Institutional Strategies in the Ridesharing Economy: A Content Analysis Based on Uber’s Example
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Contingency Perspective
2.2. The Framework of ‘Coevolution of Institutional Entrepreneurship’
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample and Data Collection
3.2. Method
3.3. Validity and Reliability
4. Findings
4.1. Uber in the Context of Brussels: A Brief History
4.1.1. Period 2014–2015: The Launch of UberPOP and UberX
4.1.2. Period 2015–2020: UberX, UberBLACK and UberVAN
4.2. Institutional Strategies: Timeline of Frequencies
4.3. Uber as an Institutional Entrepreneur in Brussels: Strategies of Institutional Work
4.3.1. Framing
“The Brussels transport regulation existed for decades before the arrival of the internet. It may be time to ask the question of how to adapt this technology to the needs of the inhabitants.”(Pierre-Dimitri Gore-Coty, General Manager at Uber Western Europe, in La Libre Belgique, 17 April 2014).
“The question is whether this is not contrary to the higher principles such as the freedom to do business and the free movement of services in the European Union”(Lawyers of Uber in Bruzz, 9 September 2015).
“We work with drivers who have a license for paid transport, a medical certification, a certificate for technical conformity, a VAT number, etc. They have a contract of more than three hours spread over different journeys, which complies with the law. The Minister of Mobility, Pascal Smet, agreed to this principle.”(Filip Nuytemans, General Manager at Uber Belgium, in La Libre Belgique, 14 October 2015).
“We offer a solution for undeclared work. All payments on the Uber network are made by credit card and are traceable. That’s a big step forward in an industry where cash is still the rule.”(Filip Nuytemans, General Manager at Uber Belgium, in De Morgen, 13 December 2014).
“One thing is sure: we are not a technology company like others: 75 to 80% of prices charged go directly into the pockets of the citizens of Brussels.”(Travis Kalanick, CEO at Uber, in Trends, 09 June 2016).
“Uber is a technology company, but unlike other companies in the tech world, we only earn our income from these service fees.”(Joost Verdiesen, Operations Manager at Uber, in Le Soir, 11 February 2017).
4.3.2. Theorization
“Public transport alone is not enough, it is an unfair ecosystem that does not connect everyone. Uber makes that complete. We are an answer to the status quo in the transportation sector. An alternative to a world that looks like a parking lot and progresses like a monster traffic jam.”(Travis Kalanick, CEO at Uber, in De Tijd, 05 June 2015).
“Although Belgians are invited to stay at home as much as possible, there are people who have to travel to meet their family responsibilities. We want to support them in these difficult times and give them the opportunity to be transported comfortably and safely to their destination.”(Laurent Slits, Head of Uber Belgium, in Bruzz, 27 April 2020).
4.3.3. Lobbying
“We make the mayors, politicians and civil servants understand that it is possible to create tens of thousands of jobs and reduce air pollution. Not by simple conviction but on the basis of figures and external studies.”(Travis Kalanick, CEO at Uber, in Trends, 09 June 2016).
“The Uber responsible also states that the contract was drawn up in consultation with Mobility Minister Pascal Smet, something that his cabinet denies.”(Uber in Bruzz, 19 October 2015).
“Uber is here to stay in the Belgian capital, especially since we were encouraged by the Vice President of the European Commission Neelie Kroes, firmly opposed to this decision. According to her, we must stop protecting actors in an artificial way. I hope this position will resonate with many public authorities and regulators around the world.”(Dimitri Gore-Coty, General Manager at Uber Western Europe, in La Libre Belgique, 17 April 2014).
“If member states like Belgium do not decide to modernize the regulatory framework, a European solution will be imposed.”(Mark McGann, Uber head of policy EMEA, in Le Soir, 04 September 2015).
4.3.4. Collaboration
“In the meantime, Uber and Djump have welcomed Pascal Smet’s project in a joint press release. ‘The leadership shown by the Brussels government shows that affordable prices, public safety and consumer choice are perfectly compatible’, they indicated.”(Uber and Djump in Le Soir, 28 February 2015).
“More and more taxi drivers are also inquiring about becoming drivers on our platform. I think the situation in the taxi business is not ideal. For them, this is the opportunity to become their own boss.”(Filip Nuytemans, General Manager at Uber Belgium, in Le Soir, 12 May 2016).
4.3.5. Negotiation
“Rather than talk to us, the government is leaking material to the media. This makes clear that the government does not understand the needs of its inhabitants: namely transparency, free choice and affordable prices.”(Susanne Stulemeyer in Bruzz, 07 March 2014).
