Applying Theory To Empirical Phenomena: Love-Hate Relationship of E-Hailing Driver-Platform Provider in The Sharing-Economy Services

International Journal of Business and Technology Management
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022

http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijbtm
Applying Theory to Empirical Phenomena: Love-Hate

Relationship of E-Hailing Driver-Platform Provider in the
Sharing-Economy Services
Nor Irwani Abdul Rahman1, Rozailin Abdul Rahman1, Murni Mahmud2

1
Kuliyyah of Economics and Management Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia
2
Kuliyyah of Information and Communication Technology, International Islamic University Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: i.rahman@live.iium.edu.my
Accepted: 15 January 2022 | Published: 31 January 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55057/ijbtm.2022.3.4.10
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: The appearance of sharing economy-services has impacted customers’ lifestyle in

different ways. E-hailing services, particularly, is one of the examples, which constituted from
the new category of services, prominently demonstrated a great performance for nearly a
decade. However, as life is full of challenges, none of us can be exempted. Despite of the
remarkable victory, the service industry was in a battle with the “conventional regulatory
requirement” in various countries. For instance, the issues of drivers’ welfare and well-being
have been debated frequently, but still it resulted to unconvincing decision. Consequently, this
study has reviewed the commitment–trust theory and social exchange theory to further explain
the never-ended “love-hate relationship” story of the e-hailing driver and platform provider.
Our discussion acknowledged that theoretical link of relationship benefits and relationship
commitment is workable, on the ground of drivers’ welfare and well-being, in return to create
a mutual exchange in their relationship. Together with that, theoretical and practical
implications were discussed in depth.
Keywords: E-hailing driver; Sharing economy-services; Commitment-trust theory; Social

