DOCSLIB.ORG

441573 Master S Thesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
441573 Master S Thesis Master’s Thesis M.Sc. Economics and Business Administration International Business What Drives Incumbent Firms to Acquire Sharing Economy Platforms? A Multiple Case Study Authors: Thibaut Evers Submission date: 15th of May 2018 Student Number: 107121 Total Characters: 244,211 Ida Mari Gundersen Supervisor: Ioanna Constantinou Student Number: 102528 Department of Digitalization Abstract Platforms from the sharing economy have turned traditional patterns of ownership upside down. The trend has fundamentally challenged market mechanisms and disrupted industries. Incumbent firms relying on traditional business models, seem to no longer ignore these threats. Apart from simple competition through differentiation, also partnerships and acquisitions are increasingly becoming relevant for the incumbent firms. This thesis aims to answer: “What drives incumbent firms to acquire sharing economy platforms?” In particular: “What are the incumbent firms’ strategic aims and integration strategies?” Lastly, this thesis provides insights of how these acquisitions affect the environment of the sharing economy. The Håkanson model (1995), as well as the business model by Johnson et al. (2008) lay the foundation of the analysis to answer the research questions. Herein, six cases that include an incumbent firm as acquirer and a sharing economy platform as acquisition target are studied in-depth. The aggregation and pattern matching analysis revealed three categories of incumbent firms. Based on their positioning in the value chain these categories include: The Manufacturer, The Distributor and The Maverick. These three categories of incumbents are distinguishable in their strategic aim and integration of distinctive product and service offerings from the sharing economy. The Manufacturer is motivated to move downstream in its value chain by capitalizing on customers that are access over ownership oriented. The Distributor’s motive is to complement its offerings with unique offers from the sharing economy. Lastly, the Maverick, represents a unique category, distinct in the way it integrates the sharing economy platform to provide additional services. Subsequently, the acquisition targets were revealed. Through the imposed changes on the sharing economy platform’s business model, the environment is affected by these acquisitions. Transaction costs are further decreasing, causing human interactions to decline. The sharing economy is considered by many as an advocate of social and environmental values; this master’s thesis suggests these values are rather positive side effects than embedded values. By answering the research questions, we lay the foundation of research for a newly emerged phenomenon. Furthermore, we give indications for future research from which practitioners, as well as academia will be able to benefit. 1 Glossary Abbreviation Meaning B2B Business-to-Business B2C Business-to-Consumer CEO Chief Executive Officer CFO Chief Financial Officer IoT Internet of Things M&A Mergers and Acquisitions OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer OTA Online Travel Agency P2P Peer-to-Peer 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 6 1.1 Discussion & Relevance ....................................................................................................................6 1.2 Research Gap .....................................................................................................................................9 1.3 Research Question .......................................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Thesis Delimitation ......................................................................................................................... 10 1.5 Thesis Disposition .......................................................................................................................... 10 2. Theoretical Background ......................................................................... 12 2.1 The Sharing Economy .................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Critical Perspective on the Sharing Economy ........................................................................ 14 2.1.2 Current State of Research ....................................................................................................... 15 2.1.3 Business Models in the Sharing Economy ............................................................................... 17 2.1.4 Incumbent Firms within the Sharing Economy ....................................................................... 19 2.2 Mergers and Acquisitions ............................................................................................................... 22 2.2.1 History of M&A Waves............................................................................................................ 23 2.2.2 M&A in High Technological Environments ............................................................................ 24 2.2.3 Type of Acquisition .................................................................................................................. 25 2.2.4 Strategic Aims.......................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.5 Integration ............................................................................................................................... 26 2.2.6 M&A Success Criteria ............................................................................................................. 28 3. Conceptual Frameworks ........................................................................ 30 3.1 The Håkanson Framework .............................................................................................................. 30 3.1.1 Strategic Aim ........................................................................................................................... 30 3.1.2 Integration ............................................................................................................................... 33 3.1.3 Application .............................................................................................................................. 34 3.2 The Business Model Framework .................................................................................................... 36 3.2.1 Application .............................................................................................................................. 