The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0960-0035.htm

IJPDLM
51,5 Last-mile logistics in the sharing
economy: sustainability paradoxes
Btissam Moncef
ISC Paris Business School and CleRMa, Universit
e Clermont Auvergne,
508 Clermont-Ferrand, France, and
Received 31 October 2019
Marlene Monnet Dupuy
Revised 10 June 2020 CRET-LOG, Aix-Marseille Universit
e, Aix-en-Provence, France
27 November 2020
28 December 2020
9 April 2021 Abstract
Accepted 9 April 2021
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore sustainability paradoxes in sharing economy initiatives by
focusing on logistics management in last-mile logistics.
Design/methodology/approach – In this exploratory study, a total of 10 case studies were conducted in
three categories of companies: anti-waste platforms, food delivery platforms and bicycle delivery companies.
Twenty-seven face-to-face interviews with founders and/or managers and contractors (couriers, logistics
service providers or volunteers) were the primary source of data collection. The heterogeneity of the sample
enabled the authors to build an understanding of sustainability paradoxes in the logistics of sharing economy
initiatives.
Findings – The findings indicate how logistics management impacts the sustainability of sharing economy
initiatives in last-mile delivery. The authors identify seven paradoxical tensions (five of them social) generated
by the contradictions between the organizations’ promised environmental and social values and the impacts of
their operations.
Research limitations/implications – This exploratory research is based on a qualitative study of 10 cases
and 27 interviews from heterogeneous samples; further empirical research is needed to ensure generalization.
Practical implications – The paper increases the understanding of environmental and social paradoxical
tensions and awareness of logistics challenges.
Social implications – The paper helps identify ways to reconcile promised values and impacts generated by
sharing economy initiatives while managing last-mile delivery.
Originality/value – The results enrich the literature about the paradoxes in sharing economy initiatives by
providing illustrations in last-mile logistics and exposing the underlying challenges for sharing economy
logistics actors.
Keywords Sharing economy, Logistics, Paradoxes, Tensions, Environmental impact, Social impact,
Last-mile delivery
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics
Management
Vol. 51 No. 5, 2021
pp. 508-527
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0960-0035
DOI 10.1108/IJPDLM-10-2019-0328
Introduction
The sharing economy refers to a diverse ensemble of initiatives (Acquier et al., 2019) that
connect individuals through platforms to carry out sales, rentals, swaps or donations
(Gansky, 2010); create and share goods, services, space and money with each other (Miller,
2016); produce, access and circulate resources (Carbone et al., 2018); and centralize access to
idle assets, making them available for use (Botsman and Rogers, 2010). Sharing through a
community-based online platform makes a great deal of practical and economic sense for the
consumer and promotes sustainable environmental, social and economic development (Belk,
2014; Li et al., 2019).
As it enjoys fast growth and encompasses a wide variety of initiatives, the sharing
economy is transforming business models and logistics organization. A large proportion of
the sharing economy generates physical flows of goods in urban areas, increasing urban
deliveries and extending the nature of logistics resources mobilized (bicycle or cargo-bike
delivery, crowd delivery and storage, volunteers, etc.). Consequently, recent studies have
started to delineate a new promising field of research at the crossroads of the sharing
economy and urban logistics (Carbone et al., 2018).
 Even though most sharing initiatives claim to create economic, environmental or social Logistics in the
value simultaneously (Acquier et al., 2019), a growing number of scholars are raising sharing
questions about the values of the sharing economy (Belk, 2014), highlighting the constraints
and negative externalities associated with urban logistics (Rose et al., 2017; Mangiaracina
economy
et al., 2019) or the increasing financial and political power of the big companies involved in
this sector (Acquier et al., 2019; Friedman, 2014).
Narrowing the focus to crowd logistics initiatives, studies have investigated how this
specific type of sharing initiative creates value through platforms (resource matching, 509
operations management and risk control) (Li et al., 2019), helps drivers to provide customers
with faster and more flexible logistics services (Zhang et al., 2019), enables cost optimization
(Frehe et al., 2017) and reduces the transportation carbon footprint. However, the negative
impacts of crowd logistics have only been highlighted in a few studies, mentioning the
controversial environmental impact (Carbone et al., 2018) or exploring critical social issues
concerning in particular precarious working conditions and road safety (Dablanc et al., 2017).
Overall, the sharing economy’s potential is undeniable (cf. the rise of digital platforms and
instant delivery solutions), but its economic, social and environmental effects are still largely
unknown (Laukkanen and Tura, 2020). For Carbone et al. (2018), any detailed analysis of their
sustainability impact must also include logistical aspects. Drawing on the literature on last-
mile logistics, also referred to as city logistics, urban logistics or city distribution
(Savelsbergh and Van Woensel, 2016), our research aims to elucidate sharing economy
sustainability issues through a logistics management perspective.
Recent reviews of the literature on the sharing economy have stressed the need to study its
paradoxes and to consider its impact on the full range of stakeholders involved (Acquier et al.,
2017, 2019). There is a sharp contrast between the promises made by sharing economy actors
to create positive social and environmental impacts (Acquier et al., 2019) and the tensions
generated by the logistics management of those initiatives, particularly in last-mile delivery
(Carbone et al., 2018). Therefore, we consider that logistics management may be a source of
paradoxical tensions for sustainability, i.e. “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist
simultaneously and persist over time” (Smith and Lewis, 2011).
Our study aims to identify and characterize these paradoxical tensions by focusing on
logistics management and showing the sustainability challenges in last-mile logistics for the
sharing economy. This paper is structured as follows. First, we present a research framework
developed to address the tensions of the sharing economy when associated with urban
logistics. Second, based on a multiple case study in three categories of delivery actors (anti-
waste, food delivery platforms and bicycle delivery companies), we identify, describe and
analyze the paradoxical tensions as they relate to logistics management. Third, we discuss
how our results affect theory and practice, as well as the managerial implications for actors in
sharing economy logistics. Finally, we conclude and offer potential directions for future
research.