exchange theory
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction and purpose
The soaring of sharing economy-services through the online market has resulted to such an
overwhelming social and economic benefits in recent years. Belk (2007) defines sharing
commerce as “the act and process of distributing what is ours to others for their use and/or
the act and process of receiving or taking something from others for our use”. For instance,
sharing-economy has been applied in different fields, such as rooms, cars, knowledge and
music (Cheng et al., 2020; Cheng, 2016). In the field of car sharing, online car-sharing has
progressively being accepted as common transportation, instead of the traditional taxi hitching
or hailing from the roadside (Zuo, Zhu, Chen, & He, 2019; He & Shen, 2015). The business
model has strategically aimed to encourage car sharing at first, however, the actual effects have
persisted beyond the expectations.
From the view of the substantial transformations that e-hailing platform has exhibited from the
implication of global shifted paradigm, the benefits of this car sharing activity permits colour
transition from inefficient taxi operation to an even more efficient platform (Clewlow &
103
Copyright © 2022 ASIAN SCHOLARS NETWORK - All rights reserved
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
Mishra, 2017). As an example, Didi Chuxing has provided more than 7.43 billion mobile travel
services for 450 million passengers in more than 400 cities across the country in 2017 (Wu,
Zhang, Tian, Wang, & Hua, 2020). Meanwhile, Grab has built one of the largest platforms that
millions of consumers use daily and provides income opportunities to over 5 million people
within the South East Asian territory (Grab, 2018). Transportation network companies such as
Uber, Grab and Didi Chuxing Lyft are no longer considered as the major transportation start-
ups because they have expanded their focus into the new market through providing access to
different modes of transport, such as bikes (i.e. food delivery) and automated car rental (Lux
Research, 2019).
The rapid growth of this electronic platform has created a new category of car service, for-
profit ride-sharing (Anderson, 2014). Obviously, this type of sharing commerce has provided
many benefits to the passengers, drivers, platforms and various societies (Cheng et al., 2020;
Zhang et al., 2019). It is vital to be highlighted that operating in two-sided market is not a
straightforward process, as there is a necessity to balance both of the users’ needs and wants.
In addition, the platform must ensure the availability of vacant taxi to remain optimum by
maintaining the size of driver pools from time to time (Wang et al., 2016). Several on-going
efforts such as cash incentives, bonus trips and interesting pricing schemes have been offered
by the platform providers to keep motivating the drivers to stay in the “ready mode” and serve
the end-user constantly (Mäntymäki, Baiyere, & Islam, 2019; He et al., 2018; Wang et al.,
2016).
Knowing that those platform providers are operating their business under the umbrella of
sharing economy, warranting the active participation from the driver-partner is always
becoming the key formula to keep surviving in this two-sided market (Zuo, Zhu, Chen, & He,
2019; Wang et al., 2016). Although the two-sided service industry is expanding splendidly
within this decade, the service industry has been exposed to the controversial employer-
employee relationship, due to the distinct characteristics of the electronic platforms such as the
information technology artefacts (Christie & Ward, 2019; Mäntymäki et al., 2019). In other
words, driver’s keep demanding the content regarding road safety risks of people, who drive
during this gig economy (Rosenblat, 2020). Additionally, the safety issues of drivers in ride-
hailing (also known as a gig economy) have been debated seriously, in matters of who will be
responsible for the drivers’ safety, when they are ‘on job’ condition (Amirnuddin, Turner,
Nazrin, & Kamarulzaman, 2017).
At least, the conventional taxi industry players (i.e. service providers and drivers) are protected
under a lawful regulatory measure that they are subjected to, for instance allowing the taxi
driver to contribute and pay for their medical insurance, respectively, under a self-paid worker
category (Jais & Marzuki, 2020; Ooi, Lim, & Fernandez, 2020). In fact, issues of employee
status are closely related with the regulatory amendment, since the emergence of an
intermediation business into a new category through its own regulation that indicates the
Government’s recognition that e-hailing is a distinct industry separate from the traditional taxi
operations (Izahar, 2018). Consequently, the drivers’ welfare and well-being remain neglected
due to the inconclusive employer-employee status within the e-hailing service provider and
their drivers (Rosenblat, 2020). For that reason, providing a sufficient benefit for the e-hailing
drivers seems to be a wise decision to respond towards the raised issues (Abdul Rahman, Abdul
Rahman, & Mahmud, 2021; Dahlan, 2020). Besides, the drivers’ welfare and well-being will
be kept protected, as long as they are provided with the relevant benefits or incentives. Given
the needs to retain drivers in this two-sided service market, we are optimistic that clarifying
104
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
service provider-driver relationship will benefited both players, especially in regards to the
medical cost and driver “on-job” insurance status.
Despite the practical relevance outlined earlier, this study expects to address the following
research questions. First, we intend to clarity the types of commerce relationship that exist in
the sharing-economy services, especially the e-hailing services. The inconclusive employer-
employee status between e-hailing service provider and their drivers, appears to be the root
query to be clarified further, since the e-hailing service provider refuses to recognise drivers as
their employee (Christie & Ward, 2019; Mäntymäki et al., 2019). Additionally, we will
continue to enlighten how does the service provider-driver relationship work in the sharing-
economy services. By noting the distinct characteristic of this economy-services (Jochen, Fung,
Amrish, & Helen 2019; Belk, 2010), we believe there is a need to further clarify on how the
service provider-driver relationship works in this service, in conjunction to respond to the
respective research question.
The second research question embarks on the clarification of commerce relationship, whereby
we have proposed two theories, which are closely related in managing service provider-driver
relationship, since the issues of providing a sufficient benefit to the e-hailing driver is
corresponding with the proposed theories. To further reiterate on the main reason of employer-
employee status as claimed by the e-hailing drivers is accenting on their welfare and well-
being in this service market (Christie & Ward, 2019; Izahar, 2018; Mäntymäki et al., 2019).
Hence, this study was termed to review the relatable theories in order to further understand the
empirical phenomena. After going through a sufficient literature search and review, we
suggested that the prudent approach in managing the service provider-driver relationship is by
offering a sufficient benefit for them, in return, they will compromise to commit with full
loyalty and longer term of service with the service provider. By understanding the relevance of
Commitment-trust theory and Social Exchange theory in underpinning the relationship
between e-hailing service provider-driver relationship, we are optimistic that a delicate balance
is reachable in assisting the actors or players to keep surviving within this two-sided service
market (Abdul Rahman, Abdul Rahman, & Mahmud, 2021; Dahlan, 2020; Lahey, 2019).
To be specific, we are focused on the following research questions:
(i) What type of commerce relationship exist in the sharing-economy services, and how
does it work?
(ii) How do the Commitment-trust theory and Social Exchange theory enlighten the
driver-service provider relationship in the sharing-economy services?
The rest of the article is organised as follows: (1) explaining the nature of commerce
relationship that exist in the sharing-economy service and how the relationship works in this
two-sided service market; (2) reviewing the Commitment-trust theory and Social Exchange
theory; (3) reflecting on the proposed research questions by focusing on the service provider-
drivers’ commerce relationship in the sharing economy, and how both of the theory may be
applied in explaining the mentioned relationship; (4) empirical discussion on the current e-
hailing driver-service provider relationship with some examples; (5) discussing the future
outlook of this type of sharing-economy services.
Customer-service provider relationship versus peer-to-peer relationship

