Futures 156 (2024) 103309

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Futures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Mobility business models toward a digital tomorrow: Challenges

for automotive manufacturers
Hugo Pérez-Moure a, Jesús F. Lampón b, *, Pablo Cabanelas a
a
University of Vigo, Faculty of Commerce, C/ Conde de Torrecedeira 105, 36208 Vigo, Spain
b
University of Vigo, Faculty of Business and Tourism, Campus As Lagoas, 32004 Ourense, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The development of digital business models is impacting the traditional value chain for mobility,
Mobility as a Service implying changes as well as future challenges for automotive manufacturers. Taking a Global
Global Value Chain Value Chain approach, this work analyses the recent evolution, short-term direction, and me­
Autonomous vehicles
dium- to long-term future vision of the adoption of digital mobility business models by auto­
Connectivity
Automotive industry
motive manufacturers. Results suggest that, while the firms analysed are currently incorporating
Business models relevant business models through autonomous vehicles, digital platforms, connectivity, and car-
sharing, they are mostly focused on marketplace exploitation through digital platforms and ser­
vices related to connectivity. Key elements for the development of future mobility business
models include data collection and management as well as interconnection. At the same time,
digitalization is expected to reconfigure not only associated business models but also the re­
lationships among actors within the value chain. These relationships will become more complex
for automotive manufacturers, who may lose control of value-added activities and acquire
dependence on certain actors such as technology and service partners, which are expected to play
a pivotal role in meeting new opportunities. As a result, the decision-making power of value chain
participants will likely be more widely distributed.

1. Introduction

Mobility resulting from the emergence of connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) as well as shared vehicles is transforming the
value chain of the automotive industry, where all relevant actors are seeking to propose and adapt new business models (Cohen and
Kouvelis, 2021). Due to its degree of novelty, this growing Mobility sector presents many challenges across diverse areas in which
automotive actors hope to participate, including through digital platforms (Loonam and O’Regan, 2022) and in terms of connectivity
(Bezai et al., 2021). Consequently, mobility has become a dynamic concept with a strong evolutionary component in associated
business models (Turienzo, Cabanelas and Lampón, 2023).
Increasing digitalization has meanwhile fostered a phenomenon known as digital entrepreneurship (Kraus et al., 2019; Ruiz de la
Torre and Sánchez, 2022) that entails new value propositions and the need to identify new market segments – and thus the trans­
formation of business models (Michelini and Fiorentino, 2012). New information and communication technologies enable companies
to exchange data, reformulate their range of offer to customers, and restructure the value chain based on real needs (Berman, 2012).
This context has also given rise to new types of economy, such as servitization (Ruiz de la Torre and Sánchez, 2022) and the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Pérez-Moure), [email protected] (J.F. Lampón), [email protected] (P. Cabanelas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103309
Received 12 April 2023; Received in revised form 2 December 2023; Accepted 21 December 2023
Available online 25 December 2023
0016-3287/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

share-economy (Kraus et al., 2019), along with novel marketplaces offering value-added services to users (Cusumano, Gawer and
Yoffie, 2019).
However, digitalization does not impact all industries, value chains, and business models in the same way (Turienzo et al., 2023).
The present research undertakes an analysis of services related to digitalization in the Mobility value chain and their implications for
the adoption of business models and value propositions for Mobility as a Service (MaaS) (Jittrapirom et al., 2020; Arias-Molinares and
García-Palomares, 2020; Becker et al., 2020). Mobility is already a key sector for many countries; consequently, changes to associated
business models are occurring at an accelerated pace (Fournier, 2017; Athanasopoulou et al., 2019; Shammut et al., 2023) and must be
better understood. Furthermore, the Mobility sector is currently among the most attractive for both investors and public actors,
ranking fourth in R&D investment globally and first in Europe (ACEA, 2022). This points to the importance being given to the
development of new technologies and solutions, as well as the confidence that agents are placing in Mobility’s potential for growth and
transformation (Turienzo, Cabanelas and Lampón, 2023).
Despite the importance of MaaS and the rapid evolution and adoption of technologies, the volatility of strategies implemented thus
far has fostered uncertainty (Jittrapirom et al., 2020). Furthermore, implementation of these technologies does not generate imme­
diate benefits and carries a high investment risk, leading to some hesitancy in their adoption (Llopis-Albert, Rubio and Valero, 2021). It
is therefore crucial to assess the current state of relationships between manufacturers and digital companies, to comprehend the
current MaaS strategy, and to project a road-map and future vision, which are currently lacking (Hensher, Mulley and Nelson, 2021).
From a theoretical point of view, recent analyses of mobility business models are mainly focused on internal resources and the
capabilities of firms to adapt related value propositions in a dynamic technological environment (Teece, 2019; Lanzolla and Markides,
2021; Cabanelas et al., 2023; Turienzo, Cabanelas and Lampón, 2023). These studies are supported by Contingency theory, analyzing
the main factors that change and condition the needs of firms as relate to business models (Lanzolla and Markides, 2021; Turienzo,
Cabanelas and Lampón, 2023), and by Dynamic Capabilities theory, analyzing the resources (e.g., assets, technologies) and capabilities
(e.g., identification of opportunities, customer adaptability) with which a firm can generate value for customers (Teece, 2019; Cab­
anelas et al., 2023). No prior work has incorporated the Global Value Chain (GVC) approach (Gereffi, Humphrey and Sturgeon, 2005;
Sturgeon, Van Biesebroeck and Gereffi, 2008) into its theoretical framework for analysis of the evolution of business models related to
Mobility. This approach permits the integration of other variables and actors into analysis (beyond the firms’ internal resources and
capabilities) and offers a broader perspective of precisely what business models are being developed by the diversity of firms within the
value chain. The main objective of this paper is to study under the GVC approach the evolution of the implementation by automotive
manufacturers – also known as Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) – of business models associated with digitalization. The
paper contributes to understanding how the configuration of the Mobility value chain and the relationships established between actors
condition the offer of digital mobility services by OEMs. This then assists in analyzing the value propositions around MaaS, the
evolution and short-term direction of digital mobility business models, and projections of a medium- to long-term future vision (to
2030, 2040, and 2050).
In pursuit of its research objective, this paper is structured into four sections. Section 2 presents the theoretical framework of the
relevant digital business models as well as the GVC approach to Mobility. In the third section, the research methodology is given in
detail. The results of the four OEMs under analysis are presented in Section 4. These results are then discussed, leading to the paper’s
main conclusions and an overview of future challenges and recommendations.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Digitalization and business models

Scientific articles related to business models have been written without interruption since the 1950 s, but they have taken on special
relevance in recent years (Taipale-Erävala, Salmela and Lampela, 2020; Medina, Mazaira and Alén, 2022). Insofar as a business model
is put into practice with a clear focus on value creation (Palos-Sánchez et al., 2021), it should allow the structuring of new value
propositions, the identification of market segments, and some definition of the structure of the relevant value chain (Michelini and
Fiorentino, 2012; Kraus et al., 2019), along with traditional aspects such as customer focus (Gordijn and Akkermans, 2001; Oster­
walder and Pigneur, 2010; Amit and Zott, 2001).
The importance of digitalization in contemporary business models has been opening new spaces for value creation (Kraus et al., 2019;
Pérez-Moure et al., 2023), as the use of digital tools in business models carries an essential weight and results in diverse service options
(Taipale-Erävala, Salmela and Lampela, 2020). New models related to digitalization arise around new capabilities that bring a series of

2
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

changes associated with new information and communication technologies (ICTs), which allow the reformulation of a value proposition
to the customer (Vangjel, 2021). As the real needs of customers evolve and new actors emerge to meet them, some reformulations will
exert influence over the value chain (Berman, 2012). Without these new digital business models, it would be impossible to gain an
understanding of future contexts (Turienzo, Cabanelas and Lampón, 2022; Ancillai et al., 2023; Shen, Sun and Parida, 2023).
At the same time, certain studies have highlighted the importance of servitization in current business models (Shashishekar, Anand
and Paul, 2022). Various contemporary business models stem from the need to deal with a market where competition is strengthening,
and this implies that companies (especially the most innovative) are focusing their value propositions on servitization (Schaeffer,
2017; Ruiz de la Torre and Sánchez, 2022; You, Sarpong and O’Regan, 2022). In the context of Mobility, all these changes have led to
what is known as ‘Mobility as a Service’ (MaaS) – a user-centric model for mobility that includes assorted personalized and customized
services (based chiefly on ICTs) and that each company approaches in its own way (Jittrapirom et al., 2020; Arias-Molinares and
García-Palomares, 2020; Becker et al., 2020).1
Mobility technologies related to digitalization are currently reconfiguring the automotive industry and giving rise to new op­
portunities and business models (Gschwendtner, Sinsel and Stephan, 2021; Llopis-Albert, Rubio and Valero, 2021). The servitization of
CAVs, digital platforms, and connectivity are among the most prominent elements of these mobility technologies (Butler, Yigitcanlar
and Paz, 2021; Steinberg, 2022; Hind, Kanderske and van der Vlist, 2022; Cabanelas et al., 2023). As a result, these technologies are
having a direct impact on the way connected and autonomous vehicles are used, while the related businesses models are significantly
transforming the market in the automotive industry (Barreto, Amaral and Baltazar, 2020).
In short, in recent years, multiple business models have emerged that depend largely on the type of industry and value chain in
which they are developed, where digitalization plays a fundamental role (Turienzo, Cabanelas and Lampón, 2023). Other aspects of
certain importance include value creation, collaboration, and the strong competition encountered in new market niches (Guzmán-­
Cuevas, Cáceres-Carrasco and Soriano, 2009), and this leads to a focus on the value chain and the relationships built among its actors to
satisfy customer demand.

