Page - 150 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

Interviews with car sharing operators in Norway indicate a variety of business and operational models. Following Andrew et al. (2007), car sharing companies can take the role of an integrator or an orchestrator to govern their business model. An integrator takes full responsibility for the delivery of a value proposition and can be regarded as “the sole owner and executor of the innovation – and the primary, if not the only, participant in the rewards”. In contrast, orchestrators adopt a more collaborative approach by leveraging the skills and capabilities of partners. The role of orchestrator is similar to that of a broker, who brings together different actors via a multi-sided business model ‘platform’ (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). The shift in business models from B2C to P2P also implies a shift from an integrator role to an orchestrator role for the car sharing companies. Integrators and orchestrator car sharing providers have distinct roles in terms of value proposition, customer segment, revenue, geographic areas served, and environmental goals/ impact (Sarasini & Langeland 2017). Companies that operate a centralised car fleet are dependent on a relatively high frequency of users in order to be profitable. P2P companies, on the other hand, organise car sharing on behalf of private car owners and can operate relatively independent of user frequency. The role as integrator or orchestrator may have both geographical and sustainability implications. Integrators (B2C and B2B) with a centralised fleet need to be situated in larger cities with a critical mass of customers and a high level of vehicle utilisation. Orchestrators (P2P), on the other hand can, in principle, also be located in less urbanised areas. The differences between integrators and orchestrators also have implications for the technological renewal of the vehicle fleet. Integrators typically strive for a modern fleet based on rapid renewal and increased use of zero-emission cars (EVs), whereas orchestrators have less discretion over the types of vehicles which are shared between peers. As mentioned earlier, niche innovations are often ‘immature’ in that they are not technologically or economically viable, and must, therefore, rely on protection, in the form of subsidies or other supportive measures, in order to compete in the regime selection environment. The emergence of car sharing in Norway has taken place despite the lack of a formal niche protection strategy on the part of the authorities or incumbent firms. A national policy for promoting car sharing would possibly increase use but local policy measures (e.g. parking) are probably even more important. 4.2 Demand-side perspective Several dozen in-depth interviews were held with a diverse pool of households living in and around the Oslo area. The informants were either active users of car sharing or had recently considered use. From the interviews it appears that the main differences between the car sharing schemes, seen from a household perspective, are the following: the fixed and variable cost of rental, level of self-service vs. supporting service, personal or non-personal encounter upon rental and delivery, car pick-up locations, parking arrangements, types and vintage of cars offered, availability of equipment, and other aspects. The practice theory framework has allowed for the analysis of these differences as they relate to the constituent elements, namely the materiality, skills and meanings, of car sharing as a practice. The following table shows prominent elements of car sharing based on the household interviews. 150