Exploring the factors influencing

electric vehicle adoption: an empirical

investigation in the emerging
economy context of India
Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya and Shreyash Thakre

Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya

is based at the Department
Abstract
of Strategic Management,
Purpose – The Indian automotive industry was witnessing a transition from conventional vehicles to
greener battery-operated electric vehicles (EVs). However, the acceptance of these EVs was still muted Faculty of Strategic
and brought significant challenges for the industry. Literature regarding the adoption of EVs was scarce Management, National
in the Indian context. It was thus imperative to explore and comprehend the distinct perceptions of Institute of Industrial
industry managers and consumers regarding the adoption of EVs in India. The purpose of this study is to Engineering, Mumbai,
comprehensively analyze the entire Indian EVs ecosystem to address this research gap. India. Shreyash Thakre is
Design/methodology/approach – The authors carried out an empirical investigation starting with a based at the Department
structured literature review to identify the researchable gaps. Subsequently, the authors conducted semi- of Industrial Engineering,
structured open-ended interviews with 38 experts including automotive industry experts and EV National Institute of
consumers. The authors further performed a thematic content analysis of the expert interview responses Industrial Engineering,
to document critical insights regarding the adoption of EVs.
Mumbai, India.
Findings – The authors identified 11 key factors influencing the adoption of EVs in this study. The vital
considerations regarding the availability of charging technologies, its associated selection dilemma,
emerging business models and public policy support were presented and discussed. Market
penetration of EVs was found to be influenced mostly by the choice of charging technology. Further, the
switching intention of consumers was deliberated upon to highlight the specific technological and
psychological preferences of consumers. The accessibility of charging stations emerged as the most
influential factor. The research findings indicated that harmony among stakeholders was missing in the
Indian EVs ecosystem. Instead, there were discrete efforts by organizations. The EVs ecosystem
required collaboration for improved adoption of the EVs. Further, the necessity to rectify the chaotic
charging infrastructure in the country was highlighted as a major pain point for customers to adopt EV.
Research limitations/implications – This study theoretically contributed to push–pull–mooring (PPM)
framework for understanding the adoption of EVs in India. This enabled the authors to extensively analyze
consumers’ psychological and technological considerations regarding their switching intention toward
EVs.
Practical implications – The findings of this study would help managers in decision-making toward the
establishment of charging infrastructure involving multiple considerations such as the accessibility of
charging, multi-dimensional competence at charging stations and servicing capabilities. Managers
could also use the insights from this study to secure supportive recommendations for improving the
overall EV infrastructure. The results of this study would benefit policymakers to set strategic directions
through an integrated view of the entire EVs ecosystem involving management of bus and taxi fleets, two-
wheelers and three-wheelers and such others.
Originality/value – Generally, in extant research, either firm managers’ or customers’ perspectives are
considered separately. This study deliberated upon the PPM framework and switching intention
Received 6 April 2020
accommodating both the industry and consumers’ perspectives. To the best of the authors’ knowledge,
Revised 27 June 2020
this was, thus, one of the first research articles which integrated insights from both the industry and 6 August 2020
consumers. This established the PPM framework for understanding the adoption of EVs. Further, it Accepted 9 September 2020

DOI 10.1108/FS-04-2020-0037 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1463-6689 j FORESIGHT j

 helped in comprehending the specific technological and psychological preferences of consumers
regarding switching intention toward EVs.
Keywords Switching intention, Push–pull–mooring framework,
Consumer psychological and technological preferences, Electric vehicle technology,
Electric vehicles adoption
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The global automotive industry has been on the verge of disruption because of the outcomes of
four key technology-driven trends such as battery-powered electric vehicles (EVs), vehicles with
connectivity, shared mobility and autonomous vehicles (Dhawan et al., 2017). The Indian
automotive industry had started to experience the effects of this global disruption (Pandit et al.,
2018). Electric two-wheelers have been the frontrunners of this transition in mobility in the Indian
automobile market (Rajper and Albrecht, 2020). However, the “chicken-and-egg dilemma” had
made the infrastructure deployment process for EVs extremely difficult. This was especially so in
the chaotic business landscape of India with respect to technology (Bhattacharyya et al., 2012;
Verma and Bhattacharyya, 2016). While dealing with electric mobility business models, the
whole ecosystem had to be considered because of the complex interactions between traditional
and emerging stakeholders (Kley et al., 2011). Narrow-scoped studies had been carried out on
the business models for the battery-operated car manufacturer (Bohnsacka et al., 2013) and the
infrastructure developers (Schroeder and Traber, 2012). However, an integrated view over the
different stakeholders was required which could be used by regulatory policymakers to promote
electric mobility (Rossini et al., 2016). To address this gap in literature, the research focused on
pursuing answers to the following questions:
Q1. What have been the points of incongruence among the various stakeholders on EV
adoption?
Q2. Why certain charging technologies had made a suitable business case for the
incumbents or new entrants while other competing technologies have not?
The research objective was to understand the specific local needs (that is in India) to match
the supply and demand for EVs. From a managerial point of view, this study would help
managers to build a dynamic ecosystem ensuring a sustainable transition to electric
mobility by consumers.