2.2. The global value chain in Mobility

The global value chain is defined as the full range of activities that different actors perform to bring a product/service from
conception to end use (Gereffi and Fernandez-Stark, 2011). Thus, the global value chain of a given industry is configured by two
elements: the activities that define the distribution of value along the chain, and the key actors that perform those activities (Nicovich,
Dibrell and Davis, 2007; Sturgeon et al., 2009). The GVC approach was developed to analyze the relationships among actors who
specialize in distinct segments of a global value chain (Yi, 2003; Sturgeon, Van Biesebroeck and Gereffi, 2008). Concepts such as
subcontracting, cooperation, and fragmentation of the value chain have become central elements in GVC analysis (Humphrey and
Memedovic, 2003), involving specialized actors and how they cooperate and exchange knowledge (Humphrey and Memedovic, 2003;
Gereffi, Humphrey and Sturgeon, 2005).
The GVC approach has most often been used to analyze the traditional automotive industry value chain (Humphrey and Mem­
edovic, 2003; Sturgeon, Van Biesebroeck and Gereffi, 2008; Lampón, Cabanelas and Delgado-Guzmán, 2018), with much research
focused on the product (vehicle), examining the configuration of a related production network (e.g., components, modules, systems)
and the manufacturing processes employed in construction of the vehicle (Sturgeon, Van Biesebroeck and Gereffi, 2008). Also subject
to analysis are the diverse relationships between an OEM and its suppliers (Ozatagan, 2011; Schmitt and Van Biesebroeck, 2017;
Lampón, Rodríguez-De La Fuente and Fraiz-Brea, 2022). In this traditional value chain, the OEMs control the key value-added ac­
tivities (e.g., vehicle design, motorization) and coordinate their suppliers through asymmetrical power relationships, determining most
of the conditions for production and supply (e.g., location, quality standards, product design) (Humphrey and Schmitz, 2002; Sturgeon,
Van Biesebroeck and Gereffi, 2008).
The current technological and social context raises new questions about global value chains (You, Sarpong and O’Regan, 2022).
Actors in these value chains must confront a large number of challenges in different areas, particularly in terms of how to adapt
disruptive technologies (Malanowski et al., 2021; Loonam and O’Regan, 2022) and transparently share information (Manfredi and
Capik, 2022). Among these challenges, emphasis is placed on the profound transformation that digitalization foments and on the need
to integrate knowledge and technologies to generate value for customers (You, Sarpong and O’Regan, 2022).
Technological, economic, and social changes have been driving the automotive industry to incorporate technologies and companies
considered non-traditional (Bezai et al., 2021; Turienzo, Cabanelas and Lampón, 2022). Changes include the prominence of infor­
mation and communication technologies (e.g., connectivity and the autonomous vehicle) (Fournier et al., 2017; Bezai et al., 2021),
reactions to social trends (e.g., ‘peak car’) (Focas and Christidis, 2017), and customer preferences (e.g., on-demand mobility) (Lagadic,
Verloes and Louvet, 2019).

1
Some ambiguity surrounds this concept; the core characteristics of MaaS remain uncertain, and no assessment framework exists by which to
classify such in a systematic manner (Jittrapirom et al., 2017). Notably, previous works have included in their definitions that MaaS is based on
multimodality and the use of different modes of transport. In the present research, multimodality is not covered, with analysis instead focusing on
the challenges for OEMs and therefore the vehicles produced (passenger cars and light commercial vehicles). Our object of analysis being OEMs in
the automotive industry, exclusion of the multimodal perspective permits us to better capture their shift toward service-oriented business models. To
further examine multimodality would inherently entail the introduction of additional actors and modes of transportation, diverting attention from
our primary objective (business models associated with OEMs, traditionally the key players in the realm of mobility).

3
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

This Mobility value chain is focused not on the traditional product (vehicle) but on services linked to digitalization, specifically
once the vehicle has been produced and is in the hands of the customer. From the GVC approach, analysis of the Mobility value chain
must include: an identification of the elements that configure it (activities and actors) (Sturgeon et al., 2009); the prevailing types of
relationship in terms of control and dependence; and the distribution of power among actors (Yi, 2003; Sturgeon, Van Biesebroeck and
Gereffi, 2008). In terms of activities, the GVC approach proposes identification of those that define the distribution of value along the
chain (Sturgeon et al., 2009). In this case, the main activities would be key services (and associated business models) linked to
digitalization that offer value-added for customers in the realm of mobility. The most relevant services indicated by prior works are
mobility solutions for CAVs (Zhou et al., 2021; Cabanelas et al., 2023), services based on digital platforms (Jacobides et al., 2018;
Steinberg, 2021), and services linked to connectivity and data exchange (Krafft et al., 2021; Hind, Kanderske and van der Vlist, 2022)
as well as to car-sharing (Svennevik, Dijk and Arnfalk, 2021). All these services are mentioned in the literature as being crucial to future
scenarios for Mobility (Barreto, Amaral and Baltazar, 2020; Tori, Te Boveldt and Keseru, 2023).
As regards the actors involved, in addition to traditional OEMs, various non-traditional automotive firms are part of the Mobility
value chain (Bezai et al., 2021; Turienzo, Cabanelas and Lampón, 2022). The GVC definition includes those actors that work to bring a
product from conception to end use (Gereffi and Fernandez-Stark, 2011), and the Mobility value chain must further include those
actors offering related services (e.g., car-sharing firms, digital platform service providers) as well as those linked to the development of
technologies that support such services (e.g., vehicle connectivity software, positioning and localization technologies) (Novikova,
2017; Guyader and Piscicelli, 2019).
In addition to chain configuration, the types of relationships among actors in a value chain will be key to its study (Pietrobelli and
Saliola, 2008). Relationships are traditionally considered in terms of control, dependence, and decision-making power (Sturgeon, Van
Biesebroeck and Gereffi, 2008). Previous works on the traditional automotive industry noted that OEMs have long exerted control over
value-added activities, with great decision-making power within the value chain and low dependence on suppliers (Humphrey and
Schmitz, 2002). From the GVC approach (Sturgeon et al., 2008) in the case of the Mobility value chain, this traditional low dependency
and high decision-making power would extend to a greater number of digital activities and services.
In summary, digitalization has been reshaping the traditional automotive value chain, prompting manufacturers to offer services to
meet new mobility needs and to control those activities that generate value for customers (Cabanelas et al., 2023). In this context, to
better understand the future of mobility business models linked to digitalization, it will be crucial to identify how traditional OEMs
have been adapting, as well as what relationships are being established with the numerous actors that configure the Mobility value
chain (Schwabe, 2020).

3. Research methodology

3.1. Methodology and sample

A qualitative methodology (multiple case study) was chosen for this work. As regards the sample size for analysis, no exact number
of cases need be selected in this methodology. Certain authors of reference have recommended no fewer than three (Yin, 2014) and no
more than five (Creswell, 2014); because a case study has the capacity to analyze all the data collected, a very large number does not
facilitate optimal management of that information, while a small number may fail to represent the reality of the universe under study
(Cassell, Cunliffe and Grandy, 2018).
In this case, four automotive manufacturers were selected: Volkswagen, Stellantis, Toyota, and Honda. These four OEMs invest the
most in innovation in technologies linked to Mobility as a Service (PwC, 2018). Furthermore, in terms of revenue, Volkswagen, Toyota,
and Stellantis top the charts, while Toyota and Honda rank first in the number of cars sold (Thread in Motion, 2021, Focus2Move,
2023). To perform a detailed analysis of a small number of companies, the case study approach allows for thorough description as well
as the comprehension and exploration of observable facts without the rigidity characteristic of a quantitative approach (Yin, 2014).
Table 1 presents the data for the four companies analyzed.

3.2. Variables

When taking the GVC approach, two variables are key: the activities that define the distribution of value along the chain, and the
actors that perform those activities (Sturgeon et al., 2009). In terms of such activities, our research is focused on those key services
(associated business models) linked to digitalization that offer value-added for mobility customers. These business models are:

1. Servitization of CAVs: business models related to digital solutions for mobility with CAVs, such as the logistics of goods (Leminen
et al., 2022) or advanced data-assisted solutions (e.g., improved driving experience, traffic flow and safety) (Stocker and Shaheen,
2018).
2. Digital platforms (marketplaces): business models that originate around the same platform (i.e., Amazon Cloud Services) (Cusu­
mano, 2010; Bratton, 2016) and that enable OEMs, other firms, and users to carry out transactions (Jacobides et al., 2018;
Cusumano, Gawer and Yoffie, 2019; Steinberg, 2022).
3. Services linked to connectivity (data exchange): business models associated with the systems that allow information to be trans­
mitted and shared through connectivity (Krafft et al., 2021; Hind, Kanderske and van der Vlist, 2022).
4. Car-sharing: business-to-consumer or peer-to-peer business models that offer vehicles for flexible sharing by means of applications
with tariffs (Svennevik, Dijk and Arnfalk, 2021).

4
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

Table 1
Cases for analysis.
Case Nº employees Sales Main approach to Mobility as a Service
(thousands) (€
billions)

Volkswagen 672 206 Strategy for MaaS centred on connected mobility services and software. The aim is to become leaders in
MaaS.
Stellantis 292 145 MaaS mainly focused on electric mobility and exploiting customized software services.
Toyota 370 219 MaaS based on autonomous mobility combined with a wide range of services linked to the share-economy.
Honda 211 109 Adaptation of its mobility services to the real demands of people and society. The aim is to develop user-
centric servitization (MaaS).

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

5. Complementary services: additional services offered by OEMs to their customers to improve satisfaction (Butler, Yigitcanlar and
Paz, 2021); for example, access to real-time traffic information or medical-care services.

As regards actors, in addition to the OEMs at the center of analysis, also considered here are actors that offer relevant services and
those that develop the technologies that support such services (Novikova, 2017; Guyader and Piscicelli, 2019). Moreover, depending
on how these actors establish relationships with the OEMs, mainly by way of cooperation2 (Humphrey and Memedovic, 2003; Gereffi,
Humphrey and Sturgeon, 2005), a classification can be made as follows:

1. Services providers: external firms that offer services related to mobility exclusively through a transactional relationship with the
OEM.
2. Services partners: external or OEM-owned firms that offer services related to mobility through a collaborative relationship with the
OEM.
3. Technology providers: external firms that offer technology related to mobility exclusively through a transactional relationship with
the OEM.
4. Technology partners: external or OEM-owned firms that develop mobility technology jointly with the OEM.

Finally, understanding MaaS as a user-centric mobility model based on information and communications technologies (Jittrapirom
et al., 2020), this research focuses on the value propositions offered by OEMs in terms of digital mobility services.

