting the relationships between the various actors and the dynamics of cooperation and competition that emerge from them, providing possible practical and managerial implications of resource sharing and value co-creation in the ecosystem about the concrete effects of sharing economy practices, analyzing how these influence sustainability and which strategies companies can adopt to remain competitive and resilient in a dynamic and interconnected context.

This paper analyses the business model standard to almost all the most well-known and successful case studies of today’s sharing economy, revisited from a system perspective; the unusual ecosystem composition of the actors, the typically non-linear dynamics and the continuous evolution of regulations make obsolete many of the tools currently available to decision makers engaged in the growth of old and new companies that are involved. For this reason, we have tried to apply some key ecosystem concepts to understand the phenomenon better and frame it (as it appears today), to imagine possible future scenarios, and to provide possible graphical schematizations of the synthesis of the main systemic determinants identified and investigated. This paper begins with a brief overview of the theoretical background (Section 3); subsequently, the new business model of the sharing economy is introduced, and its possible revisitation from a system perspective (Section 4); and then the discussions (Section 5), the implications (Section 6), and the non-conclusive reflections (Section 7) follow.

The main aim of this article is to investigate the systemic interconnections within the sharing economy using the service ecosystem perspective. Specifically, the study seeks to achieve the following:

• Demonstrate how resource integration and value co-creation occur in dynamic ecosystems.
• Provide actionable insights into sustainable business practices for companies operating in the sharing economy.
• Explore patterns of cooperation and competition that enhance ecosystem resilience.

This study explores the sharing economy through the lens of systemic vision concepts, focusing on how resource integration and value co-creation enhance competitiveness. The title, “Only Platformization? No, Community First! A Systemic Perspective on the Sharing Economy”, reflects the dual focus of this study: exploring the theoretical underpinnings of the sharing economy through a systemic vision while emphasizing the importance of community engagement as a core component of value co-creation and resilience within service ecosystems. This title captures the provocative nature of the research question while remaining rooted in the scientific analysis of service ecosystems.

2. Research Methodology

2.1. Research Questions and Hypotheses

This study’s primary objective is to explore the sharing economy through the lens of service ecosystem theory. Specifically, it investigates how resource integration and value co-creation foster competitiveness and resilience in this context. The research also aims to provide actionable insights for managers navigating the dynamic interplay between systemic interconnections and platform-based business models.

This article addresses the following research questions:

• RQ1: How can the principles of the service ecosystem framework enhance our understanding of the sharing economy’s systemic interconnections?
• RQ2: What patterns of value co-creation can be pursued to maintain competitiveness in the sharing economy ecosystem?

From these questions, we hypothesize the following:

• H1: The service ecosystem framework provides a robust theoretical lens to analyze the sharing economy by integrating actors, resources, and institutions.
• H2: Value co-creation practices significantly enhance the resilience and adaptability of sharing economy platforms.

This paper adopts a qualitative approach, leveraging a conceptual framework rooted in service ecosystem theory to analyze the sharing economy. The methodology is based on a systematic review of secondary data, including case studies of established platforms such as Airbnb and Uber, to illustrate the principles of resource integration and value co-creation.

The main aim of this research is to explore how the systemic vision offers a new perspective on the sharing economy, enabling companies to remain competitive and resilient. The sample for the analysis comprises empirical data published in peer-reviewed journals, industry reports, and platform-specific analytics from publicly available sources.

Data collection was conducted through database searches (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science) using keywords such as “service ecosystem”, “sharing economy”, “value co-creation”, and “resource integration”. Analytical methods included thematic analysis, focusing on identifying patterns and relationships between the sharing economy’s actors, resources, and institutions.

This approach ensures that the findings are conceptually grounded and applicable to real-world contexts, providing a robust basis for theoretical and managerial implications.

2.2. Research Design

The decision to focus on service ecosystems was informed by previous research that examined individual perspectives on the sharing economy, such as the resource-based view and digital platforms. However, these approaches must fully capture the complexity of interactions between actors and resources. This research builds on and advances previous theoretical approaches by adopting a service ecosystem framework, offering new insights into how value is co-created and sustained across multiple ecosystem levels. The conceptual contribution of this study is integration [4], which allows the promotion of a new way of seeing, supporting, justifying, or suggesting a path through a new perspective, mainly through the action of the service ecosystem perspective, to re-interpret the sharing economy. Concerning this idea, the methodological approach is followed, consisting of addressing the research questions to develop a conceptual framework. Our methodology is justified by the limitations of existing research, which primarily addresses isolated perspectives on resource-based views or platform-driven service exchanges. Drawing on empirical examples such as Airbnb and Uber, we strengthen our conceptual framework by showing how these platforms operationalize value co-creation and resource integration within the service ecosystem. This approach extends the work of previous scholars by providing a holistic view of how service ecosystems function within the sharing economy.

