DOCSLIB.ORG

Study to Monitor the Economic Development of the Collaborative Economy at Sector Level in the 28 EU Member States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Study to Monitor the Economic Development of the Collaborative Economy at Sector Level in the 28 EU Member States Study to Monitor the Economic Development of the Collaborative Economy at sector level in the 28 EU Member States Final Report 23 February 2018 [Written by] [February – 2018] EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Directorate E — Modernisation of the Single Market Directorate E.3 Digitalisation of the Single Market E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels Study to Monitor the Economic Development of the Collaborative Economy at sector level in the 28 EU Member States Final Report The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Directorate-General for Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 2018 EN Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission; however, it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 ISBN: 978-92-79-81728-1 Doi: 10.2873/83555 © European Union, 2018 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged. CONTENTS GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................... 7 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 10 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 15 1. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY .............................................................................. 17 1.1 Identifying indicators ................................................................................... 18 1.2 Data collection ............................................................................................ 18 1.3 Data analysis .............................................................................................. 20 1.4 Assessment of development of the collaborative economy in the EU .................. 25 2. ASSESSMENT OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY IN THE EU ............................................................................................ 30 2.1 Current level of economic development of the collaborative economy in the EU ... 30 2.2 Assessment of the economic development of the collaborative economy in the EU ............................................................................................................. 38 3. LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY ON THE SECTOR LEVEL ................................................................................................................. 44 3.1 Transport ................................................................................................... 44 3.2 Accommodation .......................................................................................... 52 3.3 Finance ...................................................................................................... 60 3.4 Online skills ................................................................................................ 69 4. LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY IN MEMBER STATES ....... 75 4.1 Austria ....................................................................................................... 75 4.2 Belgium ..................................................................................................... 78 4.3 Bulgaria ..................................................................................................... 81 4.4 Cyprus ....................................................................................................... 84 4.5 Czech Republic ............................................................................................ 86 4.6 Germany .................................................................................................... 90 4.7 Denmark .................................................................................................... 93 4.8 Estonia ...................................................................................................... 96 4.9 Greece ..................................................................................................... 100 4.10 Spain ....................................................................................................... 102 4.11 Finland ..................................................................................................... 105 4.12 France ..................................................................................................... 108 4.13 Croatia ..................................................................................................... 112 4.14 Hungary ................................................................................................... 114 4.15 Ireland ..................................................................................................... 117 4.16 Italy ........................................................................................................ 120 4.17 Lithuania .................................................................................................. 123 4.18 Luxembourg ............................................................................................. 126 4.19 Latvia ...................................................................................................... 129 4.20 Malta ....................................................................................................... 132 4.21 Netherlands .............................................................................................. 134 4.22 Poland ..................................................................................................... 137 4.23 Portugal ................................................................................................... 139 4.24 Romania .................................................................................................. 142 4.25 Sweden .................................................................................................... 145 5 4.26 Slovenia ................................................................................................... 148 4.27 Slovakia ................................................................................................... 151 4.28 United Kingdom ........................................................................................ 155 5. MAIN FINDINGS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS ......................................................... 159 5.1 Main findings ............................................................................................ 159 5.2 Policy implications ..................................................................................... 161 ANNEX 1 LIST OF PLATFORMS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY ................................................ 163 ANNEX 2 INDICATORS DESCRIBING THE LEVEL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY ................................................................................. 177 Direct indicators ................................................................................................. 177 Indirect indicators .............................................................................................. 180 Enabling factors - Technology penetration indicators ............................................... 181 ANNEX 3 DATA COLLECTION FOR INTERNATIONAL PLATFORMS ORIGINATING OUTSIDE THE EU ............................................................................................................. 182 ANNEX 4 RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 185 ANNEX 5 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY ................................................... 194 Transport .......................................................................................................... 194 Accommodation .................................................................................................. 199 Calculation of revenues ....................................................................................... 199 Finance205 Online skills ....................................................................................................... 208 ANNEX 6 ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 211 6 Study to Monitor the Economic Development of the Collaborative Economy at sector level in the 28 EU Member States GLOSSARY Collaborative economy Business models meeting all criteria simultaneously: (often also referred to as the sharing economy) Business
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crowdfunding in Asia
    Crowdfunding in Asia May 2018 Introducing the first free directory of crowdfunding platforms across Asia. The data is based on the AlliedCrowds Capital Finder, a database of over 7,000 alternative finance capital providers across emerging markets. Our data has been used by organizations like FSD Asia, UNDP, World Green Economy Organization, GIZ, World Bank, and others in order to provide unique, actionable insights into the world of emerging market alternative finance. This is the latest of our regular reports on alternative finance in emerging markets; you can find all previous reports here. Crowdfunding rose in prominence in the post-financial crisis years (starting in 2012), and for good reason: a global credit crunch limited the amount of funding available to entrepreneurs and small businesses. Since then, crowdfunding has grown rapidly around the world. Crowdfunding is especially consequential in countries where SMEs find it difficult to raise capital to start or grow their businesses. This is the case in many Asian countries; according to the SME Finance Forum, there is a $2.3 trillion MSME credit gap in East Asia and the Pacific. Crowdfunding can help to fill this gap by offering individuals and small businesses an alternative source of capital. This can come in the form of donation-based as well as lending-based (peer-to-peer or peer-to-business) crowdfunding. In order to help entrepreneurs and small business owners to find the crowdfunding platform that’s right for them, we are releasing the first publicly available list of all crowdfunding platforms across Asia. The report is split into two key sections: the first one is an overview of crowdfunding platforms, and how active they are across the largest markets on the continent.
