Table 2 Influences and governance on... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Influences and governance on interactions, change of ecosystem architecture

	Strategic influences on interactions	Governance of interactions	Changes of ecosystem value creation architecture	Types of interactions
OEM	• The investigated OEMs introduced xEVs in the past. The profitability of these undertakings was limited • OEMs view technological requirements toward xEVs as volatile and perceive the need to increase cooperation with ecosystem actors to improve the profit of new technologies	• OEMs can influence the technological directions of partners in the ecosystem. OEMs relay regulatory influences (e.g. emission regulations) to their partners • Regarding their relations, OEMs generally mention a tendency to avoid strong dependencies on other ecosystem actors	• OEMs state that energy companies lacked the initiative to establish electric charging infrastructure. To be able to sell xEVs, they needed to provide charging infrastructure solutions • OEMs reorientate their focus upstream (supporting suppliers to establish economies of scale with new technologies) and downstream (acting as infrastructure providers)	• Due to their initiatives toward xEVs, OEMs` overall number of ecosystem partners has recently increased • OEMs cooperate with energy companies and establish joint ventures to offer charging infrastructure solutions
ETP	• Report that environmental regulations emerge and new automotive OEMs are entering the market of xEVs • OEMs outsource competencies to ETPs	• Act as mediator to provide information and advice between several ecosystem members • Only limited influence on technological developments in the ecosystem	• Non-automotive actors enter automotive ecosystems ETPs facilitate interactions between established and newly entered ecosystem members	• Aim for coopetition with suppliers due to complementary but also redundant competencies
SUP(e)	• Benefit from Increased attractiveness of technologies due to sustainability requirements, political funding and maturity of technologies • Driven by OEMs, but suppliers are more flexible in shifting to xEV technologies	• OEMs drive their behavior, while suppliers coordinate upstream supplier networks	• Report of lower entry barriers for new competitors into xEVs than for petrol-based vehicles • New suppliers enter the market • SUPs directly interact with other ecosystem members that were coordinated by OEMs before	• Aim for cooperation with the entire ecosystem and new players simultaneously
SUP(f)	• Pursue a market leadership strategy of xEV components driven by OEM requirements	• Cooperate with large customers (e.g. FOs) to influence OEMs, such as exclusive partnerships	• Aim for cooperation via licensing of technologies	• Seek contractors for high-volume manufacturing, which are scarce
RET	• Availability of complementary solutions (electric charging infrastructure, charging technology) and vehicle batteries (range, costs) • Strict regulations regarding the charging infrastructure, technology-market fit	• Largely dependent of affiliated OEMs	• Growing importance of energy providers and charging infrastructure	• Try to balance the disadvantages of xEVs through collaborations with rental companies • Coopetition relation with energy providers, seen as thread but also cooperation
FO	• Governmental funding and incentives lead to increased use of xEVs • Corporate fleet operators are placed under political pressure to adopt more sustainable technologies. However, high initial investments and the need for external partners to maintain xEVs are still cited as concerns • Corporate fleet operators would rather not depend on public infrastructure providers	• They are upscaling xEVs in their vehicle fleets as a means to satisfy the requirements of stakeholders and customers • Corporate fleet operators depend on OEMs for their xEVs and are limited by the overall low availability of xEVs • Energy companies currently play only a minor role for corporate fleet operators	• Establishing sophisticated solutions for xEVs is perceived as challenging due to their current low availability and small market shares • Corporate operators of vehicle fleets rely on ecosystem actors to establish their own proprietary charging infrastructure	• Due to the low number of xEVs on the market, corporate operators of vehicle fleets are currently limited in their xEV initiatives • Value long-term co-creation relations, where they use their expertise in operating xEVs to support OEMs in their development efforts • Rely on collaborations with external actors (e.g. booking software, physical infrastructure) to establish their own charging solutions. Collaborations with energy companies are seen as attractive in the long run
EC(e)	• Monitor their environment to (1) time their technologies and (2) align their activities with other ecosystem actors (e.g. OEMs)	• Have little influence on central ecosystem actors (e.g. OEMs). The technological development of xEV charging stations is primarily defined by OEMs • ECs increased collaboration to offer seamless coverage for electric charging infrastructure	• The energy sector and the automotive sector are perceived to converge. OEMs and energy suppliers are beginning to offer their customers integrated energy solutions (including xEV charging) • Energy suppliers have begun to start to offer complementary digital solutions to customers	• Experience potential competition from OEMs in selected areas (predominately xEV charging and xEV car sharing) • Simultaneously, ECs often rely on the same ecosystem actors for new technologies • ECs see themselves as enabling to use charging infrastructure for B2B–and B2C customers
EC(p)	• Technological and financial risks and the low availability of xEVs are hindrances to investing in the energy grid or in charging infrastructure	• No significant changes	• No significant changes	• No significant changes
INF	• The dominant role of OEMs for xEV charging (e.g. through influencing standards and industry norms) • Aim to provide easy-to-use charging solutions for a broader audience • Monitoring of environment for technologies	• They are affiliated with companies in the energy sector – Governance via personal relations and joint research projects • Have tried to introduce charging solutions without involving OEMs to support rapid innovation • Infrastructure company Beta is affiliated with an automotive OEM which helped the company influence its suppliers	• Cooperation with suppliers of automotive OEMs • OEMs tend to insource complementary activities (e.g. charging of vehicles) to act as complete solution providers for xEVs • As the xEV market grows, companies in the ecosystem need to specialize and differentiate • Need to integrate solutions from multiple industries	• Coopetition as OEMs are moving into the charging infrastructure area • Predominantly cooperate with research institutions and energy companies