Integrating makes it possible to analyze a phenomenon from a new perspective, using what is already known and theorized in the literature, transforming it into something new, simplified and of a higher order than the earlier differentiated entities and now correlated.

3. Service Ecosystem Perspective and Platform Capitalism

3.1. Service Ecosystem Framework

A service ecosystem is a relatively self-regulating system of actors integrating resources based on connected institutions to create mutual value through the exchange of service [5]. It is an emergent system [6] composed of heterogeneous actors nested on three different levels (micro, meso, and macro), which interact and integrate resources based on their value propositions [7,8]. These interactions are governed by coordination mechanisms defined by institutions [9], including rules, implicit norms, beliefs, and emerging social practices generated by actors [10]. The set of institutions and institutional arrangements fosters coordination between different levels, enabling the emergence and functioning of the service ecosystem [11].

The primary implication of the service ecosystem concept lies in its facilitation of value co-creation [12]. The ecosystem enables value co-creation through the integration of resources and the exchange of service between actors [2]. Value is phenomenological, relying on actors’ perceptions shaped by their social and cultural contexts, and it evolves. From a systemic perspective, value represents a change in the system’s viability (or well-being) [3,13].

Value co-creation is a cornerstone of the service-dominant logic framework, where value is created, distributed, and experienced among actors through resource integration and service exchanges, always involving the beneficiary [11,12,13,14,15]. Resource integration practices combine resources to define benefits for the actors [16,17,18]. From this perspective, actors are seen as active resource integrators, contributing to the emergence of value co-creation phenomena [2].

3.2. Platform Capitalism

In the sharing economy context, resource integration and value co-creation are exemplified by platforms such as Uber and Airbnb, which leverage technological and human resources to optimize service delivery. For instance, Airbnb enables users to co-create value through feedback loops, consumer-driven service design, and personalized experiences. Detailed user reviews help refine service offerings and enhance customer satisfaction, contributing to the platform’s competitiveness and sustainability. Similarly, Uber’s algorithm integrates real-time data on consumer demand and driver availability, optimizing resource distribution and meeting fluctuating demand efficiently. This seamless resource integration is central to the functioning of service ecosystems, enhancing operational efficiency and value delivery.

However, this integration within platform-based ecosystems raises questions about the evolving nature of the sharing economy. Scholars such as Srnicek [19] argue that platforms like Uber and Airbnb exemplify platform capitalism, where monetizing user data and commodifying services drive profitability. While fostering value co-creation, these platforms also rely on “business intelligence” mechanisms to transform use value into exchange value [20]. The dual role of platforms as enablers of resource integration and instruments of data monetization highlights the tensions between collaborative ideals and capitalist imperatives, illustrating the broader dynamics of platform capitalism [21].

4. Sharing Economy in the Service Ecosystem Perspective

4.1. Phenomenon Description

The term sharing economy is used today to describe an essential global phenomenon that summarizes the change, currently still underway, that is affecting the economy of many countries and is characterized by a different way of considering traditional production chains and how products are now made and enjoyed, with a view to greater collaboration. The definition is not yet unanimous; although there is still no scientific bibliography considered as a reference (given the novelty of the phenomenon), there are however several exciting interpretations; according to the first and most accredited expressions, the sharing economy is understood to have the following characteristics:

• An economic system based on the sharing of underused goods or services for a fee or for free directly managed by individuals;
• A new economic model capable of responding to the challenges of a crisis and promoting more conscious forms of consumption based on reuse rather than purchase and access rather than ownership [17];
• The ability to encourage forms of sharing between unknown people, and not only within pre-existing communities, thanks to the strong relationship with digital technologies, capable of reducing transaction costs and the value component often capable of orienting the behavior of users/consumers [18,22].

In 2013, a non-scientific but widely distributed publication in our country, published by Pais [23], tried to shed light on what had been happening for a few years, trying above all to give an interpretative contribution (and understandable to all) that would resolve the confusion and speculation that were gaining ground in the meantime. The expression sharing economy means collaborative economy (not shared economy), in which the English gerund of the verb to share indicates a dynamic, active meaning, in which someone ‘who collaborates’ has a role that is relevant, recognized, and often different from the one traditionally understood.

Today, forms of economic sharing have become part of our everyday language. Examples that have already become ‘classics’ include co-working (sharing workspaces), car-pooling (sharing means of transport), crowdfunding (making funds available for the development of a project of common interest), and crowdsourcing (pooling ideas for proposing new projects).