3.3. Data collection

To obtain information for business case studies, investigators commonly seek primary sources from the companies (Meyer, 2001),
particularly as might be obtained through tools like interviews or focus groups (Roulston and Choi, 2018). In this case, the required
information derives from large multinationals, involving various departments and contact with numerous geographically dispersed
persons – too complex a situation for the employment of such tools. Thus, it was decided to collect data through secondary (internal)
sources developed by the companies themselves and made publicly available (e.g., corporate reports, internal technical documents)
(Srinivasa and Rajat, 2012) along with other data elaborated by external bodies (e.g., the specialized press, sectorial documents) (Ellen,
Day and Davies, 2018). Although this approach loses the main advantage of primary sources (such as the accuracy of information
derived from direct contact and observation), systematic application of this research process to secondary sources can obtain specific
information from experts (Srinivasa and Rajat, 2012; Ellen, Day and Davies, 2018).
In data collection, an exhaustive review was undertaken of more than 300 documents, identified through keywords. Specifically, in
addition to the names of the OEMs, the following words were included in this search: “business model”, “new mobility”, “connec­
tivity”, “car-sharing”, “digital platform”, “mobility as a service”, “data exchange”, “autonomous mobility”, “marketplace”, and “de­
livery as a service”. In order to identify documents, a process was followed similar to that used by Leminen et al. (2022) and Santos
et al. (2023). First, an exhaustive search was made of both internal and external documents, with the use of these two types of sources
permitting access to specific and detailed information provided by experts (Ellen et al., 2018; Srinivasa and Rajat, 2012). To guarantee
the reliability and quality of the documents obtained, the search concentrated on texts indexed in the EBSCO database3 as well as
corporate publications from the OEMs. Following this initial stage, a total of 347 documents were identified; duplicates were

2
Two types of actors are considered in regard to cooperation: providers, establishing an exclusively transactional relationship without cooper­
ation (delivering the request of the customer and billing); and partners, when there is some degree of cooperation (working in collaboration to
understand, develop, and execute strategies to improve the results of the transaction) (Osterrieder, 2021). Partners can be OEM-owned companies
(internal partners).
3
EBSCO is a leading provider of research databases, e-journals, book collections, and e-books for universities, colleges, hospitals, corporations,
governments, schools, and public libraries; consulted through the EBSCO Business Source Premier Database.

5
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

subsequently removed, reducing the number to 296. Criteria were then established to select relevant and high-quality documents. In
addition to being issued by reliable sources, these had to have been published in the past five years4 (from 2018 onward) at a minimum
length of 500 words and focused on the variables analyzed (business models and value chain actors). After a rigorous screening process
(as described in Fig. 1), a final review was carried out to exclude redundant content and documents that had mistakenly passed the
previous stages. The result was a set of 49 documents (see the Appendix, which presents for each OEM the source of information, the
title of each specific document analyzed, and the code name for identification).5 Data collection was conducted from September to
December of 2022.

3.4. Data analysis

Content analysis was used in the analysis of data (Prasad, 2008). This allows valid references to be made to a context – i.e., to
examine a wide range of information, to interpret such, and to establish results or comparisons with relative objectivity and gener­
alization (White and Marsh, 2006). This type of analysis applied to texts proves ideal when the information-gathering process is
complex and includes many sources (Krippendorff, 2018).
During content analysis, the collected information on each OEM was structured into the digital mobility business models studied.
The evolution, short-term direction, and medium- to long-term future vision in the adoption of these business models are all subjected
to analysis, along with the actors related to digital services and the technologies that support such services. The results are summarized
in two tables: one presents the main value proposition for Mobility and the key aspects and medium- to long-term perspectives of
business models; the other shows the relationships between OEMs and actors in terms of dependence and control over key activities.
Additionally, the MAXQDA 2022 software was used to establish interrelations among the key concepts (codes) contained in the
documents. This software performs a systematic coding of the contents of documents to aid in interpretation, and the coding process
consists of tagging and labelling different pieces of information collected (Schreier, 2012). The main objective of the coding process is
to understand, identify, and make connections among the data collected by creating different categories (Elliot, 2018; Ngulube, 2015).
Coding was executed through an iterative process refined through application and adjustment, where the codes employed were a word
or a set of words (i.e., “Amazon”, “connectivity”, “autonomous vehicle”) representing units of analysis linked to descriptive elements
(Creswell, 2015).
In this case, given the inductive nature of the research, coding was executed manually (Grbic, 2013), identifying different levels of
coding of the type “OEM_Name > Type_of_Actor > Business_Model > Actor_Name”. This coding made it possible to establish labels
based on definitions resulting from the literature (Schreier, 2012); for example, in the case of “Type_of_Actor”, the labels were:
“Technology_Provider”, “Technology_Partner”, “Service_ Provider”, and “Service_Partner”.
Several criteria were set to determine the acceptance or exclusion of elements as codes. By adhering to these criteria, the coding
enabled more precise analysis of the data at hand (e.g., by establishing a logical order where a word had to be well-defined and match
with key variables) (Punch, 2014; Saldaña, 2009). For instance, the term “platform” had to be preceded by “digital” to be considered a
valid code. This allowed the elimination of potential confusion with other elements such as “modular platforms”. To ensure the quality
and rigor of the coding process, the procedure followed was that recommended by Bryman (2012) and Saldaña (2009). This process
included: (1) an initial coding as a quick read of the documents; (2) the creation of an index to facilitate the processing of information
and respective labels; (3) an exhaustive review to refine the coding, eliminating or adding elements from the prior initial quick read;
and finally (4) a detailed analysis based on this final coding.
The results produced by way of this software can be presented through various customized outputs. In this research, correlation
analyses were performed through code co-occurrence maps that record the interrelation of codes across the lines that connect them.
The larger the letters of codes and the thicker the lines, the greater the number of interrelations between codes.

4. Results

4.1. Volkswagen

4.1.1. Servitization of CAVs

This OEM’s business models associated with CAVs are not currently operational but remain in the development phase, with plans
for near-future deployment [VW-3]. The company is developing autonomous driving with a strategic partner (ARGO AI). The goal is to
launch commercial vehicles with autonomous driving for Mobility as a Service in the urban goods transport niche, to be started in the
city of Hamburg [VW-3]. Nevertheless, this launch appears to be unlikely before 2030, when the software and all functions related to
the connectivity of these autonomous vehicles are expected to be available [VW-1].

4.1.2. Digital platforms

Volkswagen has its own digital platform being jointly developed with the digital company Diconium, of which VW has acquired

4
A period of sufficient length to observe the evolution and identification of trends, and recent enough to assist in forecasting the medium-long
term future vision.
5
This is expressed as the initials of OEM followed by a number corresponding to the document. For our purposes, the OEM code-initials are VW
for Volkswagen, ST for Stellantis, TO for Toyota, and HO for Honda.

6
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

Fig. 1. Document selection process.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

7
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

49% in preparation for future scenarios [VW-4]. This is known as the Volkswagen Automotive Cloud, a global cloud platform that enables
an ecosystem to provide digital value-added services for the cars of Volkswagen customers [VW-4; VW-7]. Volkswagen intends to
provide a unified marketplace in which third-party companies will be able to deliver their services to any of the group’s brands. In this
marketplace supported by Volkswagen Automotive Cloud, the OEM will exploit the business model linked to the data stored and pro­
cessed on the platform [VW-8]. Other companies (such as insurance, maintenance, or repair companies) will exploit their traditional
business models with this data, and Volkswagen will use the platform to carry out transactions with these companies [VW-7]. Indeed,
Volkswagen anticipates that by 2030, approximately one-third of its sales and consequent profits will stem from digital sales of this
nature [VW-6].

4.1.3. Services linked to connectivity

Volkswagen is committed to becoming a provider of content and apps associated with connectivity [VW-1; VW-6]. Volkswagen
vehicles collect signals from sensors, along with data relating to performance (such as near-accidents) and metrics of a vehicle’s on-
board systems and surroundings [VW-7]. The connected vehicles from VW brands allow the transmission of this data, which is then
used to offer specific services – for example intelligent parking, an app that allows a parking space to be found and paid for
automatically.
Other business models on offer and related to connectivity include a remote service that allows the use of a phone to lock/unlock
the car, adjust the seats, and set the interior vehicle temperature, along with home-systems integration (e.g., enabling devices within a
house to turn on when the car is approaching) and software updates to obtain the latest revisions over-the-air and desired features on-
demand [VW-7]. This software, named CARIAD, is being developed by Volkswagen itself and offers services such as route planning,
voice control, and a travel assistant developed by Mobileye [VW-1; VW-6]. Volkswagen also offers a system to provide locations of
electric charging-station and to recommended stops to avoid ‘range anxiety’ for customers seeking recommended charging stations
[VW-1; VW-7].
Volkswagen will allocate approximately 5% of its profits toward fortifying its digital autonomy in anticipation of the challenges
that lie ahead, focusing on 2050 in particular [VW-6]. By 2030, the company aims to have initiated a transformation centrally focused
on services that are tightly integrated with connectivity and software [VW-1]. This transformation will result in the creation of safer
and more intelligent vehicles in the long-term. Volkswagen’s projections for 2030 are quite ambitious in the deployment of their
software and associated services, with a forecast increase to 40 million software-connected vehicles and the expectation of continued
growth thereafter [VW-1; VW-6].

4.1.4. Car-sharing
Within the car-sharing area of new mobility, Volkswagen is working with two companies dedicated to this type of service: MOIA
[VW-5] and WeShare. Both are defined as environmentally friendly ride-pooling systems (fully electric in the case of WeShare) with
vehicles owned by the company, where customers combine their journeys with others travelling in a similar direction. These include a
mobile app for the customer through which passengers can book and pay. Although a plan exists for expansion in future decades [VW-
3], implementation is currently limited; more than five years after its creation, the service has so far been established only in Berlin,
Hamburg, and Hanover [VW-2; VW-9]. This situation may be perceived as indicating a lack of interest by the company in this business
model, but the actual intention of Volkswagen is quite different. The sale of WeShare to the firm Miles aimed at consolidating the
company’s presence in the shared mobility sector, with Miles controlling greater geographic coverage (compared to WeShare). This
agreement came accompanied by designs for long-term collaboration, where Volkswagen will provide electric vehicles for the Miles
fleet, demonstrating its continued commitment to shared mobility. This will materialize through the delivery of 10,000 vehicles from
Volkswagen to Miles, significantly increasing the VW brand’s presence within this business model. It is crucial to emphasize that this
change does not represent a modification in Volkswagen’s intention but rather a strategic adaptation to strengthen its position in the
expanding shared mobility market [VW-8].

