Energy Policy 60 (2013) 531–539

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Socio-technical inertia: Understanding the barriers to electric vehicles

Simone Steinhilber a,1, Peter Wells b,2, Samarthia Thankappan c,n
a
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Breslauer Strasse 48, 76139 Karlsruhe, Germany
b
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Aberconway Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff, CF10 3EU, United Kingdom
c
Environment Department, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, United Kingdom

H I G H L I G H T S

 Immature developing technology reason behind non-commercialisation of EVs.

 EVs currently do not present a significant benefit to the electricity sector.
 EVs rely on a mix of regulatory and government measures for their development.
 EVs face lock-in problem of unsustainable technologies and related barriers.
 Positive milieu for innovation in vehicle technology and business models are required.

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: It is widely accepted that electrification of the transport sector is one of several technological trajectories
Received 26 April 2013 that could redress some of the environmental issues associated with the growth in travel demand
Accepted 30 April 2013 including climate change and oil demand at a global scale, and air quality and noise pollution at the
Available online 27 May 2013
urban scale. Electric vehicles have been considered a promising technology at repeated intervals over the
Keywords: last century, but this promise has not been realised. This paper is a contribution to understanding the key
Electric vehicles tools and strategies that might enable the successful introduction of new technologies and innovations
Transitions management by exploring the key barriers to electric vehicles encountered in two countries (UK and Germany) where
Socio-technical systems the automobile industry has been historically significant. The study evaluates stakeholders' opinions on
relevant regulation, infrastructure investment, R&D incentives, and consumer incentives. The key
findings of the research are that the introduction and penetration of EVs is confronted by several
barriers that inhibit a larger market penetration under current conditions, which in turn casts doubt on
the assumptions of strategic niche management and transitions theory.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Potter (2007) explored consumer attitudes-action gap towards

Electric Vehicles (EVs) have been considered a promising
technology at repeated intervals over the last century (EFTE,
2009). However, they have failed to compete with the internal
combustion engine (ibid). Sovacool and Hirsh (2008) emphasize
that the introduction of EV technology faces technical barriers, but
social and political hurdles are equally important. Such hurdles
include improper assessment of discount rates and future fuel
savings by consumers, as well as their hesitation in trusting new,
radical technologies, and institutional and business barriers. Ewing
and Sarigollu (2000) assessed consumer preference, and Lane and
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1904 324324.
E-mail addresses: simone.steinhilber@isi.fraunhofer.de (S. Steinhilber),
WellsPE@cf.ac.uk (P. Wells), samarthia.thankappan@york.ac.uk (S. Thankappan).
1
Tel.: +49 721 6809281.
2
Tel.: +44 2920 875 717.
cleaner vehicles. The techno-economic barriers discussed by Dijk
and Yarime (2010) are better understood in the light of the extent
of changes that may ensue with a major technology shift.
The International Transport Forum (2010) concludes that low-
ering CO2 emissions by controlling the volume of transport is
unlikely; in other words behavioural changes were considered
unlikely to allow significant reductions in CO2 emissions. Instead,
in their view, emissions targets will mainly have to be achieved via
technological improvements, which mean more efficient internal
combustion engines (ICE) in the short run, and new technologies
such as electrification in the long run. No single technology
however will be able to satisfy all transport demands (Jorgensen,
2008; Magnusson and Berggren, 2011). The King Review on Low
Emissions Vehicles (King, 2007, 2008) sees different roles for
different fuels, but emphasizes that in the long run, only truly
zero-emission technologies should prevail. In this respect, elec-
trification of the transport sector is one of several technological

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.076
532 S. Steinhilber et al. / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 531–539
solutions which can help redress the issues associated with
growth in travel demand, including climate change and oil
demand at a global scale, regional issues such as infrastructure
needs, and air pollution, health impacts, safety, equity, traffic
congestion, and noise at a local level.
This paper first outlines briefly socio-technical transitions
theory and the related concept of strategic niche management in
the context of EVs. We argue that, while socio-technical transitions
theory has been a powerful tool in helping understanding of how
and why changes occur in the social application of technology,
there has been a relative neglect of how embedded regimes may
have diverse evolutionary pathways including non-change. This
section then identifies six key regime characteristics from the
literature that are explored in the empirical research as vectors or
barriers to change. Section 3 then presents the methodology used
in the research, while Section 4 presents the main outcomes in
each of the six characteristics: Regulation and governance; infra-
structure; R&D incentives; technology and standardisation; busi-
ness models; and consumer incentives. In Section 5 the discussion
is opened up around the central issue: How far can socio-technical
transitions be managed? Drawing from the two case study
countries it is evident that contemporary attempts to enact a
transition to EVs have manifestly failed. It is concluded in Section 6
that more attention needs to be paid to how existing regimes may
either remain intact or, as explored by Turnheim and Geels (2012)
in the case of the UK coal industry, may fragment; perhaps those
concerned with the management of socio-technical transitions
need to focus more on the dismantling of the existing regime
rather than the nurturing of a new one.
2. Socio-technical transitions and electric vehicle mobility
Kemp et al. (2012), posit that the transition to low carbon
transport requires a new notion of mobility, a group of several
new technologies and further reinforced by more sustainable
behaviour. It can be anticipated that technological innovation can
help impede the process of transition to a more efficient and
sustainable transport system by focussing on key factors like: the
efficiency of the vehicle; cleaner energy use; and safer, more secure
infrastructure operations.
In policy terms, the intermixed character of low carbon trans-
port systems with many other policy fields makes integrated
strategies necessary but also more problematic (Wells, 2012).
Intervention has been premised on strategies intended to enable
an early adoption of low carbon vehicles within an intelligent,
responsive and adaptive transport system. This paper offers a
critique of the ‘shortest paths’ approach to the adoption of low
carbon transport technologies.
The theorisation of socio-technical systems has become more
sophisticated and empirically informed over time. Early studies of
innovation diffusion emphasised the significance of social interac-
tion and learning in accelerating the adoption of an innovation
(Foster, 1986; Abernathy and Utterback, 1978). Bruckner et al.
(1996) developed an elementary evolutionary model to under-
stand the conditions that lead to technological substitution. They
demonstrated that an apparently ‘superior’ technology can be
confronted with barriers that constrain market share. A key
concept in the evolutionary approach is that of the niche, wherein
a technology may be nurtured or managed (Hoogma et al., 2002).
It is claimed that in such environments new technologies can be
supported by user groups willing to pay a significant premium for
the superior characteristics. After introduction, users may also
introduce subsequent improvements. Such a gradual process
allows the technology to diffuse through niches (Geels, 2002;
Levinthal, 1998) and thereby initiate a process of regime transition.
Faber and Frenken (2009) are of the view that when a critical
mass of adopters simultaneously switches to the new technology
through some form of coordination, all others will follow and
adopt the new technology as well.