To further reinforce the theoretical claims presented in this study, we reference empirical data from leading sharing economy platforms such as Airbnb and Uber. With a global user base exceeding 265 million and 448 million bookings in 2023, Airbnb employs sophisticated data analytics to enhance service personalization. By leveraging machine learning algorithms and dynamic pricing strategies, Airbnb tailors its offerings to individual user preferences, utilizing feedback loops to drive continuous service improvements. This data-driven approach to personalization contributed to a 19.2% increase in revenue, with total revenues reaching USD 9.9 billion. This exemplifies how Airbnb integrates user data into value co-creation, directly engaging users in enhancing its platform services.

4.2. Critical Perspectives on Platform Capitalism

While this study supports the applicability of the service ecosystem framework to analyze the sharing economy, it is essential to acknowledge the critiques surrounding “platform capitalism” [24]. This concept highlights how platforms such as Airbnb and Uber leverage user-generated data and transform it into exchange value, primarily through “business intelligence” mechanisms.

These platforms have evolved from facilitating access-based resource-sharing models to capitalist valorization instruments. For example, Airbnb and Uber, now publicly traded companies, demonstrate how the sharing economy has transitioned from its initial ideals of collaborative consumption to profit-driven network value creation.

This shift raises the following question: can these platforms still be considered genuine examples of the sharing economy? While their operational models promote value co-creation and resource integration, they also reflect the characteristics of traditional capitalist enterprises.

A balanced perspective acknowledges that despite their profit orientation, these platforms contribute positively to community development through innovative service delivery and localized economic benefits. However, future research must critically examine whether these contributions sufficiently offset the systemic challenges posed by their reliance on data commodification and market-driven dynamics.

In parallel, Uber exemplifies resource integration by efficiently matching driver availability with consumer demand through real-time data processing. Uber’s algorithms analyze GPS data, traffic conditions, and driver availability to optimize routes and minimize wait times. The implementation of surge pricing further ensures that supply meets demand during peak periods, incentivizing drivers to be available when demand is high. This dynamic pricing model and real-time data processing exemplify how Uber maximizes resource utilization, ensuring operational efficiency and user satisfaction.

As underlined by the Italian steering committee of EXPO 2015, we are witnessing a time in which the principle ‘collaborate to share, share to collaborate’ applies, that is, a middle way between reciprocity, exchange, and redistribution, in which resources (of any kind) are the means to participate (when one decides to make one’s own available), but also the reason why one participates (when one needs what one does not yet have). This aspect remains consistent with many of the prevailing reflections in the literature, also at the international level, in terms of resource integration [24,25,26,27,28], resource-based view [29], and resourcefulness [30,31]. The concept of ‘asset’ is the object of changing reflections in this sense, as the land–capital–labor paradigm has long since ceased to prevail; today, what counts is time, skills, experience, data, and information.

Everything can be shared, and much is shared. In compliance with an increasingly peer-to-peer (exchange between peers), open-source (free source), open-manufacturing (inter-operability 4.0), and open-design (open design) vision, it is possible to make the following available:

• Your apartment (after AIRBNB, a now multi-billion dollar enterprise, a real sector has developed);
• Cars (in the city of Rome alone, the Enjoy and Car2go, IoGuido and Share’ngo programs are very popular, which have pushed towards sharing scooters and bikes too);
• Your cars (UBER has paved the way, often going against many trade associations around the world, and now it is not only a reality but also an inspiration for new forms of liberalization, from Bla-bla-car and JustPark to FlixBus and hundreds of others);
• Skills (Talent-Garden, Copernico, Impact-Hub are enjoying great success in our country);
• Knowledge (think of Wikipedia);
• Financial resources (among the first equity in Italy, we remember StarsUp; today, for consumer credit, Hype is prevalent);
• Information (as with all social networks), reviews (Trip-Advisor, The Forks, Foursquare, Trivago and Booking, among others);
• Music files (Spotify, e-Mule, i-Tunes, and many others),
• Documents (DropBox, Wetransfer, Google-Drive, Microsoft-One, etc.);
• Or simply time (recently Weople has exploded).

Also, in 2015, the Unipolis Foundation of Unipol (Unipolis (2015) tried to illustrate the evolution of the concept of coopetition [31,32,33,34] that ‘cooperatives’ is moving ever more decisively towards new forms of sharing economy, highlighting both the intrinsic differences (sometimes evident, sometimes less so) between the recent past and the near future, but also the impacts on competition and competitiveness and the effects on public opinion. A fascinating comparison between keywords emerges as follows:

• The cooperative was based on an attempt at centralization (stable and lasting) of mostly productive activities, with well-structured connection relationships, in which there was a territorial connotation, a concept of ownership (even if shared) was in force, there was a fundamental homogeneity among the participants, and one lived off mainly incremental innovative processes;
• The prototype of the sharing economy subverts all this logic. It is decentralized, occasional, not tied to particular productive activities, with decidedly unstructured relationships, where there are no properties, specific territories, or homogeneity of any kind, and the innovative process underlying everything is indeed radical.