4.1.5. Complementary services

Complementary services based on this OEM’s digital platform or on connectivity are diverse. Based on V2I (Vehicle-to-Infra­
structure) connectivity,6 Volkswagen offers Traffic Light Information, which provides drivers in their virtual cockpits with the number
of seconds remaining before a traffic light turns green. This system is available in the U.S. and will be operational in Europe in the near
future. Indeed, it is already operating in Hamburg, with an underlying expectation of expansion [VW-2].

4.2. Stellantis

4.2.1. Servitization of CAVs

In services linked to CAVs, Stellantis seeks to offer Delivery as a Service in the medium-term future; therefore the company has a

6
Vehicle-to-Everything communication (V2X) includes the following types: V2V (Vehicle-to-Vehicle), V2I (Vehicle-to-Infrastructure), V2N
(Vehicle-to-Network), and V2P (Vehicle-to-Pedestrian).

8
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

collaboration agreement with Waymo exclusively for light commercial vehicles [ST-7]. Although Waymo also has agreements on
autonomous driving with other OEMs, it has agreed with Stellantis to put a fleet of autonomous light commercial vehicles into service.
The horizon for launching the service using SAE Level 3 automated driving7 was originally 2025, but this date has been delayed [ST-7].
Indeed, it seems that this Delivery as a Service autonomous vehicle will not be completely available and functional until the first half of
2030, while Stellantis expects the jump from SAE Level 3 to Level 4 will take place between 2030 and 2040 [ST-8].

4.2.2. Digital platforms

After several initiatives and different technology partners, Stellantis is currently supporting its various digital platform business
models on Amazon Web Services provided by that multinational. Through Amazon Web Services, Stellantis is engaging in the market­
place with the aim of directly offering its customers its own warranty services, accessories, on-demand insurance, maintenance, and
vehicle rentals [ST-6]. With all these data, Stellantis aims to develop innovative services and to enhance customer value by offering
“data as a service” from 2030 onward [ST-1]. Despite its agreement with Amazon, Stellantis plans to create the Stellantis Corporate
Venture Fund, signalling its strategic shift toward developing an in-house platform over the next decade [ST-1]. Additionally, in
agreement with Stellantis’ electric future vision, the OEM has a B2B platform for support and assistance (e.g., subsidies, taxes, tech­
nologies) for companies looking to start their transition to electric mobility [ST-3].

4.2.3. Services linked to connectivity

One of Stellantis’ future objectives is to offer customer-centric services based on increased connectivity (called STLA Brain, using AI
services) [ST-1; ST-6]. The collaboration between Amazon and Stellantis is introducing customer-centric connected experiences across
the brand’s vehicles – in particular, through the STLA SmartCockpit based on applications that power a rich array of features and
services such as trip planning, voice assistance, and payment services; even Alexa (Amazon’s virtual assistant) is being incorporated
into Stellantis vehicles [ST-6]. The drivers are able to choose from among these apps, offered via connectivity and paid through
subscription. The STLA SmartCockpit as well as the STLA Brain will begin implementation in 2024 but will not be fully operational until
2030. Stellantis forecasts more than 34 million connected vehicles by 2030, with services linked to connectivity increasing revenues by
US$19.6 billion [ST-1].
Services associated with electric mobility are also among the pillars of the Stellantis vision. Based on its strategy of zero emissions
by 2030, the company is setting up several business models to facilitate the use of its electric vehicles [ST-1; ST-9]. Supported by
connectivity technologies and an app that serves as a locator for electric charging stations, Stellantis together with the company ‘TheF
Charging’ manage a network with exclusive conditions for Stellantis customers and over 15,000 locations, with 2 million stations in
city centers [ST-2; ST-5].

4.2.4. Car-sharing
Stellantis owns a company called Free2Move, which offers a fleet of vehicles of Stellantis brands to provide mobility solutions
exclusively for professionals [ST-8; ST-9]. Free2Move’s own application provides car-sharing, on-demand mobility services, and
parking space reservation, among other features. These services are available only in two European cities, Paris and Madrid. Never­
theless, Stellantis expects Free2Move to expand over the next decade (2030–2040) [ST-9].
Furthermore, Stellantis is backing up this business model by acquiring a car-sharing venture of Mercedes and BMW that launched
services of this type. Through the Share Now app, this company currently allows car-sharing to 3.4 million customers in 16 European
cities [ST-10].

4.2.5. Complementary services

In line with the commitment to its future vision for electric vehicles [ST-1], Stellantis through an alliance with the company Kiri is
managing a system to reward drivers with sustainable habits through ‘eCoins’, which can be spent in the Kiri marketplace. These eCoins are
obtained through the Uconnect services tool app, where an eco:Score section measures driving efficiency on a scale from 0 to 100 [ST-4].

4.3. Toyota

4.3.1. Servitization of CAVs

Toyota’s servitization of CAVs is being extensively developed through different subsidiaries and alliances with other companies.
Toyota is collaborating with Pony.ai in the development of a virtual assistant (Guardian) as well as tests in Beijing and Shanghai in
order to launch an autonomous vehicle [TO-14]. Other results include the e-palette for the movement of both people and goods in an
autonomous manner [TO-3]. An Autonomous Mobility Management System, supported by a mobile app, allows the assignment of various
tasks such as door-to-door deliveries; this is expected to be fully implemented in the final stage of 2030 [TO-3; TO-6; TO-9; TO-15]. The
autonomous vehicle for these deliveries is already in circulation in one city in Japan (Woven) and is projected to be deployed in the
short term in the main cities of that country [TO-3; TO-12;]. This existing door-to-door service works with companies such as Amazon,
Pizza Hut, and especially Uber. Facing 2040, the company expects to fully deploy the Autono-MaaS concept [TO-12; TO-15], a new

7
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) classifies self-driving vehicles by several levels of autonomy, ranging from 0 (regular car) to 5
(human driver not required). Level 3 means that autonomous vehicles drive themselves, but only under ideal conditions, and with limitations (such
as limited-access areas at certain speeds). A human driver is still required to take over should road conditions fall below ideal.

9
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

vehicle platform compatible with third-party autonomous driving kits and sensors (“Autono”) for use in mobility applications
(“MaaS”).

4.3.2. Digital platforms

Toyota has developed its own digital Mobility Service Platform. The company is also collaborating with Amazon as a technology
partner, although the platform remains Toyota’s own [TO-2; TO-9]. The use of different devices to store data which are then processed
by Toyota allows services to be offered directly to the customer, also permitting third parties to extend their own offers through the
platform (to be based on Amazon Web Services functions). Offers include tailored maintenance plans, flexible leasing, and on-demand
insurance (in collaboration with the MS&AD Insurance Group’s Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company) [TO-2; TO-8; TO-9].

4.3.3. Services linked to connectivity

For Toyota, building mobility for society represents a central axis, and the company is actively working toward its 2050 vision by
developing a new strategy for connectivity services that aims to extend beyond the individual driver and engage with society as a
whole [TO-1, TO-6]. Toyota is presently allocating half its revenue to future-oriented initiatives, with a particular focus on enhancing
connectivity services related to safety and security [TO-1]. With the goal of connecting vehicles with society as a whole, Toyota will
intend to offer personalized services through a localization process, not only addressing customer demands but also aligning with
societal aspects particular to each country [TO-1, TO-6].
Grouping additional services into the Toyota Smart Centre is essential to Toyota’s current and future strategy. This system integrates
various services for connectivity such as over-the-air software updates, authentication systems, maps, virtual assistants, and automatic
adjustment of the vehicle’s interior conditions [TO-2; TO-4; TO-6; TO-8]. Similarly, key encryption via smartphone and continuous
emergency services (route and driving recommendations) are enabled through different devices, including the Trans-Log and Smart Key
Box that configure the Early detection, Early resolution system [TO-8; TO-9].

4.3.4. Car-sharing
Car-sharing is a fundamental business model for Toyota, and the OEM owns several companies to provide such services: Toyota
Share, Hui, and Kinto [TO-2; TO-10; TO-11]. In all these cases, the fleets of vehicles belong to Toyota, but there are differences among
them. Toyota Share operates only in Japan and is B2C in type, relying on an app to offer on-demand services. Hui is operating in
partnership with Servco Pacific in the U.S., with operations similar to Toyota Share but currently available only in Hawaii [TO-2].
Kinto is operating in Europe and is aimed at both B2B and B2C activity. This is part of Toyota’s global 2040 vision to evolve into a
mobility company by providing all sorts of services related to transporting people around the world [TO-10; TO-11]. This firm makes
vehicles available to companies for car-sharing while also connecting end-users through its mobile app, developed in cooperation with
Ridecell; it is currently available in Dublin, Venice, Copenhagen, Madrid, Santiago de Chile, and Buenos Aires [TO-2; TO-11].
Toyota has also acquired portions of the car-sharing companies Grab (investing US$1 billion) and Didi (US$600 million) [TO-5; TO-
7]. Grab operates throughout Southeast Asia (218 cities), where it is the leading company (6 million trips per day), and Didi operates in
the Chinese market. The aim of these acquisitions is to insert the company’s own vehicle brands into these car-sharing fleets in the
short term, and especially (and even more importantly) to obtain future data linked to this service [TO-7].

4.3.5. Complementary services

Given Toyota’s strong commitment to autonomous driving, complementary services are moving in this direction. Among the most
innovative is the “door-to-door doctor” service, which uses the e-palette model and its app. Here the user would request medical service
through the e-Palette Task Assignment Platform (e-TAP) application, and the vehicle would drive autonomously to their home. The
autonomous vehicle model also allows space for integration of a medical room inside [TO-9].

4.4. Honda

4.4.1. Servitization of CAVs

Honda is at a relatively early stage, developing an autonomous vehicle with Cruise as its strategic partner. This vehicle began tests
in Japan and is focused on passenger mobility. Honda forecasts that this vehicle will be officially on the road in the first half of 2030
[HO-7]. At the same time, together with Teito Motors and Kokusai, another autonomous vehicle in development and currently
operating only in Tokyo is focused on shared mobility [HO-5].