Conceptual background
The complex nature of the sharing economy and its inherent tensions
Acquier et al. (2019, p. 7) define the sharing economy as “a set of initiatives that increase the
availability and efficiency of sub-utilized resources in society by organizing peer-to-peer
exchanges or promoting access over ownership, or both.” Sharing economy activities
considered in the literature are very broad and differ depending on the approaches used.
Botsman and Rogers (2010), for example, consider three categories: product/service systems
(i.e. access to products or services without having to own the underlying assets),
redistribution markets (i.e. re-allocation of unwanted or underused goods) and
collaborative lifestyles (i.e. exchange of intangible assets such as space, skills and money).
IJPDLM This wide range of activities implicitly reveals the various types of actor that the sharing
51,5 economy can bring together: donors, anti-waste startups, logistics service providers, digital
platforms, delivery companies, couriers and individuals. Encompassing different activities
and actors, the sharing economy field is complex and generates much disagreement about its
scope and impacts (Acquier et al., 2019).
To identify whether a business is a part of the sharing economy, Acquier et al. (2017)
consider three pillars: access economy (initiatives sharing underutilized assets, such as
510 material resources or skills, to optimize their use), platform economy (initiatives that mediate
decentralized exchanges among peers through digital platforms) and community-based
economy (initiatives coordinating through noncontractual, nonhierarchical or nonmonetized
forms of interaction). At least two of these pillars must exist to build a sharing economy
initiative, but one company cannot be equally strong on all pillars at the same time. Further
on, the authors point out the tensions and paradoxes that emerge when navigating between
the three pillars. For instance, an organization mainly built on the community pillar (with an
initial mission to stimulate the local market or social inclusion) may fail to have a strong
platform pillar (market logic of scaling to the global market). Schor et al. (2016) illustrate these
tensions with the case of Food Swap, among others, which may face a tradeoff between
reducing inequality and increasing market volume. Similarly, an organization embracing the
platform pillar may have trouble keeping the promises of decentralization of power and “true
sharing” (optimization of under-utilized resources, greater environmental resource efficiency)
that underpin the access pillar. These kinds of tension may arise when the platform evolves
as a new intermediary and favors only a few stakeholders (shareholders and users) to the
detriment of others (Acquier et al., 2017). Stimulating as it is, these authors’ perspective on
tensions focuses on the strategic, organizational and institutional analytical dimensions
generating them (Acquier et al., 2019). Even though the sharing economy necessarily entails
the movement of physical flows, as indicated by Carbone et al. (2017), the potential impact of
logistics management on whether tensions occur has not been considered to date.

Logistics management in the last-mile of the sharing economy

Sharing practices may involve storage, shipping and local delivery activities to manage and
plan diverse flows such as products, recovered and recycled materials, data and information,
etc. (Laukkanen and Tura, 2020). These practices have been analyzed in terms of
collaborative consumption (Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Carbone et al., 2018), crowd
logistics (Mladenow et al., 2016; Frehe et al., 2017; Carbone et al., 2017) and urban collaborative
logistics (Rose et al., 2017; Dablanc et al., 2017). As part of these initiatives, logistics can either
support the initiative (salvaging potentially wasted food, for example) or be its actual purpose
(urban delivery business) (Carbone et al., 2018). In sharing economy initiatives, logistics may
be centralized, i.e. operated by the platform as an intermediary (Carbone et al., 2018) or
outsourced to a mass of individuals (crowd, volunteers and self-employed workers) or to
business actors (startups and established large companies) (Frehe et al., 2017). Moreover, the
role of the platform as an intermediary is not just virtual and limited to information, but can
also include physical logistics aspects (Carbone et al., 2018).
Last-mile delivery, particularly in urban areas, is where sharing economy initiatives seem
most likely to develop (Carbone et al., 2017). Crowdsourcing is indeed an efficient means of
making deliveries, as drivers are independent contractors using their own vehicle to provide
logistics services (Castillo et al., 2018). It offers an explicit economic benefit for the courier and
the connecting platform (commissions or fees), while offering convenient (on-demand and
instant delivery services) and affordable delivery to customers (Carbone et al., 2017). To
connect couriers and customers, the platforms use either algorithms or an auction model
where individuals may choose from a pool of offerings (i.e. tasks to be performed)
(Mladenow et al., 2016). These platforms facilitate search, communication and the initiation of Logistics in the
transactions, and also coordinate physical flows and manage invoice payment processes sharing
(Frehe et al., 2017; Acquier et al., 2019). In this context, the inherent externalities of the last mile
could potentially have consequences on the logistics deployed by the sharing economy. For
economy
example, decreasing urban logistics spaces (Rose et al., 2017), declining road safety (Dablanc
et al., 2017), traffic congestion, pollution and noise (Lagorio et al., 2016) may influence logistics
management and choices made by the platform (flow consolidation, organization of routes,
mobilization of vehicles, etc.). Environmental (Carbone et al., 2018) and social (Dablanc et al., 511
2017) externalities have already been considered, but the identification and characterization
of the tensions generated by logistics management in sharing economy initiatives need
further investigation.

Promises and challenges of logistics in the sharing economy

Different types of environmental, social and economic promises are made by sharing
economy initiatives with their value network and perceived by multiple stakeholders. In
urban logistics, various stakeholders such as traditional transporters, couriers and
eco-friendly trucking companies are pursuing the objective of on-time delivery, but with
different operating characteristics and interests (Lagorio et al., 2016). For Dyllick and Rost
(2017), a sharing economy initiative can be sustainable if the net value is positive for all
stakeholders, when the company creates economic value without causing significant
negative economic effects, while creating wider environmental and social benefits.
Challenges have thus been identified that need to be overcome in order to improve the
sustainability and efficiency performance of urban logistics solutions for the sharing
initiatives. Research has identified several ways to minimize the externalities of the sharing
economy: through the development of innovative initiatives in transport and storage
(Mangiaracina et al., 2019), environmental scanning and data management (Lagorio et al.,
2016), and the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making (Rose et al., 2017).
Logistics management supporting the sharing economy is undoubtedly a source of
tensions and paradoxes in sustainability. Constraints imposed on urban logistics (road
congestion, irregular working hours, risk of accidents and higher stress), demand
expectations to increase the speed and frequency of deliveries (Dablanc et al., 2017; Strale,
2019), and the economic motivations of platforms (Acquier et al., 2019) may interfere with
expected environmental and social benefits of sharing initiatives, generating less visible or
ignored negative externalities. Indeed, in the sole pursuit of economic benefits in a
competitive context, such sharing economy platforms may, for example, take advantage of
the distributed workforce and gig economy phenomena, neglecting a logistics approach
aimed at reducing negative externalities. Some of the sharing initiatives make the
crowdsourced drivers a potential structural resource, which generates uncertainty and
risk (they manage their own schedules and may cancel deliveries) (Castillo et al., 2018), raising
questions about data transfer, power and control among actors (Acquier et al., 2017).
Recently, this critical issue of courier status and working conditions, in particular at
Deliveroo, has made headlines in the media (The Economist, 2017–2020; New York Times,
2017–2020; Le Monde, 2017–2020).
Therefore, the discussion around the contradictions between promises of sharing
economy initiatives and the potential negative externalities of last-mile logistics seems to
reveal sustainability paradoxes (Smith and Lewis, 2011; Hahn et al., 2015; Jay et al., 2017).
Paradoxical tensions [1] emerge when two propositions that may be incontestable when
standing alone are incompatible when taken together (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989). Each
proposition taken individually proves to be positive and relevant, but multiple propositions
may be incompatible when considered simultaneously and over time (Smith and Lewis, 2011).
IJPDLM We suggest that paradoxical tensions in the sharing economy arise when social and
51,5 environmental promises clash with the logistical processes implemented to meet the
company’s economic objective. Such tensions, generated through logistics management, are
not explicitly studied in the literature.
Building on research into sharing economy initiatives in last-mile delivery and the
literature on paradoxes, this article aims to provide a deeper understanding of paradoxical
tensions by focusing on logistics management. Our objective is to answer the following
512 research question: What are the paradoxical environmental and social tensions and the
sustainability challenges of last-mile logistics in the sharing economy? The paper juxtaposes
the literature streams on the paradoxical tensions of sharing economy initiatives and the role
and practices of the main logistics actors in charge of organizing the last-mile delivery:
sharing economy platforms.