2. Literature review
The authors carried out a systematic literature review. With two electronic databases,
Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, the authors performed a keyword search of
“electric vehicles þ technology adoption”, “electric vehicles þ charging technology”,
“electric vehicles þ charging infrastructure in India”, “electric vehicles þ business model”
and “electric vehicles þ technology usage”. The search was confined to peer-reviewed
journal articles published from January 2006 to December 2019 and written in English
language only. The authors did not consider conference papers and technical reports.
Moreover, capturing the research trend was believed to be completely probable with 239
peer-reviewed research articles that the search identified. The authors in detail
subsequently read the title, abstract and keywords. In terms of relevance, the authors then
finally identified 15 research papers out of the 239 articles. To provide a comprehensive
review of the current scenario, the authors grouped the selected papers into three major
categories: public policy and business models, EV charging technologies and planning for
charging infrastructure. The findings for these categories have been presented in Table 1.
By reviewing the literature, the authors were acquainted with the available charging
technologies, related specifications and emerging business models. Over the years,
researchers had developed numerous frameworks to explain user’s inclination toward

j FORESIGHT j
Table 1 Literature review on adoption of EVs
S
no. Author (s) Methodology Findings

Category I: Public policy and business models

1 Bohnsacka A qualitative analysis of EV projects by The authors explored the effect of a
et al. key industry players over five years was firm’s path dependencies. Convergence
(2013) carried out among business models of incumbent
firms and entrepreneurs in the direction
of economy multi-purpose EVs was
observed
2 Robinson The authors conducted a literature Best-fit charging levels to be determined
et al. review on available business models for consumers based on the amount of
(2014) and case studies of functional charging time parked at the facility. The authors
stations noticed that charging infrastructure had
to be integrated with existing physical
infrastructure
3 Kley et al. A literature review of existing business The authors suggested the use of
(2011) models and propositions considered for morphological box structure to analyze
electric mobility was conducted business models. Uncertainty was
observed among stakeholders about
their profitability
4 Zhan et al. The authors used a multi-actor The municipal corporation of Shenzhen
(2015) perspective and the business model fostered a distinct government-
canvas framework to analyze enterprise cooperation model. The
interactions across the EVs value chain authors suggested introducing private
investment and reducing local
protectionism in the EVs market for
improvements
5 Yixin et al. Value chain analysis conducted to The authors found NPV and IRR for both
(2013) analyze EVs application in two Chinese patterns of the business unit to be
cities negative emphasizing the need for
innovative business models
Category II: EV charging technologies
1 Venkatesh A literature review on UTAUT theory The authors suggested the use of
et al. between the periods of September 2003 UTAUT/UTAUT2 in refining contextual
(2016) to December 2004 was conducted factors to define the impact of feature-
use levels on individual performance
2 Khazaei A literature review on technology New aspects were required to gauge
and acceptance models was conducted. A consumer needs. The authors
Khazaei quantitative method was used to design suggested anxiety and environmental
(2016) the questionnaire concern as additional factors
3 Muller A survey to test hypotheses developed The perceived ease of use had a higher
(2019) on technology acceptance was done influence on the attitude toward using for
battery-EVs in North America than
Europe and China.
4 Shareef A literature review of EV charging The authors presented various types of
et al. technologies, optimal sizing and charging levels and standards used
(2016) placement of charging stations was worldwide
conducted
5 Brown et al. A qualitative analysis of charging Results suggested charging standards
(2010) standard codes and certification to played a leading role in technology
emphasize its importance in EV acceptance. It was necessary to ensure
adoption was carried out compatibility between charging systems
and technologies
Category III: Planning for EVs charging infrastructure
1 Hardmana A literature review on consumer More effort was needed to ensure easy
et al. preferences for charging infrastructure access to the charging infrastructure.
(2018) was conducted The authors observed that EV charging
(continued)

j FORESIGHT j
 Table 1
S
no. Author (s) Methodology Findings

would not impact electricity grids in the

short term
2 San Roman A conceptual framework to provide the EV home charging was recommended
et al. basis for regulating large-scale EV over public charging with electricity tariff
(2011) integration was developed based on time of use. The authors
suggested regulatory authorities to
monitor such networks
3 Shen et al. A literature review on EV service Results suggested that public policies,
(2019) operation problems was conducted technological uncertainty, and business
models differentiated EVs from a
traditional combustion vehicle
4 Huang An experimental study at two different Results suggested that aesthetic quality
(2019) battery swapping stations with varying and hedonic quality were positively
user interfaces was carried out correlated with intrinsic motivation and
user satisfaction. These further
influenced the user’s future usage
intention
5 Will and A quantitative analysis of influential Results indicated that grid stability and
Schuller factors for smart charging infrastructure integration of renewable energy pushed
(2016) was performed acceptance level, except consumer’s
desire for flexibility. The explanation of
benefits yielded better acceptance over
monetary incentives
Notes: NPV = Net Present Value; IRR = Internal Rate of Return

technology adoption based on the designated factors or contextual perspectives. While

other frameworks explored the behavioral aspects of technology adoption, the
push–pull–mooring (PPM) framework (Cheng et al., 2019; Fu, 2011) does not mandate fixed
push, pull, or mooring metrics. The ability of the PPM framework to adapt to specific
research goals seemed appropriate for the authors to identify the unique PPM factors
toward the adoption of EVs in this study.
Based on Table 1, the authors could figure out the researchable gaps which were present.
The authors found that there was a lack of literature covering the adoption of EVs, especially
in the Indian context. There were very few articles on the charging technologies used by
Indian vehicle manufacturers. Most of the studies had been conducted with a narrow-
focused perspective on minimizing the total cost (Verma and Singh, 2018) or locating the
necessary charging infrastructure (Reddy and Selvajyothi, 2019). Many studies had
indicated the substantive market size of India and the high rate of competition
(Bhattacharyya et al., 2015). This study attempted to comprehensively understand which
charging technologies were generally used by Indian vehicle manufacturers. Some of the
new and pressing challenges faced by the Indian automotive industry and apprehensions
of the consumers toward EVs were also found and presented. Theoretically, the authors
anchored the study for understanding the adoption of EVs with two perspectives. The first
being the PPM framework (Hsieh et al., 2012; Fu, 2011) and the second being the specific
technological and psychological preferences of consumers regarding switching intention
(Shin and Kim, 2008; Liang et al., 2018) toward EVs.