4.4.2. Digital platforms

Honda is developing its services with Amazon for improvement of its digital platform. It is using Amazon Web Services for technical
and commercial support [HO-14] – although Honda calls this platform the Honda Connected Platform, its functionalities are in fact
offered through Amazon Web Services. Services and apps are derived from the capture and analysis of data collected from users of
Honda vehicles [HO-13]. Honda anticipates full implementation of this platform by 2030, aiming to establish tripartite interaction
involving the environment (infrastructure, traffic…), its MaaS system, and the platform itself. The primary goal is to amass a wealth of
data, paving the way for vehicles to achieve complete connectivity with the environment from 2030 onward [HO-3]. The OEM is also
currently developing the Monet platform with partners including Hino and Softbank to improve the capture of this data. Honda has
invested US$2 million in this company (10% of Monet’s estimated value) [HO-12; HO-15].

10
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

4.4.3. Services linked to connectivity

Keeping Honda’s intentions for 2030 in mind, connectivity-related services will become a key element in the OEM’s business
model. Through different devices, basic functionalities are being offered such as traffic information, vehicle status, weather, and over-
the-air updates [HO-1; HO-3]. In addition, through various agreements and partnerships, the company is offering voice assistant
services, navigation, and other applications using the My Honda mobile app, which can also be used to locate the vehicle, unlock it, or
check its status. These different services can be selected by the user through a subscription service [HO-2; HO-13]. Although the
services are currently on offer thanks to contracts with Apple and Amazon, Honda is also working with Google and Sony with an eye to
the future [HO-8; HO-11; HO-14].
In order to increase and improve these services, Honda acquired the company Drivemode, specialized in developing apps linked to
vehicle connectivity. Thus Honda hopes to enhance its applications completely by the future horizon of 2030 [HO-10]. It has also
created a company with its strategic partner Neusoft to accelerate connectivity-related services in China [HO-9]. One of these apps
permits the location of charging points for electric vehicles [HO-1; HO-6] and it is set for broader implementation, such as in taxis in
India [HO-6].

4.4.4. Car-sharing
Honda owns a car-sharing company known as EveryGo. This service is available to all through a mobile app that can be used to
reserve a vehicle, unlock it, proceed to payment, authenticate, and leave the vehicle. The uniqueness of this service is its option of
renting a car by the hour or on a long-term basis. The Honda EveryGo service is only available in Japan and is not expected to receive
broader implementation in other countries in the future [HO-4].

4.4.5. Complementary services

Thanks to V2X connectivity, Honda is developing a safety-enhancing system. The OEM is committed to improving safety, not only
on the road but at all levels across coming decades. To this end, it is developing a system that can be used to detect theft and other
crimes, reporting them directly to the police. In addition, using artificial intelligence, it is capable of recognizing patterns and pre-
notifying the authorities. This project is undergoing testing in the city of Kakogawa [HO-1; HO-3]. Furthermore, despite Honda’s
traditional focus on automobile manufacturing, the company is now actively working to enhance its digital mobility services, with a
forward-looking approach aimed at creating new value propositions in anticipation of the year 2050 [HO-3].

4.5. Comparative synthesis and interrelations

As a summary of the analyses undertaken in the previous sections, Table 2 presents for each manufacturer the main value prop­
osition for Maas, the most relevant aspects and short-term direction of each business model, and the future medium- to long-term
vision for digital mobility.
Table 3 illustrates the relationships between OEMs and their respective technology and services providers and partners in each
defined business model, along with a summary of degrees of control and dependence within each company.
In addition, the code co-occurrence maps resulting from the use of MAXQDA 2022 software are presented below. Fig. 2 illustrates
the interrelationships between each OEM and the various mobility business models. Figures 3a to 3d identify the interrelationships
between each of the four OEMs and other actors in the Mobility value chain (technology providers, technology partners, services
providers, and services partners).
These figures illustrate the trends of each manufacturer in a clear and logical manner. Volkswagen focuses on connectivity as the
main driver of its value proposition (Fig. 2). It maintains relatively high control over activities and works with few partners, relying on
technology providers to develop the business models (Fig. 3a). Stellantis prioritizes both connectivity and digital platforms (Fig. 2),
working with Amazon and other providers for development (Fig. 3b), which results in technological dependence on external com­
panies. Toyota is committed to promoting servitization of CAVs and car-sharing in addition to digital platforms and connectivity
(Fig. 2). It maintains relatively strong control over its core business models while collaborating with different actors in various areas
(Fig. 3c). Honda is fully oriented toward digital platforms and connectivity (Fig. 2), with heavy reliance on numerous technology
providers and partners (Fig. 3d).

5. Discussion

The results of this research indicate profound shifts in the mobility business models of automotive OEMs as well as in relationships
within the Mobility value chain during coming decades. These changes point to the need for future adaptation to emergent business
models by actors in the value chain, chiefly due to the introduction of disruptive technologies. In particular, the results confirm that
these changes will stem mainly from digitalization (Kraus et al., 2019; Ancillai et al., 2023; Shen, Sun and Parida, 2023) but also from a
highly interconnected market structured around the data collection and management, as required to offer high value-added services
adapted to users; this market is expected to continue expanding in size and complexity. On the other hand, the extant literature in­
dicates that digitalization does not impact all business models in the same way (Turienzo, Cabanelas and Lampón, 2023). Results show
that companies address mobility through differences in their value propositions, with an eye to the short-term, medium-term, and
long-term; the influence that digitalization exerts on business models will depend not only on each actor in the value chain but on the
relationships established among them. This supports the proposition of some research on digital servitization calling for future studies
to embrace dyadic or multi-firm perspectives (as opposed to traditional firm-centric views) to understand how companies are adopting

11
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

(and will continue to adopt) business models to offer value for customers (Ancillai et al., 2023).
In regard to business models, the results reveal differences for each case. Services linked to servitization of CAVs are being
addressed by all the OEMs, and this is in line with other research findings (Leminen et al., 2022; Ruiz de la Torre and Sánchez, 2022;
You, Sarpong and O’Regan, 2022). Moreover, results indicate that servitization will mainly be focused on business models related to
fleet services (e.g., logistics of goods) (Leminen et al., 2022) rather than models related to advanced-data-assisted solutions (e.g.,

Table 2
Summary of results related to business models.
Volkswagen Stellantis Toyota Honda

Main value Strong intention to create its Commitment to electric Betting on mobility Focus on offering multiple
proposition of own ecosystem, integrating all mobility and the exploitation servitization trough CAVs. services linked to connectivity.
Mobility as a mobility services. of software services.
Service
Services linked to Under development. Focused Under development. Strong commitment to CAVs. Under development. Focus on
CAVs on logistics. Commitment to light Focus on servitization through shared passenger mobility.
commercial vehicles to offer the e-palette model. Enabling
Delivery as a Service. multiple tasks via mobile app.
Digital platforms Own digital platform that Use of Amazon Web Services Own digital platform based on Use of Amazon Web Services
provides services for the cars platform, on which it offers its Amazon Web Services functions. platform. The data are used to
of Volkswagen customers; use marketplace. Use of the data The data is used by Toyota to offer the company’s own
of VW marketplace in which to offer its own services. offer its own services and allow services.
third-party companies will Stellantis also has a B2B third parties to extend offers.
deliver their services. platform to support companies
in their future transition to
electric mobility.
Services linked to Committed to being a content Committed to connectivity. Multiple devices for improving Commitment to connectivity.
connectivity provider. Seeks to create its Services chosen by the connectivity. Highlights Services by subscription.
own ecosystem. Interaction customer and paid for by include key encryption via
between vehicles; allows subscription. smartphone and the Early
software updates. Location services for charging detection, Early resolution
points through connectivity system.
for users of its electric
vehicles.
Car-sharing Not well developed, although Has two companies. One Owns companies that operate Not well developed, available
a plan exists for expansion. Stellantis-owned company is with its vehicles: presence in only in Japan. Implementation is
Includes a mobile app through devoted to professionals, with four European and two Latin not expected in other countries
which customers can book and presence in Paris and Madrid. American cities. in the future.
pay. Projected to expand over the Acquisition of car-sharing
next decade. Another companies to obtain future
company acquired from data linked to this service.
Mercedes and BMW (rollout in
16 European cities).
Complementary Of note is V2I connectivity, Rewards for sustainable Development of a door-to-door Commitment to connectivity-
services which allows traffic-light habits, in line with its medical service using CAVs. based services. One highlight is
status information. This commitment to electric crime prevention.
system, available in the U.S., mobility.
will be operating in Europe in
the near future.
Future medium-to Volkswagen is clear on the Stellantis forecasts that a large Toyota has a long-term vision Honda has a long-term vision
long-term importance of digitalization portion of its profits will extending to 2050. with sights set on 2050. The
vision for 2030. It intends to gain derive from digitally By 2040, it expects to fully OEM suggests that its digital
technological independence connected services in 2030. deploy its “Autono-MaaS” platform will interact not only
from providers and partners. This OEM is betting on data as concept, a vehicle platform with the vehicle but also with
Volkswagen’s projections for service, and its involvement of compatible with third-party infrastructures and traffic. The
2030 are quite ambitious in in data generation and autonomous driving for MaaS. goal is to amass a wealth of data,
the deployment of its software exploitation seems clear. Commitment to car-sharing as paving the way for vehicles to
and associated connected Stellantis expects more than part of Toyota’s global 2040 achieve complete connectivity
services, forecasting an 34 million connected vehicles vision is planned to evolve into with the environment from 2030
increase to 40 million by 2030 and that services a mobility company by onward.
software-connected vehicles. linked to connectivity will providing all services related In addition, in keeping with
increase revenues by US$19.6 to transportation. Honda’s intentions for services
billion. Building mobility for society linked to connectivity as
During the decade 2030 to represents a central axis, and remaining key to its future
2040, autonomous vehicles Toyota is actively working strategy, it aims to improve all
for Delivery as a Service are toward its 2050 vision by related applications by 2030.
expected to reach SAE Level 4, developing new connectivity
along with expansion of services to engage with society
Stellantis’ own car-sharing as a whole.
service.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

12
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

Table 3
Summary of results related to value chain actors.
Volkswagen Stellantis Toyota Honda

