The relationship between regulators and those that work in the “sharing economy” (businesses involving people having to share their resources/accommodations of any kind) is often a conflicted one from the start. It can be blamed upon a series of things including lack of communication, lack of initiative sometimes taken by those working in the sharing economy and a serious misunderstanding of the nature of business that these firms are running.
Take Uber for example, a ridesharing service that has an app that can help connect you to someone that has a vacancy in his or her cab. Substantially, the concept is one that is useful in many different aspects, environmentally, because gas is used less since not as many cabs are being used, traffic-wise because the roads will be less congested if there are less cars on the road due to carpooling, as well as an increase in employment (more people required to do the job) not to mention the revenue being brought in will soon surpass the staggering 3.5 billion dollars already being earned. The article then talks about how the regulators feel about the business Going. Shervin Pishevar, an investor in a few of the sharing companies including Uber believes that expanding these businesses and bringing them to larger cities will have a huge influence the economies of each of them. However, many cities are awfully reluctant to allow these systems to expand by having subpoenas issued and such.
This is where regulation comes in. It is believed that regulation is what stops
the sharing economy from ever expanding the right way. The irony here is that the interest of the city’s economy and the goals of the sharing economy firms are often similar and can be worked side by side to achieve the best results. They all aim to help the customers, the government wants to protect them and these firms are doing just that but also making it easier for them. However, Regulators and people from this type of economy don’t necessarily mesh well, and they could learn a thing or two about being more co-operative with the regulators (or so the writers believe so)
A few of the reasons include the employees of the sharing firms be more forthcoming with their ideas. They owe it to explain the nature of their business, their plan, the input and what they expect to be the output. Using the Business Model Canvas there is an area given for everything including customer segments (who you are directing your service towards) as well as Value proposition (the quality of service being brought) which would help them explain as to why this service is so important and so necessary for cities to have. Because despite the advantages that would be advantageous to both the government and these firms; their lack of communication prevents this from happening. It seems to me that the firms need to be simply more receptive to the regulators at all costs. They should be well prepared with their business segments and ensure their counterparts (the regulators) that what they are doing is not only safe but beneficial and will aid them in the long run. Perhaps being a little extra nice won’t hurt either. Not to mention they ought to keep in mind that because they are coming into their cities (of the regulators/government) it’s the least they can do. Compromise is necessary and so is taking the first step towards being more understanding, and maybe then the conflict between regulators and the sharing economy firms will be solved.
Article: https://hbr.org/2014/10/how-uber-and-the-sharing-economy-can-win-over-regulators/