It has been significantly noted that the main thrust lies behind the e-hailing services is based
on the peer-to-peer sharing concept. Sharing emphasises on a peer-to-peer non-reciprocal
rather than a reciprocal exchange of the assets for the profit oriented (Belk, 2007). In the
sharing-economy services, transactions are typically mediated through several technology
105
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
platforms that allow peer-to-peer sharing activity to be scaled by an efficient matching (or
connecting) (Eckhardt et al., 2019; Jochen, Fung, Amrish, & Helen, 2019). Knowing that the
platform-based business emerged perfectly within this decade, many of the transport service
providers begin to pay their attention on how to manage commerce relationship with their
customers in the sharing economy-services. Meanwhile, there are two types of customers that
can be identified and managed by the e-hailing platform provider, namely, the passenger (i.e.
end-user) and the driver. Subsequently, there are two types of commerce relationship formed
in this service: (1) customer-service provider relationship;(2) peer-to-peer relationship. The
peer-to-peer relationship refers to people who transact directly with the service (Botsman &
Rogers, 2010), that is a driver-to-end customer relationship. Meanwhile, the customer-service
provider relationship constitutes the relationship between the transportation provider (i.e.
driver), service provider (i.e. e-hailing platform) and e-hailing user (i.e. end customer) (Price
& Arnould, 1999) (refer to Figure 1). This represents a distinct characteristic of online car-
sharing platform, as a two-sided markets model of sharing economies (Sun, Teunter, Babai, &
Hua, 2019).
Figure 1: Types of Commerce Relationship in the Sharing Economy-Services
Functioned as an intermediary between driver and the end-customer, the e-hailing platform is
only responsible in matching passengers with drivers without holding an inventory (Wu et al.,
2020). Realizing the fact that the platform provider do not own ownership upon the vehicle,
thus, ensuring active participation from the driver is tremendously important (He, Wang, Lin,
& Tang, 2018; Wang, He, Yang, & Oliver Gao, 2016). In fact, the basic service provided by
an e-hailing platform is only an electronic intermediary and they own none of the vehicle that
needed to be used for their business survival (Clewlow & Mishra, 2017; Anderson, 2014).
Since drivers are unobligated to stick with any e-hailing service provider (He et al., 2018; Wang
et al., 2016), they are more directed to seek for service provider that may satisfy them, perhaps
even more than just providing a job. Due to that reason, the platform-based provider cannot
simply behave too much like a traditional employer in managing the relationship with their
drivers (Lahey, 2019). Apart from that, for any commerce relationship to be successful, a
commitment is highly desired by marketeers, in order to keep their business survive longer,
despite there is a situational influence that may lead to a switching behaviour of the drivers
(Aurier & N’Goala, 2010).
Observing on the recent notion of this service industry, this study nascent the view of the e-
hailing driver-service provider relationship through Commitment-trust theory and Social
Exchange theory.
106
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
1) Extending the Theoretical Lens

Commitment-Trust Theory
Commitment-trust theory is a theory in a relationship marketing, developed by Morgan and
Hunt, (1994). This theory suggests, trust and commitment are crucially needed in meeting a
positive and long-term relationship with customer. In line with the tenet of the theory, there are
five important antecedents and five outcomes projected. The five antecedents of commitment
and trust includes relationship termination costs, relational benefits, shared values,
communication, and opportunistic behaviour. Meanwhile, five outcomes benefited from
commitment and trust are acquiescence, propensity to leave, cooperation, functional conflict
and decision-making uncertainty. Figure 2 presents the key construct and relation described in
the commitment-trust theory.
Figure 2: Commitment-Trust Theory (Morgan & Hunt, 1994)
This theory can be further elaborated as such that operating a business in such a competitive
environment often requires firms to thrust the foundation of shared interests and needs to be
mutually agreed-upon and fundamentally cooperative. However, the relation has progressed
with the evolving technology, customer needs, and the capabilities of the firm, whereby some
firms tends to value their relationship with their stakeholders as much as possible (Pansari &
Kumar, 2017). In such way, the higher the relation of termination cost, the higher is the
commitment bond between them. Indeed, a relation termination cost is perceived as all
expected losses and eventually resulting to the relation dissolution expenses, and/or substantial
switching costs. Moreover, Morgan and Hunt (1994) also explained that firms (or customers)
who receive superior benefits from their partnership-relation will be committed to the
relationship. The additional benefits expected in the relation is beyond the core business
performance, in which will continue to build a strong commitment between them (Gwinner,
Gremler, & Bitner, 1998; Patterson & Smith, 2001b).
A relationship is built upon the similarity of shared values between partners. By understanding
the mutual needs between business partners, of course, the same interest will encourage partner
to remain committed on one another(Morgan & Hunt, 1994). As a matter of fact, a shared
value can also grow trust within those business partners. The commitment-trust theory
continues to advocate that communication is one of the primary determinants upon trust. A
communication between business partners can be either formal or informal, in which, can lead
to a greater trust. Meanwhile, the opportunistic behaviour or defined as “self-seeking with
107
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
guile” will be diminished tremendously, if those business partners constantly trust and commit
to each other. Therefore, the more trust incorporated between business partners’, the lesser the
opportunistic behaviour is expected to exist in their relationship.
Morgan and Hunt (1994) theorised that there are five possible outcomes that will be benefited,
when business partners’ commit and trust each other. This long-term commerce relationship
will continue to promote mutual acquiescence and lower the propensity to leave their
relationship. They also postulated that mutual cooperation can be achieved through maintaining
trust and commitment between partners. As a result, cooperation encourages relation marketing
success. Although there will be a disagreement in the business relationship, partners are always
encouraged to address it properly. Disagreement or referred as functional conflict need to be
understood carefully, so that business partners are willing to share and discuss further, if any
disagreements are predicted to occur, rather than simple decision taken to leave the partnership.
Therefore, the mutual trust projected can be increased to further clarify the functional conflict.
Under those circumstances, lack of trust can lead to uncertainty in decision making process.
After all, this theory has speculated that the more trust gained from the respective partners, the
lesser is the partners’ decision-making uncertainty, because the trusting partner own confidence
that the trustworthy party can be highly depended upon.
This study also considers the tenet of theory by explaining the following applications. Since a
sufficient benefit has become the concern of the drivers’ welfare and well-being, this study
postulates the relation between relationship benefits and relationship commitment that may
possible to be grounded. Further reaffirmation from the commitment-trust theory, Morgan and
Hunt (1994) suggested “firms that receive superior benefits from their partnership-relative to
other options-on such dimensions as product profitability, customer satisfaction, and product
performance, will be committed to the relation”. In other words, this study envisions that
reciprocity between e-hailing drivers and a service provider is achievable, if the service
provider may consider to provide a satisfactory benefit to the drivers. Moreover, Gwinner et
al. (1998) have clearly explained, the customers prefer to receive other benefits offered beyond
the core service performance, in return of having a long-term relationship with the service
provider.
Practically, a service is used for two purposes, either for utilitarian or hedonic purpose. Both
of the services types demand different service consumptions and, of course, demand of
different benefits to encourage customers to be loyal to the consumption of services (Bolton &
Lemon, 1999). In that sense, e-hailing services (i.e. by focusing to the drivers’ apps) are used
for the utilitarian reason, for instance, drivers use the application to receive and complete the
assigned job. This study suggests, e-hailing drivers will actively seek for additional benefits
that can minimise their costs (e.g. medical fees, insurance cost, fuel, e-wallet credit, cleaning
fees, car maintenance and etcetera). Service consumption in regards to the utilitarian purpose,
requires such benefits to be portrayed clearly (Hepola, Leppäniemi, & Karjaluoto, 2020).
Indeed, a customer with high utilitarian usage will be at their highest satisfaction, when they
obtain more utilitarian benefits (Thakur, 2019).
Besides, the ultimate utilitarian value is not rewarding on its own , but it is instrumental in the
achievement of higher-level goals (Botti & McGill, 2011). This agreement is aligned with
Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) and Seunghwan and Dae-Young (2018), whereby, either the driver
or end-user (i.e. e-hailing customers) are motivated by self-interest and high utilitarian value
in consuming the services. This study continues to theorise, a driver will tend to commit longer
with the platform provider, if they have been provided with sufficient benefits. In line with the
108
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
interaction between relationship benefits and commitment, which proposed in commitment-