37 4. Methodology ........................................................................................... 40 4.1 Research Philosophy ....................................................................................................................... 40 4.2 Research Approach ......................................................................................................................... 41 4.3 Research Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 42 4.4 Research Strategy ........................................................................................................................... 43 4.5 Research Choice ............................................................................................................................. 44 4.5.1 Secondary Data ....................................................................................................................... 44 4.5.2 Time Horizon ........................................................................................................................... 45 4.6 Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................................................................... 46 4.6.1 Sampling of Cases ................................................................................................................... 46 4.6.2 Multiple Case Study................................................................................................................. 48 4.6.3 Cross Case Analysis ................................................................................................................ 49 4.7 Credibility ....................................................................................................................................... 49 4.7.1 Validity .................................................................................................................................... 49 4.7.2 Reliability ................................................................................................................................ 50 5. Findings .................................................................................................. 51 5.1 Case Caterpillar – YardClub ........................................................................................................... 51 5.2 Case Avis - Zipcar .......................................................................................................................... 56 5.3 Case Daimler – Chauffeur Privé ..................................................................................................... 63 5.4 Case AccorHotels – Onefinestay .................................................................................................... 70 3 5.5 Case Expedia - HomeAway ...........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toronto Urban Sharing Team
    URBAN SHARING City report no 2 in TORONTO URBAN SHARING TEAM URBAN SHARING IN TORONTO City report no. 2 URBAN SHARING TEAM: Oksana Mont, Andrius Plepys, Yuliya Voytenko Palgan, Jagdeep Singh, Matthias Lehner, Steven Curtis, Lucie Zvolska, and Ana Maria Arbelaez Velez 2020 Cover design: Lucie Zvolska Cover photo: Oksana Mont Copyright: URBAN SHARING TEAM ISBN: 978-91-87357-62-6. Print Urban Sharing in Toronto, City report no.2 ISBN: 978-91-87357-63-3. Pdf Urban Sharing in Toronto, City report no. 2 Printed in Sweden by E-print, Stockholm 2020 Table of contents 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 2 THE CITY CONTEXT ................................................................................. 5 2.1 Geography and demographics ................................................................ 5 2.1.1 Topography and urban sprawl .................................................. 5 2.1.2 Socio-demographics.................................................................. 6 2.1.3 Tourism ..................................................................................... 6 2.2 City governance ....................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Governance structure ................................................................ 6 2.2.2 City regulatory policies for sharing ............................................ 8 2.3 Economy ................................................................................................ 11 2.3.1
    [Show full text]
  • L'écho-Mobile
    L’écho -mobile COMMUNAUTo’s newsletter · APRIL 2011 · VOL. XVII, NO 1 Communatuo’s first incursion in an out-of-province market (page 6 ) In this issue/ And more/ Editorial (page 2 ) CarShare HFX Halifax (page 6 ) The Competition Is Not What It Seems Communauto becomes a shareholder Improved agreements (page 4 ) BIXI-AUTO and BIXI-AUTO-BUS (page 6 ) The network reservation is better than ever The DUO and the TRIO are exclusively back for this summer Long distance rates (page 4 ) Caisse d’économie solidaire (page 3 ) Easier access and other improvements A $500 loan to switch to a member subscription and more / > EDITORIAL The Competition Is Not What It Seems Daimler’s car2go, BMW’s premium carsharing Edinburgh, Scotland (a more motivated local service, the upcoming Volkswagen project in firm saved the project at the last minute.) In Hanover and Renault-Nissan’s New Mobility 2008, Honda withdrew from the Singapore Concept, are radically changing the car market after six years, its efforts deemed industry. unsuccessful, despite praise from the critics and the community’s disappointment (And The arrival of the automobile industry’s major yet how difficult would it be for such a large players on the “mobility-on-demand” market company to manage a fleet of just under 100 will hopefully accelerate the concept’s large- vehicles?). scale development over the next few years. Benoît Robert It is sometimes disconcerting that, para- Chief Executive Officer It may seem surprising at first that manu- doxically, companies with the most resources Communauto facturers are investing in the carsharing lack perseverance when it comes to industry, given that it helps reduce household innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf (Arguing That the Sharing Economy Is a Consequence of Moore’S Law and the Internet)