Thanks to the incredible development of new technologies, new forms of exchange have found space because virtuality has eliminated the last boundaries (even conceptual ones) that our heritage had historically rooted and stratified, creating new forms of e-commerce (if nowadays you are not visible online and you do not facilitate telematic transactions, you practically do not exist), of market-places (like e-Bay and Amazon that we all know, but also Etsy, Alibaba, and even Facebook), and even of social participation (there are projects relating to food sharing, social shopping, social housing, social streets, etc.).

This cultural evolution is also overcoming the Wikinomics described by Tapscott and Williams [35] in their seven models of widespread collaboration (peer-pioneers, prosumers, ideagoras, wikimprese, global chains, e-platforms, and the new-Alexandrians), as all international literature is adapting to this new phenomenon, creating many neologisms and trying to interpret what has happened to better imagine what is about to happen. In the sharing economy scenario, partners, stakeholders, share-holders, co-makers (terms known especially to scholars of economics and business management) take on a different meaning, but also the more generic marketing (approaching a market), bartering (exchange), trading (trade), renting (rental), gifting (donation), equity and venture capital (property), profit and non-profit (profit and non-profit), and the more recent gatherings (gatherings), grouping (forming a group), influencing (being influential), and above all swapping (exchange).

In this new ‘commoning’ world, in which even the most straightforward services are shared, such as babysitters, carers, dinners, and trips, everything seems more democratic, more feasible, fairer, more supportive, and more accessible; a movement capable of better supporting those who need to satisfy and of doing so in a more appropriate, more adequate, more helpful way for each of us, in a more than personalized (almost personal) way, in a continuous, always possible (on-demand style), improvable and renewable (i.e., renewable) way, imbued with constant mutual benefit (of the win–win type) [34], and self-responsibility.

The same argument concerns the concept of value because the attention to value-in-use [9,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42] and user experience [41,42,43] enters a new dimension, as well as value-in-context [43,44,45,46,47,48] and the new forms of value co-creation [49,50,51,52,53] analyzed in entirely new environments, sometimes elusive and difficult to classify.

Nevertheless, numerous studies [17,18] have highlighted common characteristics of different sharing economy phenomena, identifying the following four elements:

• Community (more accustomed, more sensitive, more predisposed, more ready than before); once it was said that unity is strength, and now the homogeneous group of users is the basis for the proposition and development of any business; the community is an example of aggregation, union, communion, equi-finality; it is not only virtual but real;
• Convenience (expression of both the most markedly economic aspect, but also of the experiential, efficiency, and comfort aspects): convenience is not synonymous with saving; it means much more; it is a stimulus to participation, it makes us understand the importance of the involvement and becomes an aggregating factor for all those who share the same need and the same way of satisfying it;
• Technology (synthesis of virtuality, real-time, portability, data clustering, data mining, data filtering, data profiling, etc.); the evolution and spread of APPs and cloud; the enhancement of broadband (towards 5G), but above all, the ability of SW to learn, to improve, is making the difference;
• Platform (also linked to the progress of the period but above all to the perspective of a shared space or moment, which for a given situation becomes personal, accessible, and usable); this, too, is a cultural aspect that enhances the concept of community, magnifies it, concretizes it, and makes it truly possible.

These same elements are both ‘boosters’ of development of growth but also potentially harmful and counterproductive; think of the problems of privacy (for personal data), copyright (for authors’ rights), licensing (for authorizations), hidden costs (for cases of poor transparency), contracting (for the methods of agreement, transaction, insurance, guarantees). In all this, innovation (in its broadest sense) seems to represent not only a possible result of collaboration but the guiding philosophy of all behaviors because one innovates innovatively, and one innovates by way of performing innovation. The sharing economy, therefore, does not seem to be simply an alternative trend to the more traditional business logic (even if it overturns every possible B2B, B2C, C2C, and C2B relationship, towards an A2A and A4A logic, as already highlighted by some authors [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53], it is something more, it accumulates high turnovers. It is rightfully positioned as one of the driving factors of the GDP of several countries, and it is estimated that in the next 10–20 years, it could reach 50% of the value of the global economy (sharingitalia.it).