trust theory (Morgan & Hunt, 1994), hence, this study acknowledges theoretical link.
Social Exchange Theory

The central tenet of Social Exchange Theory (SET) is tangible, or intangible in terms of its
resources and are exchangeable between individuals or between groups. These resources are
exchangeable with the goal of enhancing, maintaining, or dismantling relations. This theory
postulates “a social relationship represents a series of repeated exchanges”, therefore
represents a social behaviour (Blau, 1967; Homans, 1958). In addition, the exchange must be
rational and equal as the difference between rewards and cost involved within it (Chou & Chen,
2018; Fatima & Mascio, 2020). In social relationship, these rewards and cost are not limited to
economic benefits, but also to the various direct or indirect benefits such as well-being,
companionship and trust (Jeong & Oh, 2017; Seigyoung, 2005). Figure 2.3 exhibits the
relationship between benefits and cost interaction involved in SET.
Figure 3: Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1958)
SET continues to explain that a person has the tendency to repeat the behaviour (i.e. cost),
whenever an individual is being rewarded. For example, an equal reward will encourage
customer to stay in a long-term relationship as the reward will benefit them, and vice versa.
Investing intangible resource such as time, effort and other resources may create a
psychological bond. Hence, a bundle of intangible rewards will be created from the resources
that have been invested over time such as mutual understanding, trust, satisfaction and
commitment between those parties involved in the exchange (i.e. relationship) (Gwinner et al.,
1998; Patterson & Smith, 2001a). In order to guarantee the business sustainability, a long-term
relation with their customer will always be the ultimate goal for a business firm (Homans,
1958). Moreover, law of relative deprivation also operates in the sense that the satisfactoriness
of relationships’ outcomes derives from a comparison between each partner’s positions in
terms of gain and loss (Jeong & Oh, 2017). Hence, a reciprocity of exchange is truly needed.
This study proposes SET may underpin the ontology lies behind this study. E-hailing drivers
are highly self-oriented, and they are goal maximiser in relation to the platform providers. This
study argues, if the service provider can provide ample benefits, the drivers will tend to be
satisfied with the provided benefits and stay longer in this relationship. The provided benefits
need to be corresponded with the allocated drivers’ resources such as time, money, and effort,
in completing the jobs allocated by the service provider. Being a participant in a sharing
economy requires the actor to share their personal belongings with strangers, and of course,
total cost is borne by the owner (Belk, 2014). We strongly believe that drivers incline to commit
109
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
a longer relationship with platform provider after capitalising their belongings in the sharing-
economy activities (Levent & Babak, 2019).
Comparatively, reciprocity of benefits exchange can satisfy partners, thus, reinforce them to
stay longer in the relationship (Gwinner et al., 1998). The continuous relationship then results
in more benefits for both parties (Patterson & Smith, 2001b). It is very crucial for us to realise
that platform provider only functioned as an intermediary party in providing information
services to the drivers and end-customer, in which, they possess none of the ownership of the
psychical belongings (e.g. property; vehicle) within the transaction involved (Belk, 2014;
Anderson, 2014). However, the platform provider highly needs the commitment from the
drivers to stay longer as much as they are willing to, in order to ensure their business as a
platform provider is well-operated ( Wu et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2016).
Therefore, strategising a business relationship requires not only economic exchanges of