Methodology
Overall methodological approach
As this research explores the sustainability paradoxes induced by logistics management in
last-mile delivery for sharing economy initiatives, we have chosen a multiple-case
comparative research approach (Eisenhardt, 1989) for its suitability in examining complex
business phenomena (Yin, 2003). We use case studies to grasp a phenomenon in real-world
conditions, especially since the phenomenon and its context (last-mile delivery) are not clearly
and univocally understood (Yin, 1981; Ketokivi and Choi, 2014). Case research typically
involves collecting rich data and capturing different perspectives on the studied phenomenon
(Piekkari et al., 2010). Hence, studying multiple cases provides a stronger base for building
theory than examining a single case (Yin, 2003).
A growing number of startups operate in the very broad sphere of the sharing economy in
various sectors: space and accommodation, transportation and P2P car rental, skill sharing,
finance and P2P lending, consumer goods, professional and personal services. Drawing on
media sources and publicly available websites that list sharing economy initiatives such us
helpyapp.fr [2], we compiled a list of 100 initiatives with various activities. The sharing
economy platforms considered relevant for our study were then identified based on four main
criteria. In line with our theoretical framework, we first selected only platforms that process
physical flows requiring logistics management. As a consequence, coworking and housing
platforms were removed. Second, we chose the platforms whose primary value-creating
activities involve providing last-mile delivery services, coupled with the promise of societal
and/or environmental values. Third, we included only those platforms that illustrate at least
two of the three sharing economy pillars defined by Acquier et al. (2017). Fourth, we excluded
recently created platforms, i.e. established less than two years before January 2020. Twenty-
five platforms fulfilled our early-stage sampling criteria. We then got in touch with the firms
and mobilized our professional network to get platforms to participate in our study. Finally,
10 platforms agreed to participate in our research. They belong to three different categories of
companies involved in last-mile logistics (anti-waste platforms, food delivery platforms and
bicycle delivery companies) widening the scope of analysis beyond a single subgroup and
enabling the discovery of meaningful explanations (Ciulli et al., 2019).

Data collection
The primary data collection method for this study is multiple informant interviews.
Collecting data from several units (Piekkari et al., 2010) – such as delivery platforms and
contractors (couriers, logistics service providers or volunteers) – allowed us to compare the
platform’s vision (to understand its logistics choices and constraints) with the vision of its
contractors to understand their working conditions and identify the societal and Logistics in the
environmental impact of logistics management. Considering both the platform and the sharing
contractors is crucial, given our research question on the paradoxical tensions within the
sharing economy. Table 1 summarizes the companies selected, showing the identified
economy
sharing economy pillars, the number of employees, the respondents’ profiles and the
additional collected data. The research was substantially enriched by external secondary
data, including press reviews and journal articles as well as an online forum connecting more
than 1,000 couriers working with a variety of platforms. The type of internal secondary data 513
varies by platform, including, for example, contracts with stores (anti-waste companies),
delivery routes, quotations for transportation and courier invoices.
We contacted the founders and/or managers of the studied platforms between July 2019
and May 2020. Two of them were relaunched. Anti-waste platforms and bicycle delivery
companies agreed to put us in touch with their couriers. Concerning the food delivery
platforms, we connected to the courier forum and contacted them directly. Two interview
guides were used depending on the interviewee profile. The first, for platforms, consisted of
questions about the overall business environment, the company’s values, the type of
logistics and tools used, the logistics fleet, the challenges they face in achieving their
missions and their business model. The second, for contractors, consisted of questions
about their background, their relationship with the platforms and their working and social
conditions (i.e. payment, contracts, unforeseen events, equipment). The interview guides
were structured as a set of open-ended questions and discussion themes, which enabled the
interviewees to raise matters that were not specifically queried, allowing new issues to
emerge.
Twenty-seven interviews were conducted: 10 face-to-face with founders or managers, 5
interviews by phone and 12 videoconference interviews with the couriers. The average
duration of an interview was 45 min. The responses were recorded and transcribed verbatim.
The analysis follows Miles and Huberman’s (1994) content thematic analysis method using
NVivo. We followed an inductive coding procedure since research on the sharing economy is
in its infancy. The coding grid was first determined by the literature (values and promises of
the platforms, logistics practices, tensions, sustainability issues challenges) and then
enriched by the themes that emerged from the cases. Following Langley (1999), the process
was conducted iteratively to improve specific contextualized insights and generalizability.
Thus, in the first level of coding, we identified economic, social and environmental tensions as
they relate to logistics management. In the second level, we considered the origins of these
tensions. Then at the final level, we identify the pairs of propositions factors which are
relevant when considered individually but which, taken together, generate paradoxical
tensions (Smith and Lewis, 2011).

Description of cases
Category 1: Anti-waste platforms. Recent years have seen the emergence of an increasing
number of companies with the objective of reducing waste. By focusing on food retailers,
positioned at the end of the supply chain, many start-ups (among them FoodMesh, Too Good
to Go and Phenix) have engaged in a fight against food waste. They provide a pickup and
delivery service for stores and distributors who wish to donate unsold goods to nonprofits or
sell product bundles with upcoming expiry dates at discounted prices instead of throwing
them away.
In France, for example, the 2016 Garot law prohibits businesses (supermarkets, retailers,
restaurants) from binning unused food and supports, through tax exemptions, retailers that
donate unused food to charity. The tax exemption (equal to 60% of the cost of the donated
products) covers the fee paid by the store to anti-waste platforms to recover and redistribute

Table 1.
studied [3]
Overview of companies
Social and environmental
promises
Business model
Stakeholders and partners
Logistics resources
Relations and information sharing
tools between the different
partners
Obstacles and logistical
challenges
Anti-waste platforms
Eco-friendly (waste reduction and pickup by
bicycle (C1) or truck (C2)) and social values
(redistribution to nonprofits)
Make money from tax exemption (Garot law)
Make money from apps (commission on each
basket sold) (C2)
Donors (retailers), couriers and LSP (C2), end users
(they pick up their products), volunteers and
nonprofits
C1 – Small fleet of couriers (10) and volunteers
(around 100)
C2 – Carriers with trucks, LSP and clients picking
up the products
C1 – basic software, close follow up of couriers
(planning and unforeseen events)
C2 – Information on food donations
communicated via a platform
Sales via application
Online chat to answer questions
Volunteers are sometimes unreliable
Difficulty to plan routes
Problem of matching the quantities offered and
the logistics used for picking up at the retailer
(volunteers, trucks. . .)
Logistics costs
Food delivery platforms
Eco-friendly at the beginning
(bicycles)
Promotion of flexible jobs
Local delivery
Promise to couriers to earn money
quickly (120 euros per day)
Make money from commission on
each customer order
Restaurants, couriers, end users
Large pool of couriers using
bicycles and scooters (10,000)
Via apps and platform
Rating and monitoring of the
couriers
Outsourced customer service
Lack of human contact with the
platforms (algorithm)
Increasing complexity to manage
the growing number of couriers
51,5
514
IJPDLM
Bicycle delivery platforms
Eco-friendly (delivery by bicycle only)
Willingness to create and develop
positive effects for society
Contracts with customers who pay for
delivery
LSP (UPS/DHL) and individuals
Bicycles, with trailers when needed
Cargo tricycles, couriers
Excel sheets to manage client requests
Other basic software
Major logistical constraints regarding
the weight of parcels to be delivered
(continued )
 Anti-waste platforms Food delivery platforms Bicycle delivery platforms