	Strategic influences on interactions	Governance of interactions	Changes of ecosystem value creation architecture	Types of interactions
OEM	• The investigated OEMs introduced xEVs in the past. The profitability of these undertakings was limited • OEMs view technological requirements toward xEVs as volatile and perceive the need to increase cooperation with ecosystem actors to improve the profit of new technologies	• OEMs can influence the technological directions of partners in the ecosystem. OEMs relay regulatory influences (e.g. emission regulations) to their partners • Regarding their relations, OEMs generally mention a tendency to avoid strong dependencies on other ecosystem actors	• OEMs state that energy companies lacked the initiative to establish electric charging infrastructure. To be able to sell xEVs, they needed to provide charging infrastructure solutions • OEMs reorientate their focus upstream (supporting suppliers to establish economies of scale with new technologies) and downstream (acting as infrastructure providers)	• Due to their initiatives toward xEVs, OEMs` overall number of ecosystem partners has recently increased • OEMs cooperate with energy companies and establish joint ventures to offer charging infrastructure solutions
ETP	• Report that environmental regulations emerge and new automotive OEMs are entering the market of xEVs • OEMs outsource competencies to ETPs	• Act as mediator to provide information and advice between several ecosystem members • Only limited influence on technological developments in the ecosystem	• Non-automotive actors enter automotive ecosystems ETPs facilitate interactions between established and newly entered ecosystem members	• Aim for coopetition with suppliers due to complementary but also redundant competencies
SUP(e)	• Benefit from Increased attractiveness of technologies due to sustainability requirements, political funding and maturity of technologies • Driven by OEMs, but suppliers are more flexible in shifting to xEV technologies	• OEMs drive their behavior, while suppliers coordinate upstream supplier networks	• Report of lower entry barriers for new competitors into xEVs than for petrol-based vehicles • New suppliers enter the market • SUPs directly interact with other ecosystem members that were coordinated by OEMs before	• Aim for cooperation with the entire ecosystem and new players simultaneously
SUP(f)	• Pursue a market leadership strategy of xEV components driven by OEM requirements	• Cooperate with large customers (e.g. FOs) to influence OEMs, such as exclusive partnerships	• Aim for cooperation via licensing of technologies	• Seek contractors for high-volume manufacturing, which are scarce
RET	• Availability of complementary solutions (electric charging infrastructure, charging technology) and vehicle batteries (range, costs) • Strict regulations regarding the charging infrastructure, technology-market fit	• Largely dependent of affiliated OEMs	• Growing importance of energy providers and charging infrastructure	• Try to balance the disadvantages of xEVs through collaborations with rental companies • Coopetition relation with energy providers, seen as thread but also cooperation
FO	• Governmental funding and incentives lead to increased use of xEVs • Corporate fleet operators are placed under political pressure to adopt more sustainable technologies. However, high initial investments and the need for external partners to maintain xEVs are still cited as concerns • Corporate fleet operators would rather not depend on public infrastructure providers	• They are upscaling xEVs in their vehicle fleets as a means to satisfy the requirements of stakeholders and customers • Corporate fleet operators depend on OEMs for their xEVs and are limited by the overall low availability of xEVs • Energy companies currently play only a minor role for corporate fleet operators	• Establishing sophisticated solutions for xEVs is perceived as challenging due to their current low availability and small market shares • Corporate operators of vehicle fleets rely on ecosystem actors to establish their own proprietary charging infrastructure	• Due to the low number of xEVs on the market, corporate operators of vehicle fleets are currently limited in their xEV initiatives • Value long-term co-creation relations, where they use their expertise in operating xEVs to support OEMs in their development efforts • Rely on collaborations with external actors (e.g. booking software, physical infrastructure) to establish their own charging solutions. Collaborations with energy companies are seen as attractive in the long run
EC(e)	• Monitor their environment to (1) time their technologies and (2) align their activities with other ecosystem actors (e.g. OEMs)	• Have little influence on central ecosystem actors (e.g. OEMs). The technological development of xEV charging stations is primarily defined by OEMs • ECs increased collaboration to offer seamless coverage for electric charging infrastructure	• The energy sector and the automotive sector are perceived to converge. OEMs and energy suppliers are beginning to offer their customers integrated energy solutions (including xEV charging) • Energy suppliers have begun to start to offer complementary digital solutions to customers	• Experience potential competition from OEMs in selected areas (predominately xEV charging and xEV car sharing) • Simultaneously, ECs often rely on the same ecosystem actors for new technologies • ECs see themselves as enabling to use charging infrastructure for B2B–and B2C customers
EC(p)	• Technological and financial risks and the low availability of xEVs are hindrances to investing in the energy grid or in charging infrastructure	• No significant changes	• No significant changes	• No significant changes
INF	• The dominant role of OEMs for xEV charging (e.g. through influencing standards and industry norms) • Aim to provide easy-to-use charging solutions for a broader audience • Monitoring of environment for technologies	• They are affiliated with companies in the energy sector – Governance via personal relations and joint research projects • Have tried to introduce charging solutions without involving OEMs to support rapid innovation • Infrastructure company Beta is affiliated with an automotive OEM which helped the company influence its suppliers	• Cooperation with suppliers of automotive OEMs • OEMs tend to insource complementary activities (e.g. charging of vehicles) to act as complete solution providers for xEVs • As the xEV market grows, companies in the ecosystem need to specialize and differentiate • Need to integrate solutions from multiple industries	• Coopetition as OEMs are moving into the charging infrastructure area • Predominantly cooperate with research institutions and energy companies

Source(s): Own elaboration