favourable product/ service-relevant functional utilities, but also the hedonic psychological
rewards that are essential to maintain the business operation for the long run (Jesu, Gao,
Melero, & Sese, 2019; Jeong & Oh, 2017; Homans, 1958). Corresponding to the core idea
proposed, this study is a mutual reciprocity. If e-hailing drivers have benefited from the whole
experience received, they tend to reciprocate by exchanging in positive psychological outcome,
perhaps a satisfaction, then followed by a longer commitment. Under this circumstance, social
exchange theory is justifiable.
2) From theory to empirical phenomena

By reflecting on the addressed issues that are contemplating on the interest of this study, drivers
are often expected to feel wanted as an employee, whereby several issues such as drivers’
safety, work benefits and some others have become the major highlights of this study.
However, if the drivers keep demanding to be assigned as a permanent worker to the service
provider, the concept of sharing seems unreachable to be applied. The process of sharing-
economy service is perceived beyond than just a common business exchange, because the main
purpose of business exchange is the reproduction of rights to object, rather than the
reproduction of relationships between people (Belk, 2010). In the view of sharing concept, the
sharing-economy service tend to promote a peer-to-peer sharing interaction aiming towards
functional reason such as survivability rather than profitability (Belk, 2014; Fine, 1980). After
all, there is no doubt that the sharing-economy service has struggled deeply “to be inserted”
into the existing regulatory system due to the different lens of the objective.
The issues of welfare and well-being of e-hailing drivers have received increasing attention in
most countries, since the service industry reached maturity stage within this decade. Operating
as an electronic platform to ease peer-to-peer business transaction, the service providers own
their challenges, especially to legalise their distinct characteristic into conventional regulatory
system. Recently, Uber was taking a big U-turn in their operation in the United Kingdom after
the world leading ride-hailing service provider have to “swallow their ego” upon the supreme
court order. Uber was asked to treat 70,000 of its drivers in Britain as the “workers” are entitled
to a minimum wage, holiday pay and pension plans (Browne, 2021; O’Kane, 2021). Interesting
point to ponder on, how do the service provider will control drivers’ work performance, if they
agree to reclassify drivers as their workers? Theoretically, the decision in providing the same
benefits to a huge number of drivers is deemed unwise because it will consume higher cost to
the service provider (Dulebohn, Molloy, Pichler, & Murray, 2009). Meanwhile, shortening the
numbers of drivers to control drivers’ work performance is the most possible approach,
however, if the service provider decides to shorten the numbers of drivers, surge-pricing
110
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
algorithm will overrule the demand (Wu et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2016) and consequently will
increase the base fare (He et al., 2018). As an e-hailing service is classified in the utilitarian-
based service (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Seunghwan & Dae-Young, 2018), the end-customer
will keep comparing the fare and decide to use the service, until the customer meets a more
affordable fare (Bolton & Lemon, 1999; Hepola et al., 2020). As a result, any slight increase
in the base fare will be much affected based on the end-user service consumption trend (Wirtz
& Lovelock, 2018).
In some countries such as Malaysia, the regulation on transportation service industry has been
implemented starting from the process of new drivers’ recruitment by imposing the initial e-
PSV (electronic-Public Service Vehicle), vehicle inspection (if the vehicles have been
manufactured more than three years), e-PSV training course and further examination, last but
not least the medical examination to legalise their status as a lawful e-hailing driver (Ishak,
2019; Mokthar, 2019; Teoh, 2019). In fact, the government has made a minor amendment to
the existing regulation, since October 2019, in order to accommodate the legalisation of the
transportation service industry. The decision to regulate the sector of this industry is necessary
to moderate the threat towards the welfare of traditional taxi drivers, who are operating in a
regulated environment formerly. Besides, the active participation of local e-hailing players into
the service market and high demand from the end-customer has urged the government to
control the service industry (Izahar, 2018; Amirnuddin et al., 2017). Admittedly, the “soft
landing’ on the regulatory requirement has affected the driver-service provider relationship
during the early transition period, whereby there is a significant number of drivers who decided
to discontinue from driving with their respective transportation service provider (Kanyakumari,
2019; Mahfuzah, 2019). As a result, fewer drivers are in a “ready mode” and end-customers
are having the increment in ride fares, during the early period of regulatory enforcement (Grab,
2019a). However, several efforts have originated from Southeast Asia gigantic e-hailing
service provider, Grab, and one of them which facilitates their drivers along the regulatory
process should be given a credit (Abdul Rahman et al., 2021). Although the current demand is
highly affected due to Covid-19 pandemic, Grab is said to be the most active service provider,
who keeps revising their driver-benefits program as to adapt with the drivers’ current need and
want (The Star, 2020).
The vignettes of “love-hate relationship” seem workable to portray the relationship between
the e-hailing driver and service provider. Obviously, each of the actors in this e-commerce
relationship is liable towards each other, in order to continuously surviving in the-two-sided
service market. Note that the limited role played by the service provider is that it can act as an
electronic platform rather owning the driver (Anderson, 2014; Belk, 2014). Likewise, the
drivers need the electronic platform to connect them to the end-customer, as well as to ease
their sharing-economy activity efficiently (Eckhardt et al., 2019; Jochen et al., 2019). Hence,
we undeniably suggest it is reasonable, when drivers demand a list of benefits for their welfare
and well-being sake because they are also one of the major contributors for the business
transaction to be successful. For the most part, this study recommends the on-going benefits
should be offered by the platform provider, in order to foster drivers to remain committed to
the electronic platform. Hence, the following diagram as per illustrated in Figure 4 concludes
the discussion on the empirical phenomenon of love-hate relationship between the mentioned
actors in the sharing-economy services.
111
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
Mutual benefits exchange
SOCIAL EXCHANGE
THEORY
(Homans, 1958)
Provides relevant benefits to Foster them to stay