Employment status Couriers (self-employed (C1)) Couriers (self- employed) Couriers (self-employed) (S1, S2, S3, S4)
Volunteers (C1) Couriers (company employees (S1, S4)
Trucks drivers (company employees) (C2)
LSP (C2)
Customers (C2)
Courier payment Once a month Every two weeks or once a month Fixed and variable wages for couriers
20 euro/hour (not paid if the order is canceled last Variable wages depending on the (15–18 euro/hour) depending on the
minute) (C1) distance and the location of the type of run (S4)
Volunteers not paid (C1) customer Pay based on the number of parcels
Salary (C2) delivered per delivery round
LSP (payment based on truck volume and number
of handlers) (C2)
Social working conditions For couriers (C1) For couriers For couriers
Uncertainty of payment (if the order is canceled) No job security A difficult job, but stable schedules and
Quantities to be transported can be large and Remuneration has decreased in the few unforeseen events
heavy last three years
Job insecurity (dependence on the Garot law) Some “dead” periods during the
For food deliveries (C2) day
Low wages but job security Fierce competition between the
For LSP route-holders
Uncertainty concerning the donations to transport
(number, weight)
Sometimes there is more than initially planned
economy
sharing

515
Logistics in the

Table 1.
IJPDLM its unsold goods. These platforms use a variety of carriers, bike couriers, volunteers, logistics
51,5 service providers with trucks, independent contractors, as well as their own couriers.
This category of start-ups collects and distributes unsold goods in order to respond to
environmental and social issues: reducing food waste and supplying leftover or unsold goods
to charities or helping retailers to sell them at very low prices to people in financial difficulties
or wishing to avoid food waste.
Category 2: Food delivery platforms. Food delivery refers to for-profit start-ups that
516 combine digital technology for online ordering and food delivery, using digital applications to
connect restaurants, couriers and customers. These platforms, including Just Eat, Uber Eats
and Deliveroo, are specialized in delivering meals to customers at home or any other collection
point. Logistics is handled by self-employed couriers using bicycles, cargo-bikes or scooters.
These platforms emphasize values relating to the creation of convenient jobs for the self-
employed, eco-friendly delivery (when using bicycles) and the development of local
businesses. Food delivery platforms have been generating externalities and facing
controversies about the working conditions of their couriers.
Category 3: Bicycle delivery platforms. Specialized in last-mile delivery, this category of
start-ups connects e-commerce players and logistics service providers (such as DHL or
Chronopost) to provide quick and convenient last-mile delivery to customers. This delivery
option appears at the last stage of a purchase from an online retailer. Colisweb, tousfacteurs.
com, Deliver.ee, Stuart and B-Moville are among these start-ups. All the platforms studied
share environmental values since they use bicycles or cargo-bikes for delivery.
To preserve confidentiality and avoid repercussions to interviewees who shared critical
issues of their practices, all the platforms studied have been anonymized: Anti-waste
platforms (C1 and C2), food delivery platforms (F1, F2, F3 and F4) and bicycle delivery
platforms (S1, S2, S3 and S4).

Findings
In this research, we focus on the paradoxical tensions encountered by sharing economy
platforms in logistics management. We present our results with headings indicating the pairs
of propositions that generate the paradoxical tensions identified. We first describe the
promises of the sharing economy platforms and their logistics management choices, each
being incontestable if taken separately. We then explain how these two propositions create
paradoxical tensions and how they become salient when they are considered simultaneously.
Table 2 summarizes our findings.

Connecting supply and demand actors and optimizing logistics

The platforms connect supply and demand actors (donors, contractors, associations and
customers) and also monitor and evaluate activities and planning capacities. To this end, they
use two types of digital interface: one for the couriers to receive the delivery rounds or the
pick-up addresses, the complete list of deliveries, customer phone numbers for validation and
to permit geolocation, rating and pricing; another is used to match supply, demand and the
available courier. Digital technologies are used to forecast customer requests or donations
and to schedule the necessary logistics resources. The pressure on costs related to logistics
resources requires optimization and trade-offs to connect supply and demand.
The unpredictability of these platforms’ environment and logistics (unforeseen events
such as bad weather, traffic and strikes) and the random nature of demand and donations
(last-minute cancellations of donations or deliveries, highly variable weight of goods)
generate tensions. These tensions are often revealed in significant variations in couriers’
schedules leading, among others negative externalities, to cancellation of runs and
 Companies
Logistics in the
Anti- Food Bicycle sharing
Paradoxical tensions Examples waste delivery delivery economy
Connecting supply and demand Social
actors and optimizing logistics Variation in courier schedules x (C1)
(A) Late cancellation of scheduled runs
and payment of couriers 517
Reducing food waste and Environmental
collaborating with large partners Limitation of partnerships with small x (C2)
(B) firms
Developing digital Social
intermediation and oversizing No close follow-up by the platform x
the number of couriers mobilized Pressure on the shifts and x
(C) competition between couriers
Long-term connected deliverer for x
few runs (100 couriers for 10 runs)
Renting of accounts to migrants or x
minors
Monitoring and protecting Social
couriers and paying per delivery Hard job for couriers x x
task (D) Scheduling gives rise to some x (C1) x x
penalties and variation in earnings
for couriers
Remuneration depends on x
algorithms and varies with distance
and fleet size (aggressive pricing
policy)
Some incentives may be removed x
(bad weather compensation)
Reducing gas emissions and Environmental
adjusting delivery capacity (E) The use of trucks/Empty trucks x (C2)
CO2 emissions (trucks, scooters)
Problem of illegal (unlicensed) x
scooter use
Social
Poor working conditions (overloaded x (C1) x
bikes, risk of accidents)
Nonpayment of couriers (if deliveries x (C1) x
are canceled)
Upholding social values and Social
using self-employed workers (F) Precarious employment of couriers x (C1) x
No guarantees, no minimum wage, x
no social security
Greater job insecurity x (C1) x
Developing sustainable solutions Environmental
and integrating partners’ Necessary sorting of unsold goods at x (C2)
logistics flows (G) the time of collection Table 2.
Overnight disruption of the donation x (C2) Summary of the
collection and distribution process paradoxical tensions

corresponding loss of earnings for couriers. For anti-waste companies for example, these
constraints combined with product characteristics (for example, perishable food products) or
the absence of storage solutions (requiring just-in-time management) lead to the use of
couriers as an adjustment variable in this logistic planning and optimization process.
A manager (C1) explains:
IJPDLM It’s nice to deliver by cargo-bike but sometimes it was hell to organize the rounds. All the bakeries
were giving out astronomical quantities at the same time (8 or 8:30 pm) to places that were completely
51,5 scattered. The bikes were so overloaded that my couriers either couldn’t see anything or it was so
heavy that they would fall off. I tried to get them to do short distances, I changed their schedule every
week, tried new logistical loops and calculated the costs that could be involved.
This finding is surprising: while the company’s social values aim to help disadvantaged
people, it generates negative social impacts at the end of the supply chain, impacting the
518 couriers through its logistics management.