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 94 | Issue 1 Article 7 11-2018 The hS aring Economy as an Equalizing Economy John O. McGinnis Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law and Economics Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation 94 Notre Dame L. Rev. 329 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\94-1\NDL107.txt unknown Seq: 1 19-NOV-18 13:05 THE SHARING ECONOMY AS AN EQUALIZING ECONOMY John O. McGinnis* Economic equality is often said to be the key problem of our time. But information technol- ogy dematerializes the world in ways that are helpful to the ninety-nine percent, because informa- tion can be shared. This Article looks at how one fruit of the information revolution—the sharing economy—has important equalizing features on both its supply and demand sides. First, on the supply side, the intermediaries in the sharing economy, like Airbnb and Uber, allow owners of housing and cars to monetize their most important capital assets. The gig aspect of this economy creates spot markets in jobs that have flexible hours and monetizes people’s passions, such as cooking meals in their home. Such benefits make these jobs even more valuable than the earnings that show up imperfectly in income statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • Cusecar – Community Car-Sharing Program: Car Sharing Lessons Learned
    CuseCar – Community Car-Sharing Program: Car Sharing Lessons Learned The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Joseph D. Tario Project Manager and New York State Department of Transportation Robert Ancar Project Manager Prepared by Sarah Stephens Director of Business Development and Public Relations CuseCar of Syracuse Syracuse, NY August 2011 1 1. Report No. C-08-26 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date CuseCar – Community Car-Sharing Program: Car Sharing Lessons Learned August 2011 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) Sarah Stephens 8. Performing Organization Report No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. 11. Contract or Grant No CuseCar of Syracuse, 360 Erie Blvd. East, Syracuse, NY 13202 Contract No. 11103 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered NYSERDA, 17 Columbia Circle, Albany, NY 12203 Final Report (2008 – 2011) NYS DOT, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12232 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project funded in part with funds from the Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract CuseCar of Syracuse launched services in December 2008 with 3 Toyota Prius Hybrids. CuseCar initially, due to concerns about availability, limited membership to Origination Sponsor Locations, which in turn developed few members. In 2009 CuseCar opened to the general public and has seen a small growth in membership and usage. CuseCar to date has close to 100 members. CuseCar has vehicles centralized in the City of Syracuse Downtown area, with 4 vehicles located within a few city blocks of one another.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquiring Zipcar: Brand Building in the Share Economy
    Boston University School of Management BU Case Study 12-010 Rev. December 12, 2012 Acquiring Zipcar Brand Building in the Share Economy By Susan Fournier, Giana Eckhardt and Fleura Bardhi Scott Griffith, CEO of Zipcar, languished over his stock charts. They had something here, everyone agreed about that. Zipcar had shaken up the car rental industry with a “new model” for people who wanted steady access to cars without the hassle of owning them. Sales had been phenomenal. Since its beginning in 2000, Zipcar had experienced 100%+ growth annually, with annual revenue in the previous year of $241.6 million. Zipcar now boasted more than 750,000 members and over 8,900 cars in urban areas and college campuses throughout the United States, Canada and the U.K. and claimed nearly half of all global car-sharing members. The company had continued international expansion by purchasing the largest car sharing company in Spain. The buzz had been wonderful. Still, Zipcar’s stock price was being beaten down, falling from a high of $31.50 to a current trade at $8 and change (See Exhibit 1). The company had failed to turn an annual profit since its founding in 2000 and held but two months’ of operating cash on hand as of September 2012. Critics wondered about the sustainability of the business model in the face of increased competition. There was no doubt: the “big guys” were circling. Enterprise Rent-a-Car Co. had entered car sharing with a model of its own (See Exhibit 2). The Enterprise network, which included almost 1 million vehicles and more than 5,500 offices located within 15 miles of 90 percent of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Carsharing and Partnership Management an International Perspective
    118 Paper No. 99-0826 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1666 Carsharing and Partnership Management An International Perspective SUSAN SHAHEEN, DANIEL SPERLING, AND CONRAD WAGNER Most cars carry one person and are used for less than 1 hour per day. A tied to actual vehicle usage. A carsharing system in effect transforms more economically rational approach would be to use vehicles more the fixed costs of vehicle ownership into variable costs. intensively. Carsharing, in which a group of people pays a subscription Carsharing is most effective and attractive when seen as a trans- plus a per-use fee, is one means of doing so. Carsharing may be orga- portation mode that fills the gap between transit and private cars and nized through affinity groups, large employers, transit operators, neigh- borhood groups, or large carsharing businesses. Relative to car owner- that can be linked to other modes and transportation services. For ship, carsharing has the disadvantage of less convenient vehicle access long distances, one may use a household vehicle, air transport, rail, but the advantages of a large range of vehicles, fewer ownership respon- bus, or a rental car; and for short distances, one might walk, bicycle, sibilities, and less cost (if vehicles are not used intensively). The uncou- or use a taxi. But for intermediate travel activities, even routine ones, pling of car ownership and use offers the potential for altering vehicle one might use a shared vehicle. The shared-car option provides other usage and directing individuals toward other mobility options. The per- customer attractions: it can serve as mobility insurance in emergen- ceived convenience (e.g., preferred parking) and cost savings of car- cies and as a means of satisfying occasional vehicle needs and sharing have promoted a new modal split for many carsharing partici- pants throughout the world.