respond towards drivers’ committed with the service
welfare and well-being issues provider
Relationship Relationship
Benefits Commitment
COMMITMENT-TRUST
THEORY
(Morgan & Hunt, 1994)
Increase drivers’ commitment
Figure 4: Applying Commitment-trust theory and Social Exchange theory into the empirical phenomena
3) “Keep holding on and do not leave me”: Epilogue of the love-hate relationship
This article has successfully reviewed two theories, namely Commitment-trust theory, and
Social Exchange theory to explain the nature of “love-hate relationship” between the e-hailing
driver with their respective service provider. After all, providing the on-going benefit to
preserve driver’s welfare and well-being seems to be a wise decision, in order to preserve
drivers’ welfare and well-being. For instance, when the drivers are ensuring their safety and
excellent health condition while driving or on-the-job, a sufficient bonus and incentive should
be revised frequently, in order to keep balancing their total spent cost with the obtained wages.
With this in mind, the service provider may consider to readjust the base fare (especially in
Southeast Asian operation) to keep reciprocating drivers’ vehicle daily maintenance cost. As
the new regulation has been imposed, for instance in Malaysia, the year of vehicle being usable
for the e-hailing service operation is limited to the selected vehicle model and has not exceeded
10 years from registered vehicle manufacturing year (Agensi Pengangkutan Awam Darat
Malaysia, 2018). Generally assumed, the vehicles used for e-hailing services are still in a fine
condition, hence, value enjoyed by the end-customer is practical to be offset with the cost spent
by the vehicle owners. Anecdotal evidence, as well as some of our own qualitative work with
the drivers, whereby they were much satisfied when they are driving with Uber due to a
reasonable base fare, when Uber is still operating in Malaysia. Moreover, drivers enjoyed a
fine reciprocate, when the base fare is ample with the cost spent. Furthermore, drivers seem to
be highly affected, when the reciprocate in the sharing activity transaction lost its balance.
Hence, empathy from the service provider is highly needed to create a delicate balance in
preserving drivers’ welfare and well-being.
References
Agensi Pengangkutan Awam Darat Malaysia (APAD). (2018). Garis Panduan Panduan
Perkhidmatan E-hailing di Bawah Perniagaan Pengantaraan. Retrieved from
https://www.apad.gov.my/sites/default/files/garispanduanbil22018garispanduanperkhid
matane-hailingdibawahperniagaanpengantaraancompressed.pdf
112
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
Amirnuddin, P. S., Turner, J. J., Nazrin, A., & Kamarulzaman, A. (2017). The Deregulation
Dilemma : Insight into Perspectives of the Taxi Industry in Malaysia. Law Review,
(February 2017), 90–119.
Anderson, D. N. (2014). “Not just a taxi”? For-profit ridesharing, driver strategies, and VMT.
Transportation, 41(5), 1099–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9531-8
Aurier, P., & N’Goala, G. (2010). The differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship
commitment in service relationship maintenance and development. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 38(3), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-
0163-z
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898. https://doi.org/10.1086/666376
Belk, R. (2007). Why Not Share Rather Than Own? The ANNALS of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 126–140.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206298483
Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734.
https://doi.org/10.1086/612649
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access : Sharing and collaborative consumption online.
Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001
Blau, P. M. (1967). Exchange and power in social life. New York; London; Sydney: John
Wiley & Sons, INC.
Bolton, R. N., & Lemon, K. N. (1999). A Dynamic Model of Customers’ Usage of Services:
Usage as an Antecedent and Consequence of Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research,
36(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152091
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). Beyond Zipcar: Collaborative Consumption. Harvard
Business Review, 88(10), 33.
Botti, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). The Locus of Choice: Personal Causality and Satisfaction
with Hedonic and Utilitarian Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1065–
1078. https://doi.org/10.1086/656570
Browne, R. (2021). Uber employment rights setback is a ‘gut punch’ to its prospects in the UK.
CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/18/uber-is-reclassifying-uk-
drivers-as-workers-heres-what-happens-next.html
Cheng, M. (2016). Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 57, 60–70.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.003
Cheng, X., Su, L., & Yang, B. (2020). An investigation into sharing economy enabled
ridesharing drivers’ trust: A qualitative study. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 40(May 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100956
Chou, S., & Chen, C. W. (2018). The influences of relational benefits on repurchase intention
in service contexts: the roles of gratitude, trust and commitment. Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, 33(5), 680–692. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2017-0187
Christie, N., & Ward, H. (2019). The health and safety risks for people who drive for work in
the gig economy. Journal of Transport and Health, 13(February), 115–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.02.007
Clewlow, R. R., & Mishra, G. S. (2017). Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization,
and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States. In Institute of Transportation Studies
(Vol. 44). https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-44-3-401
Dahlan, J. M. (2020, November). Gig economy is here to stay. New Straits Times. Retrieved
from https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2020/11/638454/gig-economy-here-
stay
113
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
Dulebohn, J. H., Molloy, J. C., Pichler, S. M., & Murray, B. (2009). Employee benefits:
Literature review and emerging issues. Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 86–
103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.10.001
Eckhardt, G. M., Houston, M. B., Jiang, B., Lamberton, C., Rindfleisch, A., & Zervas, G.
(2019). Marketing in the Sharing Economy. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 5–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919861929
Fatima, J. K., & Mascio, R. Di. (2020). Synchronizing relational benefits with customer
commitment profiles. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 28(4), 366–378.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2019.1619089
Fine, S. H. (1980). Toward a Theory of Segmentation by Objectives in Social Marketing.
Journal of Consumer Research, 7(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1086/208787
Grab. (2018). Grab Merges with Uber in Southeast Asia. Grab News. Retrieved from
https://www.grab.com/my/press/business/grab-merges-with-uber-in-sea/
Gwinner, K., Gremler, D., & Bitner, M. (1998). Relational Benefits in Services Industries: The
Customer’s Perspective. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 101–114.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398262002
He, F., & Shen, Z. J. M. (2015). Modeling taxi services with smartphone-based e-hailing
applications. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 58(2015), 93–
106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.06.023
He, F., Wang, X., Lin, X., & Tang, X. (2018). Pricing and penalty compensation strategies of
a taxi-hailing platform. Transportation Research Part C, 86(November 2017), 263–279.
Hepola, J., Leppäniemi, M., & Karjaluoto, H. (2020). Is it all about consumer engagement?