Technology Digital Platforms (Diconium) CAVs servitization (Waymo) Digital Platforms Digital Platforms (Amazon)
providers Connectivity Digital Platforms (Amazon) (Amazon) Connectivity (Amazon,
(Mobileye) Connectivity (Amazon) Apple, Google)
Technology CAVs servitization (ARGO.AI) Connectivity (TheF Charging, Kiri) CAVs servitization (Pony. CAVs servitization (Cruise,
partners ai) Teito Motors, Kokusai)
Digital Platforms (Hino,
Softbank)
Connectivity (Drivemode,
Sony, Neusoft)
Service providers CAVs servitization (Uber,
Pizza Hut, Amazon)
Service partners Car-sharing (MOIA) Car-sharing (Free2Move, Share-Now) Digital Platforms Car-sharing (EveryGO)
(MS&AD Insurance Group)
Car-sharing
(Kinto, Toyota Share, Hui,
Grab, Didi)
Degree of control Volkswagen maintains relatively Stellantis has many providers and Toyota has many Honda works with a large
and control and some dependence, partners. Special dependence on partners. Nevertheless, amount of technology
dependence working with few providers and Amazon as key provider in value- almost all are internal. providers and partners.
partners. added activities. Relatively control and Low control and high
Low control and high dependence. some dependence. dependence.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

improved driving, traffic flow and safety, lower fuel consumption) (Stocker and Shaheen, 2018). The results further indicate that
servitization of CAVs remains at an early stage. In fact, most OEMs are working toward a long-term vision in this field (2030 and
beyond), and its future development depends largely on the technology actors present in the value chain.
In terms of digital platforms – regardless of whether the support system is a company’s own or outsourced – all the OEMs under
study are using these to develop a marketplace to start offering services to users and third parties. Results confirm how these platforms
enable OEMs to carry out transactions related to different mobility solutions (Cusumano, Gawer and Yoffie, 2019; Steinberg, 2022),
but they also indicate the necessity of interrelations among multiple value chain actors to pursue these digital business models, not
only for the near future but for longer time horizons. This seems to be common knowledge among the OEMs – there is an evident
collective effort toward digitization, with long-term goals already in place. Moreover, these firms are aware that by 2030, nearly
one-third of their profits will derive from these initiatives. Many technology players and service providers are involved in developing
the functionalities and exploiting the mobility solutions linked to digital platforms. Therefore, these digital platforms involve diverse
actors that should be aligned in order to realize value propositions in the future; some authors have referred to such alignments as
“ecosystem business models” (de Vasconcelos Gomes et al., 2023).
Furthermore, the OEMs are offering multiple personalized services that will enhance user experiences linked to connectivity,
including for purposes of better car usage (e.g., information on vehicle condition, remote maintenance services) and entertainment (e.
g., varied content or access to social media), and in relation to a user’s personal preferences and daily life (e.g., voice assistance, home-
systems integration), as well as software updates that will be chosen by the customer and commonly paid for by subscription. This
confirms the forecasts of prior works which found the main services with the greatest impact on mobility business models to include
user-centric services, especially around personalization of the driving experience (Athanasopoulou et al., 2019). Expansion and
enhancement of this trend are expected over the coming decades, as all OEMs have planned complementary initiatives for beyond
2030.
The results highlight the notion that companies that obtain (and can manage and employ) data – as by means of systems installed in
connected vehicles of certain brands – will have a better capacity to develop business models based on that data during coming decades
(e.g., digital platforms, services linked to connectivity). The OEMs are betting on the potential of data as a service. In fact, certain
initiatives (such as the acquisition of car-sharing companies) are now being implemented to obtain future data linked to this devel­
opment. Moreover, the commitment to data generation and exploitation and the goal of amassing a greater wealth of data are included
in the future visions of these OEMs.
Despite the importance underscored by previous works on the share-economy and on capacity-generation in new business models
(Berman, 2012; Kraus et al., 2019), the results here presented indicate that initiatives being implemented by OEMs have a low impact
in terms of market penetration. In particular, OEMs are aware that future scenarios for urban mobility will necessarily require
car-sharing services (Mounce and Nelson, 2019), and they are promoting initiatives along those lines; but according to the findings,
current markets remain poorly developed and concentrated into very few cities. These results can be explained by the strong
competition present in those markets (Guzmán-Cuevas, Cáceres-Carrasco and Soriano, 2009). In a highly competitive setting of major
technological disruption, being the first to offer certain services demanded by users will be a key element in leading the associated
business models.
In terms of the relationships observed within the Mobility value chain, digitalization continues to be highly impactful, and it is
expected that this trend will both continue and intensify during the next decade. Indeed, the results suggest a paradigm shift from a

13
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

Fig. 2. Co-occurrence map, OEMs – Mobility business models.

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on the code co-occurrence map provided by MAXQDA 2022.

traditional approach focused on the product (vehicle) to a point where the Mobility value chain will instead be focused on digital
services and associated business models. In this context, guided by the intention to manage the future scenarios, companies are
attempting to maintain control over high value-added activities, especially those related to digital services (Schwabe, 2020; Turienzo,
Cabanelas and Lampón, 2022). However, future control over all such activities by OEMs is not a forgone conclusion. All remain
dependent on various technology and service providers and partners, indicating that decision-making power will be shared with those
actors.

6. Conclusions

Recent analyses of digital business models are focusing on the internal resources and capabilities of firms to adapt their value
propositions in a dynamic technological environment (Teece, 2019; Lanzolla and Markides, 2021). Contingency theory (Lanzolla and
Markides, 2021) and Dynamic Capabilities theory (Teece, 2019; Cabanelas et al., 2023) are serving as the main theoretical approaches
to explain the adoption of digital mobility business models. The present research instead adopts the GVC approach as a theoretical
framework to analyze these business models linked to digitalization, with emphasis on how OEMs are implementing such models. This
approach allows the integration of other variables and actors into analysis, beyond the resources and capabilities internal to firms,
thereby examining the broader question of which business models are being developed by the diverse firms within the Mobility value
chain. Moreover, this approach is also useful for forecasting trends and future scenarios. The method of analysis based on the GVC
approach focuses on the activities that define the distribution of value along the chain and the actors that perform those activities, thus
assisting in the identification of medium- to long-term future visions for digital mobility business models.

14
 H. Pérez-Moure et al.
15

Futures 156 (2024) 103309

Fig. 3. a to 3d: Co-occurrence maps, OEMs – Value chain actors.
Source: Authors’ elaboration based on the code co-occurrence map provided by MAXQDA 2022.
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

Based on analysis of the evolution of digital business models for mobility, several implications and challenges can be projected. In
their value propositions for MaaS, OEMs are pursuing leadership positions through the comprehensive development and offer of digital
mobility services, with interest in all aspects of mobility. Forecasts to 2030, 2040, and even 2050 all see the continued pursuit of these
goals. The results indicate that not all these services and associated business models will develop in similar ways. Digital platforms and
services linked to connectivity show great potential for OEMs, which can obtain the necessary data by means of the connected vehicles
of their brands. This collected data will serve as the generator of value for customers and therefore the increased enjoyment of those
digital services. In fact, all OEMs expect that in the coming decades, a third of their profits will derive from these digital mobility
services. However, initiatives by OEMs in the realm of car-sharing have shown relatively mild results in market penetration, and strong
future growth is not expected in this area, partly due to the difficulty of gaining market share from the global car-sharing giants that
currently dominate this business model. Even more uncertainty is found in business models linked to the servitization of CAVs, mainly
because OEMs do not control most activities related to those services, and no changes are expected even in the long-term. OEMs will in
this case remain strongly dependent on technology providers and partners, making strategic collaboration key to the successful
implementation of CAV servitization.
On the other hand, digitalization is reconfiguring not only mobility business models but also traditional relationships among actors
in the value chain. In these relationships, OEMs are less able to control value-added activities and must accept a certain level of
dependence on other actors. Powerful actors such as technology suppliers are taking advantage of opportunities while playing a vital
role that, according to the results, will not likely diminish in the short-term. Indeed, decision-making power among value chain
participants will likely be distributed more widely, and the decision-power structure will grow increasingly diffuse in coming decades.
Having closely reviewed the results of this research, significant implications become apparent for the long-term future. Despite
prevalent uncertainty, it is now widely acknowledged that a substantial portion of the revenue of OEMs will derive from digital sources
by the year 2030. The trend toward greater digitalization and servitization is compelling mobility companies to re-evaluate their
approach toward 2040 and 2050. These companies will no longer be solely automotive manufacturers but will progressively transform
into digital mobility enterprises. In this context, OEMs should focus investments on their own technological innovations, or on the
acquisition of technologies, especially around business models where the results show comparatively better degrees of adoption – in
digital platforms, services linked to connectivity, and related complementary services. Moreover, OEMs should promote and develop
strategic partnerships with key technology and service firms, dependence on which will condition the final adoption of digital mobility
services. Here an exhaustive process of evaluation of current partnerships and a selection of potential future partners would be
recommended.
On the one hand, the shift in digitalization strategy also has geographical implications, as countries with higher levels of digita­
lization become more attractive to mobility companies seeking strategic partnerships. In fact, results highlight that digital mobility
services are being (and will continue to be) more broadly implemented in developed countries (Japan, the U.S., European nations).
Extending the time-frame to 2050, all countries (and especially less developed ones) should accelerate and enhance digitalization
efforts in order to strengthen the future adoption of these digital business models. On the other hand, policies for decarbonization seem
to be having a positive impact on digitalization and servitization – a key aspect, given that decarbonization will remain a clear priority
until at least 2050. The results show that the deployment of electric vehicles has been accompanied by certain digital mobility services
such as environmentally friendly car-sharing (ride-pooling systems), location of charging points through connectivity, remote battery
monitoring (charge levels and performance), electric driving efficiency services that reward drivers with sustainable habits, and
platforms to support companies in their transition to electric mobility.
Finally, additional analysis of long-term developments would assist in the drawing of robust recommendations and the suggestion
of future lines of research in the field. Of particular interest would be insights into how cooperative relationships might be established
with key actors, along with the definition of a better framework for collaboration. Such a framework should derive from in-depth
analysis of key elements found in agreements (typology, terms and conditions, practices developed) currently established by OEMs
and other actors, as well as impact-analysis of the performance of particular business models, considering both traditional metrics
(such as quality of service or customer satisfaction) and digital metrics (such as online capabilities or the number online subscribers).

Annex

Data sources.