3. Research methodology
The authors adopted a qualitative approach suitable for exploratory study with the intent to
capture effective behavioral responses of stakeholder experiences (Rezvani et al., 2015;

j FORESIGHT j
Flick, 2018). The primary source of data for this research was obtained from semi-structured
open-ended questionnaire instrument-based interviews with key stakeholders within the
Indian automotive sector (Kallio et al., 2016). The interviews were conducted with 11
managers and 27 EV consumers in India. The authors developed two separate
questionnaires as depicted in Table 2.
Interviews were conducted with managers who were experts from business development,
product management and sourcing. These responses were further complemented with
interviews of EV consumers across major cities in India such as Mumbai, Pune and
Bengaluru where such vehicles were used. This helped the authors to understand the
points of incongruence among various stakeholders toward the adoption of EVs. The
research was further supplemented through scientific literature reports, published
documents by the Indian Government and EV pilot project cases to add perceptions to the
empirical insights gathered. The data was collected between January to March 2020. A
non-probabilistic purposive snowball sampling was carried out (Moons and De Pelsmacker,
2012). The data was transcribed within 98 h of data collection as advocated by scholars
(Diefenbach, 2009). The authors further carried out a thematic content analysis of interview
responses (Lopez Jaramillo et al., 2019). The inter-coder reliability was 92%, and the intra-
coder reliability was 96%. The inter-coder reliability was carried out simultaneously by the
authors, whereas the intra-coder reliability was carried out after a hiatus of one week. The
inter-coder and intra-coder reliability values were well within the advocated quality
parameters of qualitative research (Flick, 2018). The thematic content analysis helped in
comprehending the barriers and enablers to the adoption of EVs. The findings obtained
from these interview responses have been presented in the next section.

4. Findings
Based on the study, the authors identified five substantive factors that influenced the
adoption of EVs. Because of the paucity of space, only eight managerial responses have
been presented in Table 3. In Table 3, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 indicated the questions
asked to the managers, whereas R1–R8 indicated the responses of the respondents.
As evident from Table 3, the first factor was the selection of charging technology. Business
models have been developed based on the choice of charging technology as electric
charging or battery swapping. The second factor was charger configuration, which meant
variation in the technical specifications of the vehicle charger. Higher the power rating of
electric chargers, lesser was the waiting time for charging a vehicle. The third factor was the

Table 2 Interview questions

Automotive industry managers Electric vehicle consumers

1. What is the preferred mode of charging in India – residential or 1. What is the preferred mode of charging an electric vehicle–
public? How do you foresee the current scenario to evolve in the residential or public? Which seems more convenient and
future in terms of charging mode preference? why?
2. India is expected to follow a combination of globally established 2. How is the availability of different standard chargers and what
standards for slow/fast charging. What would be the possible are the challenges faced?
benefits/ drawbacks of this decision? 3. Is battery swapping a viable alternative to electric charging?
3. Is battery swapping a viable alternative to electric charging? Can What would you prefer amongst these two modes of
it be applied successfully to other segments apart from two- charging?
wheelers/three-wheelers? 4. How significantly have government initiatives like FAME
4. How successful has the FAME (Faster Adoption and affected you as an EV owner?
Manufacturing of (Hybrid &) EVs in India) scheme been in 5. Any other point you would like to add?
boosting demand for the electric vehicle segment? How has the
impact been so far?
5. Any other point you would like to add?

j FORESIGHT j
 Table 3 Interview responses by managers
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

R1 Faster public The Indian Battery swapping FAME 1 created Charging stations
charging would regulatory was difficult to awareness about were remotely
be preferred overauthority wanted implement for EV’s through controlled
the currently compliance with heavy vehicles incentives through the server
dominant slow international because of the Commercial Charger
residential standards excessive battery vehicles and two- configuration set
charging Bharat protocol weight in tons wheelers as per customer
required Type 2 benefited the requirement
& GB/T most from FAME
connectors
R2 70–80% of Indian OEMs Battery swapping Incentives Vehicle
charging through Maruti Suzuki & could be used for through the FAME manufacturers
AC slow charging Hyundai were intra-city buses scheme not associated with
at home across top influencers of but not inter-city enough to EV charger
geographies EV policies of the buses improve EV providers to offer
Indian The economic adoption chargers with the
government viability of battery The availability of vehicle
Regional swapping was not infrastructure was Charging
variation in demonstrated yet a bottleneck standards
charger type differed in the
observed across speed of current
tenders transfer
R3 A combination of Bharat standard Battery ownership Acceptance still The proportion of
public and used CAN bus cost was a major very low in the DC: AC chargers
residential V3 while hindrance for passenger likely to be around
charging modes CHAdeMO used battery swapping vehicle segment 40:60 in the future
would be CAN bus V2 models
essential in the raising a future Several design
future concern considerations
need to be
accommodated
R4 Three-phase AC AC chargers Olectra buses Multiple state Charger current
chargers used were simpler, had battery packs government limits were
primarily in India cheaper and weighing 500 kg transport (bus) regulated to
for the bus easy to install and the battery associations were prevent
segment and relocate configuration was collaborating with overheating of
DC chargers centrally Olectra BYD cables
were bigger, positioned because of FAME Olectra BYD used
expensive and making swapping scheme benefits AC charging at
had higher difficult the Bhekrainagar
current meaning bus depot in Pune
faster charging
R5 It was difficult to Indian The battery FAME II scheme After every 3 DC
decipher the manufacturers management focused on charging cycles,
charging had lower rated system commercial it was
preference in onboard determined the vehicles recommended to
India owing to the chargers on charging rate charge via AC
nascent stage of vehicles based on battery charging to
EVs market. because of health and state ensure the battery
single-phase of charge reliability
residential power
at 16 A
R6 80% of Core charger The success of FAME scheme Charging
consumers technology not battery swapping offered incentives standard
preferred revealed to pilot projects on the purchase specifications
residential suppliers boosted the price updated every 7
charging Charger confidence of the —12 months
because of manufacturers in industry. Battery
(continued)

j FORESIGHT j
 Table 3
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

longer charging India relied on temperature

time imports affected charging
speed
R7 Home electricity Different Battery swapping Government to Battery
tariff applicable charging required vehicles support charging specification of a
for residential standard compatible with infrastructure vehicle affected
charging associations had frequent through FAME II the charging
license fees for replacement of technology
access to battery terminal choice
technical
specifications
R8 Residential According to Bus manufacturer The No significant
charging was BIS, type 1, type Ashok Leyland in implementation of effect observed
preferred by 2, and GBT collaboration with FAME I had not on the electricity
majority of private connectors were Sun mobility was met the grid as charging
car owners suitable for running the only expectations of demand was
power rating < pilot initiative in the Indian scarce
20 kW the country with Government in Increased
Type 2 CCS and battery swapping boosting EVs demand for EVs
CHAdeMO buses sales in the future could
connectors were lead to peak
preferred for fluctuation
higher power
ratings