Reducing food waste and collaborating with large partners

Anti-waste platforms are designed to reduce waste by collecting unsold goods from a variety
of partners. Collecting small quantities at different points requires the mobilization of
logistics resources (vehicle and driver), making the organization of pick-up rounds more
complex and costlier than collecting large quantities to fill a vehicle. In the case of C2 for
example, these considerations led them to sign donation contracts mostly with large partners
and organizations in order to reduce the logistics costs related to the collection of small,
dispersed quantities.
We have big contracts with big stores, while with convenience stores, we have very few because the
quantities are smaller . . . logistics would be very expensive. (C2)
Despite the objective to reduce waste, these platforms thus create paradoxical tensions by
neglecting small partners and therefore donations to be collected.

Developing digital intermediation and oversizing the number of couriers mobilized

Food delivery platforms use digital apps and powerful algorithms to connect restaurants,
customers and couriers. Customer delivery satisfaction and flow optimization are the main
criteria. Considering the uncertainty about the number of orders, the platforms recruit an
oversized number of drivers, generating a paradoxical tension concerning their remuneration
and working conditions. For example, a food delivery courier explains the pressure they feel
when they book the shifts:
It’s a war to book a shift, everyone wants to work and wants a shift, but we can end up with only 2 or
3 shifts a week when we want to work at least 35 h a week.
When accepting work shifts, couriers never know if and where they will do delivery runs.
Moreover, the algorithms use technological tracking of routes and the number of executed
deliveries to determine each courier’s ranking and put pressure on the laggards, without any
close human follow-up.
We don’t know what is behind the statistics, the algorithm that sends us the orders doesn’t treat all
the couriers the same. When I connect to Uber, if I connect less often even though I accept all the
orders, I can sometimes spend an hour and a half without being pinged. (Food delivery courier)
The food delivery apps look like a game, we have levels to pass, bonuses for satisfaction, but all that
is just hiding mechanisms they implement to foster competitiveness between us. I’ve even received
an email saying “hey, you are only 277th out of 500, move a little faster, here is the ranking of the first
200 and their number of hours, their number of kms travelled. . .” (Food delivery courier)
For the bicycle delivery platforms and anti-waste companies, the centralization of monitoring
and evaluation is also crucial to performance, but done in a more human way compared to
food delivery companies. Couriers experience the impact of unpredictability less when
deliveries are grouped into rounds for example or involve human interactions (by telephone
or face-to-face) to complete the exchanges. At S3, a delivery round covers just one or two Logistics in the
districts so there is a maximum of 6 or 7 min between collection and delivery points. sharing
economy
Monitoring and protecting couriers and paying per delivery task
The algorithms used by the platforms for monitoring the flows determine the delivery
rounds. As mentioned previously, those tools are also supposed to protect the couriers by
offering them flexible (choosing their own working hours and locations fitting their personal 519
life) and lucrative jobs (couriers setting their remuneration by choosing how long or hard they
want to work). Food delivery platforms, for example, use an instant delivery allocation
system as soon as the couriers connect to the app. Couriers’ remuneration is based on the
distance to be covered and on the number of couriers connected to the platform when the
customer order is submitted. The delivery round system used by bicycle delivery platforms is
widely appreciated by the couriers because it ensures revenue for 2 or 3 h – which is different
from the “free” (unscheduled) connection system widely used by food delivery platforms.
At S3, the schedule is posted 15 days in advance at 00:00 and we can book ourselves for the next
15 days. We can withdraw 48 h before, but if you do so on the same day you will be penalized.
(Courier S2)
However, the combination of delivery allocation and remuneration systems leads to social
tensions: variations in wages create competition among couriers, pressure and anxiety. For
example, the free connection system does not guarantee work for couriers when they are very
numerous in a given area. Moreover, the algorithm assigns routes to couriers based on the
number of tasks they have already performed.
At D1, the scheduling system was removed. We don’t have a schedule, we connect when we want, we
click and that’s it. I used to set alerts, but sometimes I was on a run, so I would stop to set my schedule
because in one minute everything goes very fast. If we are not on the schedule for 2 weeks, they
deactivate our account. (Food delivery courier and S3)
Food delivery works with “statistics” for the couriers. The better their stats, the more routes they get
in the future. So, it’s hard for couriers to go on vacation for a long time or exam period, because then
they have “bad” statistics and less work afterwards. (Courier food delivery and S3)
In the case of C1, the couriers are not paid if a delivery is canceled, unlike in the case of C2,
where they are employees. A manager from C1 explains:
For the cancelled deliveries, if we pay the couriers, that means that we aren’t being paid. In terms of
cash flow, we can’t afford that. . .our logistics costs are already huge. (C1)
In addition, a tracking/rating system for couriers has been set up. The dense population in
Paris leads not only to increased competition between couriers but also to illegal practices.
At D1, we have the right to give our account to someone else if they’re an independent contractor.
People rent their account to minors and immigrants. (Food delivery courier)
Getting a license to use a scooter for delivery is very expensive (V1,500), so some people use their
scooters without a license. On courier forums, people are trying to get e-bicycles so they can compete
with the scooters. (Food delivery courier)

Reducing gas emissions and adjusting delivery capacity

All the cases studied claim that one of their goals is to improve the environmental impact of
last-mile delivery through low greenhouse gas emissions. Anti-food-waste platforms indeed
seek to reduce food waste while using eco-friendly transport. They also try to keep their
delivery capacity flexible to be able to handle variations in orders, ensuring that all the
IJPDLM donations are collected. However, the quantities are not always known in advance and the
51,5 vehicle may turn out to be undersized. For these reasons, oversized trucks are sometimes
preferred. Accordingly, truck drivers (company workers or LSPs) often end up driving an
LTL (less than a full truckload of 30 m3). C2 explains that they cannot send a smaller vehicle
because quantities from a given store may double from one day to the next. The start-up
cannot risk refusing any quantities, since the contract with its customers (the stores)
stipulates that all goods made available for donation must be collected. Moreover, constant
520 adjustments to the delivery process (size of vehicle, pick-up times) because donors do not
anticipate quantities and frequencies thus clearly hinders their objective of reducing gas
emissions.
The problem is also that we have clients that require service within 3–5 days, which means we don’t
have time to better prepare our logistics. (Manager C2)
Once I collected food in Paris, late at night after an event, and had to drive around for a long time
while waiting for the delivery address because the first (non-profit) was closed (LSP C2).
Bicycle delivery and food delivery platforms also claim to have a “green delivery” approach.
However, food delivery initiatives increasingly rely on scooters, thus generating a clear
negative impact due to CO2 emissions. This impact is difficult to assess due to the problem of
illegal (unlicensed) vehicles and the lack of information on the overall number of scooters
being used. On the other hand, the logistics model of the bicycle delivery companies studied
(S1, S2 and S3) generates little negative environmental impact, since all delivery routes are
scheduled and are done by bicycle.