Case Source [Identification of the document] Document analyzed

Volkswagen https://www.volkswagen- ⋅[VW-1] NEW AUTO: Volkswagen Group set to unleash value in battery-electric autonomous mobility world.
newsroom.com ⋅[VW-2] Volkswagen and Hamburg extend strategic mobility partnership.
⋅[VW-3] Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles moves ahead with Autonomous Driving R&D for Mobility as a
Service.
https://www.volkswagenag. ⋅[VW-4] Volkswagen invests in digital specialist Diconium.
com ⋅[VW-5] Leadership in Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS).
⋅[VW-6] Volkswagen Delivers on NEW AUTO Strategy, Laying Basis for 2022.
⋅[VW-7] How Volkswagen Automotive Cloud will help shape the connected car of tomorrow.
⋅[VW-8] Volkswagen partners with MILES Mobility to accelerate expansion of car sharing portfolio
www.greencarcongress.com ⋅[VW-9] Volkswagen lays out its NEW AUTO strategy: transforming from manufacturer to software-driven
mobility provider; Scalable Systems Platform
(continued on next page)

16
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

(continued )
Stellantis https://www.media.stellantis. ⋅[ST-1] Dare Forward 2030.
com ⋅[ST-2] Stellantis and TheF Charging announce partnership to create new public charging network in Europe.
⋅[ST-3] B2B ELECTRIC PLACE: the new digital platform by Stellantis to assist companies in their mobility
transition towards electrification.
⋅[ST-4] FIAT celebrates the success of the New 500′s “KIRI” project and introduces the new FIAT e.Coins.
⋅[ST-5] Stellantis and TheF Charging expand their public charging network via an agreement with Metropark,
an FS Italiane Group company.
⋅[ST-6] Amazon and Stellantis Collaborate to Introduce Customer-Centric Connected Experiences Across
Millions of Vehicles, Helping Accelerate Stellantis’ Software Transformation.
⋅[ST-7] FCA and Waymo Further Expand Autonomous Driving Technology Partnership and Sign Exclusive
Agreement for Light Commercial Vehicles.
https://www.stellantis.com/ ⋅[ST-8] 2021 Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Powered By Our Diversity, We Lead the Way the World
Moves.
⋅[ST-9] Stellantis to Launch “Freedom of Mobility Forum” to Address the Most Urgent Mobility Issues Facing
Today’s Society.
https://www.bloomberg.com ⋅[ST-10] Stellantis to Buy Mercedes and BMW’s Car-Sharing Venture.
Toyota https://global.toyota/en ⋅[TO-1] Toyota Unveils New Technology That Will Change the Future of Cars.
⋅[TO-2] Toyota’s Connected & MaaS Strategy.
⋅[TO-3] Toyota Shows e-Palette Geared Towards Practical MaaS Applications.
⋅[TO-4] Reforming Our Company to Become a "Mobility Company".
⋅[TO-5] Toyota Expands Collaboration in Mobility as a Service (MaaS) with Didi Chuxing, a Leading Ride-
hailing Platform.
⋅[TO-6] Sustainability Data Book. The latest version.
⋅[TO-7] Toyota Advances Mobility as a Service Strategy with Strategic Investment and Collaboration with Grab,
the leading Ride-hailing Company in Southeast Asia.
https://pressroom.toyota.com ⋅[TO-8] Toyota Launches New Mobility Ecosystem and Concept Vehicle at 2018 CES®.
⋅[TO-9] Toyota Connected Europe to bring advanced mobility services to the European market.
⋅[TO-10] Toyota launches KINTO, a single brand for mobility services in Europe.
https://asia.nikkei.com ⋅[TO-11] Toyota to launch new corporate car-sharing service in Europe.
https://www.forbes.com ⋅[TO-12] Toyota’s Vision for Self-Driving: A Robot Pod Van and Uber, Amazon Collaboration.
https://www.bloomberg.com ⋅[TO-13] Toyota Targets Big Fleets With Connected-Car Push Into Europe.
⋅[TO-14] Toyota invests US$400 m in Pony.ai to Deepen Driverless Pact startup.
https://www.just-auto.com ⋅[TO-15] Toyota outlines future as a ‘mobility services provider.
Honda https://www.honda.co.jp/ ⋅[HO-1] ITS World Congress. Experience Future Mobility Now. Hamburgo.
⋅[HO-2] My Honda Plus. Core connectivity.
⋅[HO-3] Honda Sustainability Report 2020. Direction for Realizing the 2030 Vision.
⋅[HO-4] EveryGo Honda Carsharing Service.
https://global.honda/newsroom ⋅[HO-5] Honda Signs Memorandum of Understanding with Teito Motor Transportation and kokusai motorcars
as Part of Aim to Launch Autonomous Vehicle Mobility Service in Central Tokyo.
⋅[HO-6] Honda to Begin Battery Sharing Service for Electric Tricycle Taxis in India in the First Half of 2022.
⋅[HO-7] Honda, Cruise and GM Take Next Steps Toward Autonomous Vehicle Mobility Service Business in
Japan.
https://hondanews.eu ⋅[HO-8] Honda and Google Collaborate on In-vehicle Connected Services.
⋅[HO-9] Honda Establishes Hynex Mobility Service, a New Joint Venture Company, to Accelerate
Advancements Toward Next-generation Connected Services Business in China.
⋅[HO-10] Honda Acquires Drivemode, Developer of Smartphone Apps for Drivers.
https://www.sony.com ⋅[HO-11] Sony and Honda Sign Joint Venture Agreement to Establish New Company, "Sony Honda Mobility
Inc.", to Engage in Mobility Business.
https://www.hino-global.com ⋅[HO-12] MONET Forms Capital and Business Partnership with Hino Motors and Honda
https://telefonicatech.com ⋅[HO-13] Telefonica IoT and Honda about reduce motorbike robbery.
https://aws.amazon.com ⋅[HO-14] Honda Builds Serverless Connected Car Platform for Millions of Cars on AWS. Honda Case Study –
AWS.
https://www.just-auto.com ⋅[HO-15] Hino, Honda, join Monet mobility partnership.

Note: Table contains titles of publications consulted as well as their original sources. The complete reference for each source has not been included but
can be identified from the information given.
Source: Authors’ elaboration

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Pérez-Moure Hugo: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Lampón Jesús F.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,
Investigation, Validation. Cabanelas Pablo: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization,
Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

17
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Spanish Ministry of Science Innovation and Universities, (grant number: PID2020-116040RB-I00), and
by Xunta de Galicia (grant number: GPC-ED431B 2022/10). University of Vigo and CISUG funded for open access charge.

References

ACEA (2022). R&D investment by industry and world region. Available at: 〈https://www.acea.auto/nav/?content=figures〉.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 493–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.187
Ancillai, C., Sabatini, A., Gatti, M., & Perna, A. (2023). Digital technology and business model innovation: A systematic literature review and future research agenda.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188, Article 122307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122307
Arias-Molinares, D., & García-Palomares, J. C. (2020). The Ws of MaaS: Understanding mobility as a service from a literature review. IATSS Research, 44(3), 253–263.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2020.02.001
Athanasopoulou, A., de Reuver, M., Nikou, S., & Bouwman, H. (2019). What technology enabled services impact business models in the automotive industry? An
exploratory study. Futures, 109, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.04.001
Barreto, L., Amaral, A., & Baltazar, S. (2020). Mobility in the era of digitalization: thinking Mobility as a Service (MaaS). In R. Goncalves, V. Sgurev, V. Jotsov, &
J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Intelligent systems: theory, research, and innovation in applications. Studies in computational intelligence (pp. 275–293). Cham: Springer.
Becker, H., Balac, M., Ciari, F., & Axhausen, K. W. (2020). Assessing the welfare impacts of shared mobility and mobility as a service (MaaS). Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice, 131, 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.027
Berman, S. J. (2012). Digital transformation: opportunities to create new business models. Strategy & Leadership, 40(2), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/
10878571211209314
Bezai, N. E., Medjdoub, B., Al-Habaibeh, A., Chalal, M. L., & Fadli, F. (2021). Future cities and autonomous vehicles: analysis of the barriers to full adoption. Energy
and Built Environment, 2(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbenv.2020.05.002
Bratton, B. H. (2016). Platform and stack, model and machine. The Stack. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press,.
Butler, L., Yigitcanlar, T., & Paz, A. (2021). Barriers and risks of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) adoption in cities: A systematic review of the literature. Cities, 109,
Article 103036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.103036
Cabanelas, P., Parkhurst, G., Thomopoulos, N., & Lampón, J. F. (2023). A dynamic capability evaluation of emerging business models for new mobility. Research in
Transportation Business & Management. , Article 100964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2023.100964
Cassell, C., Cunliffe, A. L., & Grandy, G. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods. Limited: Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications,.
Cohen, M. A., & Kouvelis, P. (2021). Revisit of AAA excellence of global value chains: robustness, resilience, and realignment. Production and Operations Management,
30(3), 633–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13305
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Limited,.
Creswell, J. (2015). 30 essential skills for the qualitative researcher. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE,.
Cusumano, M. A. (2010). Staying power: six enduring principles for managing strategy and innovation in an uncertain world (lessons from Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Google,
Toyota and more). Oxford: Oxford University Press,.
Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2019). The Business of platforms: strategy in the age of digital competition, innovation, and power. Boston, MA:
HarperBusiness,.
Ellen, D., Day, S., & Davies, C. (2018). Scientific examination of documents: methods and techniques. London: CRC Press,.
de Vasconcelos Gomes, L. A., Farago, F. E., Facin, A. L. F., Flechas, X. A., & Silva, L. E. N. (2023). From open business model to ecosystem business model: A processes
view. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, Article 122668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122668
Elliott, V. (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2850–2861.
Focas, C., & Christidis, P. (2017). Peak Car in Europe? Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 531–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.437
Fournier, G. (2017). The new mobility paradigm. Transformation of value chain and value proposition through innovations. Cham: Springer,.
Focus2Move (2023). Top selling auto brands 2022. All brands in top 10 post losses. Available at: 〈https://www.focus2move.com/world-cars-brand-ranking/〉.
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09692290500049805
Gereffi, G., & Fernandez-Stark, K. (2011). Global value chain analysis: a primer. Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness, Duke University North
Carolina, USA.
Gordijn, J., & Akkermans, H. (2001). Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(4), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/5254.941353
Gschwendtner, C., Sinsel, S. R., & Stephan, A. (2021). Vehicle-to-X (V2X) implementation: An overview of predominate trial configurations and technical, social and
regulatory challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, Article 110977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110977
Guyader, H., & Piscicelli, L. (2019). Business model diversification in the sharing economy: The case of GoMore. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 1059–1069.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.114
Guzmán-Cuevas, J., Cáceres-Carrasco, R., & Soriano, D. R. (2009). Functional dependence and productive dependence of SMEs. Small Business Economics, 32(3),
317–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9115-0
Hensher, D. A., Mulley, C., & Nelson, J. D. (2021). Mobility as a service (MaaS)–Going somewhere or nowhere? Transport Policy, 111, 153–156. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.07.021
Hind, S., Kanderske, M., & van der Vlist, F. (2022). Making the car “platform ready”: How big tech is driving the platformization of automobility. Social Media +
Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221098697
Humphrey, J., & Memedovic, O. (2003). The global automotive industry value chain: what prospects for upgrading by developing countries. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.424560
Humphrey, J., & Schmitz, H. (2002). How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading industrial clusters? Regional Studies, 36(9), 1017–1027.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/
smj.2904
Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Feneri, A. M., Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S., Alonso-González, M. J., Jittrapirom, P., Marchau, V., van der Heijden, R., & Meurs, H. (2020).
Future implementation of mobility as a service (MaaS): Results of an international Delphi study. Travel Behaviour and Society, 21, 281–294. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tbs.2018.12.004
Krafft, M., Kumar, V., Harmeling, C., Singh, S., Zhu, T., Chen, J., Duncan, T., Fortin, W., & Rosa, E. (2021). Insight is power: Understanding the terms of the consumer-
firm data exchange. Journal of Retailing, 97(1), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2020.11.001
Kraus, S., Palmer, C., Kailer, N., Kallinger, F. L., & Spitzer, J. (2019). Digital entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(2),
353–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2018-0425
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Limited,.
Lagadic, M., Verloes, A., & Louvet, N. (2019). Can carsharing services be profitable? A critical review of established and developing business models. Transport Policy,
77, 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.02.006

