Analysis of Business Models For Car Sharing: Deliverable D3.1

Ref.
Ares(2018)1889878 - 09/04/2018
Research and Innovation action

H2020-MG-2016-2017

Analysis of business
models for car sharing
Deliverable D3.1
Authors: Suzi Tart (LGI), Peter Wells (Cardiff University), & Stefano Beccaria (GM), Esti Sanvicente
(LGI)
www.stars-h2020.eu
This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under
the grant agreement n°769513
Analysis of business models for car sharing
Document Information
Grant Agreement 769513
Project Title Shared mobility opporTunities And challenges foR European
citieS
Project Acronym STARS
Project Start Date 01 October 2017
Related work package WP3 – Business model innovation to enable car sharing
Related task(s) Task 3.1 – Inventory of existing business models for car
sharing services
Lead Organisation LGI
Submission date 9 April 2018
Dissemination Level PU

History

Date Submitted by Reviewed by Version (Notes)
18 March 2018 Suzi TART Peter WELLS, Initial collation of all
Stefano BECCARIA, contributions
Andrea CHICCO
6 April 2018 Suzi TART Marco DIANA Final version
GA n°769513 Page 2 of 77
Table of contents
SUMMARY ...................................................................... 5
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7
2 Trends in Car Sharing Business Models ....................................................................... 9
2.1 Analysis of Car Sharing Business Models ......................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Free-floating with an operational area ..................................................................... 11
2.1.2 Free-floating with pool stations ................................................................................. 11
2.1.3 Roundtrip, home-zone based ............................................................................................. 12
2.1.4 Roundtrip, station-based ................................................................................................. 12
2.1.5 Peer-to-Peer (P2P) ............................................................................................................. 12
2.2 Comparison of Individual Business Models through the Business Model Canvas ..... 15
2.2.1 Free-floating with an operational area ..................................................................... 17
2.2.2 Free-floating with pool stations ................................................................................. 20
2.2.3 Roundtrip, home-zone based ............................................................................................. 23
2.2.4 Roundtrip, station based ................................................................................................. 25
2.2.5 Peer-to-Peer (P2P) ............................................................................................................. 29
3 SWOT Analysis of Business Models in Car Sharing .................................................. 38
3.1 Free-floating with an operational area ......................................................................... 38
3.2 Free-floating with pool stations .................................................................................... 39
3.3 Roundtrip, home-zone based ............................................................................................... 40
3.4 Roundtrip, station-based ................................................................................................... 41
3.5 P2P and community schemes ................................................................................................. 42
4 Innovation in Business Model Strategies .................................................................. 44
4.1 Car Sharing Schemes and Vehicle Manufacturers ........................................................... 44
4.2 Avoiding Commodification: From Vehicle Ownership to Vehicle Usership ................ 46
4.2.1 Connectivity ......................................................................................................................... 47
4.2.2 Autonomous ............................................................................................................................. 48
4.2.3 Shared programs and Services ......................................................................................... 49
4.2.4 Electrification and alternative propulsion ............................................................. 51
5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 53
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................ 55
List of Tables
Table 1: Car2go's Business Model Canvas .................................................................................... 18
Table 2: Zipcar's Business Model Canvas ...................................................................................... 19
Table 3: DriveNow's Business Model Canvas ................................................................................ 20
Table 4: Autolib's Business Model Canvas ..................................................................................... 21
Table 5: Bluetorino's Business Model Canvas ................................................................................ 22
GA n°769513 Page 3 of 77
Table 6: Bluecity's Business Model Canvas ................................................................................... 23

Table 7: Juuve's Business Model Canvas ...................................................................................... 24
Table 8: Partago's Business Model Canvas ................................................................................... 25
Table 9: Ubeeqo's Business Model Canvas ................................................................................... 26
Table 10: Cambio's Business Model Canvas.................................................................................. 27
Table 11: Greenwheels' Business Model Canvas........................................................................... 28
Table 12: Io Guido's Business Model Canvas ................................................................................ 29
Table 13: Dégage's Business Model Canvas ................................................................................. 30
Table 14: Drivy's Business Model Canvas ...................................................................................... 31
Table 15: CarAmigo's Business Model Canvas .............................................................................. 32
Table 16: Business Model Characteristics of Selected Car Sharing Organisations (based on survey
responses and desktop research; see descriptions above for detailed explanations) ............. 37
Table 17: Free-floating with operational area SWOT ...................................................................... 38
Table 18: Free-floating with pool stations SWOT ........................................................................... 39
Table 19: Roundtrip, home-zone based SWOT .............................................................................. 40
Table 20: Roundtrip, station-based SWOT ..................................................................................... 41
Table 21: P2P and community schemes SWOT ............................................................................. 42
Table 22: Examples of Connectivity Software Used by OEMs ....................................................... 47
Table 23: Examples of Shared Programs & Mobility Services ........................................................ 50
Table 24: Examples of Electric and Hydrogen Vehicles ................................................................. 52
Table 25: BMW Group Strategy Overview ...................................................................................... 64
Table 26: Daimler Group Strategy Overview .................................................................................. 65
Table 27: FCA Group Strategy Overview ....................................................................................... 66
Table 28: Ford Group Strategy Overview ....................................................................................... 67
Table 29: GM Group Strategy Overview ......................................................................................... 68
Table 30: Hyundai-Kia Strategy Overview ...................................................................................... 69
Table 31: Honda Group Strategy Overview .................................................................................... 70
Table 32: JLR Group Strategy Overview ........................................................................................ 71
Table 33: Mazda Strategy Overview ............................................................................................... 72
Table 34: PSA Group Strategy Overview ....................................................................................... 73
Table 35: Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance Strategy Overview .................................................. 74
Table 36: Toyota Strategy Overview ............................................................................................... 75
Table 37: Volvo Group Strategy Overview ...................................................................................... 76
Table 38: VW Group Strategy Overview ......................................................................................... 77
List of Figures
Figure 1: Distance Travelled vs. Flexibility of Business Models ..................................................... 14
GA n°769513 Page 4 of 77
ACRONYMS
AV(s) Autonomous vehicle(s)
CEO Chief executive officer
D3.1 Deliverable 3.1
EV(s) Electric vehicle(s)
FMLM First mile last mile
GPS Global positioning system
ICE Internal combustion engine(s)
OEM(s) Original equipment manufacturer(s)
P2P Peer-to-peer
PHEV(s) Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle(s)
SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats
WP3 Work package 3
GA n°769513 Page 5 of 77
SUMMARY
Car sharing has the power to improve mobility in cities, however its potential has yet to be
achieved. The Dutch survey agency TNS Nipo found that despite 20% of respondents being open
to the idea of car sharing, only 1% actually use it (van den Berg, 2017). McKinsey&Company (2012)
found similar rates in Germany, where only 2.5% of the people living in cities of more than 100,000
inhabitants used car sharing, but 24% of them were considering using it. Furthermore, of those
who did use car sharing, nearly one-third of them said that they expected to increase their use of
car sharing over the next decade (McKinsey&Company, 2012). This potential growth holds
profound changes for cities, both in air quality and urban design, as well as for vehicle
manufacturers hoping to survive a rapidly-evolving era where automobile consumption is
increasingly influenced by urbanisation, high technology and the sharing economy.
It is within this context that STARS is situated, as it strives to close the gap between current
car sharing trends and the potential benefits. Deliverable 3.1, Analysis of Business Models for Car
Sharing, helps to achieve this goal by exploring how car sharing organisations and the related
automotive industry are currently operating. As such, D3.1 presents a brief analysis of the five
archetypical or generic business model frameworks identified in car sharing schemes: 1) free-
floating with an operational area; 2) free-floating with pool stations; 3) roundtrip, home-zone
based; 4) roundtrip, station-based; and 5) peer-to-peer (P2P). These business model classifications
were developed based upon D2.1, combining identified operational characteristics with business
model variables.
The deliverable identifies two to four organisations operating under each of the five
business models, reflecting on their unique setup and value proposition through the Business
Model Canvas. The Business Model Canvas, developed by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur
(2010), looks at nine building blocks that ultimately influence each business model: key
partnerships, key activities, key resources, value proposition, customer relationships, channels,
customer segments, cost structure, and revenues. The organisations corresponding to each
business model are then evaluated individually and as a group, allowing for wider trends to emerge.
Building on this, each of the five business model classifications is then examined based
upon its specific strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT). This framework
highlights their implementation feasibility, points out the specific markets they currently serve, and
sheds light on their potential growth and profitability in the near term. Furthermore, the SWOT
analysis allows cities of all sizes to better understand which schemes may be a better fit for their
specific situation, as well as in which areas their existing car sharing companies may need greater
policy support, should the city want to encourage the uptake of car sharing among citizens.
Finally, the deliverable discusses the implications of car sharing for the overall automotive
industry. Changes in mobility patterns are leading to changes in consumption patterns, while
changes in technology mean that new players are entering the scene. Traditional vehicle
manufacturers are therefore expanding their core business activities to join the car sharing
movement, becoming key partners in many car sharing organisations. Their relationship with these
organisations and their influence on the business models is thus explored, as are the innovations
they are bringing with them.
GA n°769513 Page 6 of 77
1 Introduction
Car sharing, which allows a car to be used by multiple drivers throughout the day/night, first
made its debut in Europe in the 1980s (Wagner & Katzev, 1996), long before the sharing economy
ever emerged. While the popularity of car sharing never took off, it is a different story today, where
growing urbanisation—particularly by millennials who are opting to live in cities where the costs of
car ownership are high (Muoio, 2017)—is changing mobility patterns and desires. In fact, car
sharing in recent years has witnessed double-digit growth, particularly in bigger cities where the
costs of owning a car can be more easily offset due to a higher-population density needing to be
mobile within the same general area (Monitor Deloitte, 2017). Indeed, sharing a car not only
reduces the individual costs of ownership, but it also reduces social costs such as road congestion,
energy use, and noise and air pollution (Firnkorn & Müller, 2015). Moreover, as most cars sit idle
for most of the day (van den Berg, 2017), car sharing frees up space in the city
(McKinsey&Company, 2012; Perboli, Ferrero, Musso & Vesco, 2017). In the city of Bremen, each
shared car proved to be the equivalent of taking 15 private cars off the road (Glotz-Richter, 2016).
With an estimated six million car sharing users and 68,000 cars in circulation in Europe’s car
sharing market in 2016, Europe now accounts for half of the worldwide car sharing market (Monitor
Deloitte, 2017). Such a thriving market has led to increased competition and innovative business
models, resulting in the emergence of new forms of car sharing, such as those with a P2P business
model. Meanwhile, existing organisations are striving to set themselves apart from each other with
their various partnerships and membership benefits, offering consumers greater options. For
example, it is now common for an organisation to cooperate with local governments so as to
enable free city parking or fewer driver restrictions for its members. Many car sharing organisations
are also integrating with local public transport, in efforts to minimise the “first mile last mile”
(FMLM) problem that many commuters face (van den Berg, 2017). Technology and integrated
digital platforms are also ways in which car sharing organisations are trying to make themselves
more attractive. Features such as keyless entry, real-time parking options on mobile apps, and up-
to-date global positioning system (GPS) maps have a growing presence as car sharing features.
Car sharing organisations are also diversifying to target specific groups. For example,
electric vehicles (EVs) that reduce both noise and air pollution are appearing as part of more
business models to attract eco-conscious individuals; there are also programmes and marketing
campaigns targeting people moving apartments, as well as tourists, parents of young children in
need of a car seat, and residents of social housing projects, among others. Such efforts are evident
among both, for-profit and not-for-profit organisations, as they all try to cater to a segment of the
population and capture that portion of the market.
Prices are another differentiating factor emerging among car sharing business models.
Consumers have the option of choosing plans that vary in whether and how much they must pay,
be it for a subscription fee, deposit, or rental usage fee, which may be based upon the distance
driven or the time a car is used (or both). Differences in pricing also come in the form of fiscal
advantages. Some car sharing programmes offer reduced rates during typically low periods of
usage (such as for night-time driving), and others provide discounts on unused time for those
GA n°769513 Page 7 of 77
drivers who return the car early. For programmes with EVs, it is not rare for drivers to receive bonus
minutes for each percent that a battery has been recharged upon its return.
Car sharing organisations can be classified into five general business model frameworks.
These five frameworks were developed based upon the work completed in D2.1, combining
organisations’ operational characteristics with business model variables. They include: 1) free-
floating with an operational area; 2) free-floating with pool stations; 3) roundtrip, home-zone
based; 4) roundtrip, station-based; 5) P2P. Each business model has its own strengths and
weaknesses, as well as opportunities and threats. These factors will be explored, as will how the
business models fare in terms of flexibility and distance travelled. It should be noted that there is
no one business model that is better than the others. The model that fits a rural area will not be the
same one that fits a dense urban area. Likewise, the choice of consumers often depends upon
personal preferences. The same goes for local authorities, who may have a preference for one type
over the other, depending upon the policy outcomes they want to achieve.
Automotive players, such as original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and car rental
companies, are increasingly involved in the car sharing market (Monitor Deloitte, 2017). Their
interest in the market has resulted in multi-element business model strategies that serve to keep
cars relevant and branded. OEMs in particular are experiencing a shift from being a hardware
provider to being a solution provider (Monitor Deloitte, 2017). Their involvement in car sharing
programmes is also encouraging increased mobility at affordable rates, enabling car sharing to
become more integrated and widespread. Leading vehicle manufacturers proposing their own car
sharing programmes often have four common pillars: 1) connectivity, 2) autonomous, 3) shared
programs or services, and 4) electrification and/or alternative propulsion. These four pillars
combine technology with consumer demands, and they are pushing car sharing business models to
innovate. Car sharing programmes that provide integrated, accessible, flexible and convenient
services could very well become a part of the larger mobility network of cities in the near future.
GA n°769513 Page 8 of 77
2 Trends in Car Sharing Business Models

2.1 Analysis of Car Sharing Business Models
Today’s car sharing organisations can be classified into five main types of business models,
based upon their operational characteristics and business model variables identified in D2.1: 1)
free-floating with an operational area; 2) free-floating with pool stations; 3) roundtrip, home-zone
based; 4) roundtrip, station-based; and 5) P2P. Each has its own distinct characteristics, partner
tendencies, and pricing habits, regardless of whether it is for-profit or not-for-profit. These will be
explored in more detail, but first it is important to understand the generic concerns plaguing all car
sharing organisations.
First, all business models struggle with the problem of peaks in demand relative to supply.
For example, the month of August is a time when many households want and need a vehicle to go
on a holiday. Another peak time is when there is a large concert or sports event that increases
travel demand. While cities and venues often arrange extended public transport options for such
events, car sharing remains a necessity for many event goers who are in search of an FMLM
solution.
Second, there is some evidence to suggest that the vehicle fleet is bought with specific
features in mind, even though most of the time the true potential of the vehicles (in terms of
speed, range, carrying capacity, etc.) is neither used nor required. While car sharing schemes may
attempt to have a range of vehicles available, it is still likely that the product mix will not be able to
match the peaks and troughs in demand. This will become more challenging in the future, as the
range of available technologies and vehicle package specifications grows.
Third, there is little understanding of what happens to car sharing service users over time, as
car sharing programmes are still relatively new. There is some debate as to whether or not car
sharing schemes are a stepping stone to private car ownership. If it is the case that car sharing
users (especially non-car owners) do eventually migrate towards individual car ownership, then car
sharing programmes will need to continually reinvest in recruiting new members, and they may
struggle to keep membership numbers growing if there is a high rate at which existing members
leave.
Apart from these business model concerns, critics of the sharing economy have also
identified several concerns related to legal compliance, taxation minimisation, labour laws,
regulatory frameworks such as for health and safety, and adverse social or economic
consequences. The dynamic character of evolving actors in the sharing economy, such as Uber,
Airbnb, and others, has tended to outpace regulatory intervention. Such concerns, and indeed
benefits, that may arise out of various forms of shared mobility are relevant to both future mobility
provision and to the continued viability of car sharing.
The five business models employ a mix of four potential geo-spatial factors. Within those,
there are two main divisions: 1) free-floating versus roundtrip, and 2) area/zone-based versus
station-based. These factors influence both the demand and supply side aspects of the business
models, be it the type of drivers attracted, car rental patterns employed, or organisational costs
involved. As these factors can be mismatched with one another, their generic characteristics will
GA n°769513 Page 9 of 77
first be explored. A user’s perspective will also be presented, taking into account how each factor
influences the distance travelled and degree of flexibility offered by a program. The five individual
business models will then be explored following that, highlighting any differences that emerge
when these factors are combined.
 Free-floating versus roundtrip
Free-floating business models enable members to go from point A to point B, thereby
enabling one-way trips and potentially cutting drivers’ journey times (and rental costs) in half. As
free-floating services are ideal for compact urban areas, they usually offer smaller cars for shorter
trips, and charge based on the time travelled rather than the distance (Monitor Deloitte, 2017).
Perhaps for this reason, the free-floating organisations presented in this deliverable often counted
smaller increments of time (minutes) in their rental usage fees. Sociodemographic data for free-
floating business models shows that they tend to attract younger members (33 years old), with
roughly 70% of them male; 17% of the overall membership lives in a household with kids, and the
attitude towards a car is that, “Driving a car is fun” (Nehrke, 2018).
Roundtrip business models are more traditional, in that they require cars to be returned to
the zone or station from which they started. For this reason, they are less flexible than their free-
floating counterparts. Roundtrip business models tend to have longer on-average booking times
lasting for several hours or a day, and they cater to trips of much longer distances, such as for
leaving a city to visit the surrounding rural areas (Nehrke, 2018). Sociodemographic data for
roundtrip business models shows that they tend to attract slightly older members (44 years old),
with a more equal split along gender lines (56% male, 44% female); 35% of the membership lives in
a household with kids, and the attitude towards a car tends to be that, “A car is a means to an end”
(Nehrke, 2018).
 Area/zone-based versus station-based
Area/zone-based business models provide users with the option to park wherever they
want, within a neighbourhood or designated area. This means that drivers are theoretically able to
park closer to their final destination than a station might otherwise permit. Also, as drivers do not
have to search for an open parking space at a specific station, they can potentially save time by
parking anywhere that is vacant. However, this is highly dependent upon whether or not there are
city parking spaces available in the first place—otherwise, drivers may waste their time (and
consequently money) searching for an open space. This drawback is not considered a major
debilitating factor for area/zone-based business models in terms of flexibility, as it largely depends
on a driver’s custom itinerary [such as the particular location (s)he is in, and the particular
hours/time of day the car is being used]. Many organisations are also starting to offer drivers help
in finding and reserving parking spaces to get around such issues.
Area/zone-based organisations do not have to rent city space for pool stations, although
they may have to spend money instead on moving cars that get parked outside of the indicated
zones. Likewise, if all cars in the zone tend to be parked in one specific area, organisations may
have to move the cars around within the zone, so as to keep them visible and equidistant. In the
same manner, if a car is obscurely-parked, users and maintenance employees may have a hard time
finding it.
GA n°769513 Page 10 of 77
Station-based organisations require cars to be picked up and parked at a station. These

organisations tend to offer a more reliable service, as customers know where, exactly, to find the
cars. However, they tend to offer drivers less flexibility, as the stations may be far from where
drivers want to go, thus requiring extra travel time or a multi-modal trip. Similarly, if the stations
are full, drivers will have to return their car to another station that is further away. With station-
based business models, drivers either hope to find a spot at the closest station, or they must
reserve one on a platform in advance.
How the above factors combine to influence the business models will now be explored. A
chart (Figure 1) mapping where each business model falls in terms of distance travelled and
flexibility provided will then be presented, enabling a general comparison of the business models.
2.1.1 Free-floating with an operational area