    [Show full text]
  • Bewelcome.Org
    Bewelcome.org – a non-profit democratic hospex service set up for growth. Rustam Tagiew Alumni of TU Bergakademie Freiberg [email protected] Abstract—This paper presents an extensive data-based anal- the difference between the terms user, which is basically a ysis of the non-profit democratic hospitality exchange service profile owner, and member – not every website user had a bewelcome.org. We hereby pursuit the goal of determining the real-life interaction with other members in order to be called factors influencing its growth. It also provides general insights a member. Members are a subset of users. on internet-based hospitality exchange services. The other investi- Hospex services always started as non-profit, donation gated services are hospitalityclub.org and couchsurfing.org. Com- and volunteer-driven organizations, since making profit on munities using the three services are interconnected – comparing their data provides additional information. gratuitous hospitality is considered unethical in modern culture. Nevertheless, business on gratuitous hospitality is common at least in mediation of au-pairs to host families [9, I. INTRODUCTION eg.]. Unfortunately, we can not access the data from CS – the The rite of gratuitous hospitality provided by local biggest hospex service. CS became a for-profit corporation in residents to strangers is common among almost all known 2011 and shut down the access of public science to its data. human cultures, especially traditional ones. We can cite Scientists possessing pre-incorporation CS data are prohibited melmastia of Pashtun [1, p. 14], terranga of Wolof [2, p. to share it with third parties. HC never allowed access of 17] and hospitality of Eskimo [3] as examples of traditional public science to its data.
    [Show full text]
  • East Africa Crowdfunding Landscape Study
    REPORT | OCTOBER 2016 East Africa Crowdfunding Landscape Study REDUCING POVERTY THROUGH FINANCIAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT Seven Things We Learned 1 2 3 4 East African East Africa’s Crowdfunding There’s appetite to crowdfunding platforms report risks and the do business and to markets are on promising regulatory learn more from the move. progress. environment. across East Africa. Crowdfunding platforms Since 2012 M-Changa In Kenya, for example, Over 65 participants at- (donation, rewards, debt has raised $900,000 Section 12A of the Capi- tended the Indaba & and equity) raised $37.2 through 46,000 tal Markets Act provides a Marketplace from all cor- million in 2015 in Kenya, donations to 6,129 safe space for innovations ners of the East African Rwanda, Tanzania and fundraisers. Pesa Zetu to grow before being sub- market. Uganda. By the end of Q1 and LelaFund are also ject to the full regulatory 2016, this figure reached opening access to their regime. $17.8 million – a 170% deals on the platform. year-on-year increase. 5 6 7 East Africa’s MSMEs ex- There are both commercial Global crowdfunding press a demand for alterna- and development oppor- markets are growing tive finance, but they’re not tunities for crowdfunding fast but also evolving. always investment-ready or platforms in East Africa. Finance raised by crowdfunding able to locate financiers. Crowdfunding platforms have the platforms worldwide increased from 45% of Kenyan start-ups sampled re- potential to mobilise and allocate $2.7 billion in 2012 to an estimated quire between $10,000 and $50,000 capital more cheaply and quickly $34 billion in 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Estate Crowdfunding in Finland: the Drivers of Campaign Success and the Industry Development
    Saimaa University of Applied Sciences Master of Business Administration, Lappeenranta Degree Programme in International Business Management Olga Bogdanova Real estate crowdfunding in Finland: the drivers of campaign success and the industry development Thesis 2018 Abstract Olga Bogdanova Real estate crowdfunding in Finland: the drivers of campaign success and the industry development, 128 pages, 10 appendices Saimaa University of Applied Sciences Master of Business Administration, Lappeenranta Degree Programme in International Business Management Thesis 2018 Instructor: Senior Lecturer Timo Saarainen, Saimaa University of Applied Sciences The objectives of the study were to examine the phenomenon of real estate crowdfunding in Finland, to explain the success or failure of RECF campaigns, to understand the drivers behind industry development and to assess its future potential. The