4.3.6. Market Strategy
“The battle between Uber and the traditional taxi sector is raging fiercely in Brussels. The student market appears to be an important goal in this respect. This is evident from an e-mail to the club of law students at the ULB (Université Libre de Bruxelles). In the mail, the marketing manager of Uber offers the students a free ride worth 15 euros. Yet, there is also talk of a bonus per ride that the student club would receive in cash.”(Bruzz, 26 March 2015).
5. Discussion and Conclusions
6. Further Implications and Limitations
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Martin, C.J. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol. Econ. 2016, 121, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mair, J.; Reischauer, G. Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: Institutional research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy organizations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelzer, P.; Frenken, K.; Boon, W. Institutional entrepreneurship in the platform economy: How Uber tried (and failed) to change the Dutch taxi law. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 33, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zvolska, L.; Voytenko Palgan, Y.; Mont, O. How do sharing organisations create and disrupt institutions? Towards a framework for institutional work in the sharing economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acquier, A.; Carbone, V.; Vasseur, L. The sharing economy as an emerging and contested field—How classic and institutional entrepreneurs cope with plural theoretical frames. Res. Sociol. Oranizations 2020, 66, 107–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtis, S.K.; Lehner, M. Defining the sharing economy for sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frenken, K.; Schor, J. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parente, R.C.; Geleilate, J.M.G.; Rong, K. The sharing economy globalization phenomenon: A research agenda. J. Int. Manag. 2018, 24, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Täuscher, K.; Laudien, S.M. Understanding platform business models: A mixed methods study of marketplaces. Eur. Manag. J. 2018, 36, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, C. China’s new regulatory regime tailored for the sharing economy: The case of Uber under Chinese local government regulation in comparison to the EU, US, and the UK. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2019, 35, 462–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willis, G.; Tranos, E. Using ‘big data’ to understand the impacts of Uber on taxis in New York City. Travel Behav. Soc. 2021, 22, 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez-Padron, T.L. Ethics in the sharing economy: Creating a legitimate marketing channel. J. Mark. Channels 2017, 24, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lesteven, G.; Godillon, S. Fuelling the controversy on Uber’s arrival: A comparative media analysis of Paris and Montreal. Cities 2020, 106, 102864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenwood, R.; Suddaby, R.; Hinings, C.R. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 58–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, T.B.; Leca, B.; Zilber, T.B. Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organ. Stud. 2013, 34, 1023–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lawrence, T.B.; Suddaby, R. Institutions and institutional work. In Handbook of Organization Studies; Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T.B., Nord, W.R., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2006; pp. 215–254. [Google Scholar]
- Pacheco, D.F.; York, J.G.; Dean, T.J.; Sarasvathy, S.D. The coevolution of institutional entrepreneurship: A tale of two theories. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 974–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suddaby, R.; Elsbach, K.D.; Greenwood, R.; Meyer, J.W.; Zilber, T.B. Organizations and their institutional environments—Bringing meaning, values, and culture back in: Introduction to the special research forum. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 1234–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Battilana, J.; Leca, B.; Boxenbaum, E. 2 How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2009, 3, 65–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boon, W.P.C.; Spruit, K.; Frenken, K. Collective institutional work: The case of Airbnb in Amsterdam, London and New York. Ind. Innov. 2019, 26, 898–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uzunca, B.; Rigtering, J.P.C.; Ozcan, P. Sharing and shaping: A cross-country comparison of how sharing economy firms shape their institutional environment to gain legitimacy. Acad. Manag. Discov. 2018, 4, 248–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thelen, K. Regulating Uber: The politics of the platform economy in Europe and the United States. Perspect. Polit. 2018, 16, 938–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dorobantu, S.; Kaul, A.; Zelner, B. Nonmarket strategy research through the lens of new institutional economics: An integrative review and future directions. Strateg. Manag. J. 2017, 38, 114–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marquis, C.; Battilana, J. Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 2009, 29, 283–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mohamed, M.J.; Rye, T.; Fonzone, A. Operational and policy implications of ridesourcing services: A case of Uber in London, UK. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2019, 7, 823–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agyemang, E. “Uber is here to stay”: Exploring the policy implications of the Uber-Local taxis turf war in Accra, Ghana. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2020, 8, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurses, K.; Ozcan, P. Entrepreneurship in regulated markets: Framing contests and collective action to introduce pay TV in the U.S. Acad. Manag. J. 2015, 58, 1709–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battilana, J.; D’Aunno, T. Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 31–58. ISBN 9780511596605. [Google Scholar]
