No abstract

Abstract:The transition to a more sustainable personal transportation sector requires the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. However, a dominant design has not yet emerged and a standards battle is being fought between battery and hydrogen fuel cell powered electric vehicles. The aim of this paper is to analyze which factors are most likely to influence the outcome of this battle, thereby reducing the uncertainty in the industry regarding investment decisions in either of these technologies. We examine the relevant factors for standard dominance and apply a multi-criteria decision-making method, best worst method, to determine the relative importance of these factors. The results indicate that the key factors include technological superiority, compatibility, and brand reputation and credibility. Our findings show that battery powered electric vehicles have a greater chance of winning the standards battle. This study contributes to theory by providing further empirical evidence that the outcome of standards battles can be explained and predicted by applying factors for standard success. We conclude that technology dominance in the automotive industry is mostly driven by technological characteristics and characteristics of the format supporter.

Smart grid technologies are considered an important enabler in the transition to more sustainable energy systems because they support the integration of rising shares of volatile renewable energy sources into electricity networks. To implement them in a large scale, broad acceptance in societies is crucial. However, a growing body of research has revealed societal concerns with these technologies. To achieve sustainable energy systems, such concerns should be taken into account in the development of smart grid technologies. In this paper, we show that many concerns are related to moral values such as privacy, justice, or trust. We explore the effect of moral values on the acceptance of smart grid technologies. The results of our systematic literature review indicate that moral values can be both driving forces and barriers for smart grid acceptance. We propose that future research striving to understand the role of moral values as factors for social acceptance can benefit from an interdisciplinary approach bridging literature in ethics of technology with technology acceptance models.

Drawing from international branding literature and schema incongruity research, the present study (a) assesses foreign brand communication effectiveness by juxtaposing three alternative advertising approaches based on local, foreign and global consumer culture imagery, and (b) investigates the mechanism underlying consumers' responses to foreign brand communication. In a 2 (foreign brand schema vs. control) × 3 (local vs. foreign vs. global ad type) full-factorial, between-subjects experiment with a consumer sample, we find that ads portraying global consumer culture imagery only moderately violate consumer perceptions of brand foreignness and lead to more favorable ad attitudes. Furthermore, moderated-mediation analysis shows that when the global ad imagery is meaningfully linked to the foreign brand, perceptions of credibility increase and positively influence ad attitude. However, if consumers cannot make sense of the ad, this effect is reversed and negatively influences subsequent responses. Theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are discussed and future research directions identified.

Many academic approaches that claim to consider the broad set of social and ethical issues relevant to energy systems sit side-by-side without conversation. This paper considers three such literatures: Value Sensitive Design, Responsible Research and Innovation and the Energy Justice framework. We argue that whilst definitions of these concepts appear, on face value, to be united by a common normative goal -improving the social outcomes and mitigating sensitivities at the interface of technological energy systems and human livelihoods -, their existence in academic silos has obscured complementarities, which, once synthesized, might increase their overall academic and practical relevance. This paper fills the emergent gap of critically discussing the concepts and their strengths and challenges as well as how they could contribute to each other. It compares: (1) the things that they claim to tackle, (2) the solutions they claim to provide and (3) the points that clearly distinguish one approach from another (if any at all). Not only does this make this paper the first of its kind, but it also makes it an impactful one. With each concept gaining various degrees of support in academia and practice, our discussion reveals where tensions exist and where positive gains can be made. We identify five opportunities for collaboration and integration with implications for the achievement of energy systems that are acceptable from a societal and ethical perspective.