Upholding social values and using self-employed workers

The platforms seek to uphold social values by offering jobs to young entrepreneurs or
workers and by supporting social and economic inclusion. Some platforms also aim to
improve working conditions; S4, for example, offers training to all its couriers, contributing to
the professionalization of those jobs.
We are part of a European cycling logistics network and we are taking into account the creation of
this cycling logistics profession, which is able to ride and make deliveries by bicycle.
Simultaneously, in last-mile delivery, couriers are often required to be self-employed to work
for the platforms, allowing them to minimize delivery costs. The type of couriers mobilized
depends on the size of the platform, its customers and its values. S4 has a mixed workforce
with both self-employed workers and employees. C2 has its own employees with a fixed
schedule and wage and rarely uses self-employed workers. Thus, the potential social tensions
are minimized. The company also uses an LSP with trucks when the quantity of donations to
be collected is significant, but it considers positive social impacts when choosing providers.
We try to keep this idea of social values; for example, one of the service providers we work with uses
ex-offenders. (Manager C2)
However, in many cases, platforms make use of self-employed workers, which increases
precarious employment and paradoxical tensions. Concerning food delivery companies, the
workers’ self-employed status (particularly when combined with the platform’s pricing policy
and the increase in the number of couriers) has a negative impact on their working conditions.
Couriers explain:
The self-employed workers are forced to work for a lot of different platforms to have an OK
paycheck. It can reach up to 3000 Euros per month but that means working 70 h a week, so
sometimes they have a very tough schedule with no breaks and just run between deliveries. (Food
delivery and S2 courier)
 We cannot form a union, we don’t have the right to go on strike. (Food delivery courier) Logistics in the
We have no guarantee, no minimum wage, we are dealing with computers. (Food delivery courier sharing
food delivery) economy
They set up an insurance system, but you would really have to smash your head in to get 30 days of
sick leave. (Food delivery courier)

521
Developing sustainable solutions and integrating partners’ logistics flows
The platforms studied aim to develop and promote sustainable solutions for society at
large and in last-mile logistics with objectives of green delivery and social improvement
(waste reduction, flexible job opportunities, food donation, etc.). The founder of S4
explains that:
I wanted to create and develop a company that has positive impacts and repercussions for society,
and there is also the desire to act with an environmental attitude faced with the serious and growing
problem of cities addicted to oil. (Founder S4)
Therefore, they involve and try to raise the awareness of all partners (stores, individuals,
clients, couriers, logistics service providers) to achieve their sustainability objectives. For
example, anti-waste platforms offer corporate social responsibility (CSR) workshops to their
clients and assist them in carrying out a carbon assessment. Nevertheless, paradoxical
tensions are generated when the interconnection with partners’ operations, necessary to
integrate flows in an efficient and consistent way, is difficult. For anti-waste platforms, the
degree of involvement, motivation and sometimes the insufficient time operational staff
spend in the shops can make it difficult to manage the collection rounds.
There needs to be a real follow-up with the stores, the foundation (CSR department) tells them to set
[products] aside rather than in the bin and this “annoys them” sometimes. At the operational level it’s
complicated, there is a lot of turnover in the supermarkets and these are people who already have
difficult jobs (Manager C2).
Moreover, anti-waste platforms are remunerated thanks to tax exemption mechanisms that
retailers (and other companies) can benefit from for food donations made to charities.
However, when the maximum tax-exemption rate is reached, stores may behave
opportunistically and suddenly disrupt the donation collection and distribution process set
up by the platforms. This causes a waste of logistics resources mobilized and even more
importantly a loss of business for the anti-waste entity. A C2 manager and C1 former
manager specify:
Our partners (stores) have a tax exemption ceiling of 0.01% of their turnover. One of our partners
reaches its ceiling all the time, and then they no longer give us the products because it costs them
more money than they can earn. (C2 manager)
It has already happened to me that overnight, the stores stop donating because the quota has been
reached. (C1 former manager)
For bicycle delivery companies, the way their customers (e.g. UPS, DHL) run their own
logistics can further complicate their daily operations
DHL brings us parcels late and demands that customers be delivered on time (at 12 noon for 2 p.m.).
We have to create the parcel in our database, reprocess it, modify it (address, filter according to
schedules, number of couriers, etc.). In addition, [DHL] brings more parcels than expected. A delay of
one hour generated on the first delivery round of the day generates a one-hour delay for all the other
rounds of the day. (S3)
IJPDLM Discussion and implications
51,5 Promised values and paradoxes in last-mile delivery
This research contributes to a better understanding of the paradoxical tensions between
sharing economy promises and logistics management in last-mile delivery. Previous studies
have indeed highlighted the contradictions inherent in the sharing economy (Schor et al.,
2016; Acquier et al., 2017, 2019; Laukkanen and Tura, 2020). Others, independently, have
emphasized the negative externalities of last-mile logistics (Rose et al., 2017; Dablanc et al.,
522 2017). By exploring the tensions experienced by managers, entrepreneurs and couriers
involved in the sharing economy, we thus extend the literature on sustainability paradoxes
(Smith and Lewis, 2011; Hahn et al., 2015; Jay et al., 2017), building on both the sharing
economy and last-mile logistics literature.
Our results point out that although the environmental and social values of sharing
economy initiatives are usually considered positive (Belk, 2014; Ritter and Schanz, 2019) and
create net positive value (Dyllick and Rost, 2017), the way they run their operations in practice
may produce negative outcomes. Our study thus complements previous research related to
the gig economy (Friedman, 2014; Dablanc et al., 2017) by elucidating how sustainable
tensions (notably social tensions) are generated by logistics management, particularly in
platforms using self-employed couriers. As we have shown, employment status is not the
only factor behind the tensions created. It is the combination with either a very strong profit
motive (food delivery) or complex and unpredictable logistics (anti-waste) that generates
negative externalities (i.e. poor working conditions, precariousness, illegal situations, risk-
taking, income instability). Only bicycle delivery companies seem to manage to maintain their
promised values without causing the social conditions of couriers to deteriorate.
We contribute to the emerging research on paradoxes in the supply chain management
field by identifying and illustrating the “unintended” (Carter et al., 2020) contradictions
between the sustainable promises of the platforms and the impacts of their logistics
management. Our results illustrate the need to navigate between and balance different levels
of stakeholders, time horizons and performance objectives (Carter et al., 2020). Among the
seven paradoxical tensions identified, social issues (5/7) appear more numerous than
environmental ones.
As detailed below, our results enrich the framework developed by Smith and Lewis (2011),
which identifies and characterizes different paradoxical tensions within and between
alternative forms of paradoxes: learning, belonging, organizing and performing. By
identifying the paradoxical tensions encountered by the sharing economy platforms
generated by logistics management decisions and challenges, we illustrate multiple tensions
between and within such categories of paradoxes.
Among the seven paradoxical tensions identified, four (A, B, C, D) correspond to
performing (different stakeholder expectations vs competing strategies and objectives) and
organizing paradoxes (collaboration vs competition). The expected outcomes conflict with the
tools, assets and processes underpinning logistics intermediation. Through intermediation,
the platforms play a key role in processing data and sharing information to coordinate the
supply and demand of logistics resources (Zhang et al., 2019). They centralize information,
connect a large number of partners and manage a high volume of flows. To that end, they use
couriers’ services, without guaranteeing them a minimum income and generate fierce
competition between them. Consequently, their operational model does not reflect the initial
sustainable ambitions of the initiative, but are a source of paradoxical tensions, mostly social.
These paradoxical tensions recall the political and market power tensions identified in the
sharing economy (Acquier et al., 2017), moving from decentralization (to the crowd as a
community economy) toward recentralization (platforms as a new intermediary). Our
findings illustrate how this power is captured by these intermediary platforms, preventing
the social promises of the sharing economy from being fulfilled. Our research provides a
contextualization in last-mile logistics of the issues raised by Acquier et al. (2019) about Logistics in the
mission-driven platforms. sharing
In this analysis of the performing and organizing paradoxes, only one environmental
tension (B) has been identified, i.e. in the case of anti-waste platforms. Indeed, although these
economy
platforms aim to reduce waste, the constraints of logistics optimization and cost reduction
may generate operational obstacles to keeping that promise. Actually, the sustainable
performance of logistics is often undermined by major urban logistics issues and externalities
(road congestion, irregular working hours, risk of accidents and higher stress). 523
Among the three other paradoxical tensions identified in this research, the one (F)
emerging between performing and belonging (individual vs collective values) paradoxes
(Smith and Lewis, 2011) highlights the social tensions of sharing economy initiatives.
Notwithstanding the promises to create flexible and sustainable jobs (Dablanc et al., 2017;
Strale, 2019), the pursuit of cost optimization leads platforms to rely on cheap labor, mainly
self-employed workers. The widespread use of this employment status combined with the
unpredictability of last-mile logistics engenders greater precariousness for the couriers (no
minimum wage, no social security).
Another paradoxical tension (E) is related to performing and learning (radical vs
incremental innovation) paradoxes (Smith and Lewis, 2011). These paradoxes are reflected
in the inconsistency between the priority given to collecting as much unsold food as
possible and the logistical choices aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a long-
term perspective. Indeed, the waste reduction platforms face a trade-off between pursuing
their social mission and reducing the environmental impact of their logistics operations.
Despite the organizational and technological development of the platforms (Acquier et al.,
2019), they remain dependent on the unpredictability of the supply. The lack of prior
information concerning goods to be collected (quantity, nature of products, etc.) makes it
difficult to manage logistics efficiently; mobilizing over- or undersized logistical resources
leads to critical environmental issues. Thus, the nature of these anti-waste activities
requires constant short-term adjustments to the logistical means and resources used,
preventing long-term learning. For platforms promoting green delivery by bike, the use of
scooters leads both to environmental pollution (air, noise), illegal situations and risk of
accidents. A key question is still to be answered: how to develop initiatives that will be
viable in the long-term without drifting from their initial distinctive (activist) mission
(Acquier et al., 2019).
The last paradoxical tension (G) identified in this research corresponds to organizing and
belonging paradoxes (Smith and Lewis, 2011). The belonging paradox navigates between
individuals and organizations, suggesting that setting up an organizational structure is
insufficient to prevent paradoxical tensions. For example, the value creation of anti-waste
platforms depends on tax incentives. However, top managers from the main donors
(retailers), mainly interested in the financial incentives of the mechanism, sometimes decide
unilaterally to stop their involvement once the quota is achieved. This tension impairs the
sustainability of these platforms, with consequences for waste. The promises and
expectations inspired by the community sharing-economy pillar (Acquier et al., 2017) are
confronted with the monetary and transactional approach that makes these initiatives viable
from a purely business perspective (Schor et al., 2016).
In line with Smith and Lewis (2011) and Hahn et al. (2015), our results highlight the
predominance of performing paradoxes. Performing paradoxes were identified in the
logistics intermediation role played by the platforms seeking to simultaneously meet a
“plurality of stakeholders’ expectations” (Smith and Lewis, 2011, p. 384). They concern the
long-term economic viability of the platform despite the initial intention of “sharing”. Finally,
this research contributes to the literature developed by Acquier et al. (2019) about mission-
driven for-profit platforms. Our results indeed confirm that, in spite of their social,
IJPDLM environmental and economic values, mission-driven platforms dealing with physical flows
51,5 and related logistics decisions have trouble accommodating all the objectives.