- Akande, A.; Cabral, P.; Casteleyn, S. Understanding the sharing economy and its implication on sustainability in smart cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaskelainen, T.; Münzel, K. The effect of institutional logics on business model development in the sharing economy: The case of German carsharing services. Acad. Manag. Discov. 2018, 4, 273–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein Woolthuis, R.; Hooimeijer, F.; Bossink, B.; Mulder, G.; Brouwer, J. Institutional entrepreneurship in sustainable urban development: Dutch successes as inspiration for transformation. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 50, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, D.P. Integrated strategy: Market and nonmarket strategies. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1995, 37, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enochsson, L.; Palgan, Y.V.; Plepys, A.; Mont, O. Impacts of the sharing economy on urban sustainability: The perceptions of municipal governments and sharing organisations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, B.; Kietzmann, J. Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ. Environ. 2014, 27, 279–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, P.; Li, J. Understanding sustainable business model: A framework and a case study of the bike-sharing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zvolska, L.; Lehner, M.; Voytenko Palgan, Y.; Mont, O.; Plepys, A. Urban sharing in smart cities: The cases of Berlin and London. Local Environ. 2019, 24, 628–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jittrapirom, P.; Caiati, V.; Feneri, A.M.; Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S.; Alonso-González, M.J.; Narayan, J. Mobility as a service: A critical review of definitions, assessments of schemes, and key challenges. Urban Plan. 2017, 2, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Narayanan, S.; Chaniotakis, E.; Antoniou, C. Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2020, 111, 255–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plepys, A.; Singh, J. Evaluating the sustainability impacts of the sharing economy using input-output analysis. In A Research Agenda for Sustainable Consumption Governance; Mont, O., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019; pp. 66–84. ISBN 9781788117814. [Google Scholar]
- Fligstein, N. Markets as politics: A political-cultural approach to market institutions. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1996, 61, 656–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldrich, H.E.; Fiol, C.M. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1994, 19, 645–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Levy, D.; Scully, M. The institutional entrepreneur as modern prince: The strategic face of power in contested fields. Organ. Stud. 2007, 28, 971–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, C.M.; Raynor, M.; McdDonald, R. What is distruptive innovation? Harv. Bus. Rev. 2015, 93, 44–53. [Google Scholar]
- Hillman, A.J.; Hitt, M.A. Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 825–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marquis, C.; Raynard, M. Institutional strategies in emerging markets. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2015, 9, 291–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, S.; Lee, S. Adaptive governance, status quo bias, and political competition: Why the sharing economy is welcome in some cities but not in others. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, S.; Lee, S. Adaptive governance and decentralization: Evidence from regulation of the sharing economy in multi-level governance. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, T.L.; Hill, P.J. Cowboys and contracts. J. Legal Stud. 2002, 31, S489–S514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, S.; Venkataraman, S. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 217–226. [Google Scholar]
- Greenwood, R.; Suddaby, R. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frenken, K.; Fuenfschilling, L. The rise of online platforms and the triumph of the corporation. Sociologica 2020, 14, 101–113. [Google Scholar]
- Frenken, K.; Vaskelainen, T.; Fünfschilling, L.; Piscicelli, L. An institutional logics perspective on the gig economy. In Theorizing the Sharing Economy: Variety and Trajectories of New Forms of Organizing Research in the Sociology of Organizations; Maurer, I., Mair, J., Oberg, A., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2020; Volume 66, pp. 83–105. [Google Scholar]
- Benford, R.D.; Snow, D.A. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000, 26, 611–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fligstein, N. Social skill and institutional theory. Am. Behav. Sci. 1997, 40, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misangyi, V.F.; Weaver, G.R.; Elms, H. Ending corruption: The interplay among institutional logics, resources, and institutional entrepreneurs. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33, 750–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orsato, R.J.; den Hond, F.; Clegg, S.R. The political ecology of automobile recycling in Europe. Organ. Stud. 2002, 23, 639–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Doorn, N. A new institution on the block: On platform urbanism and Airbnb citizenship. New Media Soc. 2020, 22, 1808–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, E.T.; Rea, C.M. The political mobilization of firms and industries. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014, 40, 281–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strang, D.; Meyer, J.W. Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory Soc. 1993, 22, 487–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellahi, K.; Frynas, J.G.; Sun, P.; Siegel, D. A review of the nonmarket strategy literature: Toward a multi-theoretical integration. J. Manage. 2016, 42, 143–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gökgöz, M.; Gökgöz, F. Analyzing lobbying entities of Brussels operational in research, technological development and innovation domain. Int. J. Econ. Perspect. 2017, 11, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
