Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33031483›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Systematic framework to assess social impacts of sharing platforms: Synthesising literature and stakeholder perspectives to arrive at a framework and practice-oriented tool.

Steven Kane Curtis, Jagdeep Singh, Oksana Mont, Alexandra Kessler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Steven Kane CurtisInternational Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8442-5027
Jagdeep SinghInternational Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9215-0166
Oksana MontInternational Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Alexandra KesslerCollaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP), Wuppertal, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1)

backgroundResearch and user experience suggests both positive and negative social impacts resulting from practices in the sharing economy: social cohesion vs. gentrification; inclusiveness vs. discrimination; flexible employment vs. exploitation. However, as yet, there is no framework for understanding or assessing these social impacts holistically. (2)

objectiveWe aim to improve understanding of the social impacts of sharing platforms and develop a systematic framework to assess these impacts. (3)

methodsWe conduct a narrative literature review and stakeholder workshop, integrating insights to produce a systematic social impact assessment framework and a practice-oriented tool. (4)

resultsWe identify four social aspects-trust, empowerment, social justice, and inclusivity-and eighteen indicators that make up the framework. We describe each indicator and its relevance to the sharing economy as well as suggest measurable variables in the form of a practice-oriented tool. (5)

conclusionsThe framework and tool are the first holistic method for assessing social impact in the sharing economy, which may inform researchers, sharing platforms, regulators, investors, and citizens to mitigate adverse social impacts while enhancing the overall net social value of the sharing economy.

Indexed as

EconomicsSocial ChangeCooperative BehaviorEmpowermentSocial CapitalSocial Justice

Identifiers

PMID33031483
PMCPMC7544048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.