Managerial implications and challenges

The managerial implications of this study are found at different levels.
At the individual level, the identification of sustainability paradoxes is relevant for
524 managers since recognizing the existence of paradoxical tensions is the first step in
elaborating a coping strategy (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989; Jay et al., 2017; Smith and Lewis,
2011). Our study provides an illustration of the performing paradox in last-mile logistics in
the sharing economy. Insights about how the promised values of the sharing economy are
hindered and about how the social paradoxical tensions related to urban deliveries can
stimulate managers’ thinking on “what their values are and what they do to stick to them”,
leading them to plan and design sustainable logistics services for all stakeholders. Identifying
the challenges related to the intermediation role of platforms can help entrepreneurs and
managers to improve the logistics management of their business while achieving the
promised environmental and social outcomes. The identification of constraints, linked to
unpredictability and logistical complexity, highlights the importance of logistical and
informational monitoring in order to anticipate volumes, improve planning and mobilize
adequate logistics resources in a sustainable way.
At the platform level, taking paradoxical tensions into account is crucial for long-term
viability. The negative externalities of logistics raised in the environmental debates are
increasingly being supplanted by social tensions. Cost adjustments in last-mile delivery
cannot continue to be made to the detriment of social conditions in the last link of the delivery
chain, (i.e. couriers, traditional transporters, eco-friendly trucking companies). Respect for
social and environmental values, even in their daily actions, is fundamental for the
development of sustainable last-mile logistics and for the diversification of their activities
(e.g. training and consulting). For anti-waste platforms, this research responds to the need to
understand and evaluate the social and environmental impacts of their logistics choices. For
food delivery platforms, it highlights the efforts to be made to balance the social tensions, by
supporting the use of algorithms with tools, deliberate policies and measures for analyzing
and improving the working conditions of couriers (monitoring, communication, delivery
rounds). For the bicycle delivery companies, which are the exemplary cases in this research,
the few social repercussions result from the real-time adjustment in response to clients’
decisions. The development of a corporate strategy that introduces more ambitious social
welfare rights would enable companies to differentiate themselves from their competitors and
benefit from the support of third parties.

