Although previous studies on SE have provided valuable insights into its ecosystem and relevance to business disciplines ^[1][3], they have not specified a particular group of participants, such as customers. Instead, they have been presented as one group without indicating whether they are new or old customers. As a result, they have not been identified as critical elements in the various sharing businesses, distinguished by their specific economic, social, and environmental perspectives ^[2][4]. However, understanding the perspectives of a level of subgroups provides the critical insight needed to enrich the investigations into the participants and the integration between them in the SE ecosystem. Moreover, the value of each participant has not been previously explained, even though understanding the importance of the development of SE platforms is critical to achieving sustainable growth.

SE results in more sustainability within the sharing economy ^[3][5]. Digital technologies have been recognised as critical tools in SE. Sutheland and Jararhi ^[4][6] examined technology as a valuable tool for SE ecosystems. However, its impact on the integration between participants has not been examined in previous studies, which focus on how the technology used in one field may differ from that used in another on SE platforms which assured that the technologies play an essential role in the SE ecosystem. Therefore, it is vital to identify how digital technologies can impact the social and environmental aspects despite the absence of trust. In addition, Laurell and Sandström ^[5][7] discuss market logic and its impact on business. Furthermore, many studies consider the technological impact perspectives, providing a better conceptualisation of SE, but without giving a clear understanding of the value of the technological impact on business sustainability due to the integration between the participants ^[6][7][8,9]. In some studies, digital technology is described as a leading factor in developing business ^[8][10], while other researchers dispute this, seeing it as a platform ^[9][10][11,12].

Many articles have also discussed SE-related topics, such as previously mentioned digital technologies in the SE ecosystem and how SE is presented and used through digital channels ^[11][13]. The debate around the participants in SE has led the researcher in this study to highlight the value of technology in participants’ integration and sustainability. Many studies have examined particular participants and analysed them. As a result, there has been an increase in the awareness and understanding of ecosystems; creating and capturing value through novel models was the focus of attention ^[12][14]. However, these studies do not understand the value of the participant’s role. For example, is each participant in the ecosystem playing the same role, or do they play primary and secondary roles within it? Accordingly, the research has two objectives. The first objective is to understand the value of technologies in integrating SE participants and their impact on business sustainability. The second objective is to clarify the role of the participants in the SE ecosystem by subdividing them into groups and developing a framework to explain the primary and secondary roles they play in each group.

The research contributes to the sharing economy (SE) ecosystem literature. It first adds to the debate about SE participants by explaining operationalisation and integrating multiple participants in economically viable and sustainable urban reconfigurations in shared mobility. The resviearchw contributes to the literature by classifying the participants in the SE ecosystem into primary and secondary groups based on their role within the ecosystem, as detailed in the reviewed articles, which specify the role and the value of each participant in the SE ecosystem. Second, the researchview contributes to the literature by subdividing the participants in the SE ecosystem into groups. For example, customers are subdivided into New Customers (NC) and Current Customers (CC), providers into Product Providers (PP) and Service Providers (SP), and government into Local Government (NG) and National Government (NG). Furthermore, Mediators are subdivided into Small and Medium Mediators (SMM) and Large Mediators (LM). Nevertheless, it helps to highlight the gap in previous studies that presented participants in general terms. For example, customers in the reviewed studies are not specified as new or current. In addition, previous studies do not specify between Local and National Governments. Second, such subdivisions contribute to the literature by further understanding the participants considered in previous studies. Third, the research presents a framework for understanding the value of technologies in integrating SE participants and business sustainability. It also highlights the primary and secondary participants in the SE ecosystem. Fourth, the research develops a more robust understanding of the potential roles of technology in improving the integration between the participants in the SE ecosystem. In practical terms, the study develops an integrative model that can be used by private and public managers for potential expectations for understanding participants’ performance in the SE business. Furthermore, the study explains the value of integration over the short and long term for the sustainability of businesses.

Starting by considering the term SE, which has many definitions, it was found that various terms are related to it. Dredge and Gyimóthy ^[13][15] found 17 such terms, including collaboration consumption, peer-to-peer, and digital economy. Some of these definitions were based on the researchers’ understanding of the meaning of SE, which could contradict each other, as they represent the points of view of the different authors. As Görög ^[14][16] states, “Although sharing economy phenomenon is clear, it has no bright understanding between academics and practitioners too” ^[14][16] (p. 176). The points of view will probably not come together in one definition ^[15][17] (p. 1). One definition could be related to the economic system: “a comprehensive definition for the SE, an economic system in which an online platform connects the supply and demand sides to facilitate transactions of giving temporary access to idle resources” ^[16][2] (p. 45). However, the explanation provided by Lim ^[3][5] of the development of the sharing concept combined with the timeline starting from 1900. In the 1950s, the selling concept was introduced, which developed into marketing in the 1960s. The 1970s was the start of the social market, while the 1980s to the 2000s saw the collaboration concept. Lim’s ^[3][5] definition was more precise: “The sharing economy is a marketplace that consists of entities (e.g., consumers, organisations) that innovatively and sustainably shape how marketing exchanges of valuable products and resources are produced and consumed through sharing, which can occur when entities take part in (e.g., divide and distribute) the actual or life-cycle use of a product or resource and communicate some form of information, which can be scaled using technology”. ^[3][5] (p. 7). Belk ^[17][18], also differentiated between the definition of the sharing economy and collaboration consumption. His definition of SE involved “true sharing, entailing temporary access rather than ownership, no fees or compensation, and the use of digital platforms. Most of the commercial platforms included in the sharing economy not belong there” ^[17][18] (p. 1597). Moreover, the definition of collaboration consumption involved “people coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation. By including other compensation.” ^[17][18] (p. 1597). However, the definition of collaboration consumption is still related to the SE framework. Therefore, it could be considered one of the definitions of SE, as there is no consistent definition.

Ecosystems are becoming increasingly known and understood; new models are being developed to capture value ^[18][19]. The ecosystem has many definitions related to several elements. For example, Thomas and Ritala ^[19][20] defined it as a set of mutual understandings among ecosystem participants regarding the central, enduring, and distinctive characteristics of the ecosystem value proposition (p. 14). However, Wallace ^[20][21] employs an environmental understanding to define the ecosystem as “the point at which one or more humans consume the asset [of nature] is the point where the service occurs and should be evaluated” (p. 240). Danley and Widmark ^[21][22] identify ecosystem definitions from the service and conceptual prospects. They conclude that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment configured a comprehensive definition of ecosystem services as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” ^[22][23] (p. V). Haines-Young and Potschin ^[23][24] adopt a definition in the same direction: “the outputs of ecosystems (whether natural, semi-natural or highly modified) that most directly affect the well-being of people” (p. 9).

In addition, Peltoniemi and Vuori ^[24][25] define the ecosystem as a “system of organisms occupying a habitat, together with those aspects of the physical environment with which they interact” (p. 2). Therefore, it is necessary to review several definitions to understand the meaning of the participants’ terms and whether there are differences between researchers in reaching a definition. For example, Verba et al. ^[25][26] define participation as an “activity that is intended or has the consequence of affecting, either directly or indirectly, government action” (p. 7). In comparison, Park and Perry ^[26][27] identified participation as “individual and collective engagement in public affairs” (p. 191). However, nowadays, participants work digitally, participating online. Lutz et al. ^[27][28] define online participation as “the creation and sharing of content on the Internet addressed at a specific audience and driven by a social purpose” (p. 881). In addition, Morozov and other auothers ^[28][29][30][29,30,31] considers online participants as affiliation businesses, not peer-to-peer businesses.