Explaining continuance intention for utilitarian and hedonic service consumption. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102232.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102232
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6),
597–606. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2772990
Ishak, A. (2019, June). Penulis kita menyamar untuk dapatkan lesen e-hailing (PSV).
AskLegal.Com. Retrieved from https://asklegal.my/p/ehailing-PSV-kuliah-lesen-APAD-
ujian-kos-kesihatan
Izahar, M. M. I. (2018). Regulation E-Hailing in Malaysia is There Over-Regulation. Asia Law
Portal, pp. 1–6.
Jais, A. S., & Marzuki, A. (2020). E-hailing services in Malaysia: Current practices and future
outlook. Planning Malaysia, 18(3), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.21837/PM.V18I13.780
Jeong, M., & Oh, H. (2017). Business-to-business social exchange relationship beyond trust
and commitment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 65, 115–124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.06.004
Jesu, C.-F., Gao, L.-X., Melero, I., & Sese, F. J. (2019). What drives consumers’ active
participation in the online channel? Customer equity, experience quality, and relationship
proneness. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 35, 100855.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100855
Jochen, W., Fung, S. K. K., Amrish, M. M., Q., L. S., & Helen, C. H. (2019). Platforms in the
peer-to-peer sharing economy. Journal of Service Management, 30(4), 452–483.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2018-0369
Kanyakumari, D. (2019, October 10). Malaysia’s e-hailing drivers cry foul over new
regulations kicking in this weekend. Channel News Asia (CNA). Retrieved from
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/malaysia-grab-ehailing-regulations-
drivers-outcry-11988348
Lahey, S. (2019, January). Customer service in the sharing economy: a delicate balance. The
Library. Retrieved from https://www.zendesk.com/blog/customer-service-in-the-sharing-
114
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
economy/
Levent, A., & Babak, T. (2019). Emerging themes and theories in the sharing economy: a
critical note for hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 31(1), 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2018-0171
Mahfuzah, T. (2019). Number of e-hailing drivers to drop. SoyaCincau.Com. Retrieved from
https://bm.soyacincau.com/2019/06/17/50-pemandu-e-hailing-berhenti-12-julai-2019/
Mäntymäki, M., Baiyere, A., & Islam, A. K. M. N. (2019). Digital platforms and the changing
nature of physical work: Insights from ride-hailing. International Journal of Information
Management, 49(April), 452–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.007
Mokthar, N. A. (2019, August 29). JPJ KL kuat kuasa peraturan e-hailing 12 Oktober. Berita
Harian Online. Retrieved from
https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/wilayah/2019/08/601406/jpj-kl-kuat-kuasa-
peraturan-e-hailing-12-oktober
Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308
O’Kane, S. (2021). Uber drivers in the UK will now get minimum wage and paid vacation after
a big court win. The Verge.
https://doi.org/https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/16/22334771/uber-uk-drivers-workers-
benefits-employees-decision
Ooi, C. Y., Lim, E. S., & Fernandez, J. (2020). The Sharing Economy : An Analysis of Ride-
Hailing Services in Penang. In L. E. Shiang & K. S. Leng (Eds.), Socio-Economic
Realities in Society (pp. 93–111). Penerbit Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris.
Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and
consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 294–311.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6
Patterson, P., & Smith, T. (2001a). Modeling relationship strength across service types in an
Eastern culture. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(2), 90–113.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230110387470
Patterson, P., & Smith, T. (2001b). Relationship benefits in service industries: a replication in
a Southeast Asian context. Journal of Services Marketing, 15(6), 425–443.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006098
Price, L. L., & Arnould, E. J. (1999). Commercial Friendships: Service Provider-Client
Relationships in Context. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 38.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1251973
Rahman, N. I. A., Rahman, R. A., & Mahmud, M. (2021). Who is Helped and Who is Hurts?
Rebalance the Reciprocity of the E-hailing Services Industry. 7th Asia Pacific Marketing
and Management Conference (APMMC). UNIMAS PUBLISHER.
Research, L. (2019). The World’s Top 4 Ride-Hailing Companies Are Worth More Than $166
Billion “Shared Mobility Poised to Disrupt Multitrillion-Dollar Auto Industry.” Lux
Research. Retrieved from https://www.luxresearchinc.com/shared-mobility-executive-
summary
Rosenblat, A. (2020). Gig Workers Are Here to Stay. It’s Time to Give Them Benefits.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2020/07/gig-workers-are-here-
to-stay-its-time-to-give-them-benefits
Seigyoung, A. (2005). The effects of soft and hard service attributes on loyalty: the mediating
role of trust. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(2), 80–92.
https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040510591394
Seunghwan, L., & Dae-Young, K. (2018). The effect of hedonic and utilitarian values on
satisfaction and loyalty of Airbnb users. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 30(3), 1332–1351. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-
115
e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022
0504
Sun, L., Teunter, R. H., Babai, M. Z., & Hua, G. (2019). Optimal pricing for ride-sourcing
platforms. European Journal of Operational Research, 278(3), 783–795.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.04.044
Teoh, P. Y. (2019). Those driving without PSV licence face jail, fine. New Straits Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/07/503635/those-driving-
without-psv-licence-face-jail-fine#:~:text=“Offenders could be fined
not,conviction%2C” he said yesterday.
Thakur, R. (2019). The moderating role of customer engagement experiences in customer
satisfaction–loyalty relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 53(7), 1278–1310.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2017-0895
The Star. (2020, December). Grab upgrades it’s GrabBenefits programme for over 120,000
partners. The Star Online. Retrieved from
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/12/08/grab-upgrades-its-grabbenefits-
programme-for-over-120000-partners#:~:text=and delivery-partners.-,GrabBenefits is a
first-of-its-kind benefits programme,costs of Grab’s driver-partners.
Wang, X., He, F., Yang, H., & Oliver Gao, H. (2016). Pricing strategies for a taxi-hailing
platform. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 93,
212–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.05.011
Wirtz, J., & Lovelock, C. (2018). Essentials of Services Marketing, (3rd ed.). Pearson
Education Limited.
Wu, T., Zhang, M., Tian, X., Wang, S., & Hua, G. (2020). Spatial differentiation and network
externality in pricing mechanism of online car hailing platform. International Journal of
Production Economics, 219, 275–283.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.05.007
Zhang, W., Honnappa, H., & Ukkusuri, S. V. (2019). Modeling urban taxi services with e-
hailings: A queueing network approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, (November 2018), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.05.036
Zuo, W., Zhu, W., Chen, S., & He, X. (2019). Service quality management of online car-hailing
based on PCN in the sharing economy. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
34, 100827. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100827
116