In recent years, at least two well-developed evolutionary
sustainable innovation policy approaches have stood out which
attempt to integrate the insights gained in innovation policy
practice: strategic niche management; and transitions theory.
First, the strategic niche management (SNM) approach, described
by Rip (1992) and later elaborated by Schot et al. (1996), Kemp
(1997) and Hoogma et al. (2002) is a framework to induce and
manage technological regime shifts (Kemp et al., 2001) and is used
to explain the success or failure of promising technologies. Based
on the analysis as well as recent innovation literature van der Laak
et al. (2007) developed a list of niche development guidelines that
is important to consider when developing bio-fuel policies for
example. Through SNM concepts one can systematically document
the initial activities and processes that lead to the eventual
adoption and broad diffusion of new technologies in society, and
with which one can take stock of important stimulating and
constraining factors in that process (Hoogma et al., 2002; Kemp
et al., 1998, 2001; Weber et al., 1999; Elzen et al., 2004; Raven,
2005, 2006). van Eijck and Romijn (2008) used SNM as a principle
analytical tool to analyse how the scope for an energy transition is
influenced by factors at three societal levels: the overarching
‘landscape’; the sectoral setting or ‘regime’; and the ‘niche’ level
where innovation develops and diffuses. This so-called multi-level
perspective has become a key organising principle in many
applications of transitions theory.
Second, the Transition Management approach which evolved
from insights from the SNM approach with its broader scope on
system changes and system innovation, and reliance on evolving
adaptive portfolios (e.g. Rotmans et al., 2001; Kemp and Loorbach,
2006). The Transition Management approach seeks sustainable
transitions to tackle problems that require system innovation
(Rotmans et al., 2000; Kemp and Loorbach, 2006; Loorbach and
Kemp, 2007; Loorbach, 2007). The fundamental underlying policy
is that of goal-oriented modulation to attain a socially acceptable
transition. Furthermore, several transition paths can be formulated
to avoid lock-ins. Transition Management therefore serves as a
self-correction mechanism based on policy and social learning.
The literature focuses on the use of socio-technical experi-
ments, and explicitly, Strategic Niche Management for the execu-
tion and administration of protected niches for propitious societal
explorations. Kemp et al. (2000) propose that the primary aim
should be to assess the functioning, outcome, economic feasibility
and social appeal of the technology and the resultant knowledge
should be used to inform private and public policies to enable
further development. As Rosenberg (1982) highlights in his study,
that new technology often requires effective policy support, as a
new technology may not be cost-efficient in all applications
especially during the early stages of its development. New tech-
nologies continuously need to be enhanced in terms of meeting
producer and user needs. Further, it may also require another
technology and infrastructure that can harmonise its production
and use. The case for SNM establishes resolutely for such advance-
ments contributing towards wider sustainability (Kemp et al.,
1998; Weber and Dorda, 1999).
Strategic niche management has its own criticisms for being
more of a bottom-up strategy. However this strategy can still be
viewed as useful for assessing technology needs, imperfections
and strategies to overcome any associated issues (Hoogma et al.,
2002; van der Laak et al., 2007).
Nill and Zundel (2001), Zundel et al. (2005) propose the
concept of “time strategies” that focuses on political preparedness
and utilisation of time windows of opportunities during the
 S. Steinhilber et al. / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 531–539
unstable phases of technological competition. Further, van den
Bergh et al. (2007) include evolutionary-economic principles for
policy such as extended level playing field which presents a
scheme for evaluating government policies (environmental, inno-
vation and economic policy).
The impact of heterogeneity of preferences on technological
change has been studied extensively in evolutionary models of
technology adoption using a variety of modelling approaches,
including diffusion models with increasing returns (Dalle, 1997;
Weisbuch et al., 2008), co-evolutionary models of users and
producers (Windrum and Birchenhall, 1998, 2005); Janssen and
Jager, 2002) and extensions of the Nelson-and-Winter model
(Malerba et al., 2007; Jonard and Yildizoglu, 1998). These models
reiterate the view that niches are important for technological
transitions to take place, as the new technology can be developed
within the niche before being introduced more widely. Such
models conceptually support policy measures and regulations
aimed to have environmental technologies mature in niche mar-
kets, a notion that has been recognized in the policy concept of
strategic niche management (Kemp et al., 1998; Schot et al., 1994).
Empirical analysis of innovation systems has previously sought
identification of systems failures in terms of market mechanisms
failing to achieve socially-defined objectives, thereby underwriting
the rationale for public policy intervention (Edquist, 2002). How-
ever, EVs are different in some important respects with regard to
transitions theory and strategic niche management. First, EVs are
not a technically superior product in respect of some important
product characteristics. Second, EVs have been subject to pro-
longed and extensive ‘management’ in which strategic niches have
been identified and attempts to stimulate the mass market have
been made. The failure to achieve market penetration thus gives
rise to concerns with the prescriptions of SNM and transitions
theory.
Based on the literature, this paper draws on six key instru-
ments which also constitute the principle mechanisms for change
in transition theory. The rationales for the choice of these six
instruments are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Laclau and Mouffe (1985) and Jessop (1990) suggest that the
theories of governance and regulation theory both entail that it is
in and through governance that the basic elements of their
interests are altered through complex representation into explicit
moments within a given mode of governance (or regulation).
Regulation and governance are the cornerstones of transitions
theory in that the focus is on how production and consumption
systems are constructed and sustained in steady systems. A system
robustly produces and reproduces the conditions for its own
continuation (Geels, 2002); a systemic shift is therefore partly
achieved by intentionally creating new conditions, new rules of
governance, and new metrics of regulation.
Empirical evidences highlight that investing in infrastructure
may trigger technical change by affecting incentives for R&D, and
can be viewed as a complementary contribution to private and
human capital growth (Fernald, 1999; Bougheas et al., 2000;
Hulten et al., 2006). Schiffbauer (2007), draws a positive relation-
ship between the infrastructure capital availability and the incen-
tives to invest in R&D, postulating that infrastructure capital
reduces transportation inefficiencies and other management costs
that result from the use of a range of intermediate goods in the
production sector.
Infrastructure investments are key in the context of the transi-
tion to EVs because any mobility system requires the parallel
deployment of an infrastructure and vehicles. The existing infra-
structure of roads, parking facilities, repair facilities, and other
institutional arrangements represent large sunk investments into
which EVs must be inserted. Additionally, EVs require some
dedicated infrastructure investments of their own, which in turn
533
brings the electric power generation and distributions industries
into the emergent market for mobility.
R&D incentives and government funded R&D programmes are
clearly one of the mechanisms by which SNM might operate to
achieve change. Such programmes can nurture socio-technical
niches, shielding them from the full impact of market forces until
the niche can be considered sufficiently robust to be competitive.