4.3. The Re-Examination by Using the Ecosystem View

Indeed, the propensity to share trust in others (even strangers) and a good number of users (who form a ‘critical mass’) are the standard and most ‘visible’ ingredients in almost all the examples given. Still, something more profound, also in terms of sustainability, competitiveness, and viability, certainly exists and deserves to be explored in depth. In detail, compared to the typical business model widespread in the sharing economy (see Figure 1), it is possible to immediately notice a certain circularity and interactiveness of the processes; in particular, the user–supplier relationship of any resource (shared) is of a biunivocal type, capable of self-sustaining and therefore capable of becoming an interaction when the exchange occurs; in the same way, access to the market, facilitated by the existence of a platform (which exploits in various ways the progress in technology), is inevitably associated with the request (expression of a need) and/or the offer (solution to satisfy it), and this can be an indication of consonance with the context in which one operates and concerning the sense of belonging to one’s community; the platform is also the medium through which transactions take place (because sharing, in this case, is not for charity, but is a form of the economy) from the users and towards the owners.

In this figure, all actors are owners of resources (of various types) and active parts of the exchange. This business model therefore facilitates the integration of resources and qualifications to the context in which the exchange takes place. Furthermore, given the particularity of the model, it lends itself well to possible reconfigurations that, from a systemic perspective, can be characterized by scalability, modularity, streamlining of the underlying processes, awareness of the participants, self-engagement (self-involvement and proactivity), and multi-stakeholding (multi-party contribution) [54]. For example, a connection is evident between what is requested, offered, and provided/used because it generates experience and stimulates new requests and new offers (intended as value propositions); it is the participation of the community that makes the model sustainable; without active participation, without motivation, add without awareness, the model would not exist. The same applies to feedback (findings), which stimulates repeated access, allows the shared space to be populated and facilitates learning of the platform, as outlined below (see Figure 2).

New connections are therefore possible. Thanks to the system perspective, the well-known business model can be redesigned from an ecosystem perspective, that is, in a more organic, holistic, cybernetic [22,43,54] way, also to understand more deeply how competing is changing compared to the past. Using the key concepts of the service ecosystem (actors, resources, value propositions, and institutions), moving from the various conceptual steps (from the logical structure to the specific one), as indicated below (see Figure 3):

• The ‘roles’ of users and suppliers lose meaning in the sharing economy and, as suggested by the system perspective, each actor can be classified according to their ‘dynamic capabilities’; if we have the possibility of being both suppliers and users (as with Uber, Airbnb, and iTunes) then we go beyond classifications, beyond the concept of supply chain, considering the various reference supra-systems as variable and changeable;
• The ‘resources’ made available in the sharing economy represent any form of contribution, support, and utility to the entire model and, for this reason, as suggested by the system perspective, they are more than anything else inextricably associated with ‘processes’ (or moments); in short, the ‘way’ in which one shares and exchanges matters more than the ‘what’ is exchanged; there are various spaces on the web in which to find the required solutions, but it is not always possible to participate actively, such as with Bla-bla-car, Trivago, and Spotify;
• The simple requests and offers are comparable to value propositions to which, as suggested by the system perspective, the knowledge, considered as a strategic (operant) resource, linked to a given context, is preferred today because the exact requests and offers would be interpreted differently when one or more conditions change; this is the reason why e-Bay and Amazon profile users, trace a history of operations and propose ad hoc solutions for each one;
• The business model of the sharing economy can be expressed as a system of actors nested at three different levels interacting according to institutions.

Using the system vision, one realizes that one is part of a context, of a whole, in which one’s actions always have an effect, which conditions one’s own behavior and that of others according to the aspects of criticality and influence [55].

First of all, the shared space cannot be seen as a ‘third’ space for the actors of the exchange, but one in which the actors are inevitably ‘immersed’ and from which it is inescapable; therefore, the perspective changes and, with it, the perception of the relevance of the various supra-systems of reference (variable and changeable in the case of the sharing economy) whose significance, in a systemic perspective, can be individually considered within the context of the contextualization process; in the same way, the set of relationships established by the various subjects to ensure that the exchange takes place represents the limit (or boundary) of the framework of which the shared space itself is part, as defined below (see Figure 3).

In this new figure, the integration of resources (thanks to which there is someone who makes the asset available, someone who requests it and provides a fee to find it and have it, someone who promotes the search, profiles the user, classifies the supplier, and accelerates the convergence of intents) takes place because of the existence of a common way of approaching the issue, that is, because the philosophy of ‘sharing’ is embraced, ensuring that this process can be self-sustaining. Therefore, the asset is obtained because one participates; the asset is provided because one participates; feedback is given because one participates; and one contributes to the improvement of the process because one participates; there is nothing passive, only the dynamic inter-systemic interactions count, according to a specific relationship of criticality/influence that is always unique and particular. In the new sharing economy model revised from a systemic perspective, there is a compelling connection between the perception of criticality in a given relationship detectable by the actors, the potential influence that can be exercised on that relationship, and the reciprocal search for synergy, thanks to a shared intention [17].