In this business model, members of a car sharing organisation choose a car nearby and then
return it by leaving it in any valid parking spot within a defined district. This is the most flexible of
all business models, providing drivers the freedom of making one-way trips, as well as offering
them wide parking options. However, business models falling under this category do not offer
drivers a lot of distance, as both the free-floating factor and the area/zone-based aspect are
designed more for inner-city travel. As such, this results in drivers being somewhat restricted in the
distance they can travel (unless they do not care to terminate the rental period upon arrival).
2.1.2 Free-floating with pool stations

Organisations that operate under this business model are perhaps the rarest on the market.
In fact, all three of the organisations presented in section 2.2.2 are owned by the same group
(Bolloré). For these organisations, members choose a car from a pool station and return it to either
the same pool station, or any of the organisation’s other pool stations spread across the city.
As this business model is currently heavily influenced by an EV network in urban areas, the
distance travelled is confined to the life of the battery and the charging point locations. For the cars
to be able to go their maximum distance, downtime is required for the batteries to sufficiently
recharge, and users must wait for them to do so. This limits the degree of flexibility drivers would
otherwise have. Likewise, although the free-floating aspect offers some degree of flexibility,
providing drivers with the choice of making trips from point A to point B, the station-based aspect
means that drivers must go to a set location to park, taking away their flexibility in terms of parking
choices.
It should be noted that organisations operating under this business model tend to rely on
large fleets. Due to the high fixed costs from the vehicle fleet acquisition and EV network
infrastructure, this business model is not currently profitable. An assessment of Autolib’s revenues
and usage rates in Paris shows that as membership has increased, usage rates have gone down.
This business model therefore requires more than just subscription fees and rental usage fees to be
financially profitable. Some organisations have started selling advertisements that go on the cars,
thus diversifying their revenue. However, not all organisations with this business model operate in a
city where they are legally allowed to do so (Louvet & Jacquemain, 2017).
GA n°769513 Page 11 of 77
2.1.3 Roundtrip, home-zone based

Roundtrip, home-zone based organisations offer a service where drivers must return the car
to the general area from which they started. It might be helpful to think of it as a neighbourhood
business model, where the vehicles are often located in residential areas, for use by local residents.
While the roundtrip aspect means that drivers do not have the flexibility to take one-way trips, the
area/zone-based aspect means that cars can be parked in any valid spot, as long as it is within the
same zone or neighbourhood as that of the departure. This business model therefore provides
users with some degree of flexibility in terms of where they park the car.
In terms of distance, it is a bit of a mix. While the area/zone-based aspect works best in
compact urban areas, the roundtrip aspect means that users can still travel longer distances.
Likewise, both the distance and flexibility can vary, depending upon the fleet’s specifics. For
example, EVs (even those offered by an organisation without its own stations) are typically confined
to urban areas, as they are confined to the life of the battery. EV fleets also require downtime for
charging, and users lose flexibility in this respect. Nonetheless, most of the organisations operating
under this business model do not currently offer EV-only fleets, so this business model offers a bit
more in flexibility and is not far off from the centre in terms of distance.
2.1.4 Roundtrip, station-based

Organisations with a roundtrip, station-based business model operate under a more
traditional structure: members choose a car from a station and then return it to the same station
when they are done. Both the roundtrip and the station-based aspects mean that this model lacks
flexibility, as the cars must be returned and parked at the departure station.
In general, [roundtrip] station-based services tend to be for longer, less frequent/mundane
drives. The cars therefore get more wear and tear, but are driven by fewer users. They do not have
to be located in large, compact cities to be successful, and they often have a wider fleet variety. As
this is the more traditional business model, it is not rare to see organisations in this category that
are more than 20 years old. Cooperation with partners in various areas is very important for
expanding their network (Monitor Deloitte, 2017). Indeed, the organisations presented in this
deliverable for this business model all have well-rounded partnerships with a wide variety of
players.
2.1.5 Peer-to-Peer (P2P)

P2P organisations operate much like roundtrip organisations, only it’s the car owners’ own
cars that get rented out, rather than an organisation’s vehicle fleet. This allows anyone with a car to
make money by renting it out when it would otherwise be sitting idle. When drivers are done with
the car, they return it by driving it back to the car owner’s home or home-zone area. Where they
return it will often depend upon the size of the city in which the P2P organisation is operating, as
many car owners in big cities may not have private parking spaces, and drivers will therefore park it
on public streets nearby (essentially making it area/zone-based).
The value proposition, customer segments, and other key features of P2P organisations
result in a very different business model from those of the roundtrip organisations. Likewise, as
GA n°769513 Page 12 of 77
each car owner brings his or her own car—and personality—to the group, each organisation’s
business model within this group performs very differently from the others.
While a hodgepodge of members’ cars offers the members great flexibility in driving
options, the options will depend on what the car owners offer. The same goes for the time
availability of the cars, although there are very successful organisations with this business model
that cater to both, short- and long-distance trips. The only downside is that these organisations
typically require a physical key to open the cars, and users may find that arranging for the key swap
and meeting the car owner is time consuming and less flexible. While many P2P organisations
promote the social aspects of getting to know the other members, some are now offering
technology platforms that allow drivers to bypass this step, offering them instant chip card or
mobile access. For these reasons, the P2P business model offers drivers a medium degree of
flexibility overall.
P2P business models tend to be for the longest trips distance-wise. An interview with Jaume
Suñol, Drivy’s Country Manager for Spain, revealed that P2P business models compete with daily
car rental companies, particularly when it comes to tourists and young people (personal
communication, March 2018). This sentiment is reflected in the organisation’s strategy. Drivy’s
founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Paulin Dementhon, and Drivy’s Chief Development
Officer Patrick Foster, commented in a separate interview online that the organisation focuses on
trips lasting an average of two days, as ride-hailing services inside cities are more convenient than
car sharing services, and therefore too competitive (Dementhon & Foster, 2018). In explaining how
its prices are calculated, the French Drivy website lists time spans of one and two days, one week,
and even one month (Drivy, n.d.).
As P2P organisations do not have to provide a vehicle fleet or stations, this business model
alleviates upfront costs (Hampshire & Gaites, 2014). This also enables lower-density communities,
such as suburbs and smaller towns, to partake in car sharing as well (Hampshire & Gaites, 2014;
momo, 2009).
GA n°769513 Page 13 of 77
Figure 1: Distance Travelled vs. Flexibility of Business Models

For the chart above, distance travelled considers both how far drivers can theoretically go,
as well as how far the average driver travels. Flexibility is defined as having greater options—this
includes car model choices, time availability, and potential parking spaces. While there are many
dimensions that can provide users “flexibility,” often it will ultimately depend upon a driver’s
individual circumstances and the specific features of an organisation, rather than an organisation’s
business model classification. For example, an organisation that only offers a mobile app-based
system to unlock its cars would be considered less flexible to older drivers who are unaccustomed
to using smartphone technology. In such cases, an organisation that offers both smartphone and
chip card options would be considered more flexible, as such drivers would benefit from having
another option. Such specific instances are many, and are not reflected in the chart above.
In general, there are three main characteristics where each organisation’s ‘user appeal’ will
vary. How these characteristics play out in terms of individual business model variables will be
explored in section 2.2 of this deliverable.
 Membership system rules: The membership system rules provide for the first defining
parameters of the car sharing scheme in question. Lower cost and simplicity may be traded
off against flexibility or use, for example. In broad terms, the individual current and
expected use patterns will need a degree of ‘fit’ with the system rules. This observation
applies to both, day-to-day activities and for more occasional or unpredictable trips. It
should be noted that scheduled public transport services and the mobility offered by
private vehicle ownership confer upon the user a relatively high degree of certainty over
travel arrangements. Extant research has identified that time constraints, the need to book
ahead, and a larger variation in travel times have significant negative effects on people's
intention to use a shared-car (Kim et al., 2017a; 2017b). Other ‘external’ or contextual
GA n°769513 Page 14 of 77
factors that might constrain the acceptance of car sharing business models include socio-
demographic considerations with younger people more likely to adopt car sharing (Prieto
et al., 2017), as is also likely to be the case in households already owning a car (Nijland and
van Meerkerk, 2017). While there is a substantial body of research on consumer or user
attitudes and actions regarding car sharing (see for example Becker, Ciarai, & Axhausen,
2017; Kent, Dowling, & Maaslen, 2017), as well as some research on the implications for
vehicle manufacturers (Bellos et al., 2017), there is little on the business model aspects of
the car sharing schemes themselves.
 Operational effectiveness of the organisation: The operational effectiveness of the car
sharing scheme is crucial for long-term use and acceptance. Ideally, a car sharing scheme is
easy to understand, has clear pathways to join and subsequently to book, use and return
cars, and is able to manage the stock of cars in use relative to demand. There may be
operational service levels defined (e.g., a car may be guaranteed if booked a certain period
in advance). There are multiple dimensions to operational effectiveness, including the
functionality of the website or other interface; the resilience of the data management
system; the management of the vehicle stock, with all the complications of service intervals,
impact damage, vandalism or other abuse; and the acquisition and disposal of stock.
 Range and quality of the vehicles available: The range and quality of vehicles in use for a
car sharing scheme can also be significant to the appeal of the scheme. Some car sharing
schemes may be tied to a specific manufacturer and even to a single car model. Others may
wish to attempt to emulate the overall stock of vehicles in use. There may be deliberate bias
(e.g., to offer only EVs or only “city” vehicles). Historically, the market for new cars has been
very sensitive to issues of brand value, but individual vehicle manufacturers may regard car
sharing schemes quite differently. One manufacturer may consider car sharing schemes as
an opportunity to expose potential customers (i.e., those who might buy a new car) to its
brand. In this case, the manufacturer might supply highly-specified vehicles to the car
sharing scheme, which in turn will grow customer response. Alternatively, a manufacturer
may regard such schemes as an opportunity to shift surplus vehicles in stock. Another may
even refuse to participate. For the car sharing schemes, the terms on which they obtain,
keep and dispose of vehicles can have a significant bearing on the range and quality of
vehicles on offer. This can therefore be an important determinant of viability.
2.2 Comparison of Individual Business Models through the

Business Model Canvas
Each of the five business models will be explored through illustrative examples of
organisations operating with that business model. Moreover, a Business Model Canvas
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) for each organisation will be presented. Each Business Model Canvas
includes nine building blocks that help to understand the value of an organisation and how it
functions. It is helpful to think of the nine blocks not as separate entities, but as interconnected
parts. The nine blocks are:
 Key Partnerships: This block includes business partners, shareholders, or
organisations with which the organisation cooperates. For car sharing organisations,
GA n°769513 Page 15 of 77
this could be local governments, car rental companies, public transport operators,
businesses, car manufacturers, etc.
 Key Activities: This block lists the main functions of the organisation, and the
activities which help it reach its customer segments, build revenue and create value.
These activities include production, problem solving, and managing platforms or
networks. For many car sharing organisations, this block includes fleet maintenance,
platform management, and customer service, to name a few.
 Key Resources: This block contains the main resources needed to complete an
organisation’s key activities, reach its customer segments, build revenue and create
value. Key resources can include physical assets, intellectual property, human
resources, and financial resources. Each business model will have different key
resources, but car sharing organisations often consider their IT platform, vehicle fleet,
and member benefits as key resources.
 Value Proposition: This block focuses on the value the organisation brings to its
customers, and how it is helping to satisfy customer needs. The value can be
quantitative (price, speed of service, etc.) or qualitative (design, customer experience,
etc.). This block is highly individualised, based on each organisation’s key partners,
resources, and channels. Some general examples could be offering car sharing
members free parking, providing bonus minutes for bringing cars back with a full
tank, or not requiring members to pay a deposit.
 Customer Relationships: This block is concerned with the nature of the relationships
an organisation has with each of its customer segments. For example, some car
sharing organisations may have an actual shop that customers can visit, others may
have a hotline that they can call.
 Channels: The channels block lists how a company communicates with its customer
segments, so as to deliver its value proposition. For car sharing organisations,
common examples include the website, mobile app, or customer service shop –
anything in which customers have the chance to interact with the organisation.
 Customer Segments: The customer segments block includes the target audiences of
the organisation. It also includes any groups that are receiving value from the
organisation’s key activities. Typical car sharing customer segments include eco-
conscious individuals, students, and businesses looking to replace company cars.
 Cost Structure: This block includes the large, general costs of the organisation, be it
key resources, key activities, or even key partnerships. Examples within a car sharing
context include fleet acquisition, chip card technology, and customer service.
 Revenues: The revenues block includes any revenue coming into the organisation, be
it from customers or partners. Typical revenues for car sharing organisations include
subscription fees and car rental usage fees.
The information for each Business Model Canvas presented below has largely been
gathered from the survey responses in WP2. In some cases, the information was supplemented
with analysis from additional desktop research. The business models examined are:
 Free-floating with an operational area: car2go, Zipcar, DriveNow
GA n°769513 Page 16 of 77
 Free-floating with pool stations: Autolib, Bluetorino, Bluecity

 Roundtrip, home-zone based: Juuve, Partago
 Roundtrip, station-based: Ubeeqo, Cambio, Greenwheels, Io Guido
 P2P: Dégage, Drivy, CarAmigo
2.2.1 Free-floating with an operational area

2.2.1.1 car2go
Launched in Germany in 2009, car2go was the world’s first free-floating car sharing
organisation (Firnkorn & Müller, 2015). With Daimler as a key shareholder, car2go is the world’s
largest free-floating car sharing organisation, and is based in 26 locations in eight countries around
the world (Daimler, n.d.-c).
The free-floating with an operational area business model allows car2go members to take
one-way trips and park the cars within specified districts. This includes drivers headed to the
airport. As all cars are either Mercedes-Benz or car2go smart models, the car sharing programme
attracts customers who want to drive premium car models. Businesses are another key customer
segment. The organisation has some electric cars available as well, targeting eco-conscious
individuals.
Car2go’s real-time reservation system enables people with last-minute plans to book cars
just 20 minutes in advance (car2go, n.d.). Its value proposition also provides drivers with free
parking in public car lots, and awards them with free minutes for refuelling or recharging cars with
low tanks. Customers pay a small subscription fee, plus rates based on both the time and
kilometres driven. Deposits are not required.
GA n°769513 Page 17 of 77
Table 1: Car2go's Business Model Canvas
2.2.1.2 Zipcar
Avis Budget Group’s Zipcar focuses on urban areas and college campuses across Europe
and North America (Avis Budget Group, n.d.). The organisation strives to offer something for
everyone with a wide selection of cars that serve multiple purposes, including moving apartments
or hauling office supplies (Zipcar, n.d.-a).
The company has several partners with which it works, boosting its value proposition. For
example, Zipcar works with local authorities to secure free parking on public streets for its
members; it works with city councils to set up electrification bays for the EV portion of its fleet; it
provides its members with discounts to local businesses that it partners with; and it integrates its
network with public transport.
Depending on the package chosen, members may pay a monthly subscription fee. Their trip
fees are calculated based upon the length of time they use the car, and overcharge fees (Zipcar,
n.d.-b). Deposits are not required.
GA n°769513 Page 18 of 77
Table 2: Zipcar's Business Model Canvas
2.2.1.3 DriveNow
DriveNow, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BMW Group that has a strong partnership with Sixt
car rental company (BMW Group, 2018b), launched in Germany in 2011. The organisation offers
BMW and MINI models (DriveNow, n.d.-a), competing with car2go for drivers and companies who
prefer premium cars. DriveNow’s key customer segments are very similar to those of car2go, as it
offers the option of cars that are 100% emission free for eco-conscious individuals, and it also
enables drivers to go to/from the airport. Furthermore, customers have the option of booking a car
with a booster seat, targeting families as well (DriveNow, n.d.-b).
DriveNow’s value proposition provides its members with free parking anywhere in the
specified zone. Drivers are also allowed to park the cars and “keep” them, without having to end
their rental period (DriveNow, n.d.-b). For customers that refuel normal cars or recharge EV cars,
they are awarded with 20 bonus minutes (DriveNow, n.d.-c; DriveNow, n.d.-d).
Depending on the city/branch, members may pay a deposit. A one-time subscription fee
depends upon the plan members choose, but it is no more than roughly EUR 25. All drivers are
charged based on the time they use the car.
GA n°769513 Page 19 of 77
Table 3: DriveNow's Business Model Canvas
2.2.2 Free-floating with pool stations