Analytical theories on technology proposed by Orlikowski
(1992) for example identify three models: technological necessity
(considering organizational characteristics); strategic span (with a
view on how framework and approach of decision-makers and
users influences technology); and technology as a stimulant of
fundamental transformation (focusing on technology as a social
entity). Similarly, Desanctis and Poole (1994) present three views
of technology's effects: decision-making; established discipline;
and an integrated outlook.
Technology is the mainstay of SNM and transitions theory,
however, with an embedded substance of novelty. The funda-
mental notion being that less efficient technologies are replaced
by better technologies. In some cases the early advantage of the
new technology may be marginal or imperfect but sufficient
enough to permit niche applications to develop.
Teece (2010) view business models as typical characteristics of
market economies where competition, consumer choice, opera-
tional costs, and a diverse group of consumers and producers exist.
However it is also essential that business models need must
transform over time as changing markets, technologies and legal
structures permit or force to change. Business models, and
particularly innovations in such models, are a potential causal
mechanism for change within socio-technical transitions that
remains under-explored—though they are popular with consul-
tants and analysts (Berger, 2011). Transitions theory is systemic,
long-term, and macro in orientation whereas the business models
literature has emerged out of studies of business and the firm.
Business models can be considered as the mediators between
technologies and consumers, potentially offering new modes of
consumption and value creation (Teece, 2010) and thereby over-
come performance ‘gaps’ with innovative technologies.
There is a plethora of evidence to highlight that consumer
adoption of a technology can be attributed to government incen-
tives, at least in part (Chetty et al., 2007; Finkelstein, 2009; Sallee,
2011; Bento et al., 2009; Klier and Linn, 2010). Consumer or user
acceptance is vital for technology diffusion on a scale that matters,
beyond the trivial, but is an aspect slightly under-emphasised in
transitions theory. Studies of innovation diffusion using concepts
such as technology acceptance give weight to how useful a
technology is, and how easy it is to use (Bagozzi et al., 1992;
Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989), and hence implicitly takes a
rationalist perspective on human choice. More recently there has
been an attempt to understand broader concepts such as ‘lifestyle’
and ‘cultures of automobility’ as they relate to technology choices
and cars (Urry, 2007; Heffner et al., 2007) because consumption is
seen as part of identity construction, conveying social meaning to
others.
3. Methodology
Within the transport realm, qualitative methods are more
commonly used for inductive purposes to identify concepts and
interpretations from transport users' perspective (Gardner and
Abraham, 2007; Mann and Abraham, 2006). Our study adopts a
qualitative approach with intent to capture attitudinal, affective
and behavioural responses inherent to stakeholder experiences
and reveal barriers to or enablers of Electric Vehicle adoption.
534 S. Steinhilber et al. / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 531–539

The primary source of data for this research was obtained from
semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders within the
automotive sector in the UK and Germany to identify the strategies
they employ in response to government policies, and their opinion
on current regulation, infrastructure investments, R&D incentives,
and consumer incentives. The stakeholders were representatives
of German and UK institutions and were selected for this study
due to their involvement in electric cars or electricity provision,
either due to commercial interests, as promoters, research or
policy makers. Table 1 lists the key stakeholders interviewed
during this research.
The data was further supplemented through scientific litera-
ture, published documents by the UK and German governments,
local governments, EV pilot projects, and other stakeholders in the
automotive and energy sector, to provide empirical background.
Justification of selection of the two countries for the research is
primarily their historical relationship with automotive industry.
This research collated the statements and opinions of repre-
sentatives from various interest groups. Interview partners were
chosen to cover a wide range of institutions, representing the
automotive and energy sectors to research institutions and policy
makers.
Transcripts of the interviews were coded, using grounded
theory to identify thematic categories. The coding procedure
involved an initial ‘open’ coding to assign conceptual labels and
these labels were further fine-tuned. Consequently, ‘axial’ coding
was carried out to construct links between concepts, which were
organised into higher-order categories. Further, ‘selective’ coding
enabled us to understand the inter-linkages between the cate-
gories, this further enabled us to identify a ‘central category’
(Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
To demonstrate the validity of the analysis, in this article the
authors include illustrative quotes (from the stakeholders) as evidence.
The results of this study are not meant to be representative for
all stakeholders in the UK and Germany, but provide a good
overview of the barriers faced in the introduction of this radical
innovation, and how far the prescriptions of SNM and transitions
theory have influenced the penetration of EVs.
4. Results
Stakeholders from the automotive and energy sector inter-
viewed in this research identified several open issues, which are
discussed below. Inevitably, in view of the problems surrounding
the introduction of EVs in these countries, some aspects of these
highlighted issues are subject to strategy change in the industry
and policy change in government in both the countries.
4.1. Regulation and governance
4.1.1. Electricity billing and infrastructure ownership
The findings of the research highlighted that with current
numbers of EVs still low; some institutions allow EV drivers to
use their charging infrastructure for free, as billing would incur a
higher cost than the revenues obtained from the sale of electricity.
A representative of ADAC in Germany (Europe's largest automobile
club) highlighted that the car club has put up 25 free charging
spots and perceives them more as an indicator in support for EV
technology than anything else.
Charging infrastructure operators face decisions about how to
design charging spot ownership in their business model, and how
this would be supported by the legal framework. This was high-
lighted for example by Vattenfall in Germany who currently
operate a small number of publicly accessible test charging spots
in Berlin. The grid operator would then allow any electricity

Table 1
List of interviewees.

Institution Title/division Role of institution

OLEV (Office for Low Emissions Vehicles)
SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and
Traders Limited)
Jaguar Land Rover
E.ON UK
Transport for London (TfL)
Forum ElektroMobilität e.V.