In particular, the critical factors that are relevant in this case are the following:

• Characteristics of the resource (operand or operant resources, level of specificity, level of substitutability, level of innovation of the forms of release);
• Achievable benefits (realizable synergies, opportunities to increase the network of relationships).

In the sharing economy businesses, the critical aspect concerns both the assets as such and the convenience deriving from their exchange, which, for this reason, is associated with the user–supplier relationship and participation in the community. The influencing factors can, instead, be summarized as follows:

• Level of constraints and rules (ability to impose specific behaviors);
• Level of control, feedback, and intervention (degree of extension of the control network, adequacy of the action tools);
• Opportunity cost related to the release of the resource (times, costs, conditions, slack effects in the event of abandonment, failure to recover investments in the form of sunk costs).

The model represented in this way gives a greater sense of cyclicality and, therefore, greater sustainability. To guarantee the maintenance of appeal, to be successful and to remain competitive and vital, the model must be adaptive and able to adapt to different situations (hence the continuous enhancement of applications and devices functional to access and ‘sharing’). Re-configurability, pro-activity, and sustainability are all distinctive characteristics of those who are competitive precisely because they are vital and, at the same time, are able to survive because they manage to defend the interest of the solutions they propose over time. In the sharing economy, the way of competing has changed; the systemic levels are different (micro–meso–macro) and can be associated with the ‘moments’, not the ‘actors’ (which co-exist at every moment): in fact, there is a ‘query’ moment (in which the search and the request are made), a ‘buy’ moment (in which the payment is made), a ‘swap’ moment (in which the exchange takes place), a ‘feedback’ moment (when a review, a judgment, a comment is left), a ‘management’ moment (in which the supplier has the opportunity to manage the framework of orders and payments received). All stratified moments, often consequent, are identifiable even separately but only analyzable as a whole. Shifting the analysis perspective, considering it more holistically, also helps to identify the system bugs, errors, gaps, and problems in general to try to address and resolve them, with a view to continuous improvement.

As mentioned, the way in which these businesses develop also goes beyond traditional role-based organizations. However, this does not mean that there are no more roles; on the contrary, it simply means that the same actor can cover multiple roles and be analyzed in his behaviors depending on the role covered occasionally. The systems or ecosystems that emerge from this are infinite.

Competing in this new reality requires a different approach that is more inclined to innovation, leaner, more modular, fluent, and flexible. Decision makers in businesses like these have to manage an ever-new complexity precisely because the innovation they bring is often radical [56,57]. In the various moments in which the classic process of a sharing economy business can be broken down, it is possible to find many systemic macro-value categories.

To begin with, retracing the entire process backwards in a sort of reverse engineering, it is possible to note how the use of a platform is a guarantee of ‘ethical behavior’ towards participants, and this creates a climate of trust and seriousness that are indispensable in the era in which we live. Then, the proposal of specific rates for the solutions offered can only be at market prices and follow a ‘non-opportunistic’ approach in the interest not only of users but also of the business itself; from a systemic perspective, speculative behaviors are associated with short-term prospects and do not express pre-conditions for viability [23]. Again, associating a specific offer with requests (more or less clusterizable) indicates the ‘search for consensus’ that characterizes participation in the Community itself. Furthermore, downstream of each request and response, each user feels almost obliged to provide feedback on their experience and acts based on their ‘sense of duty’. Finally, or instead at the beginning, everything comes from the ‘focus on relationships’, the importance given to them, which pushes towards participation and sharing.

5. Discussion

What we have observed shows us that, in order to compete, there is a need to reach and maintain a dynamic equilibrium. In a dynamic system, once the equilibrium has been reached, it is maintained with repeated behaviors, which in a certain sense constitute the historical memory of the interaction; an interactive system does not start from scratch every time but maintains the conquests acquired even when it has to seek other equilibria [58].

What we have observed explains how reality is changeable, and we must prepare ourselves for change if we want to remain competitive. When we understand that something must be changed for our own or someone else’s interest, does it then mean that, in reality, we have already moved away from the initial beliefs that had generated a different situation that we now want to change? Or is it simply the result of a far-sighted awareness that it is not possible to perpetuate the same behaviors (or strategies) for too long, and therefore, in general, we are more careful to understand only what is the most auspicious moment to propose something new? In any case, should the novelty be understood as an exclusive adaptation to the changing surrounding influence or as possible enlightened anticipation consistent with the direction in which the future is headed? Answering these questions or even simply asking them can be considered the basis for defining the various phases that precede, concern, and follow a change process.