2.2.2.1 Autolib
Owned by Bolloré Group, Autolib started rolling in 2011 and is the first fully-electric car
sharing service in Paris (Autolib, n.d.-a). It targets both eco-conscious individuals and urban drivers
who need a compact car to get around the city. The free-floating with pool station model allows
members to take one-way trips and then park the car at a number of charging stations that have
ideal locations around the city.
Autolib offers its members a service that is complementary with public transport, as many of
the stations are located at metro stations or bus stops. Users have the option of adding their
Autolib account to their existing public transport card, making multi-modal transport easy.
Charging stations are often strategically placed near metro stations or key commercial and
residential areas. For members who buy an annual pass, they have the opportunity to earn points
and access a range of benefits and deals (Whaller, n.d.).
Drivers pay based on the time they use the vehicle (per minute of use after a set fee for the
first 20 minutes). They have the option of paying a monthly fee throughout the year, or paying a
reservation fee (EUR 1) each time they use the service (Autolib, n.d.-b).
Despite being the world’s largest free-floating with pool stations organisation (in terms of
vehicle fleet size and the number of subscribers), Autolib continues to postpone its date of financial
GA n°769513 Page 20 of 77
profitability. Analysis shows that as membership increases and vehicle availability decreases, users
are less likely to choose Autolib for their trips (Louvet & Jacquemain, 2017).
Table 4: Autolib's Business Model Canvas
2.2.2.2 Bluetorino
Owned and operated by the same Bolloré Group as Autolib and Bluecity, Bluetorino was
founded in 2016 and is Turin’s first fully-electric car sharing service (Févry, 2016). The organisation
operates in much the same way as its sister business models, but it has a wider target audience.
Bluetorino offers a price package specifically for young people and students, and also reaches out
to existing EV owners, allowing them to buy a pass to recharge their own private EV at a Bluetorino
charging station (Bluetorino, n.d.).
Like many of its car sharing competitors, Bluetorino offers its members public street parking.
There are also reserved parking spaces in typically-controlled areas, such as the old city centre
(Févry, 2016). Members have access to a real-time parking reservation system, and maintenance
and insurance costs are bundled into the price.
Most users will pay a monthly fee, though this depends upon the package chosen. After
that, users pay based upon the time the cars are used, either per minute or per hour (Bluetorino,
n.d.).
GA n°769513 Page 21 of 77
Table 5: Bluetorino's Business Model Canvas
2.2.2.3 Bluecity
Another Bolloré Group subsidiary, Bluecity is London’s first fully-electric car sharing
programme that gets drivers from point to point (Bluecity, n.d.). Launched in 2015 (Spanier, 2015),
Bluecity targets much the same crowd as any fully-electric car sharing program. However, it also
advertises how its cars are equipped with airbags and isofix, meaning parents can bring their
children’s car seats and easily install them in the cars. Bluecity also promotes how its cars are
connected, offering a GPS, an on-board computer, and 24/7 assistance, all “at the touch of a
button” (Bluecity, n.d.).
The organisation cooperates with individual borough councils in London to offer its users no
parking fees. Drivers also have access to a real-time reservation system on the IT platform, saving
them time when parking at a busy charging station. Membership fees are GBP 5 (EUR 5.72) a
month, with usage fees of GBP 0.17 (EUR 0.19) a minute (Bluecity, n.d.).
GA n°769513 Page 22 of 77
Table 6: Bluecity's Business Model Canvas
2.2.3 Roundtrip, home-zone based

2.2.3.1 Juuve
Founded in 2016 and based in Rotterdam, Juuve is a small organisation with no more than
10 employees (Juuve, n.d.-b). Its business attracts car enthusiasts who want to try driving new
models, and a key audience is those who are open to new forms of mobility. One unique aspect of
its business model is its partnership with the car leasing company Justlease and car manufacturer
Peugeot. In addition to offering car sharing services, Juuve also offers its members the chance to
car share while car leasing.
While members do not yet have free city parking, the organisation has arranged with local
authorities to provide them with discounted parking. Its value proposition also offers members the
opportunity to drive new cars with keyless entry. The car sharing platform enables members to
upload photos of the cars they drove after their session, so that they have proof of the condition in
which they left them. Keeping with the online theme, members are encouraged to blog about their
car sharing experiences, and they get EUR 20 credit for each post they make. Members who lease
cars pay by monthly fees starting from EUR 99, while typical car-sharing members pay usage fees
that are based on both the kilometre driven and the hours used (Juuve, n.d.-a).
GA n°769513 Page 23 of 77
Table 7: Juuve's Business Model Canvas
2.2.3.2 Partago
Partago, a non-profit co-operative based in Ghent, offers a fleet of only EVs to its members.
Founded in 2015 (Partago, n.d.-b), the organisation receives discounted prices from car
manufacturers on new cars. It tries to serve all city residents, from those in need of a quick
replacement for their existing car to those in need of a family-sized vehicle. Businesses who want to
provide their employees with cars are also encouraged to join (Partago, n.d.-a).
In addition to free city parking, drivers have reduced rates for night driving, and can receive
credit for any unused time if they return the car earlier than planned. They also have minutes
added to their cards for every percent that a battery gets recharged. Members receive a
comprehensive insurance package, can access cars via a chip card or smartphone, and receive a co-
operative newsletter that keeps them updated on the organisation (Partago, n.d.-a).
While insurance is bundled into the price, co-operative members do have to pay an initial
deposit of EUR 500. Members purchase pre-paid travel credit packages, based on the hours of
driving they would like, though their usage fees are deducted based on the kilometres driven and
the minutes used.
GA n°769513 Page 24 of 77
Table 8: Partago's Business Model Canvas
2.2.4 Roundtrip, station based

2.2.4.1 Ubeeqo
Ubeeqo was founded in Paris in 2008, under the name Carbox (Ubeeqo, n.d.). It has since
spread to other major European cities, although it appears to operate on a largely local basis,
where partnerships with local governments, public transport operators, businesses, and car
manufacturers/distributors vary. Like many of its counterparts, the organisation targets businesses
looking for a company car alternative, as well as people in need of a car for mundane tasks that do
not require much planning in advance, such as grocery shopping. Inhabitants of social housing are
also a key audience, as are tourists at hotels. Ubeeqo focuses on how the service is simple and easy
to use.
The value proposition largely depends upon the branch. However, drivers receive street
parking, and may have special tariffs on public transport. They can also use their public transport
card for Ubeeqo transactions. Ubeeqo offers its customers the chance to lower their insurance risk
by up to EUR 500. Subscription fees vary, but in general are less than EUR 10 a month. Drivers pay
usage fees based upon the distance (kilometre) and time travelled (hourly and daily rates).
GA n°769513 Page 25 of 77
Table 9: Ubeeqo's Business Model Canvas
2.2.4.2 Cambio
With the merger of three existing car sharing companies (StadtteilAuto Aachen, StadtAuto
Bremen and StattAuto Koln), Cambio was formed in 2000 (Cambio, n.d.). Today it has a presence in
21 cities in Germany and 39 cities in Belgium, and its reach expands to 300 cities when including its
partner companies (Cambio, n.d.). The organisation offers pricing plans that target students and
young drivers, occasional drivers, and drivers needing to travel long distances or go on long trips.
Cambio partners with the automotive industry, local governments, public service providers,
and public transport operators. One major benefit that members receive is that they can drive the
cars in several European countries. Some Cambio branches enable public transport users to have
special discounts, as well as use the same key card.
Subscription fees depend upon the branch, ranging from non-existent to EUR 35. The
deposit is also conditional, and could be as much as EUR 500. Usage fees are charged based on the
kilometres driven as well as time travelled (per hour and every 15 minutes).
GA n°769513 Page 26 of 77
Table 10: Cambio's Business Model Canvas
2.2.4.3 Greenwheels
Greenwheels was founded in the Netherlands in 1995, and now also includes Germany in its
service range. The organisation targets several customer segments with personalized plans and
conditions, be it for occasional users or frequent users, families or eco-conscious individuals.
Greenwheels cooperates with public transport operators for both digital integration of its
key cards and customer service/marketing, offering special tariffs for those purchasing public
transport subscriptions. The organisation also cooperates with businesses for shuttle services and
joint car sharing and housing projects. Local government arrangements have enabled free public
street parking. Further, Greenwheels also partners with car manufacturers for the purchase and
maintenance of its vehicle fleet, including some electric cars. Its value proposition includes making
it easy for members to cancel their plans, and not requiring long-term commitments.
Depending on the plan drivers choose, they may or may not have subscription fees and
deposits. They are then charged based upon the distance and time travelled. Those who are late,
smoke in the cars, or do not follow other rules are charged fines.
GA n°769513 Page 27 of 77
Table 11: Greenwheels' Business Model Canvas
2.2.4.4 Io Guido
Born from the national Iniziativa Car Sharing (ICS) programme in 2000, Io Guido launched
operations in Modena in 2003 (Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio, 2003). Io Guido
has since spread to other cities in Italy, though it takes various names and business models
depending upon the city and specific car sharing services offered. Io Guido originally started with
roundtrip station-based services and later added free-floating with pool-station services, which
allows drivers to take a shared in car in one station and return it in another one (Perboli, Ferrero,
Musso & Vesco, 2017).
In addition to working with city councilors, the program also works with social services,
businesses, and academic researchers. It is unique in that it links all state-sponsored car sharing
services together, so that members of one city programme can use the local car sharing services of
another city (Merella, 2008). Another unique aspect about the programme is that it attracts car
scrapers, erasing the subscription fee for those who are ready to get rid of their car (Merella, 2008).
Additionally, Io Guido offers members fewer driving restrictions, such as having the ability to access
certain zones for free, and having the ability to cross yellow lanes (Merella, 2008). The Io Guido app
utilizes sophisticated technology, providing users with GPS services, the ability to reserve cars
within a short timeframe, and help in finding parked cars (Roma Mobilità, n.d.).
However, despite these many benefits and the strong state and local government support,
competition has been fierce as private companies have entered the arena. In fact, Io Guido Turin
GA n°769513 Page 28 of 77
shut its doors in 2017 (La Repubblica, 2017). The organisation is a for-profit co-operative that
receives government funding. Customers pay an annual membership fee, as well as usage fees that
are charged per kilometre and by the hour. The call centre is also a (minor) source of revenue
(Roma Mobilità, n.d.).
Table 12: Io Guido's Business Model Canvas
2.2.5 Peer-to-Peer (P2P)

2.2.5.1 Dégage
Dégage, a non-profit association founded in 1998 in Ghent, tailors itself to individuals who
like or need to drive on occasion. Its customer segments include environmentally-conscious urban
residents who also bike or take public transport, as well as those who need a car for longer trips.
Community-engaged individuals who like to know their neighbours and contribute to a safe
neighbourhood constitute a core part of the organisation, and information sessions are held at the
homes of volunteers.
The organisation partners with the city council to provide parking permits for its members.
As it is a P2P organisation, car owners can earn money when they are not using their cars by
renting it out to the other members. They are reimbursed based on the percentage of kilometres
their cars have been driven by others during that period. Another value proposition is that
members are charged low usage fees based only on the distance driven, rather than distance and
time.
GA n°769513 Page 29 of 77
Membership requires a refundable deposit of EUR 75 and a subscription fee of EUR 35.
Cancelling a membership is easy to do.
Table 13: Dégage's Business Model Canvas
2.2.5.2 Drivy
Drivy is a for-profit company founded in 2010 in Marseille, and it has since spread to several
European countries. Unlike its counterparts, Drivy does not try to capture drivers who need to take
short trips inside a city – it focuses instead on having repeat customers, and drivers who are in
need of a car for longer trips (Dementhon & Foster, 2018). The organisation has several public-
private shareholders, such as Nokia Growth Partner, Cathay Innovation, Index Ventures, Via ID, and
BPI France. It also cooperates with local governments and Allianz Insurance.
One value proposition is that the company offers is that new members are offered training
on how to get started. Car owners can rent their car out to other members, setting their own price.
Drivy will also install a box that provides a GPS and makes the car connected. Car owners get to
keep 80% of the rental amount, while Drivy keeps 13% and 7% goes to Allianz for insurance costs.
There is no subscription fee, and a deposit is not required. At the end of their trip, drivers can leave
reviews of their experience, helping to ensure members are honest and fair.
GA n°769513 Page 30 of 77
Table 14: Drivy's Business Model Canvas
2.2.5.3 CarAmigo
Founded in 2014, CarAmigo was Belgium’s first P2P car sharing organisation (Roux, 2014). It
targets socially-minded and eco-conscious individuals, and requires drivers to have verified
profiles. It strives to have a multitude of cars on offer, including cars equipped with car seats for
children, as well as other car specifications. While all car owners are welcome to join, CarAmigo
partners with Ford, where Ford buyers are actively encouraged to join CarAmigo (CarAmigo, n.d.).
CarAmigo also partners with local businesses so as to promote car sharing and provide services. It
cooperates with local governments, and depending upon the branch, academic researchers.
One major value proposition of the organisation is that it has arranged for the earnings its
members make from renting out their cars to not be counted as taxable income (Ambani, 2015).
Drivers must pay a deposit of EUR 500, and are then charged based on the distance and time
traveled. CarAmigo keeps 35% of the fees for customer services and website maintenance. Fuel is
not included in the offering, so drivers must pay for that separately.
GA n°769513 Page 31 of 77
Table 15: CarAmigo's Business Model Canvas
While it is helpful to understand how each organisation’s business model works, it is also
helpful to compare them. The table below is a snapshot of several general trends for car sharing
organisations. The presence (or lack) of organisations for each category highlights where there may
be differences among business model types, and where competition may be fiercer for certain
business models. It is important to note that the chart does not—and cannot—include all key
factors unique to car sharing business models; rather, it is a conglomeration of the most common
characteristics that may divide or unite the business models. Likewise, as the car sharing market is
evolving at a rapid pace, there are some aspects that will soon be outdated. For example, just days
before this deliverable was due, a 50-50 joint venture was announced between car2go and
DriveNow (Sachgau & Rauwald, 2018). As the deal has yet to be approved by the regulators, the
two organisations are treated separately for the purposes of this deliverable.
To boost their adaptive capacity, several organisations are starting to diversify elements of
their business model. For example, Ubeeqo and Cambio (both roundtrip, station-based), have
allowed their city branches to take on different features, giving the specific branches the freedom
to form their own partnerships, choose the cars they offer, and set their own pricing packages. For
Io Guido (roundtrip, station-based), some cities’ branches are now operating under a different
business model altogether, as they are starting to offer free-floating with pool station services in
addition to the roundtrip, station-based services (Perboli, Ferrero, Musso & Vesco, 2017). Then
GA n°769513 Page 32 of 77
there are organisations such as Juuve (roundtrip, home-zone based), which are offering non-car
sharing services such as car leasing.
Increased competition is also leading some organisations to set themselves apart from
others, offering a variety of advantages to their members. Dégage (P2P) offers certificates of
accident-free driving for insurance purposes to its members upon leaving. Partago (roundtrip,
home-zone based) offers reduced rates for night driving, and also returns some of the charge if the
drivers come back earlier than planned. Partago also credits drivers with minutes for each percent
that the battery of a car is returned recharged. DriveNow (free-floating operational area) also offers
bonus minutes for its charged EVs, and it extends this offer to drivers of non-EVs by offering bonus
minutes for its refuelled cars. Zipcar (free-floating with an operational area) partners with local
businesses to offer members discounts, and Autolib (free-floating with pool stations) offers similar
benefits and deals for its club-level members, enticing them to pay a bit more.
The trends in car sharing business models and the value propositions of organisations are
evolving. Based on the 15 organisations reviewed, key takeaways of the current state of the market
include:
 Partnerships with local governments: Most car sharing organisations, regardless of
business model, cooperate with local government(s). This often comes in the form of
allowing organisations’ members to have free public parking of some sort, be it street
parking or lot parking. It can also come through the electrification of some EV station bays,
or through tax reductions for members. Only two organisations, Partago (roundtrip, home-
zone based) and Drivy (P2P), do not cooperate with local governments.
 Partnerships with public transport operators: Cooperation with public transport
operators is a key value proposition for some organisations. This is often for digital
integration purposes, but also for customer service or marketing purposes. Three of the
four roundtrip, station-based business models reviewed in this deliverable cooperate with
public transport operators (Ubeeqo, Cambio and Greenwheels).
 Partnerships with OEMs: Several business models partner with OEMs. Three of the four
roundtrip, station-based organisations (Ubeeqo, Cambio and Greenwheels) have
partnerships with OEMs. This could be due to competition, or it could be that these
business models tend to be a bit older and are therefore more established. The three
organisations that are free-floating with pool stations (Autolib, Bluetorino, Bluecity), for
example, started out with car design firm Pininfarina as a partner, but have now formed
partnerships with both PSA Peugeot Citroën and Renault (Egloff, 2015). It is also interesting
to note that CarAmigo, a P2P organisation, has a partnership with an OEM. Here, the two
have signed an agreement so that when a customer purchases a new vehicle or goes in for
maintenance, Ford will encourage the car owners to join CarAmigo (CarAmigo, n.d.). This
innovative aspect of the business model could soon spread to other P2P organisations.
Looking at the organisations missing from the list also provides clues into how the business
models operate. Zipcar (free-floating with an operational area), for example, is not there as
it has chosen to partner with a car rental company instead. Car2go and DriveNow (also free-
floating with an operational area) originally started out in the same manner, though were
later bought by OEMs (Sachgau & Rauwald, 2018).
GA n°769513 Page 33 of 77
 Offers of electric cars: For the organisations that are free-floating with pool stations
(Autolib, Bluetorino, Bluecity), as well as for Partago (roundtrip, home-zone based), EVs
account for 100% of the fleet. As regulations to restrict air pollution are becoming more
important, offering an electric car is becoming a growing part of the business model for
many organisations. Still, it is not a defining feature of most, as the offerings are but a small
percentage of the entire fleet, and charging stations can be quite expensive to build.
Likewise, while some P2P organisations may have members with EVs, it is not a significant
portion and is currently irrelevant to their value proposition. The ability of the P2P business
models to adapt and feature EVs as part of their business model in the future will inevitably
depend upon the customer segments they target.
 Multi-modal flexibility: If car sharing organisations want to continue to expand their
members, offering multi-modal transport options is key. This is not only logical, it is
strategic. For example, Autolib (free-floating with pool stations) has integrated its payment
platform with public transport, enabling drivers to use their metro and bus card. Similarly,
three roundtrip, station-based organisations (Ubeeqo, Cambio and Greenwheels) have key
cards that are either the same card used for public transport, or that will work with public
transport. Other organisations, such as car2go (free-floating with operational area),
DriveNow (free-floating with operational area), Cambio and Greenwheels, all partner with
public transport operators for digital integration of some sort, thereby facilitating multi-
modal transport. Organisations are also securing reserved parking spots at metro stations
and airports. Autolib and Bluecity (free-floating with pool stations), as well as Io Guido
(roundtrip station-based), and Cambio all promote that they are either complementary to,
or integrated with, public transport. This trend will inevitably grow stronger as competition
for millennials heats up and growing urbanisation results in greater traffic and air pollution.
 Parking and driving benefits: Most organisations offer parking and/or driving benefits,
though this takes different shapes, such as whether a car can have free parking anywhere
within a zone, only within public parking lots, or on a first-come-first-served basis for areas
that are typically restricted to vehicles. Some organisations, such as Io Guido (roundtrip,
station-based) offer driving privileges such as allowing drivers to stop in certain zones
without paying, or having the ability to cross yellow lanes. As Io Guido has strong national-
level support, other organisations may not be able to offer their members such privileges.
However, its success could also influence local authorities in other countries and cities to
start doing the same. Of the 15 organisations reviewed, only two organisations (Drivy and
CarAmigo, both P2P) did not offer either, parking or driving benefits.
 For-profit: Most business models reviewed are for-profit in nature. This includes the co-
operative Io Guido (roundtrip, station-based), which was launched by state officials. The two
that are not-for-profit include Partago (roundtrip, home-zone based)—also a co-operative
by legal status—and Dégage (P2P), which is an unincorporated association by legal status.
Both of these organisations focus on social and environmental aspects in addition to car
sharing. In the case of Partago, it is about having a 100% EV fleet, while in the case of
Dégage, it is about building community relationships.
 Subscription fee: Several organisations charge monthly, annual, or one-time subscription
fees. However, many of these organisations, such as Zipcar (free-floating operational area),
GA n°769513 Page 34 of 77
Autolib (free-floating with pool stations) and Greenwheels (roundtrip, station-based), also
offer packages that do not require a subscription fee. As members have the option to
choose between packages, these organisations were excluded from the chart. For some of
the organisations listed, including DriveNow (free-floating operational area) and three of
the four roundtrip, station-based organisations (Ubeeqo, Cambio and Io Guido), the
subscription fee is required only at certain branches. As such fees are therefore a part of the
business models for these branches, they were included in the chart.
 Deposit: Similar to the subscription fee, there are many variations in whether or not a
deposit is required. Bluecity (free-floating with pool stations) requires a deposit based on
one’s rental history and payment record. As it does not appear to be an option for certain
members, it is included in the chart. Some organisations, such as Partago (roundtrip, home-
zone based) and CarAmigo (P2P), require hefty deposits of EUR 500 from all members.
Dégage (P2P) also requires a deposit, but it is much smaller, at EUR 75. Still others allow
their individual branches to choose whether or not to require a deposit. Often these
required deposits are inexpensive, but they can vary. For example, some branches of
DriveNow (free-floating operational area) charge GBP 12 (EUR 13.74), some branches of
Greenwheels (roundtrip, station-based) charge EUR 25, and some branches of Cambio
(roundtrip, station-based) charge anywhere from EUR 150-500. The deposits are often
refunded in full or in part when a member decides to leave an organisation. Another route
that some organisations are offering their potential members is to not require a deposit,
but a credit card number. Car2go (free-floating operational area) is one such example, and
some branches of DriveNow (free-floating operational area) are doing the same.
Greenwheels (roundtrip, station-based) is also offering the no-deposit-but-a-credit-card-
number option at some branches, although it seems to be dependent upon the specific
rates and conditions that apply to each customer.
 Pricing by time: Most car sharing organisations reviewed for this deliverable include time
as a factor in determining their rental or usage fees. Only Dégage (P2P) does not. For the
business models that are free-floating with pool stations (Autolib, Bluetorino and Bluecity),
time is the only factor included. Their charges are based on minutes or hours driven, and
sometimes include a set of 20 or so minutes for each rental period. Partago (roundtrip,
home-zone based) also charges by the minute, a factor that seems to be indicative of EV
fleets that cannot travel too far. Although other organisations may charge by the minute or
hour, they tend to offer longer options as well, such as daily, weekly and even monthly
rates.
 Pricing by distance: All organisations apart from those that are free-floating with pool
stations (Autolib, Bluetorino and Bluecity) include distance as a factor in determining the
usage fee they charge their members. Most other organisations charge per kilometre or set
of kilometres. Zipcar (free-floating operational area) only starts to charge per kilometre
after a driver has surpassed 60 kilometres, and DriveNow (free-floating operational area),
starts to charge after 200 kilometres.
 Fuel costs: Most organisations reviewed for this deliverable include the cost of fuel in their
prices. Some organisations, however, require that their members pay for fuel themselves.
GA n°769513 Page 35 of 77
These include some branches of Greenwheels (roundtrip, station-based), Drivy (P2P) and
CarAmigo (P2P). In general, a common approach is for organisations to bundle their fuel
costs (as well as maintenance fees, vehicle depreciation costs, insurance costs, etc.) into
their membership prices.
GA n°769513 Page 36 of 77
Table 16: Business Model Characteristics of Selected Car Sharing Organisations (based on survey responses and desktop research; see descriptions
above for detailed explanations)
This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under the grant agreement n°769513
3 SWOT Analysis of Business Models in Car Sharing