ADAC (Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-
Club)
Wirtschaftsförderung Region Stuttgart
GmbH (Stuttgart Region Economic
Development Corporation)
Verband der Automobilindustrie e. V. (VDA)/
German Association of the Automotive
Industry
Öko-Institut e.V.—Institute for Applied
Ecology
Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen
e.V. (VDV)—(Association of German
Transport Companies)
Vattenfall Europe PowerConsult GmbH
Car2Go
Manager for Consumer Incentives
Business Development Manager - Electric
Vehicles Member Services and Business
Improvement
Head of UK Government Affairs
Manager in the CABLED project,
Engineering Department
Manager in Electric Vehicles Delivery
Project
Branch manager
Transport and Environment Division
Manager responsible for coordinating
EV model region projects
Head of Department for Environmental
Policy and Technical Environmental
Protection
Researcher in Infrastructure and
Enterprises Division
Head of Division of Motor Vehicles,
Trolley Buses, Depots and Workshops
Management Consultant in Project
Mini E Berlin
Corporate Communications Manager
Cross-Whitehall team responsible for delivering and coordinating EV-
related funding from different government departments
Industry association promoting the interests of the UK automotive industry
Business encompassing the three British brands Jaguar, Land Rover, and
Range Rover, now owned by Indian automotive car manufacturer Tata. Land
Rover Jaguar designs, engineers and manufactures in the UK
One of the leading integrated power and gas company in the UK, and part of
the E.ON group. Active in the CABLED project which tests EV fleets and
infrastructure
Body responsible for congestion charging and traffic enforcement in London
EV stakeholder communication platform created by Fraunhofer Gesellschaft
and the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF)
German automobile club, largest in Europe, with around 17 million
members
Institutions responsible for coordinating the EV model region “Greater
Stuttgart”, one of eight model regions financed by the Ministry of Transport,
Construction, and Urban Development (BMVBS)
Department for Environment Policy and Technical Environment Protection
Research institute
Association of public transport operators whose members cover 95% of
market share in German public transport
Electricity provider running an EV test fleet in Berlin in cooperation with
BMW
Daughter company of Daimler Benz running an innovative car club scheme
using Smarts
 S. Steinhilber et al. / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 531–539
retailer to use their infrastructure and charge a fee for the grid
usage. The electricity retailer in turn would pass these costs on to
consumers. In such a business model, all consumers would share
the cost of installing EV charging points. However, the grid
operator would require approval from the Federal Grid Agency
for the fees charged, and the fact that fees for vehicle charging
points are currently not accepted represents a regulatory obstacle.
In the long run, a move towards Vehicle to Grid (V2G)
technology may lead to complex questions, as was highlighted
by one of the interviewees representing a public body.
EV owners would be able to buy their electricity from the grid
when demand is low, and feed it back into the grid for a higher
price at peak-demand times. But assuming that the degree of
efficiency of the charging process is below 100%, the consumer
will make a loss. Who will bear the cost for this? And will the
business model still be attractive then?
Lamble (2011), shares a similar view that with the new clean
economy built upon the ‘smart’ revolution comes a host of policy
issues like determining how to assimilate V2G into an economy
that is sluggish and possibly not yet ready for a reorganisation;
imagining how the existing electrical grid will be updated to
accommodate advanced metering infrastructure and who will pay
for it; and deciding what role governments will have in the
development and establishment of V2G. Hutton and Hutton
(2012) go a step further and raise key questions on allocation of
property rights and problems of monopsony being major impedi-
ments to the V2G technology.
4.1.2. Urban planning and road traffic regulations
One of the major issues that emerged from the research
findings was the possibility of publicly accessible charging infra-
structure creating new challenges for urban planners (Wells,
2012). This was highlighted by most of the interviewees in both
Germany and the UK.
There is no clear regulation as to where public EV charging
spots may be installed. There are unclear regulations regarding
parking on spaces equipped with a charging spot. If local
authorities decide to proceed with the roll-out of charging
infrastructure, including reserved parking spaces, in order to
promote use of EVs, then this may raise new problems.
Another public body representative in the UK quoted during
the research interviews:
If EV are not immediately present in the anticipated large
numbers, this can lead to frustration among drivers of conven-
tional cars who see free parking spots but are not allowed to
use them, especially in inner-city areas which often suffer from
a shortage of parking spaces.
Must a space remain unused if not occupied by an EV? If so
what signage is required to designate the restriction? What codes
control this and who will enforce them? Are some of the parking
management issues highlighted by Parker et al. (2012).
4.1.3. Fleet averages for CO2 emissions
It was evident from the research that opinions differ on the
issue of emissions, as very different interests are involved. NGOs
and environmental groups criticised the current EU regulation for
considering EVs to be zero-emissions vehicles, and for giving
super-credits to a vehicle which has CO2 emissions of less than
50 g/km. While the NGOs and environmental groups acknowledge
that the automotive industry has no influence on the electricity
mix which determines the emission of an EV, they fear that
considering EVs to be zero-emissions will not provide an incentive
535
to car makers to develop more energy efficient EVs. Furthermore,
regulation does not take into account the expected actual mileage
of a given car model.
4.2. Infrastructure investments
Expert opinions differ on how much publicly accessible char-
ging infrastructure is needed. “You ask two experts and you can be
sure to get two different opinions,” quoted a representative from a
government institution. Most of the interviewees in Germany
stated that the federal government was currently not supporting
infrastructure investments on a large scale, while most test fleet
projects have an infrastructure component.
A representative from Transport for London was of the view
that the currently running pilot projects will provide important
results on how EVs are used in real life, and how much publicly
accessible infrastructure is really needed. For instance, as one of
the new Plugged-In Places, London is currently developing a pan-
London scheme which will enable London EV owners to recharge
in any London Borough at any provider's charging point.
While the findings from such pilot projects are considered
valuable by all stakeholders, an interviewee from the automotive
industry asserts:
…we should look before we leap. Most people will be able to
charge at home. […] Battery technology will be further devel-
oped, and we may not know which might be the best charging
system for the batteries that will finally be used in mass rollout
of electric cars.
There is a plethora of research that support the views pre-
sented above. Bean et al., (2011) are of the view that currently
there are no standards in place to guide residential customers for
installing at-home charging stations. They argue that infrastruc-
ture upgrades are site specific and the cost of these upgrades is
still unknown. Browne et al. (2012) and Millberg and Schlenker
(2011) posit that EVs in general are perceived as not having
sufficient driving range and owners can experience ‘range anxiety’.
4.3. R&D incentives
In spite of various efforts by government departments under-
way to promote research relevant to EVs, the automotive industry
may wish for more government funding to support their own R&D
effort, as the industry is still suffering from the recent financial and
economic crisis. A representative from the automotive industry
interviewed during this research cited that it would be desirable to
improve the general R&D investment climate in the UK, for
instance in the upcoming reform of R&D tax credits. Credits are
currently only attached to corporation tax profits, but not to R&D
investment in the UK. Similar views were presented by other
stakeholders interviewed in this research, for example a promi-
nent emerging concern was that Governments should ensure that
the foreign-owned car makers not only place their manufacturing
in the UK, but also their R&D, as this will secure a long-term future
for the industry in the UK.
4.4. Technology
In line with research reports and other scientific literature, a
majority of interviewees (from industry, government, and research
organisations), considered developments in battery technology
and battery production technology as the most pressing research
need for the industry. Capabilities for large scale and low-cost
production of battery cells are currently mainly found in Asia.
Interviewees from the automotive industry and government-
536 S. Steinhilber et al. / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 531–539
supported pilot projects expressed an urgent need for govern-
ments to strategically support the re-establishment of this indus-
try, even if this is may not be profitable in the short run. The
standardization of technical specifications such as cables and plugs
for recharging was identified widely as an important issue
by industry interviewees in both the countries. However, the
industry faces many technological pathways without clear evi-
dence that there is going to be ‘one best way’ for the future
(Berggren et al., 2010).