data was collected from the two main sources: interviews with the experts and the information from the web sites of the crowdfunding platforms. The results of the study illustrate the present state of the real estate crowdfunding market in Finland, its peculiarities and commonalities compared to the US and EU markets. The study emphasizes the significance of understanding the motivation and background of the investors, suggests the actions of the fund seeker that ultimately lead to success. The research illustrates the environmental and industry factors shaping the industry and provides expectations and recommendations regarding future development. The results can be used by the real estate development companies planning to use crowdfunding as a fundraising tool, and by the real estate crowdfunding platforms. Further study is required to understand the real estate investors’ motivation and preferences and to develop an internationalization strategy for the real estate platforms.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowdfunding Platforms: Ecosystem and Evolution Full Text Available At
    Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1700000061 Crowdfunding Platforms: Ecosystem and Evolution Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1700000061 Other titles in Foundations and Trends® in Marketing Entertainment Marketing Natasha Zhang Foutz ISBN: 978-1-68083-332-4 The Cultural Meaning of Brands Carlos J. Torelli, Maria A. Rodas and Jennifer L. Stoner ISBN: 978-1-68083-286-0 Ethnography for Marketing and Consumer Research Alladi Venkatesh, David Crockett, Samantha Cross and Steven Chen ISBN: 978-1-68083-234-1 The Information-Economics Perspective on Brand Equity Tulin Erdem and Joffre Swait ISBN: 978-1-68083-168-9 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1700000061 Crowdfunding Platforms: Ecosystem and Evolution Yee Heng Tan Tokyo International University Japan [email protected] Srinivas K. Reddy Singapore Management University Singapore [email protected] Boston — Delft Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1700000061 Foundations and Trends® in Marketing Published, sold and distributed by: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 1024 Hanover, MA 02339 United States Tel. +1-781-985-4510 www.nowpublishers.com [email protected] Outside North America: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 179 2600 AD Delft The Netherlands Tel. +31-6-51115274 The preferred citation for this publication is Y. H. Tan and S. K. Reddy. Crowdfunding Platforms: Ecosystem and Evolution. Foundations and Trends® in Marketing, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 53–172, 2020. ISBN: 978-1-68083-699-8 © 2020 Y. H. Tan and S. K. Reddy All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Signals in Equity-Based Crowdfunding and Risk of Failure
    Reichenbach and Walther Financ Innov (2021) 7:54 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854‑021‑00270‑0 Financial Innovation RESEARCH Open Access Signals in equity‑based crowdfunding and risk of failure Felix Reichenbach and Martin Walther* *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract Chair of Finance This study investigates signal validity in equity-based crowdfunding by examining and Investment, Technische Universität Berlin, Sec. H whether signals that increase crowd participation are associated with higher post- 64, Straße des 17. Juni 135, ofering success. Post-ofering success is measured as the probability of survival. We 10623 Berlin, Germany use a hand-collected data set of 88 campaigns with over 64,000 investments and 742 updates from a well-established and leading German equity-based crowdfunding platform, Companisto. We fnd that indicating that the chief executive ofcer holds a university degree and a higher number of business-related updates are associated with a lower risk of failure, which is in line with recent research on ofering success. The number of updates on external certifcation, promotions, and the team is associated with a higher risk of failure. In contrast to recent fndings on ofering success, we fnd that the equity share ofered is positively related to post-ofering success, whereas a high number of large investments or updates on campaign development are accom- panied by a higher probability of failure. Our results provide guidance for entrepre- neurs and investors regarding which signals are worth sending or using. Furthermore, these results suggest that investors are partly using wrong signals and challenge the rationality and wisdom of the crowd.