import of electronic components. This was primarily related to the cell modules used to
build the vehicle battery pack. The higher was the localization of electronic components, the
lower was the purchase price of EVs. The fourth factor was EV sales. Higher demand for
EVs would significantly boost revenue for EV manufacturers. The fifth factor was the rate of
technology innovation, which meant the advancements in charging technology and related
charger configuration. The relative importance of these five factors was highlighted through
the interview responses of managers. The selection of charging technology emerged as the
most important factor followed by the charger configuration. The import of electronic
components was found to have the least importance among managers in the automotive
industry. The interview responses from consumers of EVs in India helped authors to
understand the influential factors affecting the adoption of EV. Because of the paucity of
space, only ten responses have been presented in Table 4. In Table 4, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and
Q5 indicated the questions asked to the customers, whereas R1–R10 indicated the
responses of the respondents.
The authors further identified six factors to define consumer preferences. The first factor
was the charging time. This was related to the time for which consumers had to wait to
recharge their vehicles. Lower the charging time for a vehicle, greater was the convenience
for consumers. The second factor was charging station availability, which meant the
distance consumers had to travel to reach the nearest charging station. Higher the density
of charging stations in a locality, greater was the convenience for consumers to use EVs.
The next factor was the driving range. This indicated the distance travelled by an EV in a
single charge. The fourth factor was the energy cost. Lower the tariffs for charging an EV,
faster would be the adoption among consumers. The fifth factor was the relative purchase
price, which referred to the premium consumers paid for purchasing an EV over the
conventional fuel vehicle. Lower the upfront purchase price of EVs, the higher would be the
tendency of consumers to switch to EVs. The next factor was the intention of use, which
meant the desired use-case influencing consumer decision. Greater the applicability of EVs

j FORESIGHT j
 Table 4 Interview responses by consumers
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

R1 Residential charging An industrial connector Battery swapping was not FAME I scheme offered Indian vehicle
majorly used because of used for residential available for passenger incentives on the initial manufacturers should
a longer charging time charging with a 16 A vehicles because of to ownership cost for collaborate to improve
socket heavy battery passenger EVs the availability of
Public chargers Government incentives charging infrastructure
available at benefited higher-priced
dealerships used GB/T EVs
type connectors
R2 Use of public charging Most of the Indian two- Frequent replacement FAME I offered Battery prices were
stations was very rare wheeler manufacturers damaged the battery discounts up to INR dependent on lithium ore
used GB/T connector connection terminals. 22,000/- on city-speed availability
for residential charging electric two-wheelers The localization of battery
Dealerships had components would
3.5–7 kW AC chargers reduce EVs cost
R3 Electricity tariff at home Interoperability was not Reliability of state of Government incentives EVs were in a very
applicable for charging recommended yet by charge of the battery was a offered on two- nascent stage yet in India
two-wheeler concern wheelers motivated
manufacturers consumers to switch
R4 Residential charging Industrial socket Battery swapping not Incentives helped EVs majorly affected by
used 90% of the time to available supported recommended because of position EVs as the advancements in
suffice charging only slow charging technical problems. attractive offerings battery technology
requirements
R5 Long charging time had Cap on service charge Battery swapping Government support Bharat standard
made overnight charging at public charging technically and through the FAME chargers either
safe and convenient stations fixed by state economically feasible for scheme offered supported 10 kW slow
nodal authority two and three wheelers discounts up to 15 K on charging or 15 kW fast
Discounted tariffs two-wheelers charging
applicable for Consumers followed
charging based on specified speed limits to
time of use scheme extend the driving range
R6 Residential charging Connectors differed Customer experience FAME I incentives Only 1,309 electric cars
majorly used for across charging severely affected by based on technology sold in the previous year
overnight charging standards battery performance
R7 Public charging facilities Lack of universal Charge time eliminated to FAME II expected to Environmental concern
occasionally used during charging standard was improve user experience provide incentives had been driving force
long rides bound to create chaos based on battery behind the adoption of
capacity EVs
R8 Residential charging European Battery swapping The tax deduction India needed to set up
preferred over public manufacturers mechanism currently could be availed up to regulatory policies to
charging facilities supported CCS being tested in the pilot INR 1.5 lacs on electric govern charging
charger standard stage by bus manufacturer cars standards
Japanese Ashok Leyland
manufacturers
followed the CHAdeMo
charging standard
R9 Overnight charging AC powered slow Battery swapping FAME II included set up Long-distance journeys
sufficient for daily chargers provided by technology not feasible for of public charging not possible with the
commute to the office the manufacturer along electric cars stations through public current EVs technology
with the vehicle sector undertakings
R10The public charging 50 kW chargers were Indian vehicle FAME I scheme offered Mass adoption of EVs in
stations were either still not available in manufacturers had shown subsidies up to INR India improbable until
located at dealerships or India. faith in the battery 1,87,000/- on select affordable prices were
state electricity board Car manufacturer swapping model only for electric car models established
substations Mahindra offered a lightweight vehicles
15 kW charger as the
fastest at its
dealerships

j FORESIGHT j
to replace the conventional vehicles, faster would be the adoption of EVs. The relative
importance of these six factors was highlighted through the interview responses of
consumers. The relative upfront purchase price and availability of charging stations
emerged as the most influential factors. The authors subsequently carried out a thematic
content analysis of the interview responses of managers and consumers. The derived
perspectives have been discussed in the next section.