3.1 Free-floating with an operational area
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
 Flexible for users  Capital intensive  Area expansion  May be displaced
(see section 2.1)  May require a lot by pushing out by ride-hailing
 One-way trips of repositioning of the boundaries systems
allowed vehicles of the area  May be
 Does not require  May be served substituted by
dedicated susceptible to  ‘Deepening’ of station-based
parking facility parking issues presence quite systems or
 Reduced (e.g., nowhere to simple by combined systems
investment park) increasing the  Lack of scale can
needed, as there  Vehicle damage number of render this model
are no stations may result from vehicles per unprofitable
 Can build a lack of protected area  Ride-sharing
presence parking schemes may
incrementally by  Inaccessible capture one-way
starting with a vehicles may trip market share
small area result from lack of  Large schemes run
 Operational area dedicated parking by vehicle
can be extended locations manufacturers
easily  May result in may cannibalize
users wasting time their own sales of
looking for new cars
vehicles
 Not suited to
long-distance car
sharing (e.g.,
between urban
areas)
 Own-brand
schemes from
manufacturers
may restrict
consumer choices
Table 17: Free-floating with operational area SWOT
In this model the vehicles may be picked-up and left at any suitable point within a defined
geographic area (typically a city, sometimes a zone or street within a larger urban area). Vehicles
must ideally be tracked in order that their precise location is known. A key issue with this type of
model is the distribution of vehicles within the operational area. Where unsuitable clustering of
vehicles occurs, it will be necessary to invest resources in repositioning those vehicles. Extra
management issues may arise over vehicles parked illegally, especially where wheel-clamping is
adopted. The density of vehicles in an area may be restricted in this model by the availability of
This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under
the grant agreement n°769513
parking spaces, in some instances this restriction necessitates that the car sharing operation has an
agreement with the local government authority – for example to ensure that car sharing vehicles
have the right to park in the area. At present a free-floating with an operational area business
model is unable to support a fleet of battery EVs due to the lack of suitable public charging points
in most locations. Long-range (wide area) schemes are more difficult to manage, particularly in
instances where journeys are for one direction only. Again, this may require considerable
investment in repositioning vehicles.
The best-known of these schemes are large and well-resourced, with sophisticated fleet
management systems. Examples include car2go, Zipcar, and DriveNow. Of these, DriveNow was
established by BMW in association with Sixt (the German car rental company). Car2go was similarly
established by Mercedes (Daimler). It is notable that these premium brands felt enabled to enter
the car sharing market on a substantial scale, while Audi did not. This illustrates the diversity of
views on the scope of such schemes (Krommes and Schmidt, 2017).
3.2 Free-floating with pool stations

 Easier to manage  Results in the  Co-branding  May be
and protect the need for with local substituted by
stock of cars in use repositioning of government ride-hailing
 Can be suited to vehicles authority as part systems
high-density of  May result in a of integrated  May be
demand locations lot of extra transport substituted by
 Users know where capacity in solution car rental
the cars will be station facilities  Replication of services
 Visibility in a that are under- model on a city-  May be
marketing sense used in order to by-city basis substituted by
 Suited to EVs cope with peak  Stations can be public transport
 Suitable for one- loads distributed systems (rail
way use and longer  Stations reduce according to and bus)
trips the convenience demand (e.g., depending
of coverage along car-share upon trip type
 Stations may highways)
incur additional  Stations can be
maintenance situated at high-
costs demand
locations (e.g.,
airports)
Table 18: Free-floating with pool stations SWOT
Free-floating with pool station systems may be easier to use for battery EVs, because the
stations can be equipped to charge vehicles, as in the Paris Autolib scheme. Indeed, the best-
known and largest examples of this sort of car sharing involve Bolloré, the company behind the
original Paris concept. On the other hand, as He et al., (2017) note, a one-way car sharing scheme
poses greater operational challenges if the scheme operates over large areas, a problem that is
exacerbated when considering the use of EVs. There are interesting possibilities in terms of
GA n°769513 Page 39 of 77
integration with the public transport system, as stations can be co-located with transport hubs. In
practice, the free-floating with pool station business models also need to define an operational
area beyond which the drivers cannot terminate their rental. All free-floating systems raise the
possibility of having to invest resources in repositioning vehicles, although with pool stations the
task of gathering such vehicles is at least reduced. A further consideration is the investment needed
in stations, and whether that needs to be dedicated or can be supported by existing infrastructures
such as car parks. An interesting future possibility is for chains of pool stations on longitudinal
routes and highways, akin to the use of staging posts in the horse-drawn era of postal services.
3.3 Roundtrip, home-zone based

 Easier  Spatial  Can be replicated  Users may readily
management of restrictions, as on a migrate to owning
the fleet with drivers cannot neighbourhood- their own car
lower end their by- because this
repositioning transaction out neighbourhood usage pattern is
demands of the basis most similar to
 Suitable for designated area  If sufficiently owning a vehicle
incremental and  Requires embedded, could  May be
low-investment sufficient local reduce demand substituted by
growth strategy density of for parking more
 May create demand within spaces and hence sophisticated,
clusters of users the home zone offer wider lower-cost
willing to support  Can be difficult benefits to locals business
the service (such to establish a propositions
as with co- growth path  May be
operatives), and  EVs require substituted by
therefore offer a sufficient public rental offers
lower per-km charging points
cost of service
Table 19: Roundtrip, home-zone based SWOT
This scheme is interesting because it is possible to start small and relatively simply, and still
achieve a longer-term growth path that enables more sophistication and scale (e.g., Partago in
Ghent, Belgium). It is suited therefore to those ‘grassroots’ initiatives whereby interested individuals
and groups instigate mobility solutions that meet environmental, social and other objectives. As
such, these small-scale schemes are unlikely to redefine urban mobility in a meaningful sense
unless further support is achieved. For example, embryonic attempts at car sharing may be offered
‘protected’ status for car parking in a defined area by the local government authority. They also
offer important ‘demonstrator’ effects to show that sharing, and/or alternative technologies such as
battery electric powertrain, can indeed be practical and useful (Hildermeier, 2016; Roy et al., 2016).
Small fleets are inevitably vulnerable to operational disruption. If the fleet of cars available is only
three in number, and one is out of service, it represents a 33% loss of capacity.
GA n°769513 Page 40 of 77
3.4 Roundtrip, station-based

 Comparatively  Pool stations  May be suited  Limited flexibility
easy to manage may not be for exploitation may make this
the stock of conveniently of tourism model vulnerable
vehicles located for markets to competition
 Suitable for EVs users  Could be served from ride-hailing
and fuel cell  Area served out of existing organisations (for
vehicles where may be facilities (e.g., car short term trips)
infrastructure is restricted by parks, car rental or car rental
not widely pool station stock locations, companies (for
available availability or dealerships) longer-term
 Potential for scale projects)
great variety of  Vehicle rental
vehicles on offer cannot be
terminated
outside of
designated area
Table 20: Roundtrip, station-based SWOT
It is interesting that some of the most developed examples of this sort of business model,
such as Greenwheels in the Netherlands, have sought to emphasise a flexible range of offers to
encourage a diverse customer base for car sharing. Greenwheels, for example, offers three basic
packages depending upon how frequent the usage is expected to be. Some of these schemes, such
as the BeeZero fuel cell vehicle scheme run by Linde in Bavaria, will automatically calculate the best
time and distance package out of the four available for the trip drivers have taken (Anon, 2016).
When aimed at tourist markets, this sort of scheme needs low initial registration costs, and ideally
no annual or monthly fee. Where the scheme serves local users, regular membership fees are less
of a concern and may underpin a better level of service overall.
Larger schemes of this type have some choices to make about the sort of vehicles they offer,
and how they are sourced. It may be the case that with sufficient annual new car purchases, the
larger schemes can obtain discounts from a manufacturer or their dealership. However, single-
source purchasing may result in an inadequate fleet mix.
GA n°769513 Page 41 of 77
3.5 P2P and community schemes

 Can be tied into,  The concept may  Fits with the ‘on-  Users may
for example, stand or fall on demand’ migrate to a more
urban transport the quality of the mentality of the ‘assured’ or stable
planning policies app used era system
through housing  Care needed in  Low costs for  Management of
policies verifying drivers vehicle owners ‘incidents’ may be
 Can serve closed  Return and those excessive.
markets requirements renting the  Vehicle owners
 Relatively low may be a bit shared vehicles will probably have
set-up costs (no restrictive (e.g., means that this income taxed
vehicles or same place, market  May be a backlash
stations and/or same fuel expansion is with regards to
required) level) possible car safety issues
 Offers various  Users may not and other
types of shared feel comfortable regulatory
vehicles driving models concerns
 Option (if drivers with which they
prefer) to de- are unfamiliar
personalise the  Users are
transaction via uncertain as to
remote (app whether vehicles
enabled) renting will be available
and car opening and when
 Vehicles of
variable types
Table 21: P2P and community schemes SWOT
A significant consideration for P2P car sharing is that there has to be sufficient people with
assets (i.e., cars) who are also willing to share those assets (Wilhelms et al., 2017). The recruitment
of vehicle owners is therefore crucial. Thereafter, sharing patterns need to be matched
asymmetrically against personal use patterns.
Schemes like Drivy act as intermediaries between car owners and members who would like
to use a car. This is similar in principle to Airbnb for example, with the intermediary taking a service
charge fee. Hence a high proportion of the budget is likely to be taken by advertising to recruit
cars and member drivers. These systems absolutely rely upon the robustness of all the support
systems that surround vehicle use, such as vehicle licensing, insurance, driver licensing,
roadworthiness testing and related issues.
A ‘low-tech’ version of peer-to-peer car sharing, without the use of an app for example, is
possible on an informal and small scale, but in general these are limited in scope. The most obvious
examples are in closed communities, such as those in a specific housing development or area in
which private car ownership is not allowed. These have come to represent a form of a ‘closed
market’. Other closed markets might be institutional, based on a company, or other institution
which then sets up an ‘internal’ car sharing scheme. More generally, the direct commitment of
GA n°769513 Page 42 of 77
urban authorities can also be crucial, as in the instance of Bremen with a target of 20,000 shared
vehicles to remove at least 6,000 private vehicles from the streets of the city (Glotz-Richter, 2016).
In schemes that are supported by a local community, the use of car sharing schemes may be
directly linked to other strategies and policies at the local government level, designed to improve
the quality of life for residents. Hence the promotion of car sharing alongside, for example,
improved public transport or the decentralisation of social services (schools, medical care, etc.), can
in combination result in a less transport-dependent locality with the associated benefits of reduced
pollution, reduced noise, and so-called ‘liveable cities’.
GA n°769513 Page 43 of 77
4 Innovation in Business Model Strategies