    [Show full text]
  • SHARED MOBILITY Removing Regulatory Barriers in Canadian Cities
    SHARED MOBILITY Removing Regulatory Barriers In Canadian Cities Prepared for ÉQUITERRE MAY 2017 1 SHARED MOBILITY Removing regulatory barriers in canadian cities Submitted to : Prepared by : www.equiterre.org www.dunsky.com Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank representatives of the following organizations for their contributions and insights to this report : Équiterre (Annie Berube and Sidney Ribaux); Coop Carbone (Vincent Dussault); the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver; and solution providers Car2Go, Communauto, Téo Taxi, Uber and Zipcar. About Dunsky Energy Consulting Headquartered in Montreal, Dunsky Energy Consulting supports an array of organizations in building a sustainable energy future. Dunsky’s clients include leading governments, energy utilities, private firms and non-profit orga- nizations throughout North America. EXPERTISE SERVICES CLIENTELE • Energy Efciency • Assess clean energy • Governments & Demand Management opportunities • Utilities • Renewable Energy • Design policies, plans, & Distributed Resources programs and strategies • Private firms • Sustainable Mobility • Evaluate performance • Non-profits SELECT CLIENTS 2 ABOUT ÉQUITERRE Équiterre is Quebec’s largest and most influential environmental organization, with 20,000 members, 200 volunteers, and a staff of 40 people. Mission Équiterre offers concrete solutions to accelerate the transition towards a society in which individuals, organizations and governments make ecological choices that are both healthy and equitable. Vision By 2030, Équiterre, in partnership with local communities, will have contributed to the development of public policies as well as civic and business practices that lead to a low-carbon economy and an environment free of toxic substances. Areas of Intervention Since its creation in 1993, Équiterre developed projects on key issues such as food, agriculture, transportation, buildings, consumption and climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • Boulder Access Management and Parking Strategies On-Street Car
    Boulder Access Management and Parking Strategies On-Street Car Share Policy DRAFT September 2015 On-Street Car Share Policy Review and Recommendations Draft Report September 2015 Executive Summary Introduction Carsharing represents a new approach in transportation policy that is influenced by a larger philosophy that has come to be known as the “sharing economy”. Carsharing taps into a new mindset (generally attributed to the Millennial generation) that deprioritizes vehicle ownership, embraces concerns about rising congestion in cities, promotes more environmentally sensitive policies and the embraces the desire to have a greater range of transportation options. As traffic congestion and parking concerns increase in Boulder, carsharing will become an important component of the overall Access Management and Parking Strategies (AMPS) program. Carsharing has proven effective as a tool to reduce the number of personal cars on the street, increase travel flexibility for people who do not have personal vehicles and reduces both traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Studies have shown that carsharing decreases personal car miles traveled per year, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, increases perceived mobility of a city, reduces traffic and cuts down on parking congestion. Carsharing also allows increased mobility for low-income populations without owning a vehicle and puts more fuel efficient vehicles on the roads with most carsharing services requiring a certain fuel efficiency for each car in their fleet. Carsharing also has a documented impact on vehicle ownership rates and greenhouse gas emissions: Research shows carsharing members reduce average vehicle ownership from 0.47 to 0.24 vehicles per household. (Smart Mobility, page 21) According to Zipcar, 13% of car share users in Washington, DC and Boston have sold a car since joining and more than 40% have avoided buying a car.