Ralston and Nigro (2011) have identified a number of technical
barriers to PHEVs, which have a broader application than EVs,
including: (a) specific energy density of the standard lithium ion
battery, which is in the order of 1% that of gasoline; (b) variable
battery charging time and length of charging; (c) uncertain battery
lifespan and durability; (d) technical difficulties integrating with
the national grid; and (e) home charging and the provision of
charging cables from the mains may not be practical in apartment
blocks or terraced houses with limited off-street parking.
4.5. Business models
To ensure that the potential of EVs be fully realised, new types
of cooperation between two major industrial sectors – automotive
and energy – as well as other players is necessary (Kley et al.,
2011). Myriad business models are possible, however they have to
be tested and confirmed. A representative from the Association of
German Transport Companies (VDV), an organization that repre-
sents the vast majority of Germany's public transport operators,
foresees public transport as a natural starting point for electric
mobility. According to the organisation, with their fixed routes,
city buses do not have a range problem and only require charging/
battery swap infrastructure at a small number of depots. With
their high mileage, mostly during the day, bus batteries could use
excess electricity produced during the night, and thus help smooth
out electricity demand more effectively than low-mileage private
cars can. However, a major hurdle is that an appropriate business
model still needs to be developed, including issues of battery
ownership and payments between electricity suppliers and trans-
port operators.
VDV would prefer not to own the batteries, but rather lease
them from the electricity supplier. They argue that purchasing the
batteries would render the whole idea unprofitable for them.
A leasing model could create a win–win situation in which the
electricity supplier profits from cheap energy storage to smooth
demand, and the transport operator from lower fuel costs.
Giordana and Fulli (2012) rightly sum up the case that the
effectiveness of new business models and regulatory frameworks
will significantly define the effectiveness of EV's potential to be
fully realised.
4.6. Consumer incentives
Contrary to the UK government, the German government is
currently not planning to subsidize the purchase of EVs for
consumers. However, in Germany as in the UK electric vehicles
are exempt from road tax for the first five years after first
registration. The Federal Government is considering possibilities
to open bus lanes and extra parking spaces for EVs, and has
announced checking the possibilities for procurement initiatives of
vehicles emitting less than 50 g CO2/km for its own vehicle fleets,
and to encourage provincial and municipal governments as well as
private fleet operators to do the same (German Federal
Government, 2010).
In the UK, apart from the Plug-in Car Grant, consumer incen-
tives include a vehicle excise duty exemption and an enhanced
capital allowance. Additionally, there are local incentives such as
exemption from the London Congestion Charge or free parking in
Westminster.
Popular small EVs such as the G-Wiz and Mega e-City are
classed as quadricycles, and are therefore not eligible for any
exemption. While some environmentalists view this as a disap-
pointing step, The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
(SMMT) asserts it as a move in the right direction for the following
reason:
….Quadricycles are, for instance, not tested to the same safety
standards as proper cars. But people in the street may not be
able to distinguish between the two, so quadricycles have a
potential to damage the reputation of electric cars.
5. Discussion: How far can socio-technical transitions
be managed?
It is quite evident from literature and what we found from this
research, that there is a need to create a favourable environment
for innovation in two areas: Firstly, vehicle technology, meaning
the development of high-performance batteries, associated vehicle
components, and their production technology, the interface to the
electricity grid, and smart ICT-based applications to enable elec-
tricity providers to manage loads efficiently; and secondly, busi-
ness models which make electrified road transport economically
attractive for industry and consumers.
Given the variety of stakeholders involved, ranging from the
automotive sector to energy, ICT and other sectors, it is probably
too simplistic to talk about a single innovation which will
dominate in the end. Rather, the electrification of road transport
could be realized through a bundle of innovation designs or
innovation cluster (Rogers, 1995), though not all emerging from
the same lead market. For example, if a country leads in the
development of high-performance batteries, another could lead in
the development of integrated mobility concepts or smart load
management.
Both Germany and the UK may enjoy a certain demand
advantage, due to high fuel prices and because consumer groups
exist which value environmental benefits highly and are willing to
pay a premium. Current trends indicate an increase in car owner-
ship per household and that the average consumer tends to prefer
lighter and smaller models than the previous standard models
(Beise and Rennings, 2005). However, a long-term trend might be
emerging among young urban consumers whereby, phones and
other electronic equipment replace cars as the main status symbol
(Heise, 2010). This may be favourable for business models in which
consumers do not own individual cars, but mainly use public
transport and rent appropriate car models as required. On the
other hand, both the UK and Germany have been nations of car
owners for several decades and consumers will have to un-learn
old habits to appreciate some of the new business models.
Both the UK and Germany are seeking to improve their demand
advantage, albeit in different ways. As with several European
neighbours, the UK has decided to foster an early EV market
through a consumer incentive scheme, alongside procurement
schemes for some publicly owned fleets. Germany has so far not
chosen to subsidize the purchase of EV by private consumers. Both
countries may have an export advantage because their car indus-
tries are experienced exporters. Furthermore, German car brands
have a positive image internationally, and the same applies to the
international car brands now produced in the UK. Market condi-
tions within Europe show a certain degree of similarity, and a
unified type approval system, making it easier to diffuse innova-
tion designs within Europe.
 S. Steinhilber et al. / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 531–539
Beise and Rennings (2005) highlighted that fuel-saving innova-
tions diffused well within Europe, where fuel prices are high and
using less fuel thus represents a relatively large benefit to the
consumer. Internationally, however, only those innovations were
widely adopted which combined fuel-efficiency with other fea-
tures desired by consumers, such as the high-pressure direct
injection technology in the 1990s, which offers not just better
environmental performance, but also better acceleration.
Current full EV models are considered an inferior product. This
applies even when fuel cost savings are taken into account. They
offer smaller range and longer refuelling times at a considerable
price premium. This currently makes them unattractive even in
Europe. EVs currently do not present a significant benefit to the
electricity sector, since they do not exist in the high numbers
which would be needed to use them for load management. For
these reasons, EVs still depend on a mixture of regulatory pressure
and government measures that motivate firms to continue their
development.
The UK and Germany enter the potential transition to EVs from
different initial positions. While Germany has traditionally been a
lead market in the automotive field (Beise and Rennings, 2003), its
expertise is focussed on ICE vehicles. German industry's innovations
are set against a backdrop of an extensive skills base and well-
developed networks of component suppliers and manufacturers,
according to an industry representative. The industry has more to
lose than it has to gain from a radical innovation which could
render much of their past experience, skills, and systems useless.
For Germany, investing in this radical change early is purely a
necessity to retain one of their most important industries. The
large-scale introduction of EVs will create a level playing field in
which new players will enter whose expertise in battery technology
will make up for their lack of experience in producing cars.