4.1 Car Sharing Schemes and Vehicle Manufacturers
Major vehicle manufacturers have relied upon an established business model for decades, in
which their focus is on design, production of key parts such as the body and the engine, and final
assembly. Levels of backward integration into component production vary, but over time the
tendency has been to increase outsourcing. Levels of forward integration into distribution, retail
and post-retail activities also vary, but are largely outsourced. However, some manufacturers retain
significant retail operations of their own in parallel with franchised dealers. Most manufacturers
have captive finance operations that supply dealer (stock) finance along with fleet and retail
finance.
For vehicle manufacturers, the significance of car sharing schemes will depend upon two key
issues: the ‘fit’ of car sharing schemes into the extant practice of marketing and re-marketing
vehicles, and the compound impact of car sharing activities alongside major transformations in the
industry associated with the adoption of EVs, connectivity, and autonomous driving. In respect of
both issues, there is a dynamic element to the potential significance of car sharing over time.
The supply of vehicles into car sharing schemes (whether captive or independent) is but one
of multiple routes to market, each of which may involve differential rates of discount and
operational advantages in terms of duration of ‘ownership’, finance, availability, fit into a re-
marketing scheme (‘approved used’), and so on. A large, full-range manufacturer will normally
include the following routes to market:
 Vehicles supplied to staff (and often family members)
 Vehicles supplied to sister companies and affiliates
 Vehicles supplied to components and materials suppliers
 Large fleet deals to captive or independent daily rental companies
 Large fleet deals to independent companies
 Other fleet, rental and corporate deals including PR/marketing vehicles for the press, cars
supplied to ride-hailing operations, etc.
 Vehicles supplied to car sharing schemes
 Vehicles supplied to dealerships as demonstrators, service replacement cars, etc.
 Vehicles sold to retail customers via discount offers and finance schemes
 Full retail price vehicles
It can be observed that in terms of the product life cycle, a vehicle model in the initial
phases of production should have strong demand and therefore command full retail price in the
market (a current example would be the Tesla S). No discounts are available, and customers must
wait for delivery. At the other end of the spectrum, many models become more difficult to sell
towards the end of their production period, which in turn means greater recourse to market routes
where discounts are higher and profits are lower. In addition, where a manufacturer seeks to run a
production system with a high degree of customer specification and ‘order to delivery’, the
volatility in retail demand can be smoothed by the insertion of vehicles with non-retail routes to
market. The daily rental industry has traditionally functioned as a capacity-absorbing facility within
GA n°769513 Page 44 of 77
the larger automotive system. It is possible, even probable, that for the larger vehicle
manufacturer-owned car sharing schemes, there is an element of capacity absorption.
Furthermore, a crucial consideration for the vehicle manufacturers is that of re-marketing of
vehicles. Re-marketing is the process whereby used vehicles of various ages and conditions are
brought back into the retail and distribution system to be sold as so-called ‘approved used’. Careful
management of re-marketing is important because it assists with bolstering resale values, which in
turn means that the rate of depreciation on new cars is lower. Given that depreciation is the largest
single cost element in a new car acquisition over three years, there is much marketing value in
maintaining vehicle values. Moreover, re-marketing is an important source of revenue for
franchised dealerships and therefore key to maintaining the viability of the network coverage. The
value of vehicles coming into the re-marketing system will depend upon the model in question,
then age, distance driven, and condition along with details of specification (e.g., colours such as
yellow have a higher depreciation rate). Dealer demonstrators, for example, tend to be around six
months to 12 months old, with less than 6,000 km and in good condition. An ex-company car may
be 36 or 48 months old, with 60,000 km and showing more obvious wear. It is likely that most car
sharing schemes of substantial scale fall between these extremes.
Overall, it is likely that for the industry as a whole, and for most manufacturers, car sharing
schemes represent a minor element of the routes to market. Moreover, car sharing schemes are
not generally disruptive to the overall business model of the vehicle manufacturers. One interesting
aspect of car sharing schemes is the possible impact on the intensity of vehicle use, and the
subsequent pull-through of new vehicle sales. That is, it is possible that manufacturers can capture
markets that would otherwise be out of reach (i.e., consumers who cannot afford or do not wish to
own a new car) and by combining sufficient fractions of usage, can get greater usage rates (more
kilometres driven) than would otherwise be the case. In turn, vehicles are effectively used up more
quickly before being sold into the used car market. In this regard, different forms of car sharing
represent more fine-grained market segmentation (Kopp et al., 2015).
Where some manufacturers have themselves engaged in the creation of car sharing
schemes, it is evident that either the new capabilities (such as in fleet management) need to be
developed inside the company, or a partnership with an organisation that has the desired
capabilities needs to be formed (Tietze et al., 2013). This has happened in the past, when some
vehicle manufacturers have owned captive car rental operations. Thus, car sharing schemes are a
form of extension of the business model, but not a radical redesign.
In terms of major transformations in the industry associated with the adoption of EVs,
connectivity, and autonomous driving, there are longer-term structural changes in the industry as a
whole and the position of vehicle manufacturers within it. These structural shifts are likely to be
associated with wider developments around the quest for a circular economy, the separation of
economic growth from ecological burdens, and the re-orientation of production and consumption
to a service model rather than an ownership model (Pallaro et al., 2015). Clearly the specific
instance of car sharing can be seen as contributory to the structural changes in the automotive
industry associated with the above-mentioned wider developments. Whether consumers are
prepared to participate in the sharing of cars, at least in sufficient scale to disrupt the industry, is
not yet certain. Neither is it certain that car sharing will reduce social exclusion (Clark and Curl,
2016). Many households that suffer ‘transport poverty’ will similarly not be able to access a shared
GA n°769513 Page 45 of 77
vehicle due to factors such as the lack of a driving license, the lack of funds, or even the lack of a
bank account (Wells, 2012). As a consequence, such households may also be excluded from other
social activities and benefits, or have to pay disproportionately more in order to access them.
The position of the vehicle manufacturers and the future of the industry as a whole are not
reducible to technological imperative or strategic desire. These are deeply contested outcomes
(Schwanen, 2016). Indeed, one key element of this contestation is the struggle for control over the
entire value creation and capture system for personal automobility (Weiller et al., 2015). There has
been a plethora of new entrants both large and small as the monolithic industry has fragmented
around new technologies and applications. The so-called ‘tech’ companies, like Apple, Baidu and
Google, have brought significant financial resources to bear on future autonomous cars, while Tesla
is the most high-profile of new entrants seeking to capitalise on the opportunities presented by
EVs (Heike and Fojcik, 2015; Donada and Lepoutre, 2016).
It is in the intersection of these emergent issues of autonomous driving, shared vehicles,
electric vehicles and interconnectivity, that there is the real potential for significant structural
change (Kompalla et al., 2017). For example, EVs with a high initial purchase cost but lower running
and maintenance costs, are suited to shared usage and charging stations. Such vehicles are also
best located, rented and returned via apps that can identify charging points or the availability of
vehicles. Moreover, autonomous technologies would greatly enhance the utility of shared vehicles
by broadening the potential customer base. The autonomous technologies would further reduce
loss of service for the fleet by reducing impact damage, which would in turn also improve the
longevity of service life and/or the retail value upon re-marketing. In other words, there are
potential synergies in the co-evolution of these aspects of the contemporary automotive industry
into an automobility industry (Viviani, 2016). The business model of the automobility industry is
thus likely to be premised on sale of the service of personal private mobility, with revenues derived
from that service rather than the sale of actual vehicles.
4.2 Avoiding Commodification: From Vehicle Ownership to

Vehicle Usership
The focus of this section is to evaluate how major vehicle manufacturers are integrating
their car sharing programs in larger mobility plans. OEMs are transforming their mid-term business
strategies into more connected and digitised business models. The production of vehicles might
not be the core business in the near future: it could be augmented by connected, shared (such as
car sharing), and multi-modal services, such as Moovel by Daimler.
The shift from a traditional car manufacturer business model to a service provider model is a
long process, in particular considering that OEMs need to rethink and have enough time to get
used to these new businesses and trends.
Leading vehicle manufacturers are now proposing car sharing programs (owned or in
partnership) as a first step in the integration of larger strategies that have four main common
pillars:
1. Connectivity
2. Autonomous
3. Shared programs or services
GA n°769513 Page 46 of 77
4. Electrification and/or alternative propulsion
From a strategic point of view, several OEMs are using the above-mentioned four pillars.
Starting with Daimler’s CASE Strategy (Daimler, n.d.-a), OEM strategies and how they are
structured/defined are compared. Even though there is still no unified outlook on how the
automotive industry will look in 10 years, the aim of this section is to demonstrate the
interconnection among the four pillars, and how multi-element business models appear to be a
strategy to avoid commodification.
4.2.1 Connectivity
Connectivity can have a double perspective. The “connectivity” within the organization, such
as the digitisation of manufacturing processes, a connected and smarter supply chain, and the
‘vehicle connectivity’. This report focuses on vehicle connectivity (even if some internal
manufacturer connectivity aspects are reported in the appendix)—the so-called Vehicle-to-
Everything (V2X) or Car-to-X. Several OEMs have invested in and developed proprietary
connectivity software. Some examples are reported below:
Vehicle Connectivity
Manufacturer
BMW ConnectedDrive
FORD SYNC3
GM OnStar
HONDA MyHonda
TOYOTA Mobility Teammate Concept, ITS Connect,

T-Connect App
VOLVO Volvo Sensus
VW Audi Connect & Sedric Connectivity project
Table 22: Examples of Connectivity Software Used by OEMs

The connected car is now seen as a new business frontier in which OEMs can retain their
customers and generate profits. Several PWC reports suggest that revenues of connected car
services will increase to EUR 156 billion by 2030 (Viereckl, Assmann, & Raduge, 2014; Viereckl et al.,
2016). In term of units, reports estimate that there will be 50-60 million connected vehicles
worldwide by 2018 (Statista, n.d.; Gissler, 2015). For connected vehicles, OEMs have the possibility
to propose to their customers several categories of distinct products, such as:
 Safety: emergency functions, collision protection, etc.
 Driver assistance: autopilot in highway, parking assistance, etc.
 Well-being: fatigue detections, medical assistance, ability and fitness to drive, shopping
network, etc.
 Infotainment: music, internet, social media, smartphone interface with the cockpit, mobile
office solutions for business fleets, etc.
 Vehicle management: service and maintenance, remote control, optimized drive
performances, etc.
 Mobility services: traffic and weather real-time information, HD-maps, etc.
GA n°769513 Page 47 of 77
 Home/infrastructure integration: the car will be connected to the customer’s home(s)
and/or to the external infrastructure network
The success in this new ‘connected’ ecosystem depends on OEMs’ capabilities to carry out
their strategies, as well as their ability to transform traditional production culture in pre-digital and
connected service models. It is the perspective of this deliverable that car sharing (and ride-
sharing) services will be driven in large part by the dramatic reductions in transportation costs:
connectivity services can provide enough financial margins to make those businesses sustainable
for OEMs.
4.2.2 Autonomous
All OEMs have signed strategic alliances or partnerships with other OEMs or specialized
organisations in developing (and testing) autonomous vehicles (AVs). BMW, Daimler and VW have
invested in HERE company, which is specialised in HD-maps and autonomous technologies (HERE,
n.d.); other partnerships and alliances have been signed with Intel, NVIDIA, and Mobileye; FCA has
joined the partnership of BMW, Intel, and Mobileye; Daimler has signed a strong collaboration with
Bosch (Daimler, n.d.-b; Bosch, 2017). Several acquisitions have also taken place: for instance, GM
acquired Cruise and Strobe in 2016 and 2017 respectively, and Ford invested USD 1B in Argo (Ford,
2017).
It is illustrative that Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche said, "Google and Apple want to provide
system software for cars and bring this entire ecosystem around Apple and Google into the vehicle.
That can be interesting for both sides… [but] we don't want to become contractors who have no
direct content with customers anymore and supply hardware to third parties” (Cremer, 2015).
Volvo has stated the intention to produce AVs for the luxury market (Naughton, 2016), with
the ‘autopilot’ system adding USD 10,000 to the cost of the car. According to Hakan Samuelsson,
CEO at Volvo Cars, “To make a car even more premium, one of the most interesting things is a full
autopilot…Not a supervised version, but really the one that you can sit back and watch a movie or
whatever. That will make the premium car even more premium” (Naughton, 2016).
To underline the concern with commodification, it is also clear that for Samuelsson at Volvo
Cars, the potential of autonomous car technologies is clear. “If you’re only providing transportation
from A to B, you’re heading into trouble…You still need to have a car that is not just fulfilling the
transportation need, but also giving our customers an emotional value, a premium car” (Naughton,
2016).
The spectrum of possible models that OEMs are developing is not focusing on autonomous
cars exclusively; we can identify three main options:
 Autonomous private vehicles: These include electric and hybrid powertrain vehicles.
Private AVs could also contribute to safe roads thanks to embedded connectivity
technologies.
 Autonomous taxis: These AVs will pick up passengers from a designated point to a
designated destination1. Uber, Lyft, and DiDi (the leading worldwide ride-sharing
1
NuTonomy—an MIT spinoff technology company and partner in the Boston pilot program—has launched a
prototype autonomous taxi. The company launched the world’s first trial program involving autonomous
taxis in Singapore in August 2016 (NuTonomy, s.d.)
GA n°769513 Page 48 of 77
providers) are investing in no-driver services to cut down their rates and increase
profitability.
 Autonomous shuttle buses: More and more vehicle manufacturers are looking at
electrically-powered autonomous shuttle buses as a crucial building block of future
urban mobility. Several manufacturers, including Toyota (Toyota, 2018), France-based
Navya (Navya, n.d.), and US-based Local Motors (Localmotors, n.d.), are building and
deploying such buses today on predefined routes or in defined geographical areas. The
Toyota concept is a cross-pillar project: it touches on connectivity, autonomous,
electrification and urban mobility services (in alliance with Amazon, DiDi, Mazda, Pizza
Hut and Uber).
Currently, several vehicle manufacturers propose advanced driver assistant technology on
their premium models: Volvo XC90, Nissan X-Trail, BMW 7 series and trucks, Intelligent Driver
controller on Mercedes-Benz segments, and Toyota on its Lexus brand. On the other hand, there
are several market barriers to the adoption of automated driving, in particular regarding reliability
and security. Connectivity software can be the key to a robust, automated driving system, and
cybersecurity for these connected vehicles has become a top priority for any AV player. Most OEMs
are actively developing and testing in real traffic automation technologies at levels 4 and 52—even
though it is estimated that level 5 systems (a full AV where the steering wheel will be optional)
won’t be a reality before the mid-2020s, in a very positive prognostication.
For some in the automotive industry, the reduction of cars to mere transport would be a
disaster. It is perhaps for this reason that, according to Roberts (2015), Ford has claimed it is
“almost impossible” to sell self-driving cars. Ford CEO Mark Fields noted that, “Nobody can predict
whether these fully autonomous vehicles will work under all environmental conditions. The Google
cars have an issue with heavy rain and snow. Very low sunlight is also very bad because the
cameras don’t see anything, so you need to have some sort of controlled environment” (Roberts,
2015).
For others, it seems there is a sense of opportunity. Hence the industry is perhaps searching
for a pathway that embraces the ‘inevitability’ of autonomous cars, but does so in a manner that
also allows for brand transition. A good example is that of BMW. In broad terms, the approach is as
stated by BMW Design Chief Adrian van Hooydonk, "We are moving from the Ultimate Driving
Machine to the Ultimate Driver, where technology is making any driver a better driver" (Ciferri,
2016).
4.2.3 Shared programs and Services

Most OEMs have already launched their own car sharing programs, signed a partnership, or
acquired an existing provider.
2
There are five different levels of autonomous driving in terms of human involvement: Level 0 “no
automation”: the driver performs all tasks; Level 1 “driver assistance required”: early warning systems such as
cruise control or speed assistant; Level 2 “partial automation options available”: the car can assist with
steering or line detection, congestion assistant; Level 3 “conditional automation”: the vehicle monitors the
environment and auto-pilot assistant available on cars (ex: highway pilot, hands-off parking); Level 4 “high
automation”: the vehicle is capable of steering, braking, accelerating as well as responding to events,
changing lanes, turning, and using signals, though the driver may have the option to control the vehicle; and
Level 5 “full automation”: driver and steering wheel are optional (ex: robotic taxis or shuttles).
GA n°769513 Page 49 of 77
Vehicle Car Ride Multi-Modal Other services

Manufacturer Sharing Sharing service
BMW DriveNow ChargeNow
ParkNow
DAIMLER car2go Blacklane Moovel MyTaxi
Via
Mercedes Flexperience
FORD Chariot
GM Maven3 Partnership Book by Cadillac
with Lyft Express Drive with Lyft
PSA CarUnity Free2Move
TOYOTA Yuko Ha:mo rides
VOLVO Sunfleet4 Care by Volvo
VW Respiro Partnership Moia Audi on Demand
with GETT Porsche Passport
Table 23: Examples of Shared Programs & Mobility Services
On the other hand, as can be seen in Table 23, some OEMs are also proposing different
mobility services: from ride hailing services to shuttle services, P2P services to multi-modal
platforms (such as Moovel, MOIA and Free2Move). All of these mobility services and programs are
an opportunity to:
 Gather information about customers, their needs, their mobility habits, peak hours of
use/requests, and understand how to manage a fleet in a free-floating and/or station-
based program
 Test the technology embedded in a shared fleet
 Promote B2B models: partner with taxis and ride-sharing services (such as MyTaxi, Uber,
Lyft and DiDi), or propose business fleet management
 Promote new categories of services and increase profitability
As customers are modifying their habits and perceptions towards cars/vehicles (from a pure
mechanical choice to a new ‘on-demand’ and instant mobility need), car sharing providers are
giving the possibility to enhance users' options in terms of mobility. A turning point is that
providers’ platforms are now talking to both, users and car owners. From a user’s perspective, the
advantage is an increased number of mobility options at affordable rates (which typically include
fuel, parking, insurance and maintenance), and the possibility to use time differently during
commutes or moves. From a vehicle manufacturer’s perspective, instead of a one-off selling
connection to the customers, service-based business models could offer longer-lasting
relationships. The user becomes less vehicle-driven, while more connected and more mobility-
service oriented. In highly-populated cities5, vehicle ownership would be replaced by vehicle
usership; the key to success would be integration into a connected and networked environment.
Cars/vehicles will become more flexible, upgradable, and updatable according to users' mobility
needs. Understanding the needs and impacts of shared mobility can enable OEMs to leverage new
3
Currently only in the US.
4
Currently only in Sweden.
5
In highly-populated areas, the scarcity of parking spaces and the cost of owning a car that only gets used
for 5% to 10% of the car’s life, is pushing customers to rethink their approach to cars and mobility in general.
GA n°769513 Page 50 of 77
profitable services to retain customers. It is not surprising that new urban mobility offers have been
born in the last few years, and some OEMs are already thinking about an integrated and multi-
modal offer, a unique Mobility-on-Demand (MOD) or Transportation-as-a-service (TaaS) platform
leveraging on internal platforms, such as: MOIA by VW, Moovel by Daimler, and Free2Move by
PSA, just to cite a few. Users will be able to calculate, book and pay their preferred mobility solution
selecting one or more options (car sharing, ride-sharing, bike sharing, walking, taxi, shuttles or
using public transport). In this scenario, car sharing programs will be seen as one option in an
integrated, accessible, flexible and convenient mobility service.
4.2.4 Electrification and alternative propulsion