Applying Theory To Empirical Phenomena: Love-Hate Relationship of E-Hailing Driver-Platform Provider in The Sharing-Economy Services

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applying Theory To Empirical Phenomena: Love-Hate Relationship of E-Hailing Driver-Platform Provider in The Sharing-Economy Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Business and Technology Management

e-ISSN: 2682-7646 | Vol.3, No. 4, 103-116, 2022

Applying Theory to Empirical Phenomena: Love-Hate

Nor Irwani Abdul Rahman1, Rozailin Abdul Rahman1, Murni Mahmud2

*Corresponding Author: i.rahman@live.iium.edu.my

Accepted: 15 January 2022 | Published: 31 January 2022

Abstract: The appearance of sharing economy-services has impacted customers’ lifestyle in

Keywords: E-hailing driver; Sharing economy-services; Commitment-trust theory; Social

1. Introduction and purpose

Customer-service provider relationship versus peer-to-peer relationship

Figure 1: Types of Commerce Relationship in the Sharing Economy-Services

1) Extending the Theoretical Lens

Figure 2: Commitment-Trust Theory (Morgan & Hunt, 1994)

interaction between relationship benefits and commitment, which proposed in commitment-

Social Exchange Theory

Figure 3: Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1958)

Therefore, strategising a business relationship requires not only economic exchanges of

2) From theory to empirical phenomena

Mutual benefits exchange

Provides relevant benefits to Foster them to stay

Increase drivers’ commitment

You might also like