    [Show full text]
  • Communauto-Presentation-Toronto
    3: Notes to the Free-Floating Car-Share Pilot and Interim Policy of the city of Toronto Marco Viviani Vice president Strategic Development Communauto in Canada Offering 2 000 Free Floating and Station Based cars in 8 cities and abroad, in Europe (France) Québec – Gatineau - Montréal –Ottawa – Kingston – Halifax – Sherbrooke – Paris (France) With Reservation Free-floating A fleet of cars to reserve at a low cost for a For spontaneous trips from point A to point B - half-hour, an hour, a day or longer. Located in in the city, for a day trip or multiple days. the heart of neighborhoods, the cars are Release a car at your destination (within available without delay, 24/7. Take them to the a Zone). local grocery store or anywhere in North Or/ and America! Our fleet : more than 600 cars Our fleet : 1400 cars Our approach § Affordable offer addressing people and families needs Communauto support the § Strong capability to adapt to unique intention of the City of Toronto environment and partners (city, public transport, …) and availability to share for providing a pilot project data approach for this “newer” form § Service oriented more than brand of carsharing: it is an important oriented : opportunity for the people and § Local customer service economy of Toronto. § 5-seats cars of different size § Effective app and website § Possibility to open the car with Communauto hope to be able to card or app contribute to this effort bringing § Experience with winter conditions more another option and a § Aimed at maximizing the environmental and economic
    [Show full text]
  • Your Montreal Cheat Sheet + King Princess * POP Montreal * Luna & More
    SEPTEMBER 2019 • Vol. 8 No. 1 8 No. Vol. SEPTEMBER 2019 • • CULTMTL.COM FREE Your Montreal cheat sheet + King Princess * POP Montreal * Luna & more letter table of Cult Mtl from the is... Part 1 07.06–08.09.2019 contents Part 2 27.09.2019–19.01.2020 editor Rising NYC pop-rock star King Princess on sexuality and Lorraine Carpenter gender, art and feelings and editor-in-chief Part 3 07.02–17.05.2020 getting into the music business [email protected] the right way. Hey students, Photo by Vince aung alex Rose Sortis du cadre : film editor [email protected] Welcome back, and welcome to Cult MTL’s Nora Rosenthal arts editor Out of the Box: eighth annual Student Survival Guide. [email protected] letter from the editor 4 Clayton Sandhu Going back to school doesn’t have to hurt so contributing editor (food) Gordon MATTA-CLARK hard. This city is buzzing with enough activity to-do list 7 and entertainment to get you through the year, Chris Tucker city 8 and balancing your studies with an exciting art director Revu par and rewarding social life is easy, and even :persona mtl 8 affordable. food & drink 10 advertising [email protected] Selected by Yann Chateigné Luna 10 Let us steer you. Because that's what we do. Contributors: music 12 dave Jaffer Along with offering a pile of practical King Princess 12 darcy Macdonald Hila Peleg information to help you navigate the city and POP Montreal 14 Special thanks: gregory Vodden make the best use of its many services, this studENT surviVaL gUidE 16 Kitty Scott guide features pointers on Montreal food, eating 16 nightlife, shopping and art, along with loads of other leisure activities, from cycling to spas.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Review of the Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel
    APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED. A Historical Review of the Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel Fuel Cycle Research & Development Prepared for US Department of Energy Nuclear Fuels Storage and Transportation Planning Project Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Kevin J. Connolly Argonne National Laboratory: Ronald B. Pope August 31, 2016 FCRD-NFST-2016-000474, Rev. 1 ORNL/SR-2016/261, Rev. 1 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via US Department of Energy (DOE) SciTech Connect. Website http://www.osti.gov/scitech/ Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847) TDD 703-487-4639 Fax 703-605-6900 E-mail [email protected] Website http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange representatives, and International Nuclear Information System representatives from the following source: Office of Scientific and Technical Information PO Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone 865-576-8401 Fax 865-576-5728 E-mail [email protected] Website http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Author Guidelines for 8
    Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2021 Internal Branding in the Gig and Sharing Economy: Enhancing Service Providers’ Engagement to Achieve Higher Customer Satisfaction Obed Niyomwungeri Stanislav Chankov Jacobs University Bremen, Germany Jacobs University Bremen, Germany [email protected] [email protected] Abstract basis. Hence, workers are regarded as independent Traditional service industries rely on internal contractors rather than fulltime employees [5]. branding and employee engagement to ensure their It is argued that consistent delivery of brand employees deliver their brand promises. However, promises is a requisite for firms operating in both they are evolving into more on-demand work than ever GE&SE to prosper [6], since these firms “do not create before. Both gig and sharing economy (GE&SE) the brand value directly and, consequently, do not platforms enable individuals to provide on-demand control their value proposition” [7]. services. Although those service providers (SPs) are In traditional service industries such as hospitality not employed by GE&SE platforms, consistent and tourism, the increasing concern about the role of delivery of brand promises by the SPs is crucial in employees in building brand equity has led to the GE&SE too. Thus, we aim to investigate the emergence of internal branding strategies. Internal importance of internal branding in GE&SE as a key branding seeks to ensure that employees enact and factor in achieving higher customer satisfaction by deliver the promised brand values, which determine analyzing the SP’s engagement to the brand. customers’ expectations [8], by enhancing the Accordingly, we develop a comparison framework and knowledge of employees about the brand’s promise, conduct nine interviews with SPs, which we then personality, and values [9].
    [Show full text]