    [Show full text]
  • I Investigations Into the Structure of Crowdfunding Research
    Investigations into the Structure of Crowdfunding Research and the Role of the Content and Linguistic Cues in Risk Disclosure in Crowdfunding Campaigns A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Ahmad Ridhuwan Abdullah Master of Science in Finance (Northern University of Malaysia) Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance (MARA University of Technology) School of Economics Finance and Marketing College of Business RMIT University March 2019 i DECLARATION I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the author alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the content of the thesis is the result of work which has been carried out since the official commencement date of the approved research program; any editorial work, paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and, ethics procedures and guidelines have been followed. Ahmad Ridhuwan Abdullah 25 March 2019 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Jason Potts, Dr Nthati Rametse, and Dr Joanne Laban for their wisdom and constructive supervision, consistent encouragement, and intellectual commitment in guiding me since the first day of my study and upon finishing writing this thesis. Special thanks to Professor Jason Potts who is kind- hearted enough to allow me to develop my own academic interests. I must thank my family members, especially my wife Siti Salwani Abdullah and my daughter Dhia Alia for their support and encouragement throughout my study. They went through hard times throughout the research process and I am grateful for their patience and understanding.
    [Show full text]
  • Sofa, So Good Couchsurfing Ist Nicht Mehr Nur Etwas Für Nomaden Aus Dem Netz
    FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE SONNTAGSZEITUNG, 19. APRIL 2015, NR. 16 REISE V3 Sofa, so good Couchsurfing ist nicht mehr nur etwas für Nomaden aus dem Netz. Aber je größer die Gemeinschaft wird, desto schwieriger die Frage: Wem gehört sie eigentlich? Gegenstand der Diskussion: Findet auf dieser Couch kultureller Austausch statt? Oder ist sie nur ein kostenloser Schlafplatz? Fotos Göring enn es eng wird, lich gehört. Offiziell ist die Ant- der Plattform nicht: Er verglich beantwortete Fragen von Mitglie- weltweit. Andamanen, Feuerland, noch weitaus mehr Anhänger fin- sen auch, wo das Geld für ihre Ide- muss man eben zu- wort einfach: der Couchsurfing In- das junge Unternehmen mit der dern. Über 2500 Couchsurfer will Kamtschatka – es gibt tatsächlich den wird, und unterstützen andere en herkommen soll: aus der Com- sammenrücken. 50 ternational Inc. Das war aber nicht Datenkrake Facebook und nannte er in zehn Jahren in seiner Woh- kaum ein Fleckchen auf der Welt, Non-Profit-Projekte. Ein paar der munity, nicht von Investoren. „Die Menschen sitzen im immer so. Eine Firma ist die die neuen Geschäftsbedingungen nung nur wenige Kilometer von auf dem man nicht mit Couchsur- Gruppe haben schon bei Couchsur- Welt braucht dringend ein Sozia- KreuzbergerW Café „Mano“, kein Wohnbörse erst seit 2011, vorher „inakzeptabel und unzulässig“. Die der Golden Gate Bridge beher- fing Urlaub machen könnte. fing mitprogrammiert, dann beim les Netzwerk, das nicht auf Daten Platz ist mehr frei, an der Bar steht war sie sieben Jahre eine gemein- Community wehrte sich; auf Face- bergt haben – aber er hat keine Die Frage bleibt, ob viele Mit- Nachfolgeprojekt „BeWelcome“.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowdfunding and Its Interaction with Urban Development
    Crowdfunding and its Interaction with Urban Development CHEN Hung-Yi1 Crowdfunding is a mechanism of fundraising on the Internet without a conventional financial institution as agency, especially for small and middle enterprises (SMEs). This is an intermediary system for people raising funding much more easily and efficiently. The difficulties for SMEs to raise funding from capital market are universal problems in the world. Under consideration of efficient fundraising, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand are already provided regulation toward crowdfunding. The financial authority of China and Singapore are also drafting the bill of crowdfunding in early 2015. With the development of crowdfunding for several years, it also provides citizens an alternative way to participate public affair and raise capital they need. In 2014, there is a crowdfunding campaign by citizens in Taiwan which raise up 11,984,994 TWD (around 387,481 USD) from 11,523 people only in 45 hours to organize a group recalling three controversy congressmen representing of Taipei city. This campaign was not held by any parties or organizations but a combination of citizens who did not know each other before. This campaign successfully promotes the idea of citizens by using crowdfunding to engage public affair by citizens. This is an innovative way for citizens having more opportunities to engage public affair. Additionally, there are some local governments in Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom using crowdfunding to fulfill the gap of insufficient budget and also attract citizens invest their funding into public projects. Moreover, there are drafting bills in Hawaii and New Jersey for government using crowdfunding to raise capital for public projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowd Involvement in CHEST: Insights and Recommendations for Crowdsourcing in Innovative Funding Schemes and Successful Crowdfunding of Digital Social Innovations
