4.7 Article

Can innovative business models overcome resistance to electric vehicles? Better Place and battery electric cars in Denmark

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 48, 期 -, 页码 498-505

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.054

关键词

Business models; Electric cars; Better Place

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/E036503/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. ESRC [not_applicable] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Economic and Social Research Council [not_applicable] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/E036503/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper explores the geographical and policy context for an emergent business model from Better Place to deliver battery electric car mobility in Denmark. It argues that the combination of radically different technologies and a highly complex multi-agency operating environment theoretically provide the conditions and requirements for such an emergent business model. While focused on battery electric cars, renewable energy generation and smart grids, the paper has wider applicability to an understanding of the interplay between place, innovation and sustainability which suggests that diverse solutions are likely to be the characteristic solution rather than ubiquity and standardization. The paper argues, however, that the innovative business model, the deployment of electric vehicles, and the use of renewable energy systems, in this case largely based on wind power, while mutually supportive and contributing to wider policy aims with respect to the reduction of carbon emissions, may still fail in the face of entrenched practices. At the theoretical level it is concluded that theorization of business models needs a broader perspective beyond the typical 'value creation, value capture' rubric to better understand the wider role such models have in meeting societal goals, and to understand the structural impediments to organizational and technical innovation. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据