What has been observed clarifies how everything can be rethought, including the way of being and competing in a market, even in the most traditional production sectors. Smart systems (and therefore vital) are not defined only through superficial relationships and interactions between resources: some resources must be operational, they must thus provide for proposing, agreeing, and evaluating processes of co-creation of value, often if not always of a network nature [59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66]. In these cases, the supply chain is re-conceptualized as a network of service systems, and for this reason, it presents a configuration that cannot be defined a priori but instead is able to be changeable, to adapt and to evolve with respect to the changing conditions of the context. What has been observed is the demonstration of the systemic capacity to re-configure the organization of any competitive business process, thanks to the introduction of new ways of using and proposing its offer. The contribution of knowledge, the application of skills, the capacity to configure and re-configure oneself, and the will to weave long-term relationships with subjects considered strategic all represent elements of a systemic way of being adaptive competitors. This once again requires particular attention to the relationships existing between operators, between processes, between the effects of entrepreneurial action and a reflection (entirely systemic) on the importance of interactions (dynamic acceleration of static relationships) that promote learning, the diffusion of knowledge, the perception of results, the co-creation of value, the creativity itself at the basis of innovation, and therefore stimulate the company to conceive (or even intuit) possible and practical adaptive and/or preventive solutions.

What we have observed confirms the importance of the relationship with its context of reference. Competitiveness is favored by the resonance that can be found between the entrepreneurial organization and its reference supra-systems that, in the common interest, can contribute both to the emergence of the need for change and to the detection of the effects deriving from the consequent actions implemented by the company. The ability to compete is, therefore, a function of the bond that one has with the surrounding environment, of the degree of interaction and integration, of the level of detectable communications, of access to information, of the ability to filter and process it appropriately, of the ability to decide, of the speed of acting, of the correspondence between actions and reactions. Stasis is not conceived, nor is the status quo conserved over time.

The system perspective allows us to identify critical and influencing factors and other systemic determinants useful for better managerial practice in competitive contexts; to compete, today’s companies must prepare themselves in a manner consistent with the context in which they live, often implementing policies and strategies oriented towards change; the sharing economy business model revised from a systemic perspective has brought out common elements linked to synergy, equifinality, eco-systemic vision, vital systemic approach in the actions undertaken, sense of identity, functional use of new technologies, new sensitivity and predisposition of users to actively participate in the supply/use of value propositions. Among the primary reflections in this case, it is therefore possible to summarize the following:

• Even in the sharing economy, the levels of analysis are a function of the observer’s perspective.
• Taking into account, for example, the user, the levels can be referred to the ‘moments’ in an extrinsic business.
• Given the specific operational nature of this type of business, a holistic interpretation is the only way to grasp its nuances.
• Any business that falls within the sharing economy typology presents the characteristics of an open system.
• The ability to regenerate and self-feed is typical of the sharing economy; it is thanks to the active participation of users and suppliers (who are often the same people) that the system grows, competes, and survives.
• Actively participating in these businesses means sharing their vision and co-evolving.
• Being part of a community means developing harmonious relationships with actors and processes at all identified levels.
• The way these businesses develop goes beyond traditional role-based organizations. The same actor can cover multiple roles and be analyzed in their behavior depending on the role covered from time to time.
• The structure is changeable; the systems that emerge from it are infinite.
• Business decision makers like these have to manage an ever-new complexity because the innovation they bring is often radical.
• Being vital in this new reality requires a different approach that is more inclined to novelty, leaner, modular, fluent, and flexible.

The reflections introduced in this work show the need to adapt managerial practices to more fluid, emerging, non-linear situations: categorizations and supply chains leave room for storytelling to describe the evolution of markets; the value of context, ecosystem re-configurations, and co-evolution are aspects that deserve to be explored in depth, as a mirror of the present and a starting point for the future.

In addressing the research questions posed in this study, the findings provide significant insights into the dynamics of the sharing economy through the service ecosystem framework. The findings of this study demonstrate the applicability of the service ecosystem framework in interpreting the sharing economy. Specifically, platforms like Airbnb and Uber exemplify how resource integration and value co-creation foster competitive advantage and resilience. However, these practices are not without challenges, including regulatory constraints and evolving consumer expectations. Addressing RQ1, the analysis reveals that systemic interconnection—facilitated by digital platforms—creates dynamic feedback loops that drive continuous innovation. For RQ2, value co-creation emerges as a cornerstone of ecosystem sustainability, with user-generated feedback playing a critical role in refining service offerings.