5. Discussion
EVs could be viewed as a sustainable technology that essentially challenged fossil fuel-
driven business practices (Shen et al., 2019). Sustainable technologies often defied
established production methods, managerial proficiency and consumer predilections
(Johnson and Suskewicz, 2009; Nair and Bhattacharyya, 2019). In this section, the in situ
findings derived from the content analysis performed by the authors have been presented
and discussed. The authors listed the factors derived from managerial perspectives in
Table 5.
The findings of the research suggested that the choice of a certain charging technology
involved multiple considerations. As evident from the literature, the primary factor was
applicability (Rahman et al., 2016). A charging technology could either be designed as
specific to a use-case or applicable across various vehicle segments. Further, some firms
focused on the viability of the charging technology in terms of ease of production and
monetary requirements. Many firms were still implementing pilot ventures which brought
along uncertainty regarding the role of individual stakeholders. The authors found that
collaboration among several stakeholders was absent. There should be harmony among
vehicle and battery manufacturers to ensure faster adoption of certain charging technology.
This was an important insight derived from the research findings enabling better
comprehension of the local needs of the EV market in the Indian context.

Table 5 Considerations defining the managerial perceptions

S.
no Factors Subfactors

1 Selection of charging Widespread applicability Regulatory mandates Accessibility of charger

technology
Technical feasibility Economic viability Scalability of technology
Harmony between stakeholders Compatibility Specific use-cases
Weight of vehicle Pilot projects
2 Charger configuration Charging standard Charger supplier for consumers Indian charging standard
Global charging standard Charger supplier for vehicle Customization
manufacturers
Dissimilarity amongst charging Certification charges Interaction between charging pile
stations and vehicle
Mode of power supply Operational efficiency Ease of installation
Speed of current transfer Reliability of vehicle battery Electricity supply grid specifications
3 Sales of EVs Consumer incentives FAME I scheme (2015–2019) FAME II scheme (April 2019
onwards)
Government support for intra-city Consumer acceptance Government focus on commercial
e-buses vehicles
Convenience of 2 W Support for R&D
4 Rate of technology Backward compatibility Investor confidence Collapse of the electricity grid
innovation
Payback period Inadequate policy support Fast charging
Periodic specification updates
5 Import of electronic Cost-benefit analysis Lack of lithium mineral reserves Core competency
components
Cost sensitivity Absence of capability

j FORESIGHT j
 The authors have explored the reason behind variations in the type of chargers available in
the market. Japanese automakers established a technology standard named as CHAdeMO
(Oda et al., 2018), whereas SAE developed the combo charging system (CCS) which
gained wide acceptance among European automakers (Shareef et al., 2016). In the Indian
market, vehicles were sold by both global as well as Indian manufacturers. Global
automotive players such as Hyundai had announced its support for global CCS standard
for its EVs across the world (Economic Times, 2019). While India’s leading car
manufacturer, Maruti Suzuki was expected to adopt the CHAdeMo charging standard
based on the parent Suzuki’s Japanese inheritance (Singh, 2019). In contrast, Indian
manufacturers such as Tata Motors and Mahindra supported the domestic Bharat Standard
(Mohile, 2019). Tata Motors launched an EV with support for CCS standard as well (Mohile,
2019). This affected the ability of automakers to replicate the seamless connectivity offered
by traditional fuel stations for EV consumers. This revealed the existing incongruence
among stakeholders in the Indian EV market.
The development of an ecosystem was necessary to support the diffusion of emerging
technologies in the market (Adner and Kapoor, 2010). Extant literature also demonstrated
that the development of fast charging capability had improved consumer sentiment to
switch toward EVs (Neaimeha et al., 2017). Thus, advancements in technology were
necessary for the EVs ecosystem. However, research indicated that the current rate of
technological innovation had reduced the scale of investment. The automotive industry was
reluctant to infuse capital into the evolving EV ecosystem (Goyal, 2019). Aligning with the
work of Graham-Rowe et al. (2012), the findings suggested that acceptance would be poor
until the availability of charging infrastructure was improved across the country. This
exposed a major constraint to EV adoption in the Indian context. The authors realized that
the Indian automotive industry was lacking in infrastructural capability. The unavailability of
lithium mineral reserves in India severely hindered domestic battery manufacturing. The
current lackluster demand for EVs further worsened prospects. These findings were in
alignment with the research objective of understanding the inherent discrepancies of the
Indian EV market. The Government of India thus promoted localization of these electronic
components to reduce the exorbitant prices of EVs. Next, the factors identified based on
consumer perceptions have been discussed in Table 6.
The findings suggested that charging station facilities were created either in designated
parking lots, workspaces or at recreational centers. Consumers spent much greater time at
charging stations than at the conventional fuel filling stations. The authors observed that the
stakeholders setting up these charging stations spanned across state energy utilities,
vehicle manufacturers and start-ups (Kley et al., 2011). State power utilities considered
charging infrastructure as an extension of their primary business objective of transmitting
electricity. While the Indian Government announced support for public sector oil companies
to utilize its existing network across the country. Thus, these findings revealed the relative
advantage of certain charging technology providers had over the competitors. Research
indicated that the charge time was affected by the restricted availability of chargers. The
authors observed that vehicle manufacturers supported varying charging standards
resulting in distinct technical provisions, unsuitable for interoperability. The authors
observed that consumers desired charging infrastructure to replicate the seamless
connectivity offered by conventional fuel stations (Schauble et al., 2016).
India was found to have fast charging facilities which were slow when compared with
international standards. The fastest chargers available in India were 50 kW chargers
while globally fast chargers had a minimum rating of 50 kW (Gnann et al., 2018). Many
European charging service operators have been working on chargers as fast as 150
and 350 kW (Nicholas and Hall, 2018). India still needed to significantly advance the
available technology to improve consumer sentiment regarding EVs. These findings
helped the authors address the existing difference in expectations among various

j FORESIGHT j
Table 6 Considerations defining the consumer perceptions
S.
no Factors Subfactors