18
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

Lampón, J. F., Cabanelas, P., & Delgado-Guzmán, J. A. (2018). Claves en la evolución de México dentro de la cadena de valor global de la industria de autopartes. El
caso del Bajío. El Trimestre Económico, 85(339), 483–514. https://doi.org/10.20430/ete.v85i339.259
Lampón, J. F., Rodríguez-De La Fuente, M., & Fraiz-Brea, J. A. (2022). The dilemma of domestic suppliers on the periphery of the automotive industry global value
chain. Kybernetes, 51(12), 3637–3655. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2021-0073
Leminen, S., Rajahonka, M., Wendelin, R., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A. (2022). Autonomous vehicle solutions and their digital servitization business models.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 185, Article 122070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122070
Lanzolla, G., & Markides, C. (2021). A business model view of strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 540–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12580
Llopis-Albert, C., Rubio, F., & Valero, F. (2021). Impact of digital transformation on the automotive industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, Article
120343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120343
Malanowski, N., Tübke, A., Dosso, M., & Potters, L. (2021). Deriving new anticipation-based policy instruments for attracting research and development and
innovation in global value chains to Europe. Futures, 128, Article 102712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102712
Medina, E., Mazaira, A., & Alén, E. (2022). Innovation in the broadcasters’ business model: A bibliometric and review approach. European Research on Management and
Business Economics, 28(3), Article 100202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2022.100202
Meyer, C. B. (2001). A case in case study methodology. Field Methods, 13(4), 329–352. 〈https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822×0101300402〉.
Michelini, L., & Fiorentino, D. (2012). New business models for creating shared value. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(4), 561–577. 〈https://doi.org/10.1108/
17471111211272129〉.
Mounce, R., & Nelson, J. (2019). On the potential for one-way electric vehicle car-sharing in future mobility systems. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 120, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.12.003
Ngulube, P. (2015). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation: systematic search for meaning. Addressing research challenges: making headway for developing researchers
(pp. 131–156). Noordywk: Mosala-MASEDI Publishers & Booksellers,.
Nicovich, S. G., Dibrell, C. C., & Davis, P. S. (2007). Integration of value chain position and Porter’s (1980) competitive strategies into the market orientation
conversation: an examination of upstream and downstream activities. Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 13(2), 91–106.
Novikova, O. (2017). The sharing economy and the future of personal mobility: New models based on car sharing. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(8),
27–31.
Osterrieder, P. (2021). Customer relationship management and the value network. In T. Friedli, P. Osterrieder, & M. Classen (Eds.), Managing industrial services (pp.
115–133). Cham: Springer.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken: Wiley,.
Ozatagan, G. (2011). Dynamics of value chain governance: increasing supplier competence and changing power relations in the periphery of automotive production-
Evidence from Bursa, Turkey. European Planning Studies, 19(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.530393
Palos-Sánchez, P., Saura, J. R., Velicia-Martín, F., & Cepeda-Carrion, G. (2021). A business model adoption based on tourism innovation: Applying a gratification
theory to mobile applications. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 27(2), Article 100149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2021.100149
Pérez-Moure, H., Lampón, J. F., Velando-Rodríguez, E. M., & Rodríguez-Comesaña, L. (2023). Revolutionizing the road: How sustainable, autonomous, and connected
vehicles are changing digital mobility business models. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 29(3), Article 100230. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.iedeen.2023.100230
Pietrobelli, C., & Saliola, F. (2008). Power relationships along the value chain: multinational firms, global buyers and performance of local suppliers. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 32(6), 947–962. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ben016
Prasad, B. D. (2008). Content analysis, Research Methods for. Social Work, 5, 1–20.
Punch, K. (2014). Introduction to social research. London: SAGE,.
PwC (2018). The 2018 global innovation 1000 study. Available at: 〈https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/gx/en/insights/innovation1000.
html#GlobalKeyFindingsTabs2〉.
Roulston, K., & Choi, M. (2018). Qualitative interviews. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Limited,.
Ruiz de la Torre, A., & Sanchez, D. (2022). Evolution of servitization: new business model opportunities. International Journal of Production Management and
Engineering, 10(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2022.16719
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Limited,.
Santos, C., Coelho, A., & Marques, A. (2023). A systematic literature review on greenwashing and its relationship to stakeholders: state of art and future research
agenda. Management Review Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00337-5
Shen, L., Sun, W., & Parida, V. (2023). Consolidating digital servitization research: A systematic review, integrative framework, and future research directions.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 191, Article 122478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122478
Shammut, M., Imran, M., & Hasan, S. F. (2023). Automated mobilities and society: Why do social meanings matter? Cities, 132, Article 104110. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cities.2022.104110
Schmitt, A., & Biesebroeck, J. V. (2017). In-house production versus specific forms of supplier governance: testing predictions of the global value chains model.
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 17(1), 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJATM.2017.082277
Shashishekar, M. S., Anand, S., & Paul, A. K. (2022). Proactive market orientation and business model innovation to attain superior new smart connected products
performance. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37(3), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2020-0102
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Limited,.
Schwabe, J. (2020). Risk and counter-strategies: The impact of electric mobility on German automotive suppliers. Geoforum, 110, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geoforum.2020.02.011
Srinivasa, R. K., & Rajat, A. (2012). Designing case studies from secondary sources – A conceptual framework. International Management Review, 8(2), 63–70.
Steinberg, M. (2022). From automobile capitalism to platform capitalism: Toyotism as a prehistory of digital platforms. Organization Studies, 43(7), 1069–1090.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211030681
Stocker, A., & Shaheen, S. (2018). Shared automated mobility: early exploration and potential impacts. In G. Meyer, & S. Beiker (Eds.), Road vehicle automation 4 (pp.
125–139). Cham: Springer.
Sturgeon, T., Van Biesebroeck, J., & Gereffi, G. (2008). Value chains, networks, and clusters: reframing the global automotive industry. Journal of Economic Geography,
8(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn007
Sturgeon, T. J., Memedovic, O., Van Biesebroeck, J., & Gereffi, G. (2009). Globalisation of the automotive industry: main features and trends. International Journal of
Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 2(1-2), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTLID.2009.021954
Svennevik, E. M. C., Dijk, M., & Arnfalk, P. (2021). How do new mobility practices emerge? A comparative analysis of car-sharing in cities in Norway, Sweden, and the
Netherlands. Energy Research & Social Science, 82, Article 102305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102305
Taipale-Erävala, K., Salmela, E., & Lampela, H. (2020). Towards a new business model canvas for platform businesses in two-sided markets. Journal of Business Models,
8(3), 107–125. 〈https://search.proquest.com/docview/2555702488〉.
Teece, D. J. (2019). China and the reshaping of the auto industry: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Management and Organization Review, 15(1), 177–199.
Thread in Motion (2021). Top 10 biggest car manufacturers by revenue. Available at: 〈https://www.threadinmotion.com/blog/top-10-biggest-car-manufacturers-by-
revenue〉.

19
H. Pérez-Moure et al. Futures 156 (2024) 103309

Tori, S., Te Boveldt, G., & Keseru, I. (2023). Building scenarios for urban mobility in 2030: The combination of cross-impact balance analysis with participatory
stakeholder workshops. Futures, 150, Article 103160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103160
Turienzo, J., Cabanelas, P., & Lampón, J. F. (2022). The mobility industry trends through the lens of the social analysis: A Multi-Level Perspective Approach. SAGE
Open, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211069145
Turienzo, J., Cabanelas, P., & Lampón, J. F. (2023). Business models in times of disruption: the connected and autonomous vehicles (uncertain) domino effect. Journal
of Business Research, 156, Article 113481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113481
Vangjel, X. (2021). New business models generated by technological innovation. Analele Universităţii Din Oradea Ştiinţe Economice, 30(2), 26–34. https://doi.org/
10.47535/1991AUOES30(2)002
White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45.
Yi, K. (2003). Can vertical specialization explain the growth of world trade? Journal of Political Economy, 111(1), 52–102. https://doi.org/10.1086/344805
Yin, R. K. (2014). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Limited,.
You, W., Sarpong, D., & O’Regan, N. (2022). Global value chains in a digitalized era. Strategic Change, 31(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2476
Zhou, M., Le, D. T., Nguyen-Phuoc, D. Q., Zegras, P. C., & Ferreira, J. (2021). Simulating impacts of Automated Mobility-on-Demand on accessibility and residential
relocation. Cities, 118, Article 103345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103345

20