- Anastasiadis, S. Toward a view of citizenship and lobbying: Corporate engagement in the political process. Bus. Soc. 2014, 53, 260–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hillman, A.J.; Keim, G.D.; Schuler, D. Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. J. Manag. 2004, 30, 837–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Parsley, D.; Yang, Y.W. Corporate lobbying and firm performance. J. Bus. Financ. Account. 2015, 42, 444–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wijen, F.; Ansari, S. Overcoming inaction through collective institutional entrepreneurship: Insights from regime theory. Organ. Sci. 2007, 28, 1079–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, T.B.; Hardy, C.; Phillips, N. Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garud, R.; Sanjay, J.; Kumaraswamy, A. Institutional entrepeneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 196–214. [Google Scholar]
- Binz, C.; Harris-Lovett, S.; Kiparsky, M.; Sedlak, D.L.; Truffer, B. The thorny road to technology legitimation—Institutional work for potable water reuse in California. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 103, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bryman, A. Social Research Methods, 4th ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Blumberg, B.; Cooper, D.R.; Schindler, P.S. Business Research Methods, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: Berkshire, London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Carley, K. Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison of content analysis and map analysis. Sociol. Methodol. 1993, 23, 75–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, H.; Shannon, S.E.; Shannon, S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohlbacher, F. The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Forum Qual. Sozialforsch./Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2006, 7, 1–30. [Google Scholar]
- Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 7th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Krippendorff, K. Content analysis. Int. Encycl. Commun. 1989, 1, 403–407. [Google Scholar]
- Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Sociology Press: Mill Valley, CA, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Erlingsson, C.; Brysiewicz, P. A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. Afr. J. Emerg. Med. 2017, 7, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flyvbjerg, B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 2006, 12, 219–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- LeCompte, M.D.; Goetz, J.P. Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Rev. Educ. Res. 1982, 52, 31–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombard, M.; Snyder-duch, J.; Bracken, C.C. Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum. Commun. Res. 2002, 28, 587–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodson, R. Analyzing Documentary Accounts; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Krippendorff, K. Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Hum. Commun. Res. 2004, 30, 411–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blind, K. The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD countries. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenwood, R.; Hinings, C.R. Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 1022–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bousetta, H.; Favell, A.; Martiniello, M. Governing multicultural Brussels: Paradoxes of a multi-level, multi-cultural, multi-national urban anomaly. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 2018, 44, 2070–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dingil, A.E.; Schweizer, J.; Rupi, F.; Stasiskiene, Z. Updated models of passenger transport related energy consumption of urban areas. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chatziioannou, I.; Alvarez-Icaza, L.; Bakogiannis, E.; Kyriakidis, C.; Chias-Becerril, L. A structural analysis for the categorization of the negative externalities of transport and the hierarchical organization of sustainable mobility’s strategies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubert, M.; Lebrun, K.; Huynen, P.; Dobruszkes, F. Daily mobility in Brussels: Challenges, tools and priority undertakings. Brussels Stud. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Clerck, Q.; van Lier, T.; Messagie, M.; Macharis, C.; Van Mierlo, J.; Vanhaverbeke, L. Total cost for society: A persona-based analysis of electric and conventional vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 64, 90–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goetz, A.R. Transport challenges in rapidly growing cities: Is there a magic bullet? Transp. Rev. 2019, 39, 701–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, H.; Balac, M.; Ciari, F.; Axhausen, K.W. Assessing the welfare impacts of shared mobility and mobility as a service (MaaS). Transp. Res. Part A 2020, 131, 228–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazari, F.; Noruzoliaee, M.; Mohammadian, A. Shared versus private mobility: Modeling public interest in autonomous vehicles accounting for latent attitudes. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018, 97, 456–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- City of Brussels. Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.brussels.be/sustainable-development (accessed on 2 July 2021).
- Brussel Mobiliteit. De Fiets en Het Openbaar Vervoer. Available online: https://mobilite-mobiliteit.brussels/nl/zich-verplaatsen/fiets/kies-uw-traject/intermodaliteit (accessed on 2 July 2021).
- Leefmilieu Brussels. Strategie ‘Low Emission Mobility’. Available online: https://leefmilieu.brussels/themas/mobiliteit/strategie-low-emission-mobility (accessed on 2 July 2021).