1 Charge time Charging speed Single recharge time Accessibility of charger

Technology upgradation Speed of current transfer Type of connector
Dealership capability Vehicle safety Specific use-cases
2 Charging station Charger supplier for consumers Number of charging stations in Stakeholder initiative
availability India
Accessibility of charging station Safety concern Service location
Compatibility amongst vehicles and charging Operational requirement Insufficient policy
stations support
3 Range anxiety Capability of vehicle Day-to-day requirement Vehicle constraints
Consumer perception State of charge Vehicle speed limit
Technology constraints
4 Energy cost Operational expense Tariff for residential charging Service charge
Consumer incentive Source of power supply Ownership of vehicle
battery
5 Relative purchase price Consumer incentives Reduction in battery prices Import duty
Product configuration
6 Intention of use Attractive offering Lower operational expense Tax benefits
Environmental concern Consumer satisfaction Niche segment

stakeholders. The findings of the research indicated that the EVs available for Indian
consumers were primarily suitable for intra-city travel because of range limitations.
Thus, the demand was subdued and restricted to urban areas (Ji et al., 2015). Based
on the study, the authors observed that technology upgradation was essential. Higher
battery capacity and increased availability of fast charging facilities translated into
longer travel range. Indian consumers preferred those firms that understood the
market (Jha and Bhattacharyya, 2018). This explained the relative success of certain
charging technologies in the Indian EV market. Based on the study, the authors
observed that consumers preferred residential charging over the available public
charging facilities (Morrissey et al., 2016). Still, the necessity of public charging
infrastructure could not be denied. As Indian consumers were extremely price-
sensitive (Bhattacharyya and Jha, 2015), the government-appointed nodal authority in
each state to fix the cap on service charges for recharging EVs. Philip and Wiederer
(2010) argued that a fixed-rate subscription model was much beneficial to the
operators than the consumer-friendly temporally adjusted pay per use scheme. But
the primary concern was continuity in use. Thus, the authors realized the need to give
due importance to financing and use of the charging infrastructure. Thus, the study
indicated the specific preferences and apprehensions of Indian consumers.
Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of initiating financial measures to boost
consumer confidence in EVs (Melliger et al., 2018). These financial measures
included discounts on the upfront purchase price and tax incentives. The authors
observed that the Indian Government devised such fiscal measures to give an initial
boost to EVs. The government prioritized the electrification of state transport bus
fleets that traversed on fixed routes within the city boundaries frequently (Mohamed
et al., 2018). Thus, the research uncovered the policy support for EVs in the Indian
market from the regulatory authority. The findings of the research suggested that the
usage intention of consumers for EVs was driven by many varied considerations. The
authors observed that charging station location and the associated charging time
influenced consumer decision. This was confirmed by extant literature that indicated
that consumers opted for the nearest charging station with minimal waiting time (Yang
and Sun, 2015). The research explored the reasons which prompted the consumer to

j FORESIGHT j
 undertake the switch to EVs. The authors found that monetary incentives, premium
positioning and pro-environment mandates majorly influenced the purchase decision.

6. Conclusion
The study highlighted the necessity of developing the right blend of technological capability
and government policy support to achieve success in the Indian market (Porter and Van der
Linde, 1995; Beise and Rennings, 2005). The authors suggested improving collaboration
among the various stakeholders to provide seamless connectivity and eliminate the
numerous deterrents to faster adoption of EVs (Schauble et al., 2017). Adopting a dual
perspective to gather insights, the authors complemented the existing consumer-biased
literature on EVs. Specifically, the authors applied the PPM framework (Cheng et al., 2019;
Fu, 2011) to understand the adoption of EVs. The authors also explored the relationship
between these PPM factors. Energy cost and charge time hurt the intention of use. While
charging station availability, EV sales and driving range had a positive effect on the same
intention of use. Also, the rate of technological innovation of charging technology had a
negative effect on the selection of charging technology.Finally, the import of electronic
components negatively affected the relative purchase price of EVs. These inter-related
factors affecting the switch from conventional to EVs have been highlighted in Figure 1.
Addressing the managerial implications of this study, the authors identified various
stakeholders across the value chain of EVs. Internal combustion engine and exhaust system
manufacturers were found to be under threat. Public sector oil companies needed to modify
their current value proposition to survive the onset of EVs. While electronic component
manufacturers gained significant traction in the EVs value chain. This transition in
stakeholder roles has been duly depicted in Figure 2.
This study focused on presenting an integrated view of the entire EVs ecosystem in India.
The authors delved deep into the charging infrastructure from not only a consumer
perceptive but also the automotive industry viewpoint. Thus, the research objective of
exploring the local necessities of the Indian EVs market was achieved through a dual-
perspective analysis. Although in the nascent stage, vehicle-to-grid (bi-directional V2G)
systems has been an emerging area in EVs literature with pilot projects outside India
(Sovacool et al., 2017). Because of a lack of supporting empirical data, V2G was not

Figure 1 Metrics affecting the adoption of EVs

j FORESIGHT j
 Figure 2 Transition in the automotive value chain because of the onset of EVs

included in the present study. The authors observed several use cases across vehicle
segments which could be explored individually as a research area. With an increased
demand for EVs, it would also become necessary to analyze the behavior of mainstream
consumers toward EVs in the future. The authors hope this study would broach further
interest in this nascent field especially in the context of emerging economies.

References
Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2010), “Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of
technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 306-333.
Bansal, H.S., Taylor, S.F. and St. James, Y. (2005), “‘Migrating’ to new service providers: toward a
unifying framework of consumers’ switching behaviors”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 96-115.
Beise, M. and Rennings, R. (2005), “Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing the
international diffusion of environmental innovations”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 5-17.

Bhattacharyya, S.S. and Jha, S. (2015), “Study of market orientation intelligence generation and
organizational variable”, International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 699-710.
Bhattacharyya, S.S., Jha, S. and Fernandes, C. (2015), “Determinants of speed to market in the context of
the emerging Indian market”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 784-800.
Bhattacharyya, S.S., Rangarajan, R. and Vyas, K.G. (2012), “Reflections on mapping chaos in the
business organisational landscape”, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 76-116.