The UK's automotive sector, though still of considerable impor-
tance, has been shrinking ever since it lost its position as the
world's main car exporter in the late 1950 s. MG Rover, the last
British-owned volume car manufacturer, failed in 2005 (Holweg
et al., 2009). For the UK, EVs represent a window of opportunity,
but may not last forever. It needs to be used while it is there to
develop new market leadership in areas other than the traditional
ones which have already been lost.
Both the UK and Germany are equally concerned about new
competitors from emerging economies, especially China, whose
world leadership in battery cell production is arguably on the
horizon, and who is also quickly catching up in other technology
fields. Both countries' automotive industries have announced that
while they do want to develop electric vehicles in the long term,
their short run CO2 reduction solutions will be based on optimized
ICE vehicles. This is understandable, given their enormous sunk
costs in hardware and expertise. Zapata and Nieuwenhuis (2010)
confirm this by arguing that the automotive sector is slow in
taking up radical innovations. For the electricity sector, on the
other hand, electro-mobility represents less of a threat to their
traditional core business, but rather a new field to conquer. The
German electricity sector seems to be further progressed in this
respect than the UK, and has comparatively clear ideas of possible
business models and of barriers which need to be addressed.
While the German government emphasises on R&D, using a very
systems-orientated approach, and its policy is targeted towards
creating a favourable environment for electric cars; the UK
government lays significant emphasis on building an early market
for EV using the consumer incentive, accompanied by a large-scale
infrastructure roll out in designated cities.
The overall expectation in both the UK and Germany is that,
due to technological breakthroughs in battery technology, EVs will
in the near future fill the same role as conventional cars, with a
comparable performance and price. What was clear from this
537
research was that most stakeholders assume that performance of
EVs have to be measured against the same standards as ICE
vehicles, as consumers will also expect an equivalent product.
This means EVs will not be attractive to the majority of consumers
in the near future. If the expectations of EVs as equivalents to
conventional cars were relaxed, a commercially viable market
could be developed in urban areas earlier than many would
expect, which can then result in the development of a lead market
for innovative transport concepts and related technologies.
If consumer demand were to undergo a shift from car owner-
ship to a concept of sharing cars, then this would raise a significant
question on how this is reconcilable with the automotive indus-
try's desire to sell more cars? How such a conflict would be solved
is also a political question. As Sovacool and Hirsh (2008) rightly
sums the introduction of EV does not only face technological
challenges, but also social and political ones.
What we are witnessing is the problem of a lock-in of
unsustainable technologies and associated barriers to a significant
shift in innovation paths. Metcalfe and Georghiou (1998) are of the
view that these issues are a spillover between selection and
variation that inhibits the chances of radical new technologies.
To assess if policies to overcome lock-in are justified from a
societal perspective, Reichel (1998) for example applies the
“lock-out efficiency” framework. However, the derivation of a clear
empirical result is only achieved by setting the economic and
political framework conditions as well as the environmental
externalities constant, which is at odds with evolutionary
approaches.
6. Conclusion
The introduction and penetration of EVs is confronted by
several barriers that inhibit a larger market penetration under
current conditions. Several shortcomings of the technology, pre-
sented in this study exemplify the immature status of a developing
technology that has not achieved commercialisation yet. Other
barriers are a fragmented infrastructure, missing standards and
regulations and scepticism of consumers towards an emerging
technology. A number of national governments are supporting
their industries in preparing for the expected technological shift in
transport, but the barriers identified by early studies such as
Hoogma et al. (2002) appear to be the same as ever. The move-
ment has significantly gathered momentum in the last couple of
years, as governments are directing much attention on the topic,
and electric vehicles are increasingly being discussed in the media.
All these countries have different strengths and weaknesses
regarding their innovative ability, market structure, and consumer
preferences, and a forthcoming technological shift would repre-
sent different opportunities and risks for each. Established car
exporting countries may end up strengthening their lead, or losing
at least part of it to new players on the field with more favourable
market conditions. For a market to become a lead market, it must
display certain characteristics (Beise and Cleff, 2004). Additionally,
in the case of environmental innovations, which involve inter-
nalization of external costs and relatively long time scales, regula-
tion is a further key factor in pushing the development and
diffusion of innovation. Governments must therefore find the right
mix of regulatory pressure and funding options corresponding to
the current condition of its national industries and markets, to
make innovations attractive for both the supply and demand side
(Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Beise and Rennings, 2005).
What applies equally to all countries active in this field is that
the full environmental potential of EVs will only be realized if they
are not simply used as a substitute for conventional ICE vehicles
but also as a tool for load management in the electricity grid, and
538 S. Steinhilber et al. / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 531–539
as one component in an integrated network of different transport
modes in an urban setting. While Germany is already slightly
ahead on the load management issue, and some German pilot
projects also have components on the integration of EVs with
public transport, more could be done in both countries (UK and
Germany) to help shape consumers' and industries' perception of
EVs as not only an equivalent to conventional ICE-powered private
cars, but as a chance for us to redefine the way in which we think
about mobility.
References
Abernathy, W., Utterback, J., 1978. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology
Review 80 (7), 40–47.
Bagozzi, R.P., Davis, F.D., Warshaw, P.R., 1992. Development and test of a theory of
technological learning and usage. Human Relations 45, 660–686.
Bean, J., Dunn, K., Halbright, R., Hosteller, O., 2011. Electric vehicle charging
infrastructure in the city of Berkeley. Available from 〈http://www.cityofberke
ley.info/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Commissions/Commission_for_Transpor
tation/B4Presidio%20Report%20on%20Electric%20Vehicle%20Charging%20in%
20Berkeley.pdf〉 [accessed 19 March 2013].
Beise, M., Cleff, T., 2004. Assessing the lead market potential of countries for
innovation projects. Journal of International Management 10, 453–477.
Beise, M., Rennings, K., 2003. Lead Markets of Environmental Innovations:
A Framework for Innovation and Environmental Economics. ZEW Discussion
Paper no. 03-01, Mannheim.
Beise, M., Rennings, K., 2005. Lead markets and regulation: a framework for
analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations. Ecological
Economics 52, 5–17.
Bento, A., Goulder, L., Jacobsen, M., von Haefen, R., 2009. Distributional and
efficiency impacts of increased US gasoline taxes. The American Economic
Review 99 (3), 667–699.
Berger, R., 2011. Automotive landscape 2025: opportunities and challenges ahead.
Copy obtained from 〈http://www.rolandberger.com/expertise/industries/auto
motive/2011-02-28-rbsc-pub automotive_landscape_2025.html〉 (11th Feb
2013).
Berggren, C., Magnusson, T., Sushandoyo, D., 2010. Hybrids, diesel or both? The
forgotten technological competition for sustainable solutions in the global
automotive industry. International Journal of Automotive Technology and
Management 9 (2), 148–173.