This pillar is linked to the AV section: AVs are based on either EVs or plug-in-hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEVs). Another factor that has pushed all OEMs to the electrification of their models is
the increased legal and regulatory governmental analysis over pollution levels produced by diesel-
engine vehicles. To avoid a total ban, carmakers started the ‘hybridification’ of their engines (both
gasoline and diesel). Several cities around the world have already launched their battle for a car-
free city center or for lower CO2 emissions6. There are also countries that aim to ban internal
combustion engines (ICE) from their cities: Scotland plans to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2032
(Khan, 2017), while Norway’s national ban will go into effect by 2025. However, if Toyota and BMW
have announced to drop diesel models from their European market, VW CEO Matthias Müller
“predict(ed) renaissance for embattled diesel cars” (Behrmann & Miller, 2018).
On the other hand, 100% EVs have drawbacks: from the travelling distance (or range) to
charging; from EV/PHEV retail prices (these vehicles are quite expensive compared to a traditional
engine car) to battery management; from a fragmented recharging network to the impact of this
electrification process on OEMs’ suppliers, with the risk of out-of-stock volumes of components as
Daimler Group warned in February 2018 (Taylor, 2018).
Autonomous competition, pollution pressure, long-range battery development and new EV-
PHEV technologies pushed carmakers to share EV platforms or to sign partnerships keeping costs
under control and creating synergies. Some examples: GM with LG Chem; GM and Honda for long-
range fuel cell EVs; Daimler, VW, BMW and Ford with their IONITY project for 400 high-power-
charging stations in Europe by 2020; Mazda and Toyota with the aim to share EV technology and
to build a USD 1.6 billion assembly plant. In terms of alternative propulsion, there are several
hydrogen cars available on market, and even a hydrogen car sharing program (BeeZero by
Hyundai) in Germany7.
Despite the AV scenario, EVs are already available on market. The tendency, as shown in all
OEM strategy tables, is a massive electrification of almost all models and all segments (city cars,
compact, SUV, sedan, etc.), with longer distances covered and faster recharging systems (e.g., the
Porsche Mission E to recharge 400km autonomously in 20 minutes, and the 2017 Ionity high-power
charging station project) (IONITY, n.d.).
6
Cities such as Oslo, Copenhagen, Berlin, Hannover, Madrid, Chengdu, Bogotá, Mexico City, and San
Francisco, among others, have announced their plans against car pollution and for car-free city centers
(Garfield, 2018).
7
On March 11th, 2018, the BeeZero website announced that the München hydrogen program will close on
July 1, 2018 (BeeZero, 2018).
GA n°769513 Page 51 of 77
Vehicle Current Electric, Plug-in or Hybrid Vehicles Hydrogen propulsion

Manufacturer
BMW Bmw i3 and i8
Hybrid plug-in on series 2, 3, 5 and 7
DAIMLER Smart EV GLC F-cell
Hybrid offers on Mercedes-Benz segment
FCA Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid
Fiat 500EV
GM Chevy Bolt (EV) and Volt (plug-in)
HYUNDAI-KIA Hyundai Ioniq (in EV, plug-in, hybrid version) ix35 and Tucson
Kia Niro (hybrid and plug-in)
JAGUAR LAND E-Pace and I-Pace
ROVER Land Rover Plug-in Hybrid
PSA Peugeot iOn, TepeeEV, Partner EV
Citroen C-Zero, E-Mehari
RENAULT-NISSAN- Renault Zoe, Twizy, Kangoo EV and SM3
MITSUBISHI Nissan Leaf, E-NV200
ALLIANCE Mitsubishi iMIEV, Outlander PHEV
TOYOTA Hybrid Prius, Rav4 etc Mirai
VW e-Golf (EV)
Golf and Passat GT-E (hybrid)
Table 24: Examples of Electric and Hydrogen Vehicles
The advantage in having a car sharing program is to test new cars/vehicles and/or new EVs
before launching on the market. In addition, plug-in and/or full EV car sharing programs can be
integrated with local public transport systems and the connectivity ecosystem, according to user
preferences and past rentals. Another opportunity is to connect EVs to the external infrastructure
network, managing the peak of EVs and infrastructure needs. For example, the Toyota
electrification program aims to create a network including cars, homes, recharging stations,
smartphones, and city infrastructure (Toyota Connected, n.d.). Similarly, Mercedes-Benz with its
‘energy storage home’ in California, has created a modular system empowering renewable energy
usage (Mercedes-Benz, n.d.).
GA n°769513 Page 52 of 77
5 Conclusion
The rise of car sharing programs in recent years is part of a greater mobility evolution, a
bigger and long-term evolution of transportation preferences, and a multimodal system that is less
car-centric. Car sharing therefore has the potential to disrupt the way in which cities currently
operate. Not only does it offer a new mode of transport, but it pollutes the air less and leaves cities
with more liveable space. While many people are open to the idea of car sharing, only a small
percentage actually use it. This leaves a gap, meaning that cities are unable to reap the full benefits
of car sharing. Within this context, D3.1 of the STARS project analyses the business models of
current car sharing organisations. It explores the trends of current business models, conducts a
SWOT analysis, and investigates the role of vehicle manufacturers as business model innovators.
Using the Business Model Canvas developed by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur
(2010), D3.1 describes how 15 different car sharing organisations operate. These organisations are
classified by the five main types of business models in the car sharing sector, based upon their
operational characteristics and business model variables identified in D2.1: 1) free-floating with an
operational area; 2) free-floating with pool stations; 3) roundtrip, home-zone based; 4) roundtrip,
station-based; and 5) P2P. Studying the business models individually, by group, and as a whole
enables both global trends and unique selling points to emerge. As the industry continues to
evolve at a rapid pace, not least due to the strong role of technology in the sector, the business
models provide only a snapshot of the market. Furthermore, many organisations have adapted as
they have expanded to other cities and countries, taking more of a ‘glocal’ approach, in which they
use a global brand but tailor their business case to a local context. As such, many organisations
offer very different pricing and benefit packages to their members in various cities. While this
makes it difficult to compare brands as a single entity, it makes for smart business, inevitably
prolonging the life of the car sharing organisation.
Each business model also proved to have a very distinct set of strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats. While these characteristics are distinct for each organisation, they are
also highly influenced by factors such as whether an organisation offers its members free-floating
or roundtrip services and are area/zone-based or station-based. Other influential factors include
whether or not a business model depends upon an electric fleet (changing the distance and
flexibility of the cars, but offering a unique value proposition), and whether or not an organisation
is P2P (focusing on social aspects and resting the organisation’s fleet offer upon the members’
individual cars and their availability).
Regardless of the business model, developments in technology are leading to the
emergence of new players throughout the automotive value chain (bringing new business models
with them), and changes in mobility patterns are also resulting in changes in consumption on the
market. These changes present a growing challenge to the business models of OEMs and all
entities along the traditional value chain. Forced to adapt and innovate, both OEMs and car rental
companies are now increasingly involved as key stakeholders in car sharing programmes. Many are
bringing top-of-the-line features to their car sharing programs.
As the interaction between providers and users will be more frequent than in the past, one
key to success will be to help users by serving them as trusted, digital and connected advisers—
GA n°769513 Page 53 of 77
ranging from where to go, how to get there, and what to do while moving. Car sharing programs
can thus be seen as integrated elements of larger strategies: a piece of a puzzle in which
connectivity, autonomous, shared programs, and electrification pillars are constantly
interconnected and interdependent. Inevitably, these new trends will have an impact on both the
automotive market and the automotive industry. How they are affected will be explored in D3.2
and D3.3, respectively.
GA n°769513 Page 54 of 77
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ambani, P. (2015, October 21). CarAmigo secures tax ruling: Car share earnings “not income.”
Retrieved from https://crowdsourcingweek.com/blog/caramigo-secures-tax-ruling-carshare-
not-income/
Anonymous. (2016). Linde sets up BeeZero for car sharing in Munic. Fuel Cells Bulletin, 4(1), 1.
Audebert, T. (2018, February 2). Citymakers: Open innovation projects share Groupe Renault’s
strategic objectives. Retrieved from https://group.renault.com/en/news/blog-
renault/citymakers-open-innovation-projects-share-groupe-renault-s-strategic-objectives/
Autolib. (n.d.-a). Autolib homepage. Retrieved from https://www.autolib.eu/fr/
Autolib. (n.d.-b). Choose your offer. Retrieved from

https://www.autolib.eu/subscribe/offer_choice_session/
Avis Budget Group. (n.d.). Zipcar. Retrieved from http://www.avisbudgetgroup.com/company-

information/our-brands/zipcar/
Becker, H., Ciari, F., & Axhausen, K.W. (2017). Comparing car sharing schemes in Switzerland: User
groups and usage patterns. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 97, 17-29.
BeeZero. (2018). FAQ zum BeeZero carsharing service. Retrieved from https://beezero.com/de/faq
Behrmann, E., & Miller, M. (2018, March 6). VW boss predicts ‘renaissance’ for embattled diesel
cars. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-
05/volkswagen-ceo-predicts-renaissance-for-embattled-diesel-cars
Bellos, I., Ferguson, M., & Toktay, L.B. (2017). The car sharing economy: Interaction of business
model choice and product line design. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management,
19(2), 185-201.
Bluecity. (n.d.). Bluecity homepage. Retrieved from https://www.blue-city.co.uk/
Bluetorino. (n.d.). Blueturino Turin homepage. Retrieved from https://www.bluetorino.eu/#turin
BMW Group. (n.d.). Efficiency and electro mobility. Retrieved from

https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/innovation/technologies-and-mobility/efficiency-and-
electro-mobility.html
BMW Group. (2018a, March). BMW Group Investor presentation. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved
from https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/bmw-group-
websites/bmwgroup_com/ir/downloads/en/2018/Investor_Presentation/BMW_Group_Investo
r_Presentation.pdf
GA n°769513 Page 55 of 77
BMW Group. (2018b, January 29). DriveNow becomes wholly-owned subsidiary of BMW Group
[Press Release]. Retrieved from
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0278280EN/drivenow-becomes-
wholly-owned-subsidiary-of-bmw-group?language=en
Bosch. (2017, April 4). Bosch and Daimler are working together on fully automated, driverless
system. [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.bosch-
presse.de/pressportal/de/en/bosch-and-daimler-are-working-together-on-fully-automated-
driverless-system-99072.html
Cambio. (n.d.). History and cambio today. Retrieved from https://www.cambio-

carsharing.de/cms/carsharing/en/1/cms?cms_knuuid=d67b4eb4-cb15-4f93-9850-
fcf1e69fafa6
CarAmigo. (n.d.). Partnership Ford–CarAmigo. Retrieved from https://www.caramigo.eu/be/en/ford
Car2go. (n.d.). Car2go in Stuttgart. Retrieved from https://www.car2go.com/DE/en/stuttgart/
Ciferri, L. (2016, March 7). BMW unveils futuristic self-driving concept. Automotive News Europe.
Retrieved from http://europe.autonews.com/article/20160307/ANE/160309896/bmw-unveils-
futuristic-self-driving-concept?cciid=email-ane-daily
Cremer, A. (2015, August 21). Daimler CEO mulls JVs with Apple, Google: magazine. Reuters.
Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-daimler-ceo-idUSKCN0QQ18D20150821
Clark, J. & Curl, A. (2016). Bicycle and car share schemes as inclusive modes of travel? A socio-
spatial Analysis in Glasgow, UK. Social Inclusion, 4(3), 83-99.
Daimler. (n.d.-a). CASE: Intuitive Mobility. Retrieved from https://www.daimler.com/case/en/
Daimler. (n.d.-b). Daimler Innovation Bosch Cooperation. Retrieved from

https://www.daimler.com/innovation/case/autonomous/bosch-cooperation.html
Daimler. (n.d.-c). Mobility services. Retrieved from

https://www.daimler.com/products/services/mobility-services/car2go/
Daimler. (2017). Q3 2017 Corporate Presentation. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

https://www.daimler.com/dokumente/investoren/praesentationen/daimler-ir-
corporatepresentation-q3-2017.pdf
Dementhon, P., & Foster, P. (2018, March 5). Drivy: Airbnb, or Spotify, for cars. (C. McLellan,
Interviewer). ZDNet. Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.com/article/drivy-airbnb-or-spotify-
for-cars/
GA n°769513 Page 56 of 77
Donada, C. & Lepoutre, J. (2016). How can startups create the conditions for a dominant position in
the nascent industry of Electromobility 2.0? International Journal of Automotive Technology
and Management, 16(1), 11-29.
DriveNow. (n.d.-a). DriveNow homepage. Retrieved from https://www.drive-now.com/en/
DriveNow. (n.d.-b). DriveNow car sharing in Munich. Retrieved from https://www.drive-

now.com/de/en/munich
DriveNow. (n.d.-c). Refuel easily and for free. Retrieved from https://www.drive-
now.com/gb/en/tips/refuel
DriveNow. (n.d.-d). When you charge the BMW i3 for free, you benefit! Retrieved from
https://www.drive-now.com/pt/en/tips/charging
Drivy. (n.d.). Comment les prix sont-ils calculés ? Retrieved from

https://www.drivy.com/help/articles/1453c295ca9b
Egloff, E. (2015, June 17). Après Renault, Bolloré signe un partenariat avec PSA dans le véhicule
électrique. Le Figaro.fr. Retrieved from http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2015/06/17/20005-
20150617ARTFIG00158-apres-renault-bollore-signe-un-partenariat-avec-psa-dans-le-
vehicule-electrique.php
FCA. (n.d.). Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.fcagroup.com/en-

US/innovation/Pages/default.aspx
Févry, L. (2016, October 24). The Bolloré Group launches Bluetorino, the 1st electric car-sharing
service in Turin. [Press Release]. Retrieved from https://www.blue-solutions.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/2016.10.24-Official-launch-Bluetorino.pdf
Firnkorn, J., & Müller, M. (2015). Free-floating electric carsharing-fleets in smart cities: The dawning
of a post-private car era in urban environments? Environmental Science & Policy, 45, 30–40.
Ford. (n.d.). Ford Corporate homepage. Retrieved from http://corporate.ford.com/homepage.html
Ford. (2017, February 10). Ford invests in Argo Al, a new artificial intelligence company, in drive for
autonomous vehicle leadership. Ford Shareholder Media. Retrieved from
http://shareholder.ford.com/~/media/Files/F/Ford-IR/news-and-publications/2017/ford-
invests-in-argo-ai-new-artificial-intelligence-company.pdf
Garfield, L. (2018, March 2). 13 cities that are starting to ban cars. World Economic Forum. Retrieved
from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/13-cities-that-are-starting-to-ban-cars
Gissler, A. (2015). Connected vehicle: Succeeding with a disruptive technology. Accenture. Retrieved
from https://www.accenture.com/t20160504T060431Z__w__/us-
en/_acnmedia/Accenture/Conversion-
GA n°769513 Page 57 of 77
Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Dualpub_21/Accenture-digital-Connected-
Vehicle.pdf
Glotz-Richter, M. (2016). Reclaim Street Space! Exploit the European Potential of Car Sharing.
Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 1296-1304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.202
GM. (2017, March 27). SAIC-GM announces connectivity strategy 2025. GM Corporate Newsroom.
Retrieved from
http://media.gm.com/media/cn/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/cn/en/2017/M
ar/0327_SAIC-GM-Announces-Connectivity-Strategy-2025.html
Hackett, J. (2017, October 3). CEO Strategic Update. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
http://shareholder.ford.com/~/media/Files/F/Ford-IR-V2/events-and-presentations/2017/10-
03-2017/Ford-CEO-Strategic-Update-presentation.pdf
Hampshire, R., & Gaites, C. (2014). Peer-to-peer carsharing: Market analysis and potential growth.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2217.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2217-15
He, L., Mak, H.-Y., Rong, Y., & Shen, Z.-J.M. (2017). Service region design for urban electric vehicle
sharing systems. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 19(2), 309-327.
Heike, P. & Fojcik, T.M. (2015). Business model innovations in times of long-term discontinuous
technological change: An empirical examination of the automotive industry in transition to
electric mobility. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 15(4),
418-442.
HERE. (n.d.). HERE strategic alliances. Retrieved from https://www.here.com/en/partners/find-

partner/strategic-alliances
Hildermeier, J. (2016). Which role should the electric car play in Europe's cities? An analysis of
publicly funded demonstration projects 2007-2013. International Journal of Automotive
Technology and Management, 16(1), 90-107.
Honda. (n.d.). Meet the NeuV: New electric urban vehicle. Retrieved from
https://www.honda.com/mobility/NeuV-Concept
Honda. (2017, June 8). Summary of Honda CEO speech at Honda meeting 2017. Retrieved from
http://world.honda.com/news/2017/c170608eng.html
Hyundai. (n.d.). Freedom in mobility: Vision of Project IONIQ. Retrieved from

http://brand.hyundai.com/en/project-ioniq/vision/vision.do
IONITY. (n.d.). IONITY homepage. Retrieved from http://www.ionity.eu/ionity-en.html
GA n°769513 Page 58 of 77
Jaguar Land Rover. (2017, September 7). Every Jaguar and Land Rover launched from 2020 will be
electrified. Retrieved from https://www.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2017/09/every-jaguar-
and-land-rover-launched-2020-will-be-electrified
Juuve. (n.d.-a). Juuve homepage. Retrieved from https://juuve.nl/
Juuve. (n.d.-b). Posts [LinkedIn page]. Retrieved March 27, 2018 from
https://www.linkedin.com/company/juuve-carsharing/
Kent, J., Dowling, R., & Maaslen, S. (2017). Catalysts for transport transitions: Bridging the gap
between disruptions and change. Journal of Transport Geography, 60, 200-207.
Kia. (2018, January 8). ‘Boundless for all’: Kia presents vision for future mobility at CES 2018. [Press
Release]. Retrieved from
https://www.kiamedia.com/us/en/media/pressreleases/13440/boundless-for-all-kia-presents-
vision-for-future-mobility-at-ces-2018
Kim, J., Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H.J.P. (2017a). The effects of activity-travel context and
individual attitudes on car sharing decisions under travel time uncertainty: A hybrid choice
modeling approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 56, 189-
202.
Kim, J., Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H.J.P. (2017b). Satisfaction and uncertainty in car sharing
decisions: An integration of hybrid choice and random regret-based models. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 95, 13-33.
Kompalla, A., Geldmacher, W., Just, V., & Lange, S. (2017). Tailored automotive business strategies
in the context of digitalization and service-oriented models. Quality - Access to Success, 18,
77-84.
Kopp, J., Gerike, R., & Axhausen, K.W. (2015). Do sharing people behave differently? An empirical
evaluation of the distinctive mobility patterns of free-floating car sharing members.
Transportation, 42(3), 449-469.
Krommes, S. & Schmidt, F. (2017). Business model analysis of electric mobility products and
services. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 17(3), 316-338.
La Repubblica. (2017, March 10). Torino: “Io Guido” chiude: Addio dopo 15 anni al car sharing
pubblico. Retrieved from
http://torino.repubblica.it/cronaca/2017/03/10/news/io_guido_chiude_addio_dopo_15_anni_a
l_car_sharing_pubblico-160239859/
LocalMotors. (n.d.). Meet Olli. Retrieved from https://localmotors.com/meet-olli/
GA n°769513 Page 59 of 77
Louvet, N., & Jacquemain, G. (2017, January 20). Autolib’ is still not profitable and perhaps it never
will be. Retrieved from https://6-t.co/en/autolib-not-profitable/
Mazda. (n.d.). Mid-term plan. Retrieved from http://www.mazda.com/en/investors/policy/mid-term
Mercedes-Benz. (n.d.). Mercedes-Benz Energy Storage Home. Retrieved from