Bohnsacka, R., Pinkseb, J. and Kolk, A. (2013), “Business models for sustainable technologies: exploring
business model evolution in the case of EVs”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 284-300, doi: 10.1016/j.
respol.2013.10.014.
Brown, S., Pyke, D. and Steenhof, P. (2010), “EVs: the role and importance of standards in an emerging
market”, Energy Policy, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 3797-3806, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.059.
Cheng, S., Lee, S.-J. and Choi, B. (2019), “An empirical investigation of users’ voluntary switching
intention for mobile personal cloud storage services based on the push-pull-mooring framework”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 92, pp. 198-215.

Dhawan, R. Gupta, S. Hensley, R. Huddar, N. Iyer, B. and Mangaleswaran, R. (2017), “The future of mobility in
India: challenges & opportunities for the auto component industry (2017)”, Mckinsey & Company, available at:
www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/the-future-of-mobility-in-india-challeng
es-and-opportunities-for-the-auto-component-industry (accessed 4th February 2020).

j FORESIGHT j
 Diefenbach, T. (2009), “Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling? Methodological problems
of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews”, Quality & Quantity, Vol. 43
No. 6, p. 875.

Economic Times (2019), “Hyundai working with IOCL to provide fast charging for Kona EV”,
available at: https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/hyundai-working-with-
iocl-to-provide-fast-charging-for-kona-ev/70381414 (accessed 10th March 2020).
Flick, U. (2018), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Fu, J.R. (2011), “Understanding career commitment of IT professionals: perspectives of
push–pull–mooring framework and investment model”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 279-293.
Gnann, T., Funke, S., Jakobsson, N., Plotz, P., Sprei, F. and Bennehag, A. (2018), “Fast charging
infrastructure for EVs: today’s situation and future needs”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, Vol. 62, pp. 314-329.

Goyal, M. (2019), “Is India’s automotive industry ready for an EV makeover?”, Economic Times, available
at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/auto/auto-news/is-indias-automotive-industry-ready-
for-an-ev-makeover/articleshow/70005695.cms?from=mdr (accessed 14th March 2020).
Graham-Rowe, E., Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Skippon, S., Dittmar, H., Hutchins, R. and Stannard, J.
(2012), “Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars: a
qualitative analysis of responses and evaluations”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 140-153.
Hardmana, S., Jenna, A., Tala, G., Axsen, J., Beard, G., Daina, N., Figenbaume, E., Jakobsson, F.,
Jochem, P., Kinnearc, N., Plötz, P., Pontesi, P., Refa, N., Sprei, F., Turrentinea, T. and Witkamp, B. (2018),
“A review of consumer preferences of and interactions with electric vehicle charging infrastructure”,
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 62, pp. 508-523, doi: 10.1016/j.
trd.2018.04.002.
Hsieh, J.K., Hsieh, Y.C., Chiu, H.C. and Feng, Y.C. (2012), “Post-adoption switching behavior for online
service substitutes: a perspective of the push–pull–mooring framework”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1912-1920.

Huang, F.H. (2019), “Understanding user acceptance of battery swapping service of sustainable
transport: an empirical study of a battery swap station for electric scooters, Taiwan”, International Journal
of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 294-307, doi: 10.1080/15568318.2018.1547464.
Jha, S. and Bhattacharyya, S.S. (2018), “Exploring the antecedents of marketing-operations interface
quality and competitive aggressiveness”, International Journal of Management Practice, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 218-232.
Ji, W., Nicholas, M. and Tal, G. (2015), “Electric vehicle fast charger planning for metropolitan planning
organizations”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
Vol. 2502 No. 1, pp. 134-143.
Johnson, M. and Suskewicz, J. (2009), “How to jump-start the clean tech economy”, Harvard Business
Review, pp. 52-60.
Kallio, H., Pietila, A.M., Johnson, M. and Kangasniemi, M. (2016), “Systematic methodological review:
developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide”, Journal of Advanced Nursing,
Vol. 72 No. 12, pp. 2954-2965.
Khazaei, H. and Khazaei, A. (2016), “EVs and factors influencing their adoption: moderating effects of
driving experience and voluntariness of use (conceptual framework)”, IOSR Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 18 No. 12, pp. 60-65.
Kley, F., Lerch, C. and Dallinger, D. (2011), “New business models for electric cars – a holistic approach”,
Energy Policy, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 3392-3403, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.036.
Liang, L.J., Choi, H.C. and Joppe, M. (2018), “Exploring the relationship between satisfaction, trust and
switching intention, repurchase intention in the context of airbnb”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 69, pp. 41-48.
Lopez Jaramillo, O., Stotts, R., Kelley, S. and Kuby, M. (2019), “Content analysis of interviews with
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle drivers in Los Angeles”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2673 No. 9, pp. 377-388, doi: 10.1177/0361198119845355.

j FORESIGHT j
Melliger, M.A., Van Vliet, O.P. and Liimatainen, H. (2018), “Anxiety vs reality – sufficiency of battery
electric vehicle range in Switzerland and Finland”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, Vol. 65, pp. 101-115.

Mohamed, M., Ferguson, M. and Kanaroglou, P. (2018), “What hinders adoption of the electric bus in
Canadian transit? Perspectives of transit providers”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, Vol. 64, pp. 134-149.
Mohile, S.S. (2019), “Tata motors, Tata power to install 300 charging stations in 5 cities”, Business
Standard, available at: www.business-standard.com/article/companies/tata-motors-tata-power-to-
install-300-charging-stations-in-5-cities-119080300091_1.html
Moons, I. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2012), “Emotions as determinants of electric car usage intention”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 195-237.