Bougheas, S., Demetriades, P., Mamuneas, T., 2000. Infrastructure, specialization,
and economic growth. Canadian Journal of Economics 33 (2), 506–522.
Browne, D., O'Mahony, M., Caulfield, B., 2012. How should barriers to alternative
fuels and vehicles be classified and potential policies to promote innovative
technologies be evaluated? Journal of Cleaner Production 35, 140–151.
Bruckner, E., Ebeling, W., Jimenez Montano, M., 1996. Nonlinear stochastic effects of
substitution- an evolutionary approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics
6 (1), 1–30.
Chetty, R., Looney, A., Kroft, K., 2007. Salience and taxation: theory and evidence.
American Economic Review 99 (4), 1145–1177.
Dalle, J., 1997. Heterogeneity versus externalities in technological competition: a
tale of possible technological landscapes. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 7,
395–413.
Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (3), 319–340.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., 1989. User acceptance of computer
technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35
(8), 982–1003.
Desanctis, G., Poole, M.S., 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology
use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science 5 (2), 121–147.
Dijk, M., Yarime, M., 2010. The emergence of hybrid-electric cars: innovation path
creation through co-evolution of supply and demand. Technological Forecasting
& Social Change 77 (8), 1371–1390.
Edquist, C., 2002. Innovation policy-a systemic approach. In: Archibugi, D., Lundvall,
B. (Eds.), The Globalizing Learning Economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 219–238.
EFTE (European Federation for Transport and Environment), 2009. How to avoid an
electric shock Electric cars: from hype to reality. Available at 〈http://www.
transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/media/2009%2011%20Electric%20Sh ck
%20Electric%20Cars.pdf〉. [accessed on 9th August 2012].
Elzen, B., Geels, F., Green, K., 2004. System Innovation and the Transition to
Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Ewing, G., Sarigollu, E., 2000. Assessing consumer preferences for clean-fuel
vehicles a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19
(1), 106–118.
Faber, A., Frenken, K., 2009. Models in evolutionary economics and environmental
policy. Towards an evolutionary environmental economics. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 76, 462–470.
Fernald, J., 1999. Roads to prosperity—assessing the link between public capital and
productivity. American Economic Review 89 (3), 619–638.
Finkelstein, A., 2009. E–Z tax: tax salience and tax rates. Quarterly Journal of
Economics 124 (3), 969–1011.
Foster, R.N., 1986. Innovation: The Attackers' Advantage. Macmillan, London.
Gardner, B., Abraham, C., 2007. What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of
commuters' reasons for driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psy-
chology and Behaviour 10, 187–200.
Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration pro-
cesses: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31,
1257–1274.
German Federal Government, 2010. Etablierung der Nationalen Plattform Elektro-
mobilität am 3. Mai 2010—Gemeinsame Erklärung von Bundesregierung und
deutscher Industrie. Berlin: Die Bundesregierung.
Giordana, V., Fulli, G., 2012. A business case for smart grid technologies: a systemic
perspective. Energy Policy 40, 252–259.
Heffner, R., Kurani, K., Turrentine, T., 2007. Symbolism in California's early market
for hybrid electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment 12, 396–413.
Heise, B.L., 2010. Elektromobilität: ADAC wirft Politik und Wirtschaft Versagen vor.
6 May 2010. Available at 〈http://www.heise.de/autos/artikel/Elektromobilitae
t-ADAC-wirft-Politik-und Wirtschaft-Versagen-vor-995105.html〉 [accessed 26
August 2012].
Holweg, M., Davies, P., Podpolny, D., 2009. The Competitive Status of the UK
Automotive Industry. Picsie Books, Buckingham.
Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J., Truffer, B., 2002. Experimenting for Sustainable
Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. Spon Press, London.
Hulten, C., Bennathan, E., Srinivasan, S., 2006. Infrastructure, externalities, and
economic development—a study of Indian manufacturing industry. The World
Bank Economic Review 20 (2), 291–308.
Hutton, M., Hutton, T., 2012. Legal and regulatory impediments to Vehicle-to-grid
aggregation. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 36 (2),
337–366.
International Transport Forum, 2010. Transport Outlook 2010: The Potential for
Innovation. OECD, Paris.
Janssen, M., Jager, W., 2002. Simulating diffusion of green products. Coevolution of
firms and consumers. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12, 283–306.
Jessop, B., 1990. Regulation theories in retrospect and prospect. Economy and
Society 19 (2), 153–216.
Jonard, N., Yildizoglu, M., 1998. Technological diversity in an evolutionary industry
model with localized learning and network externalities. Structural Change and
Economic Dynamics 9 (1), 35–55.
Jorgensen, K., 2008. Technologies for electric, hybrid and hydrogen vehicles:
electricity from renewable energy sources in transport. Utilities Policy 16,
72–79.
Kemp, R., 1997. Environmental Policy and Technological Change: A Comparison of
the Technological Impact of Policy Instruments. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Kemp, R., Geels, F.W., Dudley, G., Lyons, G. (Eds.), 2012. A Socio-Technical Analysis of
Sustainable Transport. Routledge, New York.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., 2006. Transition management: a reflexive governance
approach. In: Vosz, J., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R. (Eds.), Reflexive Governance for
Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 103–130.
Kemp, R., Rip, A., Schot, J., 2001. Constructing transition paths through the
management of niches. In: Garud, R., Karnoe, P. (Eds.), Path Dependence and
Creation. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 269–299.
Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R., 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through
processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management.
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 10, 175–196.
Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R., 2000. Regime shifts to sustainability through
processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management.
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 10, 175–195.
King, J., 2007. The king review of low-carbon cars. Part I: the potential for CO2
reduction. London: HM Treasury, Available at 〈hm-treasury.gov.uk/king〉
[accessed 17 September 2012].
King, J., 2008. The king review of low-carbon cars. Part II: Recommendations for
action. London: HM Treasury, Available at 〈hm-treasury.gov.uk/king〉 [accessed
17 September 2012].
Kley, F., Lerch, C., Dallinger, D., 2011. New business models for electric cars—a
holistic approach. Energy Policy 39, 3392–3403.
Klier, T., Linn, J., 2010. The price of gasoline new vehicle fuel economy: evidence
from monthly sales data. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2 (3),
134–153.
Laclau, E., Mouffe, C., 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Verso, London.
Lamble, B., 2011. Of nesting dolls and Trojan horses: a survey of legal and policy
issues attendant to vehicle-to-grid battery electric vehicles. Chicago Kent Law
Review, 193–233.
Lane, B., Potter, S., 2007. The adoption of cleaner vehicles in the UK: exploring the
consumer attitude-action gap. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (11-12),
1085–1092.
Levinthal, D., 1998. The slow pace of rapid technological change: gradualism and
punctuation in technological change. Industrial and Corporate Change 7 (2),
217–247.