From a practical standpoint, companies must invest in adaptive technologies and foster active community engagement to sustain their value propositions. Theoretical contributions include extending service-dominant logic by contextualizing it within the unique dynamics of the sharing economy.

This perspective reveals how resource integration and value co-creation can drive sustainable innovation in platform-based systems. Integrating the service ecosystem perspective into the sharing economy offers significant insights for business models operating within the platformization process. By emphasizing resource integration, institutional alignment, and value co-creation, this synergy provides a robust framework for designing adaptive and sustainable business practices. For instance, platforms can leverage ecosystem dynamics to foster more robust community engagement, enhance resilience, and innovate service delivery. This perspective not only redefines competitiveness in the sharing economy but also positions platforms to address the challenges of platform capitalism through collaborative governance and ethical data use.

6. Limitations and Managerial Implications

The phenomenon under examination represents only a cross-section, still little consolidated, of today’s entrepreneurial landscape; however, some examples of the sharing economy that are currently more established can already be considered an anticipation of the future economy. Better orientation concerning the variables of influence and criticality, understanding how to be sufficiently in synergy with the evolving context in which one operates, opening up to the strategic integration of resources, encouraging new processes of co-creation of value, being able to appropriately re-configure oneself and/or structure one’s business from the beginning in a way that is congenial to change, and being aware of the need to simultaneously adopt a sustainable, competitive, and vital approach in a game of continuous rebalancing, are just some of the possible practical implications that justify the need for further studies. Adopting an ecosystem approach in the sharing economy means recognizing and enhancing the interconnection between different actors and resources. This involves constantly reading and interpreting the context, identifying the key variables that influence it and adapting strategies accordingly. Companies must develop a dynamic and flexible vision that is capable of responding quickly to market changes and new collaboration opportunities. The strategic integration of resources becomes a crucial element: companies must be ready to reach relationships with other actors. This collaborative approach not only optimizes the use of resources but also creates new synergies that can lead to innovative and sustainable solutions. The co-creation of value is another fundamental aspect. Actively involving different actors in developing and improving products and services can lead to greater customer satisfaction, loyalty and, ultimately, sustainable viability. Companies must be open to feedback and suggestions, creating platforms and communication channels that facilitate this exchange. To remain competitive, companies must also be ready to review and reorganize their internal structures and processes. This may mean adopting new technologies, changing business models, or reviewing operational strategies to better align with market needs and emerging trends. Adaptability and the predisposition to change become essential skills for long-term success. Finally, sustainability must be integrated as a guiding principle in all business decisions [62,63,64]. This is not only to respond to the growing expectations of consumers and regulations but also to ensure the responsible management of natural resources and a positive impact on society. A sustainable approach can become a powerful driver of innovation, efficiency, and reputation, helping to create a business that is not only profitable but also ethically and socially responsible. In summary, these implications highlight the need for continuous evolution and adaptation by companies [66], which must develop an integrated and far-sighted vision to successfully navigate the complex landscape of the sharing economy in an overall service ecosystem view.

7. Concluding Remarks

With the system lens, the ‘elusive’ world of the sharing economy can be understood even better; these business models are too ‘advanced’ for obsolete interpretative schemes or overly rigid points of view. The service ecosystem perspective helps us understand that even more ‘fluent’ and less serial processes can be framed with a replicable and comprehensible interpretative logic (R.Q.1).

With this lens, it is possible to understand how the complexity of these businesses is addressed (with still decidedly unclear contours), how and when it is overcome, and how one proactively positions oneself to anticipate new situations of uncertainty and turbulence in order to be truly competitive (R.Q.2).

These findings underline the importance of resource integration and value co-creation within service ecosystems as key drivers of innovation and resilience in the sharing economy. The findings of this study underscore the dual identity of platforms like Airbnb and Uber. On the one hand, they exemplify the principles of resource integration and value co-creation that define the sharing economy. On the other hand, their integration into financial markets and reliance on data monetization strategies position them within the framework of platform capitalism.

This duality challenges traditional definitions of the sharing economy and highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of its evolution. While these platforms continue to innovate and contribute to community welfare, their alignment with the original ideals of access over ownership warrants ongoing scrutiny.

Furthermore, it is possible to better understand the phenomenon of the sharing economy (as it appears today) and imagine possible future scenarios. This approach, therefore, appears here to provide innovative food for thought, to still be considered ‘perspective’, and to represent fair support for the decision makers of tomorrow.

This study demonstrates the applicability of the service ecosystem framework to analyze the sharing economy, addressing its dual nature as both a driver of innovation and an instrument of platform capitalism. Key contributions include theoretical insights into resource integration and practical implications for managers navigating dynamic ecosystems. Future research should explore alternative governance models to enhance sustainability in platform-driven markets.