Morrissey, P., Weldona, P. and Mahony, M. (2016), “Future standard and fast charging infrastructure
planning: an analysis of electric vehicle charging behaviour”, Energy Policy, Vol. 89, pp. 257-270.
Muller, J.M. (2019), “Comparing technology acceptance for autonomous vehicles, battery EVs, and car
sharing – a study across Europe, China, and North America. Sustainability, MDPI”, Open Access Journal,
Vol. 11 No. 16, pp. 1-17.
Nair, A.K. and Bhattacharyya, S.S. (2019), “Is sustainability a motive to buy? An exploratory study in the context of
mobile applications channel among young Indian consumers”, Foresight, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 177-199.
Neaimeha, M., Salisbury, S.D., Hilla, G.A., Blythea, P.T., Scoffield, D.R. and Francfort, J.E. (2017),
“Analysing the usage and evidencing the importance of fast chargers for the adoption of battery EVs”,
Energy Policy, Vol. 108, pp. 448-474.
Nicholas, M. and Hall, D. (2018), “Lessons learned on early electric vehicle fast-charging deployments”,
International Council on Clean Transportation, available at: www.theicct.org/publications/fast-charging-
lessons-learned.

Oda, T., Aziz, M., Mitani, T., Watanabe, Y. and Kashiwagi, T. (2018), “Mitigation of congestion related to
quick charging of EVs based on waiting time and cost–benefit analyses: a Japanese case study”,
Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 36, pp. 99-106.
Pandit, D., Joshi, M.P., Sahay, A. and Gupta, R.K. (2018), “Disruptive innovation and dynamic
capabilities in emerging economies: evidence from the Indian automotive sector”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 129, pp. 323-329.
Philip, R. and Wiederer, A. (2010), “Policy options for electric vehicle charging infrastructure in C40 cities”,
Porter, M. and van der Linde, C. (1995), “Toward a new conception of the environment competitiveness
relationship”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 97-118.
Rahman, I., Vasant, P.M., Singh, B.S.M., Abdullah-Al-Wadud, M. and Adnan, N. (2016), “Review of recent
trends in optimization techniques for plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicle charging infrastructures”,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 58, pp. 1039-1047.

Rajper, S.Z. and Albrecht, J. (2020), “Prospects of EVs in the developing countries: a literature review”,
Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 5, p. 1906.
Reddy, M.S.K. and Selvajyothi, K. (2019), “Optimal placement of electric vehicle charging stations in
radial distribution system along with reconfiguration”, IEEE 1st International Conference on Energy,
Systems and Information Processing (ICESIP), doi: 10.1109/icesip46348.2019.8938164.
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J. and Bodin, J. (2015), “Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research:
a review and research agenda”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 34,
pp. 122-136.
Robinson, J., Brase, G., Griswold, J., Jackson, C. and Erickson, L. (2014), “Business models for solar
powered charging stations to develop infrastructure for electric vehicles”, Sustainability, Vol. 6 No. 10,
pp. 7358-7387, doi: 10.3390/su6107358.
Rossini, M., Ciarapica, F., Matt, D. and Spena, P.R. (2016), “A preliminary study on the changes in the
Italian automotive supply chain for the introduction of electric vehicles”, Journal of Industrial Engineering
and Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 450-486.
San Roman, T.G., Momber, I., Abbad, M.R. and Sanchez Miralles, A. (2011), “Regulatory framework and
business models for charging plug-in EVs: infrastructure, agents, and commercial relationships”, Energy
Policy, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 6360-6375, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.037.

j FORESIGHT j
 Schauble, J., Jochem, P. and Fichtner, W. (2016), Cross-Border Mobility for EVs, KIT Scientific Publishing.
Schauble, J., Kaschub, T., Ensslen, A., Jochem, P. and Fichtner, W. (2017), “Generating electric vehicle
load profiles from empirical data of three EV fleets in southwest Germany”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 150, pp. 253-266, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.150.
Schroeder, A. and Traber, T. (2012), “The economics of fast charging infrastructure for EVs”, Energy
Policy, Vol. 43, pp. 136-144.
Shareef, H., Islam, M.M. and Mohamed, A. (2016), “A review of the stage-of-the-art charging
technologies, placement methodologies, and impacts of EVs”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 64, pp. 403-420, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.033.
Shen, Z.-J.M., Feng, B., Mao, C. and Ran, L. (2019), “Optimization models for electric vehicle service
operations: a literature review”, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 128, pp. 462-477,
doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2019.08.006.
Shin, D.H. and Kim, W.Y. (2008), “Forecasting customer switching intention in mobile service: an
exploratory study of predictive factors in mobile number portability”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 854-874.
Singh, S. (2019), “EV charging stations will get to choose infrastructure technology”, Economic Times,
available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/auto/auto-news/ev-charging-stations-will-
get-to-choose-infrastructure-technology/articleshow/70065637.cms?from=mdr (accessed 10th March
2020).
Sovacool, B.K., Burke, M., Baker, L., Kotikalapudi, C.K. and Wlokas, H. (2017), “New frontiers and
conceptual frameworks for energy justice”, Energy Policy, Vol. 105, pp. 677-691, doi: 10.1016/j.
enpol.2017.03.005.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. and Xu, X. (2016), “Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: a
synthesis and the road ahead”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 328-376.
Verma, S. and Bhattacharyya, S.S. (2016), “Micro-foundation strategies of IOT”, Strategic Direction,
Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 36-38.
Verma, A. and Singh, B. (2018), “A solar PV, BES, grid and DG set based hybrid charging station for
uninterruptible charging at minimized charging cost”, IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting
(IAS), Portland, OR, pp. 1-8.
Will, C. and Schuller, A. (2016), “Understanding user acceptance factors of electric vehicle smart
charging”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 71, pp. 198-214, doi: 10.1016/j.
trc.2016.07.006.
Yang, J. and Sun, H. (2015), “Battery swap station location-routing problem with capacitated EVs”,
Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 55, pp. 217-232.
Yixin, C., Hewu, W., Qiang, Y. and Minggao, O. (2013), “Business patterns of charging or swapping
battery service for EV taxis in Shenzhen and Hangzhou in China”, Journal of Automotive Safety and
Energy, Vol. 1, pp. 54-60.
Zhan, C., Li, Y., de Jong, M. and Lukszo, Z. (2015), “Business innovation and government regulation for
the promotion of electric vehicle use: lessons from Shenzhen”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 134,
pp. 371-383, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.013.

Corresponding author
Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya can be contacted at: somdata@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

j FORESIGHT j