Loorbach, D., 2007. Transition Management. New Mode of Governance for Sustain-
able Development. International Books, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Loorbach, D., Kemp, R., 2007. Transition management for the Dutch energy transi-
tion: the multilevel governance aspects. In: van den Bergh, J., Bruinsma, F. (Eds.),
Managing the Transition to Renewable Energy: Theory and Practice from Local,
Regional, and Macro Perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 243–264.
 S. Steinhilber et al. / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 531–539
Magnusson, T., Berggren, C., 2011. Entering an era of ferment - radical vs
incrementalist strategies in automotive power train development. Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management 23 (3), 313–330.
Malerba, F., Nelson, R., Orsenigo, L., Winter, S., 2007. Demand, innovation and the
dynamics of market structure: the role of experimental users and diverse
preferences. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 17, 371–399.
Mann, E., Abraham, C., 2006. The role of affect in UK commuters' travel mode
choices: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. British Journal of Psy-
chology 97, 155–176.
Metcalfe, J., Georghiou, L., 1998. Equilibrium and Evolutionary Foundations of
Technology Policy. STI Review No. 22, OECD.
Millberg, J., Schlenker, A., 2011. Plug into the future. Power and Energy Magazine,
IEEE 9 (1), 56–65.
Nill, J., Zundel, S., 2001. Die Rolle von Vielfalt für Zeitstrategien ökologischer
Innovationspolitik [The role of diversity for time strategies of ecological
innovation policy]. Zeitschrift für angewandte Umweltforschung [Journal of
Environmental Research], special issue 13/2001, Spehl, H., Held, M. (Eds.). Vom
Wert der Vielfalt. Diversität in Ökonomie und Ökologie [The Value of Diversity
in Economy and Ecology], 148–157.
Orlikowski, W.J., 1992. The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of
technology in organizations. Organization Science 3 (3), 398–427.
Parker, R., West, A., Fertig, S., 2012. Electric vehicle charging station infrastructure
community needs assessment. Available from 〈http://hdl.handle.net/1794/
12194〉 [accessed 19 March 2013].
Porter, M., van der Linde, C., 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment
competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (4), 97–118.
Ralston, M., Nigro, N., 2011. Plug-in electric vehicles: literature review. Pew Center
on Global Climate Change.
Raven, R., 2005. Strategic Niche Management for Biomass. Eindhoven University,
The Netherlands.
Raven, R., 2006. Towards alternative trajectories? Reconfigurations in the Dutch
electricity regime. Research Policy 35, 581–595.
Reichel, M., 1998. Markteinführung von erneuerbaren Energien. Lock-out-Effekte
und innovations politische Konsequenzen für die elektrische Wind- und
Solarenergienutzung [Market Introduction of Renewable Energy. Lock-out
Effects and Corresponding Innovation Policies for Wind- and Solar-based
Electricity]. Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Rip, A., 1992. A quasi-evolutionary model of technological development and a
cognitive approach to technology policy. Rivista di Studi Epistemologici e
Sociali Sulla Scienza e la Tecnologia 2, 69–103.
Rogers, E., 1995. The Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York.
Rosenberg, N., 1982. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge,
MA. Cambridge University Press.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., 2001. More evolution than revolution:
transition management in public policy. Foresight 3, 15–31.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., Geels, F., Verbong, G., Molendijk, K., 2000.
Transitions and transition management: the case of an emission-poor energy
supply. ICIS (International Centre for Integrative Studies), Maastricht.
Sallee, J., 2011. The surprising incidence of tax credits for Toyota Prius. American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3 (2), 189–219.
Schiffbauer, M., 2007. Calling for innovations- infrastructure and sources of growth.
Working paper dynamic regions in a knowledge driven Global Economy
539
(DYNREG) Lessons and policy implications for the EU. Available from 〈http://
www.esri.ie/research/research_areas/international_economics/dynreg/papers/
WorkingPaper_No._18.pdf〉 [Accessed 12 March 2013].
Schot, J., Elzen, B, Hoogma, R., 1994. Strategies for shifting technological systems
the case of the automobile system. Futures 26, 1060–1076.
Schot, J., Slob, A., Hoogma, R., 1996. The Implementation of Sustainable Technology
as a Strategic Niche Management Problem. Report for the Dutch National
Program on Sustaianble Technology (in Dutch).
Sovacool, B., Hirsh, R., 2008. Beyond batteries: an examination of the benefits and
barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G)
transition. Energy Policy 37, 1095–1103.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, London.
Teece, D.J., 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range
Planning 43, 172–194.
Turnheim, B., Geels, F.W., 2012. Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy
transitions: lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997).
Energy Policy 50, 35–49.
Urry, J., 2007. Mobilities. Polity Press, London.
van Eijck, J., Romijn, H., 2008. Prospects for jatropha biofuels in Tanzania: an
analysis with Strategic Niche Management. Energy Policy 36 (1), 311–325.
van den Bergh, J., van Leeuwen, E., Oosterhuis, F., Rietveld, P., Verhoef, E., 2007.
Social learning by doing in sustainable transport innovations: ex-post analysis
of common factors behind successes and failures. Research Policy 36, 247–259.
van der Laak, W., Raven, R., Verbong, G., 2007. Strategic niche management for
biofuels: analysing past experiments for developing new biofuel policies.
Energy Policy 35 (6), 3213–3225.
Weber, M., Dorda, A., 1999. Strategic niche management: a tool for the market
introduction of new transport concepts and technologies. The IPTS Report 31,
20–28.
Weber, M., Hoogma, R., Lane, B., Schot, J., 1999. Experimenting with Sustainable
Transport Innovations: A Workbook for Strategic Niche Management. Universi-
teit Twente, Seville/Enschede.
Weisbuch, G., Buskens, V., Vuong, L., 2008. Heterogeneity and increasing returns
may drive socio-economic transitions. Computational and Mathematical Orga-
nization Theory 14, 376–390.
Wells, P., 2012. Converging transport policy, industrial policy and environmental
policy: the implications for localities and social equity. Local Economy 27 (7),
747–761.
Windrum, P., Birchenhal, l.C., 1998. Is life cycle theory a special case?: dominant
designs and emergence of market niches through coevolutionary learning.
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 9, 109–134.
Windrum, P., Birchenhal, l.C., 2005. Structural change in the presence of network
externalities: a co-evolution of technological successions. Journal of Evolu-
tionary Economics 15, 123–148.
Zapata, C., Nieuwenhuis, P., 2010. Exploring Innovation in the automotive industry:
new technologies for cleaner cars. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 14–20.
Zundel, S., Erdmann, G., Kemp, R., Nill, J., Sartorius, C., 2005. Conclusions-a time-
strategic ecological innovation policy. In: Sartorius, C., Zundel, S. (Eds.), Time
Strategies, Innovation and Environmental Policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
pp. 322–348.