Conclusion and future research

This paper investigates the sustainability paradoxes and challenges of last-mile delivery in
sharing economy initiatives from a logistics management perspective. It makes three
contributions to the literature. First, it contributes to the research on the promises and
paradoxes of the sharing economy by elucidating how logistics management can cause but
also mitigate the environmental and social impacts of these initiatives. Second, it
highlights, through the seven paradoxical tensions identified in the logistics intermediation
role of platforms, the predominance of performing paradoxes and the structuring effects of
social tensions, thus enriching the literature about paradoxes. Third, this exploratory
study, which collected data from food delivery, anti-waste and bicycle delivery companies,
proves particularly valuable for last-mile delivery and for gaining in-depth insights into its
different forms. From a managerial point of view, this research increases the
understanding of existing paradoxes and can help managers develop long-term sustainable Logistics in the
initiatives. sharing
While this exploratory study mobilizes the literature on paradoxes mainly to identify and
categorize the tensions generated in last-mile logistics, our study clearly needs to be extended.
economy
Future research may investigate strategies for resolving paradoxical tensions to elucidate
how platforms can make the right choices between opposing elements, or for reducing the
likelihood of generating tensions. It would also be useful to take a systematic approach,
through a large sample of platforms with common or similar characteristics (size, values, 525
logistics resources and business models), to test our exploratory findings. Third, future
research could take the direction of a large scale survey to assess customer awareness of the
social and environmental impacts of crowd delivery as well as customer expectations in
this field.

Notes
1. In this article, we will use the expressions “tensions”, “paradoxical tensions” and “paradoxes”
indifferently.
2. https://helpyapp.fr/200-services-de-consommation-collaborative-en-france/
3. We give the specificities of each case within the same category when it is relevant. We do not do so
when the characteristics are homogeneous.

References
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T. and Pinkse, J. (2017), “Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: an
organizing framework”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 125, pp. 1-10.
Acquier, A., Carbone, V. and Mass
e, D. (2019), “How to create value (s) in the sharing economy:
business models, scalability, and sustainability”, Technology Innovation Management Review,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 5-24.
Belk, R. (2014), “You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption online”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 1595-1600.
Botsman, R. and Rogers, R. (2010), What’s Mine Is Yours How Collaborative Consumption Is Changing
the Way We Live, Collins, London.
Carbone, V., Rouquet, A. and Roussat, C. (2017), “The rise of crowd logistics: a new way to co-create
logistics value”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 238-252.
Carbone, V., Rouquet, A. and Roussat, C. (2018), “A typology of logistics at work in collaborative
consumption”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 48
No. 6, pp. 570-585.
Carter, C.R., Kaufmann, L. and Ketchen, D.J. (2020), “Expect the unexpected: toward a theory of the
unintended consequences of sustainable supply chain management”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 40 No. 12, pp. 1857-1871.
Castillo, V.E., Bell, J.E., Rose, W.J. and Rodrigues, A.M. (2018), “Crowdsourcing last-mile delivery:
strategic implications and future research directions”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Ciulli, F., Kolk, A. and Boe-Lillegraven, S. (2020), “Circularity brokers: digital platform organizations
and waste recovery in food supply chains”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 167 No. 2,
pp. 299-331.
Dablanc, L., Liu, Z., Koning, M., Klauenberg, J., Kelli de Oliveira, L., Blanquart, C., Combes, F.,
Coulombel, N., Gardrat, M., Heitz, A. and Seidel, S. (2017), Observatory of Strategic Developments
Impacting Urban Logistics, Research Report, IFSTTAR - Institut Français des Sciences et
Technologies des Transports, de l’Am
enagement et des R
eseaux, p. 221.
IJPDLM Dyllick, T. and Rost, Z. (2017), “Towards true product sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 162, pp. 346-360.
51,5
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Frehe, V., Mehmann, J. and Teuteberg, F. (2017), “Understanding and assessing crowd logistics
business models – using everyday people for last-mile delivery”, Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 75-97.
526
Friedman, G. (2014), “Workers without employers: shadow corporations and the rise of the gig
economy”, Review of Keynesian Economics, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 171-188.
Gansky, L. (2010), The Mesh: Why the Future of Business is Sharing, Penguin, New York, NY.
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. and Figge, F. (2015), “Tensions in corporate sustainability: towards an
integrative framework”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127 No. 2, pp. 297-316.
Jay, J., Soderstrom, S. and Grant, G. (2017), “Navigating the paradoxes of sustainability”, in Smith,
W.K., Lewis, M.W., Jarzabkowski, P. and Langley, A. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Organizational Paradox, Oxford University Press.
Ketokivi, M. and Choi, T. (2014), “Renaissance of case research as a scientific method”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 232-240.
Lagorio, A., Pinto, R. and Golini, R. (2016), “Research in urban logistics: a systematic literature
review”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 46 No. 10,
pp. 908-931.
Langley, A. (1999), “Strategies for theorizing from process data”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 691-710.
Laukkanen, M. and Tura, N. (2020), “The potential of sharing economy business models for
sustainable value creation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 253, pp. 1-9.
Li, S., Wu, W., Xia, Y., Zhang, M., Wang, S. and Douglas, M.A. (2019), “How do crowd logistics
platforms create value? An exploratory case study from China”, International Journal of
Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 501-518.
Mangiaracina, R., Perego, A., Seghezzi, A. and Tumino, A. (2019), “Innovative solutions to increase
last-mile delivery efficiency in B2C e-commerce: a literature review”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 901-920.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage
publication, London.
Miller, S.R. (2016), “First principles for regulating the sharing economy”, Harvard Journal on
Legislation, Vol. 53, p. 147.
Mladenow, A., Bauer, C. and Strauss, C. (2016), “‘Crowd logistics’: the contribution of social crowds
in logistics activities”, International Journal of Web Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 379-396.
Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E. and Welch, C. (2010), “‘Good’ case research in industrial marketing:
insights from research practice”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 109-117.
Poole, M.S. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1989), “Using paradox to build management and organization
theories”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 562-578.
Ritter, M. and Schanz, H. (2019), “The sharing economy: a comprehensive business model framework”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 213, pp. 320-331.
Rose, W.J., Bell, J.E., Autry, C.W. and Cherry, C.R. (2017), “Urban logistics: establishing key concepts
and building a conceptual framework for future research”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 56
No. 4, pp. 357-394.
Savelsbergh, M.W.P. and Van Woensel, T. (2016), “City logistics: challenges and opportunities”,
Transportation Science, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 579-590.
Schor, J.B., Fitzmaurice, C., Carfagna, L.B., Attwood-Charles, W. and Poteat, E.D. (2016), “Paradoxes of Logistics in the
openness and distinction in the sharing economy”, Poetics, Vol. 54, pp. 66-81.
sharing
Smith, W.K. and Lewis, M. (2011), “Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of
organizing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 381-403.
economy
Strale, M. (2019), “Sustainable urban logistics: what are we talking about?”, Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 130, pp. 745-751.
Yin, R.K. (1981), “The case study crisis: some answers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26 527
No. 1, pp. 58-65.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research—Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Zhang, M., Xia, Y., Li, S., Wu, W. and Wang, S. (2019), “Crowd logistics platform’s informative support
to logistics performance: scale development and empirical examination”, Sustainability, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 1-19.

Corresponding author
Btissam Moncef can be contacted at: moncefbtissam@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com