    Crowd involvement in CHEST: Insights and recommendations for crowdsourcing in innovative funding schemes and successful crowdfunding of Digital Social Innovations 1 Table of Content 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Crowdsourcing Digital Social Innovation in CHEST .......................................................................... 4 2.1 CHEST open call design and results ......................................................................................... 4 2.2 Community engagement supporting idea generation ............................................................ 6 2.3 CHEST CrowdMonitor: Crowd evaluation of beneficiaries ..................................................... 9 3 Crowdfunding ................................................................................................................................ 10 3.1 Types of crowdfunding .......................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Overview of crowdfunding market and platforms ................................................................ 12 3.3 Factors of success .................................................................................................................. 15 3.4 Guidelines for planning and implementing a successful crowdfunding campaign for DSI ... 15 3.4.1 Step 1: Decide if crowdfunding is appropriate for your project ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Raising Capital from the Community Alternative Capital Development Through Crowdfunding
    Raising Capital from the Community Alternative Capital Development through Crowdfunding November 2013 Green For All - Business Accelerator Program greenforall.org/resources Acknowledgments © Green For All 2013 Written by Jessica Leigh Green for All would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their contributions to this guide: Jenny Kassan, Cutting Edge Capital; Brahm Ahmadi, People’s Community Market; Justin Renfro, Kiva Zip; Joanna De Leon, Triple Green Custom Print Developers; Ben Bateman, Indi- egogo; Lisa Curtis, Kuli Kuli; Erin Barnes, ioby; Helen Ho, Biking Public Project, Recycle-a-Bicycle Other parties that helped in the preparation of this report: Jeremy Hays and Khary Dvorak-Ewell RAISING CAPITAL FROM THE COMMUNITY Green For All Business Accelerator Program Introduction Community Capital Today’s economy brings new capital development challenges for the small businesses that drive green innova- tion and strengthen our neighborhoods. Obtaining traditional financing from banks has become increasingly prohibitive. Venture capital funds and angel investors seek businesses that provide fast growth and high re- turns. Cultivating a sustainable small business that prioritizes people and the environment generally does not lend itself to these conditions. A recent survey by the National Small Business Association (NSBA) found that nearly half of small-business respondents said they needed funds and were unable to find any willing sources, be it loans, credit cards or investors.1 Additionally, the novelty of small green businesses makes them more risky and less appealing for traditional sources of capital. Environmentally focused entrepreneurs often have little choice but to compromise their mission or the direction of their company in an attempt to secure financing.
    [Show full text]
  • PKO BP Raport 01
    Startups that transform Polish banking Warsaw April 2020 2 Table of Contents 01 Introduction6 02 Did you know that… Key research results 8 03 Advice from startups Tips for banks and startup founders 12 04 Facts & figures Results of research on startups in the finance sector 16 05 What startups say Viewpoints of 10 selected companies 40 06 100 startups that transform Polish banking72 07 Authors80 3 4 Zbigniew Jagiełło President of the Management Board PKO Bank Polski Innovative technological solutions are an integral part of banking today. Regardless of whether we are talking about processes in the back-office, in bank bran‐ ches, online or mobile banking - we expect immediate service, personalised and conve‐ nient. Customers using banking services are no longer interested as much in traditional products, such as a mortgage or cash loan, but in the entire ecosystem of additional services. They deal with official matters or manage their company through banks. It is thanks to technology and cooperation with partners, including startups, that we are building an ecosystem of modern services that goes far beyond traditional banking. Before the coronavirus pandemic forced millions to stay home, digitisation in the ban‐ king sector was being analysed for the risks it poses - such as the possible lack of availability of services related to overloading IT systems, or how to deal with the digital exclusion of certain groups. Today, in the face of the challenges posed to us by the situation in our country and around the world, digitisation has been taken to the next step and will develop at an even faster speed for many businesses.
    [Show full text]