- Brussels Mobility. Good Service. Available online: https://mobilite-mobiliteit.brussels/en/good-move/good-service (accessed on 8 July 2021).
- McCormick, K.; Neij, L.; Mont, O.; Ryan, C.; Rodhe, H.; Orsato, R. Advancing sustainable solutions: An interdisciplinary and collaborative research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 123, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, V. Regulating the sharing economy. Berkeley Technol. Law J. 2016, 30, 1067–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zimmerman, A.; Cokelaere, H.; Posaner, J. Brussels bans Uber Drivers from Picking Up Rides through the App. Available online: https://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-bans-uber-drivers-from-picking-up-rides-through-the-app/ (accessed on 5 July 2021).
- Dorobantu, S.; Flemming, D. It’s Never Been More Important for Big Companies to Listen to Local Communities. Available online: https://hbr.org/2017/11/its-never-been-more-important-for-big-companies-to-listen-to-local-communities (accessed on 17 May 2021).
- Cannon, S.; Summers, L.H. How Uber and the Sharing Economy Can Win over Regulators. Available online: https://hbr.org/2014/10/how-uber-and-the-sharing-economy-can-win-over-regulators (accessed on 30 June 2021).
Steps | Number of Articles or Quotes |
---|---|
Search process of written media press in Go Press Academic database (newspapers) and Bruzz, local Brussels newspaper Search terms: [‘Uber’ AND ‘Brussel’] // [‘Uber’ AND ‘Bruxelles’] Time period of media coverage: 1 January 2014—31 December, 2020 | 1860 articles |
Content for history analysis Removal of articles with irrelevant scope, based on the following criteria: Core news not on Uber; Uber only mentioned as an example; Uber in geographical location different from Brussels | 483 articles |
Identifying quotes, after removal of duplications, referring to categories | 74 articles with minimum one quote |
Assigning quotes to the six categories of strategies (five from theory and one category of ‘market strategy’) | 91 useful quotes |
Steps | Terms Used in Content Analysis |
---|---|
Reading full-length articles—searching for relevant content | Meaning unit |
Selection of appropriate paragraphs | |
Removal of duplicates of press releases on same news event | |
Shortening the text into quotes while still preserving the core meaning | Condensed meaning unit |
Assigning codes (labels) that describe each condensed meaning unit in one or a few words | Code |
Grouping the codes based on the institutional strategies | Category |
Assigning sub-codes to identify subcategories | Sub-code |
Grouping the sub-codes—theory- and exploration-based | Sub-category |
Strategy of Institutional Work/Sub-Category | (Group of) Keyword(s) | Number | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Framing | Old regulation | Law is outdated | 10 | |
Level playing field is lacking | 2 | |||
Monopoly still in place | 1 | |||
Compliance | Licence | 3 | ||
Drivers’ profession | 3 | |||
Identity | Not a taxi service | 5 | ||
Technology company | 4 | |||
Private car as a competitor | 2 | |||
Theorization | A new ecosystem leads to new opportunities for sustainable mobility | 6 | ||
Competition leads to lower prices | 1 | |||
Innovation is faster than regulation | 1 | |||
Innovation solves mobility problems | 3 | |||
Lobbying | Brussels Capital Region | Need for adapted rules | 21 | |
Seeking legitimacy and acceptance | 4 | |||
European Union | Need for adapted rules | 7 | ||
Seeking legitimacy and acceptance | 1 | |||
Collaboration | Collaboration with insurance company | 1 | ||
Collaboration with Brussels Airlines | 2 | |||
Collaboration with competitors | 3 | |||
Collaboration with taxi drivers | 2 | |||
Collaboration with government | 2 | |||
Collaboration with users | 1 | |||
Collaboration with public transport | 1 | |||
Negotiation | Preparedness to talk | 2 | ||
Market strategy | Price strategies of discounts and free rides | 3 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Distelmans, M.; Scheerlinck, I. Institutional Strategies in the Ridesharing Economy: A Content Analysis Based on Uber’s Example. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148037
Distelmans M, Scheerlinck I. Institutional Strategies in the Ridesharing Economy: A Content Analysis Based on Uber’s Example. Sustainability. 2021; 13(14):8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148037
Chicago/Turabian StyleDistelmans, Michaël, and Ilse Scheerlinck. 2021. "Institutional Strategies in the Ridesharing Economy: A Content Analysis Based on Uber’s Example" Sustainability 13, no. 14: 8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148037