https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mercedes-benz-energy/energy-storage-home-usa/
Merella, A. (2008, June 17). Io guido car sharing. Retrieved from

http://www.terranuova.it/News/Ambiente/Io-guido-Car-Sharing
Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio. (2003). I.C.S. project: Integration with public
transport in 5 cities. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://www.icscarsharing.it/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/ICS_Firenze_2003.pdf
Momo: More options for energy efficient mobility through car-sharing. Intelligent Energy Europe.
(2009). Car-sharing in small cities (Car-sharing fact sheet no. 9). Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-
projects/files/projects/documents/momo_car-sharing_f09_car_sharing_in_small_cities_en.pdf
Monitor Deloitte. (2017). Car sharing in Europe: Business models, national variations and upcoming
disruptions. Retrieved from
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/consumer-industrial-
products/CIP-Automotive-Car-Sharing-in-Europe.pdf
Muoio, D. (2017, August 29). GM is preparing for the death of car ownership in cities—and its
solution is popular among millennials. Retrieved fromhttp://www.businessinsider.fr/us/gm-
maven-car-sharing-millennials-2017-8
Naughton, K. (2016, September 29). Volvo plans to offer fully self-driving car to luxury buyers.
Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/volvo-
plans-to-offer-fully-self-driving-car-to-luxury-buyers
Navya. (n.d.). Navya home page. Retrieved from http://navya.tech/
Nehrke, G. (2018, March 19). Carsharing usage: Who, how and why? [PowerPoint slides].
Nijland, H. & van Meerkerk, J. (2017). Mobility and environmental impacts of car sharing in the
Netherlands. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 84-91.
NuTonomy. (n.d.). NuTonomy. Retrieved from https://www.nutonomy.com/
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: A handbook for visionaries, game
changers, and challengers. Wiley.
GA n°769513 Page 60 of 77
Pallaro, E., Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M., & Liu, C. (2015). Sustainable production and
consumption in the automotive sector: Integrated review framework and research directions.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 4, 47-61.
Partago. (n.d.-a). Partago homepage. Retrieved from https://www.partago.be/
Partago. (n.d.-b). Posts [LinkedIn page]. Retrieved March 27, 2018 from
https://www.linkedin.com/company/partago/
Perboli, G., Ferrero, F., Musso, S., & Vesco, A. (2017). Business models and tariff simulation in car-
sharing services. Transportation Research Part A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.09.011
Prieto, M., Baltas, G., & Stan, V. (2017). Car sharing adoption intention in urban areas: What are the
key sociodemographic drivers? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 101, 218-
227.
PSA. (n.d.). Freedom of movement: Mobility by PSA. Retrieved from https://www.groupe-

psa.com/en/story/la-liberte-de-mouvement/
Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance. (n.d.). Connected mobility for everyone. Retrieved from

https://www.alliance-2022.com/connected-mobility/
Roberts, J. (2015, December 3). Ford: It's 'almost impossible' to sell self-driving cars. Trusted
Reviews. Retrieved from http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/ford-it-s-almost-impossible-
to-sell-self-driving-cars?source=rss
Roma Mobilità. (n.d.). Prenota. Retrieved from https://romamobilita.it/it/carsharing/prenota
[Roux, E.] (2014, November 24). CarAmigo is launching Belgium’s first platform for peer-to-peer
carsharing. Retrieved from https://caramigo.prezly.com/caramigo-is-launching-belgiums-
first-platform-for-peer-to-peer-carsharing
Roy, B., Windover, P., Galligano, M., Tario, J., Ruder, A., & Ancar, R. (2016). Buffalo carshare electric
vehicle demonstration. 29th World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition, EVS 2016.
Palais des Congres de Montreal, Montreal, Canada. 19 June 2016 through 22 June 2016. Code
125226
Sachgau, O., & Rauwald, C. (2018, March 28). Daimler, BMW reach a deal to merge car-sharing
units. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-
28/daimler-bmw-are-said-to-reach-deal-to-merge-car-sharing-units
Schwanen, T. (2016). Rethinking resilience as capacity to endure: Automobility and the city. City,
20(1), 152-160.
GA n°769513 Page 61 of 77
Spanier, G. (2015, June 11). Bolloré brings some French polish to the London scence. The Times.
Retrieved from https://www.blue-city.co.uk/news/bollor%C3%A9-brings-some-french-polish-
london-scene
Statista. (n.d.). Connected cars: Statistics & facts. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/topics/1918/connected-cars/
Taylor, E. (2018, February 13). Daimler warns of supply chain risk from switch to electric cars.
Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-daimler-provisions-2017/daimler-
warns-of-supply-chain-risk-from-switch-to-electric-cars-idUSKCN1FX1OB
Tietze, F., Schiederig, T., & Herstatt, C. (2013). Firms' transition to green product service system
innovators: Cases from the mobility sector. International Journal of Technology Management,
63(1-2), 51-69.
Toyota. (n.d.). The future of mobility: Realizing a smart mobility society. Retrieved from
http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/intelligent_transport_systems/mobility/
Toyota. (2018, January 8). Toyota launches new mobility ecosystem and concept vehicle at 2018
CES. Retrieved from https://newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/corporate/20546438.html
Toyota Connected. (n.d.). Smart community services. Retrieved from

http://www.toyotaconnected.co.jp/en/service/smartcommunity/
Ubeeqo. (n.d.) About us. Retrieved from https://www.ubeeqo.com/en/about-us
Van den Berg, L. (2017). The road to the future of cars: Opportunities and key features for car
sharing services (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
www.ru.nl/publish/pages/769526/z_lennard_van_den_berg.pdf
Viereckl, R., Assmann, J., & Raduge, C. (2014). In the Fast Lane: The bright future of connected cars.
Booz & Company.
Viereckl, R., Ahlemann, D., Koster, A., Hirsh, E., Kuhnert, F., Mohs, J.,…Baker, E. (2016). Connected car
report 2016: Opportunities, risk, and turmoil on the road to autonomous vehicles. Strategy&.
Viviani, M. (2016). How carsharing opens the way to smart electric mobility: Success & hurdles of
the largest electric carsharing fleet in Canada. 29th World Electric Vehicle Symposium and
Exhibition, EVS 2016. Palais des Congres de Montreal, Montreal, Canada. 19 June 2016
through 22 June 2016. Code 125226.
Volvo. (n.d.). Connectivity. Retrieved from http://www.volvogroup.com/en-

en/innovation/connectivity.html
Volkswagen. (n.d.). Strategy 2025. Retrieved from

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/group/strategy.html
GA n°769513 Page 62 of 77
Volkswagen. (2017). The Volkswagen Group launches the most comprehensive electrification
initiative in the automotive industry with “Roadmap E”. Retrieved from
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/2017/09/Roadmap_E.html
Wagner, C. & Katzev, R. (1996). Car sharing takes off in Europe. Urban Ecologist, 3, 13. Retrieved
from http://www.urbanecology.org/car-sharing-takes-europe/
Weiller, C., Shang, T., Neely, A., & Shi, Y. (2015). Competing and co-existing business models for EV:
Lessons from international case studies. International Journal of Automotive Technology and
Management, 15(2), 126-148.
Wells, P. (2012). Converging transport policy, industrial policy and environmental policy: The
implications for localities and social equity. Local Economy, 27(7), 747-761.
Whaller. (n.d.). Club Autolib. Retrieved from https://whaller.com/-autolib
Wilhelms, M.P., Merfeld, K., & Henkel, S. (2017). Yours, mine, and ours: A user-centric analysis of
opportunities and challenges in peer-to-peer asset sharing. Business Horizons, 60(6), 771-
781.
Zipcar. (n.d.-a). Car sharing in London: The alternative to car hire and ownership. Retrieved from
http://www.zipcar.co.uk/car-hire-london
Zipcar. (n.d.-b). Zipcar membership plans and car driving rates. Retrieved from
http://www.zipcar.co.uk/check-rates/london
GA n°769513 Page 63 of 77
Appendix: OEM Strategies Reflecting the “CASE” Pillars
BMW Group Strategy
By 2025 all brands model electrified or plug‐in hybrid
Connectivity Autonomous Shared Programs and Services Electrification / Alternative Propulsion
"CURRENT: CURRENT: CAR SHARING: CURRENT:
‐ industry 4.0: smart logistics, ‐ Semi‐automated assistance for ‐ DriveNow ‐ i3 and i8;
innovative automation, additive intelligent driving on BMW 7 series ‐ BMW series 2, 3, 5, 7 and X5: hybrid plug‐in
manufacturing ‐ semi or total Driverless cars/trucks OTHER SERVICES:
‐ BMW APP: comfort safety & ‐ Cooperation for autonomous platform ‐ ChargeNow FUTURE:
Entertainment with Intel, FCA, APTIV, Continental, ‐ ParkNow ‐ Ionity Project: to launch 400 High‐Power‐Charging
‐ BMW ConnectedDrive: a Magna ‐ Ko:HAF: co‐operative highly‐automated stations by 2020 in Europe (with Daimler, VW and
technology packet full of services driving program FORD)
and APPs from the iDrive car touch PARTNERSHIP: ‐ COVERGE: optimizing future traffic ‐ Hydrogen car engines on BMW 5 Series GT
screen ‐ with Here, Bosch, Audi, Mercedes for management and vehicle safety systems ‐ Mini PHEV and BEV in production by 2019
HD‐Map technology platform ‐ UR:BAN: partnership for Human factor in ‐ X3 BEV by 2020
FUTURE: ‐ with Intel and Mobileye for AV traffic ‐ BMW iVISION by 2021/22: car such as Tesla with
‐ Artificial intelligence programs development ‐ WHYBUY by Mini as usage offering 600km range
with Mobileye initiative ‐ Collaboration with SGL Carbon SE for carbon fibre
solutions to be used in EV production
Table 25: BMW Group Strategy Overview
Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (BMW Group, n.d.; BMW Group, 2018a)
This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under the grant agreement n°769513
Daimler Group Strategy
By 2022
CAR SHARING:
‐ Car2go
CURRENT: ‐ Turo
‐ New cockpit: voice control and
holistic touch‐control system CURRENT: P2P:
‐ COMAND Online: new version of ‐ Automated valet parking: pilot ‐ Flinc: door‐to‐door sharing service CURRENT:
this 2013 connectivity service. Music project with Bosch (only in Stuttgart) ‐ Croove: private car sharing ‐ Electric bus and transporter will enter the
streaming, could, car‐to‐x ‐ Highway pilot for trucks market in 2018
communication, traffic information ‐ Intelligent Drive Controller: SHUTTLE: ‐ Smart EV, Smart EV Cabrio
in real time, ect... via Hotspot localization, signal processing, sensor ‐ Via or On‐Demand‐ridesharing: with ‐ GLC F‐Cell: Hydrogen SUV supported by plug‐in
connection. data fusion, planning and control Mercedes Van technology due to scarcity of Hydrogen station
‐ OminPlus structures
FUTURE: PARTNERSHIP: ‐ FlexPilot (test in Stuttgart)
‐ Industry 4.0: digitalized, robotized ‐ Intelligent driving: starting in FUTURE:
and networked industry with smart Germany, then China, Australia, South MULTI‐MODAL: ‐ Ionity Project: to launch 400 High‐Power‐
logistics Africa and, at last, USA (test vehicle on ‐ Moovel: aggregator platform Charging stations by 2020 in Europe (with BMW,
‐ Car‐to‐X: a completely new form of the basis of a semi‐automated S‐Class) VW and FORD)
information exchange. It ensures ‐ Daimler & Bosch agreement to bring OTHER SERVICES: ‐ EQ Basics: joint development with
more safety, comfort and been fully automated (Level 4) and ‐ MyTaxi ACCUMOTIVE: a battery, storage and plug‐in
reached driverless (Level 5) driving to urban ‐ EQ APP: app to manage EV cars, Home specialized company
‐ Network on board: traffic roads by beginning 2020s energy, infotainment ‐ By 2022, new EV: class C, E, S, GLC, GLC, Denza,
information, collision prevention ‐ with Here, Bosch, Audi, BMW for HD‐ ‐ Mercedes Flexperience eVito, Fuso eCanter and eTrucks
assistant, parking pilot, precise maps Map technology platform ‐ MercedesMe: connecting all services around ‐ Concept EQ EQA: on Class GLC and class A two
and real‐time data the car EV concept cars
Table 26: Daimler Group Strategy Overview
Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (Daimler, n.d.-b; Daimler, 2017)
GA n°769513 Page 65 of 77
FCA Group Strategy
By 2022
CURRENT:
‐ Blueconnect
‐ 3D printing/additive
manufacturing
‐ Siriusxm Guardian: on board CURRENT:
connectivity and safety service via ‐ Cooperation for autonomous platform
both smartphone and car with Intel, FCA, APTIV, Continental, CURRENT:
‐ Uconnect Access: 3G data Magna, Mobileye ‐ Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid (US market)
coverage and roaming with ‐ Fiat 500EV
unlimited onboard 3G WI‐FI PARTNERSHIP: CAR SHARING:
hotspot for managing your car and ‐ Collaboration with WAYMO for AV; ‐ partnership with Enjoy (Italy) FUTURE:
been connected in the car ‐ with BMW, Intel and Mobileye for AV ‐ Mild Hybrid ‐48V by 2018
platform ‐ PHEV
Table 27: FCA Group Strategy Overview
Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (FCA, n.d.)
GA n°769513 Page 66 of 77
Ford Group Strategy
By 2022/3
CURRENT:
‐ Ford SYNC3: touch screen and access
the services by voice commands Ford
SYNC3: touch screen and access the
services by voice commands
‐ MyView (on F‐150 truck)
A fully autonomous vehicle by 2021 CURRENT:
FUTURE: ‐ sold +500K electrified vehicles in the U.S.,
‐ By 2019, 100% of Ford’s new U.S. PARTNERSHIP: including hybrid, plug‐in hybrid
vehicles will be built with connectivity; ‐ relationship with Lyft to work towards
‐ By 2020, 90% of Ford’s new global commercialization and a collaboration SHUTTLE: FUTURE:
vehicles will feature connectivity with Domino’s Pizza ‐ Chariot ‐ by 2023 investment of $5B for 13 new EV models‐
‐ Collaboration with Qualcomm on C‐V2x ‐ advanced algorithms, 3‐D mapping, cars
Global Initiative: Cellular Vehicle‐to‐ radar technology and camera sensors MULTI‐MODAL: ‐ Ionity Project: to launch 400 High‐Power‐Charging
Everything to Help Cities Around the with Velodyne, SAIPS, Nirenberg stations by 2020 in Europe (with BMW and
World Create Safer, More Capable Neuroscience LLC and Civil Maps OTHER SERVICES: Daimler)
Infrastructure and Connect Vehicles to a ‐ Ford invested $1B in Argo AI: Drive for ‐ FordPass App ‐ exploring a strategic alliance with Zoyte for a low‐
Larger Communications System Autonomous Vehicle Leadership ‐ Ford GoBike e‐bike program cost all‐electric passenger vehicles in China
Table 28: Ford Group Strategy Overview
Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (Ford, n.d.; Ford, 2017; Hackett, 2017)
GA n°769513 Page 67 of 77
GM Group Strategy
By 2025
CURRENT:
‐ OnStar: connectivity and advisory
service
‐ Urban Mobility connectivity CURRENT:
‐ More than 3ml vehicles with 4G LTE Acquisition of Cruise Automation for CAR SHARING: CURRENT:
connection AV development ‐ Maven ‐ Chevy Bolt (EV) and Volt (plug‐in)
Acquisition of Strobe for lidar sensors ‐ Battery cell partnership with LG Chem
FUTURE: (fold into Cruise) RIDESHARING: ‐ Since 2017, JV with Honda for fuel cell battery
‐ Connectivity Strategy 2025 with SAIC‐ ‐ partnership with LYFT and to be on market on 2020
GM joint venture PARTNERSHIP:
‐ 5G connection on all models by 2025 ‐ with Mobileye and IBM form AV OTHER SERVICES: FUTURE:
‐ Between 2021 and 2025, SAIC‐GM technologies development ‐ Book by Cadillac ‐ By 2023, 20 new EV models
plans to link fully autonomous driving ‐ AV cars to be ready form ride‐sharing ‐ Express Drive: short‐term rental program ‐ Partnership with Honda to develop longer‐range
with the connectivity ecosystem in 2019 to Lyft driver at affordable rates fuel cell EV
Table 29: GM Group Strategy Overview
Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (GM, 2017)
GA n°769513 Page 68 of 77
Hyundai‐Kia Strategy
By 2025
CURRENT:
‐ KIA new HMI cockpit: world’s new Advanced Driver Assistance System
first in‐vehicle 5G connection. (ADAS): an investment of $2 billion by
2018
FUTURE:
‐ Hyundai will connect car‐to‐ All‐new Kia fuel‐cell EV due to launch in
home by 2019 2020; CAR SHARING: CURRENT:
‐ KIA: Full range of connected cars Kia aims to have AV cars in cities by ‐ Beezero: hydrogen car sharing program ‐ Hydrogen propulsions with ix35 and Tucson series
by 2030 2021, and fully‐autonomous to be ready ‐ Wible: car sharing by KIA & Repsol in ‐ Hyundai Ioniq: Hybrid, Plug‐in and EV
‐ Industry 4.0: Hyundai is by 2030 Madrid with EV and PHEV cars
developing its first EV platform to ‐ Ioniq: 100% EV car sharing in Amsterdam FUTURE:
produce multiple model with PARTNERSHIP: ‐ 34 electrified vehicles by 2025 (18 models
longer driving range ‐ IONIQ project: starting from EV and OTHER SERVICES: Hyundai, 16 models Kia)
‐ Freedom in Mobility with PHEV Ioniq car to a fully A&EV; ‐ Project IONIQ for mobility: create a more ‐ By 2021 a 500km sedan under Genesis brand
"Project IONIQ": mobility access ‐ partnership with Aurora for AV by 2021 relaxed lifestyle by converging movement ‐ Introduction of Hyundai Kona EV: 380km range
whenever and wherever and life together ‐ by 2025, next EV driving range up to 800km
Table 30: Hyundai-Kia Strategy Overview
Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (Kia, 2018; Hyundai, n.d.)
GA n°769513 Page 69 of 77
Honda Group Strategy
By 2025
CURRENT:
CURRENT: ‐ Clarity Electric vehicle expected to offer 80km
‐ MyHonda: connected car platform with range
CISCO Jasper By 2025 autonomous self‐driving car ‐ Clarity and Accord PHEV
‐ HondaLink: "link your vehicle to your (but more focused on expanding its ‐ Since 2017, JV with Honda for fuel cell battery and
life". In‐Vehicle collection 4G LTE Wi‐Fi assisted driving features in its to be on market on 2020
(with AT&T in US and Canada) current vehicles rather than pushing ‐ Since February 2018: joint partner of Japan H2
for full autonomy) Mobility, LLC to accelerate deployment of hydrogen
FUTURE: stations in Japan (with Toyota and Nissan)
‐ AI technology and HANA: Honda
Automated Network Assistant. An PARTNERSHIP: FUTURE:
artificial intelligence assistant that ‐ partnership with Waymo for AV ‐ NeuV (pronounced “new‐v”), which stands for New
utilizes an "emotion engine" making ‐ partnership with SenseTime’s AI CAR SHARING: Electric Urban Vehicle, is a concept EV
new choices, recommendations and Chinese start‐up: hardware into ‐ Investment of $9m (10%) in ReachDa ‐ Working on a battery scooter to be launched in
suggestions Honda’s vehicle control system to Car sharing (china) platform ‐Neusoft Japan
‐ next phase in Honda connected cars at create a self‐driving solution for Group ‐ 2/3 of Honda cars will have some form of
5G speed urban areas electrification by 2030
Table 31: Honda Group Strategy Overview

Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (Honda, 2017; Honda, n.d.)
GA n°769513 Page 70 of 77
Jaguar Land Rover Group Strategy
By early 2020s
CARSHARING (via InMotion Venture):
‐ Cove: residential and closed community
CURRENT: luxury car sharing in Asia
‐ InMotion Ventures: investment in
Wluper (intelligent personal assistant for RIDESHARING:
navigation and transportation), Zeelo (AI ‐ $25ml invested in Lyft
to predict and identify routes, solving
inconvenient...) CARPOOLING:
‐ new pre‐paid connected car unlimited ‐ GoKid: Closed community ride‐share
CURRENT: platform for schools, sports leagues, and
data plan with AT&T (only in US) via the
‐ Advanced Driver Assistance families CURRENT:
InControl Wi‐Fi
Systems with Roadwork assist, safe ‐ Jaguar E‐type

pullaway and "over the horizon SHUTTLE: ‐ Jaguar I‐PACE
FUTURE:
warning" technologies ‐ Sheprd: on‐demand micro‐transit solution ‐ Competing in FIA Formula E Championship
‐ in‐car connected partnerships with
‐ invested $3 million in self‐driving for children (modern school bus ventured by with I‐TYPE2 racecar
Qualcomm: the aim is high‐speed 4G LTE
taxi service start‐up Voyage InMotion)
connectivity based on Qualcomm's
‐ Autonomous Urban Drive: tested FUTURE:
820Am Automotive Platform
Level 4 on Range Rover Sport OTHER SERVICES: ‐ every Jaguar and Land Rover launched from
‐ Sayer concept is the first voice‐
‐ By Miles: pay‐per‐mile car insurance. Rather 2020 will be electrified
activated artificial‐intelligence steering
PARTNERSHIP: than buy a traditional annual policy, sign up ‐ visionary FUTURE‐TYPE virtual concept
wheel capable of carrying out hundreds
‐ partnership with Intel for a fixed monthly subscription and pay on a imagines autonomous, connected, electric and
of tasks
flexible per‐journey basis shared mobility for 2040 and beyond
Table 32: JLR Group Strategy Overview

Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (Jaguar Land Rover, 2017)
GA n°769513 Page 71 of 77
Mazda Strategy
By 2030
CURRENT:
‐ Standardization of i‐ACTIVESENSE
advanced safety features (blind spot, CURRENT:
radar cruise control, smart city ‐ Mazda Co‐Pilot Concept: by the year
connection, etc.) 2025, Mazda plans to make Co‐Pilot
‐ Mazda Connect: Communication, standard across the model lineup
Entertainment and Usability ‐ Still “traditional” engine development: FUTURE:
SKYACTIV‐X would be 20 to 30% more ‐ i‐ELOOP is a unique regenerative braking system
FUTURE: efficient than its current (gasoline & that creates electricity from wasted energy when
‐ by 2020, testing Mazda Co‐Pilot Concept diesel) engines you slow down
for AV technologies; make the system ‐ From 2019, introduction of EV and other Electric
standard by 2025 PARTNERSHIP: drive technologies in regions that use a high ratio
‐ Using current Connectivity technologies Collaboration with Toyota on vehicle CAR SHARING: of clean energy
to support people in depopulated areas or planning and application for AV ‐ Mazda Mobile in Cologne ‐ partnership with Toyota to share EV technology
who have difficulty getting around technologies and built a $1.6B US assembly plant
Table 33: Mazda Strategy Overview
Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (Mazda, n.d.)
GA n°769513 Page 72 of 77
PSA Group Strategy
By 2025
CURRENT:
‐ Free2Move connect Fleet: real‐
time transmission of data, CAR SHARING:
Geolocation and Adive for Eco‐ ‐ CarUnity: on 2017 it joined TAMYCA
driving platform ‐private car sharing CURRENT:
‐ Citroen C‐Zero, E‐Mehari
FUTURE: MULTI‐MODAL: ‐ Peugeot EV‐Hybrid offer: iOn, TepeeEV, Partner
‐ strategic platform with Huawei AVA "Autonomous Vehicle for All”: by ‐ Free2Move EV, 508 Hybrid
‐ Pacific International Lines (PIL), 2020 “Eyes‐off” autonomous driving –
and IBM Singapore have agreed a level 3‐ car will be available OTHER SERVICES: FUTURE:
joint venture into the trial and ‐ Carventura.com, a start‐up created by ‐ e‐CMP platform: long range (around
exploration of blockchain PARTNERSHIP: Groupe PSA, will offer new services such as 450km/230miles) all‐electric cars: 1 EV by 2019, 4
technology innovations (Car ‐ with NuTonomy team for autonomous financing, insurance and maintenance EV by 2021
eWallet) technologies development: focused on ‐ MisterAuto.com, online sales of spare parts ‐ EMP2 platform: new plug‐in hybrid cars on 3008
software (on 3008 series) and accessories since 2015 model
Table 34: PSA Group Strategy Overview
Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (PSA, n.d.)
GA n°769513 Page 73 of 77
Renault‐Nissan‐Mitsubishi Alliance Strategy
By 2022
CAR SHARING:
‐ Zity: car sharing program in Madrid with
CURRENT: Ferrovial (fleet: 380 Renault Zoe Z.E. 40)
CURRENT: ‐ Nissan launched advanced driver CURRENT:
‐ on 2016 created the Alliance assistance technology; on Serena in ‐ Intelligent Get: car sharing and P2P programs ‐ Renault Zoe, Twizy, Kangoo EV, and SM3 Z.E;
Connected and Mobility Services 2016, on X‐Trail and Leaf on 2017 ‐ Nissan Leaf, E‐NV200
(A‐CMS) for connected mobility ‐ SYMBIOZ Demo: concept AV from OTHER SERVICES: ‐ Mitsubishi iMIEV, Outlander PHEV
solutions Renault ‐ explore a new EV car sharing program with ‐ Since February 2018: joint partner ofJapan H2
‐ ProPILOT, a self‐driving feature Didi Mobility, LLC to accelerate deployment of
that lets cars drive autonomously PARTNERSHIP: ‐ GoMicra: leasing program hydrogen stations in Japan (with Toyota and
on highways ‐ Robotic technology: development of ‐ GLIDE powered by RCI Mobility: RCI Mobility’s Nissan)
AI with Sileane and Liris strong partnership with the Renault Nissan
FUTURE: 1) Project ANDY was launched: it Alliance. An employees’ car booking service FUTURE:
‐ Alliance Connected Cloud and permits robots to actively and safely ‐ Four Mobility & Connectivity projects in which ‐ By the end 2022: 12 new electric vehicles will be
SYLPHEO partnership for share a common workplace with Renault Group is interested in: Persistant launched; the range expected to exceed 600 km
connected services humans Studios (interaction among vehicle, external (IMx Kuro futuristic Concept)
‐ Partnership with Microsoft: 2) ROBOTT‐Net: a platform for environment and passengers), Toucan Toco & ‐ to provide a range of 230 km per 15‐minute
design and deploy the Connected developing new robotics idea (a hub Dalberg Data Insights (developing EV platform) charge
Vehicles Platform component of based in Sunderland) and Logiroad (real‐time traffic info) ‐ EZ‐GO: Renault to show a new concept focused
the Alliance Connected Cloud ‐ Robo‐taxi service by the end of 2022 on shared urban mobility in Geneva motor show
Table 35: Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance Strategy Overview

Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance, n.d.; Audebert, 2018)
GA n°769513 Page 74 of 77
Toyota Strategy
By early 2020s
CURRENT:
On 2017: Lexus CoDrive advance driving CAR SHARING:
CURRENT: assistance ‐ Yuko: full hybrid car sharing
‐ Artificial intelligence (AI)
technology: Toyota invests $1 billion ‐ By 2020: Automated driving on highways P2P:
over the coming 5 years "Highway Teammate" to be launched ‐ GetAround: partnership for P2P car CURRENT:
‐ By early 2020s: autonomous self‐driving sharing program –only in US ‐ Toyota MIRAI: hydrogen car
FUTURE: car “Urban Teammate” to be launched ‐ Since February 2018: joint partner of Japan H2
‐ Mobility Teammate Concept: ‐ TOYOTA CONCEPT‐i: the car will learn from OTHER SERVICES: Mobility, LLC to accelerate deployment of
linking Cars, Homes and People driver past experiences and provide ‐ Toyota E‐Palette: project in mobility and hydrogen stations in Japan (with Toyota and
‐ ITS Connect: Intelligent Transport opportunities for new experiences delivery services (self‐driving boxes Nissan)
Systems with the aim of completely roaming through cities, delivering people,
eliminating traffic accidents PARTNERSHIP: packages, and pizza) FUTURE:
‐ T‐Connect App: a high‐performance ‐ Partnership with Mazda to share EV ‐ Ha:mo RIDE: “Harmonious Mobility” ‐ Ha:mo rides and E‐palette projects
navigation system for smartphone technology for AV network, an ultra‐compact sharing ‐ Hybrid and plug‐in technology to leverage for
‐ G‐BOOK / G‐Link / GAZOO: allows ‐ Partnership with Luminar for LINAR service. Optimal connection between 100% EVs
users to link smartphone and G‐ sensors on a more accurate object personal transportation modes and public ‐ EV Vehicles: i‐Road, iQ‐EV (ultra compact
equipped cars –currently in Japan detection technology and mapping transportation category)
Table 36: Toyota Strategy Overview

Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (Toyota, n.d.)
GA n°769513 Page 75 of 77
Volvo Group Strategy
By 2025
CURRENT: CURRENT:
‐ Volvo Sensus: connectivity pack ‐ On 2012, SARTRE program completed
on Volvo vehicles such as on 2012: autonomous platooning Volvo
infotainment, Internet connection, cars on open roads CAR SHARING: CURRENT:
high‐connectivity GPS system, and ‐ On 2013, autonomous parking concept ‐ Sunfleet (only in Sweden) ‐ Drive‐E offer: plug‐in Hybrid diesel, and Twin
Volvo on Call service (to manage demonstrated: driverless self‐parking Engine Hybrid gasoline
your car or get helped from the controlled by mobile phone OTHER SERVICES: ‐ Developing mild hybrid engine with 48V
car) ‐ On 2014, Pilot Assist & Auto‐brake ‐ Care by Volvo: customer “full‐optional” technology
‐ in US: Wi‐Fi wireless Hotspot programs started service at a monthly fee (tires, maintenance, ‐ Renault Electric Trucks to be started selling on
with connectivity provided by ‐ On 2017, the Drive Me trial in pick‐up & delivery, warranty and 2019
AT&T Gothenburg has started: autonomous insurances…) ‐ Volvo EV buses already on Gothenburg (route 55)
technology test program on XC90 model ‐ Implementing an autonomous ride‐hailing
FUTURE: service: to be launched in 2021 FUTURE:
‐“connectivity as a great means to PARTNERSHIP: ‐ Volvo In‐car Delivery makes shopping more ‐ Volvo CE EX2: 100% electric compact excavator
transform the in‐car and ‐ with NVIDIA, Microsoft, TomTom, and convenient and saves you time by allowing prototype
ownership experiences for our Uber for AV development and you to have online orders delivered directly ‐ By 2025: 1 million BEV or PHEV cars/vehicles on
customers” technologies to your car the road
Table 37: Volvo Group Strategy Overview
Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (Volvo, n.d.)
GA n°769513 Page 76 of 77
Volkswagen Group Strategy
By 2025
CURRENT:
‐ e‐Golf
CURRENT: CAR SHARING: ‐ e‐UP
‐ Audi Connect Pack: infotainment; ‐ Seat bought RESPIRO car sharing provider ‐ Hybrid offer based on MEB platform: Golf and
mobility info and traffic with Live Map, Passat GT‐E
security and safety assistant By 2025 autonomous self‐driving car RIDESHARING:
‐ in US, Audi and AT&T propose ‐ Partnership with GETT FUTURE:
“connectivity pack services” via an in‐ CURRENT: ‐ Ionity Project: to launch 400 High‐Power‐
vehicle 4G LTE with 3 different ‐ Sedric project: internal platform for P2P: Charging stations by 2020 in Europe (with Daimler,
packages (CARE, PRIME, and PLUS) autonomous driving in VW Group ‐Zpiwagen: partnership with Zipcar BMW and FORD)
‐ By 2025 more than 30 new electric vehicles
FUTURE: PARTNERSHIP: MULTI‐MODAL: ‐ By 2019/20 the ID Crozz concept EV will become
‐ Industry 4.0: digital transformation ‐ with HERE for HD‐Map and other ‐ MOIA: develop and extent on‐demand the VW’s first standalone EV
with modular plant architecture to cut connected services mobility services ‐ By 2025, at least 1ml VW BEVs worldwide
costs by 30% by 2025 ‐ partnership with AURORA for AV ‐ Battery technology as a core competency with
‐ Sedric Connectivity: innovative technologies and also new MaaS OTHER SERVICES: global order value of $+50B to tender
functions such as looking parking with AV (shuttles) ‐ Porsche Passport ‐ Porsche Mission E concept: 500km range, and
space, collect shopping, pick‐up ‐ partnership with Mobileye and ‐ Audi on Demand & Audi at Home 400km recharged in 20min
visitors and a son from sports training NVIDIA ‐ Future e‐van ride‐sharing with MOIA ‐ ID Vizzion Robotic concept car (for 2030)
Table 38: VW Group Strategy Overview
Sources: Own representation based on corporate sources (Volkswagen, n.d.; Volkswagen, 2017)
GA n°769513 Page 77 of 77

Analysis of Business Models For Car Sharing: Deliverable D3.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Business Models For Car Sharing: Deliverable D3.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Business Models For Car Sharing: Deliverable D3.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref.

Research and Innovation action

Table 6: Bluecity's Business Model Canvas ................................................................................... 23

CEO Chief executive officer

D3.1 Deliverable 3.1

EV(s) Electric vehicle(s)

FMLM First mile last mile

GPS Global positioning system

ICE Internal combustion engine(s)

OEM(s) Original equipment manufacturer(s)

PHEV(s) Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle(s)

SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

WP3 Work package 3

2 Trends in Car Sharing Business Models

Station-based organisations require cars to be picked up and parked at a station. These

2.1.1 Free-floating with an operational area

2.1.2 Free-floating with pool stations

2.1.3 Roundtrip, home-zone based

2.1.4 Roundtrip, station-based

2.1.5 Peer-to-Peer (P2P)

Figure 1: Distance Travelled vs. Flexibility of Business Models

2.2 Comparison of Individual Business Models through the

 Free-floating with pool stations: Autolib, Bluetorino, Bluecity

2.2.1 Free-floating with an operational area

Table 1: Car2go's Business Model Canvas

Table 2: Zipcar's Business Model Canvas

Table 3: DriveNow's Business Model Canvas

2.2.2 Free-floating with pool stations

Table 4: Autolib's Business Model Canvas

Table 5: Bluetorino's Business Model Canvas

Table 6: Bluecity's Business Model Canvas

2.2.3 Roundtrip, home-zone based

Table 7: Juuve's Business Model Canvas

Table 8: Partago's Business Model Canvas

2.2.4 Roundtrip, station based

Table 9: Ubeeqo's Business Model Canvas

Table 10: Cambio's Business Model Canvas

Table 11: Greenwheels' Business Model Canvas

Table 12: Io Guido's Business Model Canvas

2.2.5 Peer-to-Peer (P2P)

Table 13: Dégage's Business Model Canvas

Table 14: Drivy's Business Model Canvas

Table 15: CarAmigo's Business Model Canvas

3 SWOT Analysis of Business Models in Car Sharing

3.2 Free-floating with pool stations

3.3 Roundtrip, home-zone based

Table 19: Roundtrip, home-zone based SWOT

3.4 Roundtrip, station-based

3.5 P2P and community schemes

4 Innovation in Business Model Strategies

4.2 Avoiding Commodification: From Vehicle Ownership to

TOYOTA Mobility Teammate Concept, ITS Connect,

VW Audi Connect & Sedric Connectivity project

Table 22: Examples of Connectivity Software Used by OEMs

4.2.3 Shared programs and Services

Vehicle Car Ride Multi-Modal Other services

4.2.4 Electrification and alternative propulsion

Vehicle Current Electric, Plug-in or Hybrid Vehicles Hydrogen propulsion