Master thesis

Thesis in Industrial Management IN7002

30hp

Business models for charging point

operators in heavy battery electric
vehicles market: A technological innovation
system (TIS) case study in South Sweden

Halmstad 2022-06-19
Authors: Max Ackermann, Jesper Åkesson
Abstract
This thesis combines technological innovation systems with business
models in a qualitative case study regarding charging point operators for
heavy battery electric vehicles in south Sweden. The heavy battery electric
vehicle market is still in early development in Sweden, and the development
of public charging stations for heavy battery electric vehicles is low. The
case study is developed from several qualitative interviews with relevant
actors regarding the system for heavy battery electric vehicle charging
stations. The case study delivers an empirical understanding of the heavy
battery electric vehicles market system in south Sweden through a
technological innovation system, as well as developing the technological
innovation system literature to give regulatory and direct recommendations
to the actor in focus. These recommendations were based on barriers for
charging point operator business models, where the recommendations to
charging point operators are on components to business models that can
mitigate these barriers. The regulatory recommendations provided are more
traditional to the technological innovation system literature. The
combination of the technological innovation system and business model
literature has also provided the ability to give a more in-depth analysis of
business models for actors in new emerging markets.
Keywords: Technology innovations system; Business models; CPO; HBEV
HBEV Heavy Battery Electric Vehicle
BEV Battery Electric Vehicle

EV Electric Vehicle
HV Heavy Vehicle

TIS Technological Innovation System

CPO Charging Point Operator

HVO Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil

V2G Vehicle To Grid

2
Preface
The authors thank our supervisor Eugenia Vico Perez for her support during
this thesis. We would also like to thank Mike Danilovic and Simon Sandahl
for their assistance and support during and before the thesis.

3
Table of contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 7
1.1 Problematization ................................................................................... 8
1.2 Research question ............................................................................... 10
1.3 Limitations .......................................................................................... 10
2. Context .................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Theoretical context ............................................................................. 11
2.1.1 Business model Innovation .......................................................... 11
2.1.2 Business models ........................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Technological innovation system ................................................ 12
2.1.4 Functions ...................................................................................... 13
2.1.5 Business models with Technology innovation system ................ 14
2.2 Empirical context ............................................................................... 15
2.2.1 Electric vehicles and charging technologies ................................ 15
2.2.2 Charging infrastructure ................................................................ 15
2.2.3 Business models for CPOs........................................................... 16
3. Method .................................................................................................. 18
3.1 Research philosophy........................................................................... 18
3.2 Research approach .............................................................................. 18
3.3 Research strategy ................................................................................ 18
3.4 Research choice .................................................................................. 18
3.5 Time horizon ...................................................................................... 19
3.6 Techniques and procedures ................................................................ 19
3.6.1 Primary Data ................................................................................ 19
3.6.2 Secondary Data ............................................................................ 21
3.6.3 Analysis ....................................................................................... 21
3.7 Research Quality and Ethics ............................................................... 24
4. Data ....................................................................................................... 26
4.1 Business models ................................................................................. 26
4.1.1 Value proposition: ....................................................................... 26
4.1.2 Value Creation: ............................................................................ 26
4.1.3 Value Capture: ............................................................................. 27
4.2 TIS ...................................................................................................... 27

4
 4.2.1 Actors and networks .................................................................... 27
4.2.2 Institutions ................................................................................... 28
4.2.3 Knowledge development and diffusion ....................................... 28
4.2.4 Influence on the direction of search ............................................. 28
4.2.5 Entrepreneurial experimentation.................................................. 31
4.2.6 Market formation ......................................................................... 32
4.2.7 Legitimation ................................................................................. 34
4.2.8 Resource mobilization ................................................................. 35
4.2.9 Development of positive externalities ......................................... 36
4.3 Blocking mechanisms ......................................................................... 36
4.3.1 Grid infrastructure ....................................................................... 36
4.3.2 Grid cost structure ........................................................................ 37
4.3.3 Adoption ...................................................................................... 37
4.3.4 Battery swapping ......................................................................... 38
4.3.5 Interoperability ............................................................................ 38
5. Discussion ................................................................................................ 39
5.1 Business models ................................................................................. 39
5.2 Technological innovation system ....................................................... 39
5.3 Blocking mechanisms ......................................................................... 40
5.4 Recommendations .............................................................................. 40
5.4.1 Business models ........................................................................... 40
Grid infrastructure ................................................................................ 40
Gird cost structure ................................................................................. 40
Adoption ............................................................................................... 41
Battery swapping .................................................................................. 41
Interoperability ..................................................................................... 41
5.4.2 Regulations .................................................................................. 42
Grid infrastructure ................................................................................ 42
Gird cost structure ................................................................................. 42
Adoption ............................................................................................... 42
Interoperability ..................................................................................... 43
Battery swapping .................................................................................. 43
5.5 Theory ................................................................................................ 43

5
6. Conclusions .............................................................................................. 45
6.1 Findings for CPOs business models ................................................... 45
6.2 Findings for regulators ....................................................................... 46
6.3 Future research ................................................................................... 47
References ....................................................................................................... I
Appendices .................................................................................................... V

6
 1. Introduction
Climate change awareness is increasing and affecting many sectors, not at
least the transport sector which is facing significant changes in the coming
years to reach the goals set by the Paris agreement. To reach the Paris
agreement the Swedish transport sector needs to lower its emission of CO2
by 70 percent by the year 2030 and be total emission neutral by 2045 (MoE,
2018) This can be achieved by completely replacing all combustion engine
vehicles with electric vehicles (Monios & Bergqvist, 2020). Passenger cars
have come a long way in this transition, but trucks have fallen behind (Ford
& Hardy, 2020). Now two Swedish truck manufacturers, Volvo trucks and
Scania, have started to produce electric trucks. Volvo trucks offered their
first battery-electric trucks to the market in 2021 (Volovtrucks, 2022). Both
companies will offer battery and fuel cell electric trucks to the market in the
coming years, but problems still need to be solved for the transport sector to
reach the Paris agreement. These problems are mainly charging/refueling
infrastructure for the new types of trucks and the renewable energy
production together with the grid infrastructure needed to make this
transition a reality (Monios & Bergqvist, 2020; ACEA, 2021; Furszyfer Del
Rio et al., 2020). To tackle these problems, the Swedish government has
devised an action plan (elektrifieringslöften) and, together with companies,
build infrastructure needed for the transition to carbon-free transport. This
thesis will mainly focus on electric truck charging infrastructure, but it will
not completely ignore the energy infrastructure since they will affect each
other.

For charging infrastructure, there are different technologies and solutions

for different types of Heavy battery electric vehicles (HBEV), such as
plugin charging and battery swapping. These have been tested and
technically work; now, companies that will build the infrastructure have a
decision to make, what type of infrastructure to choose and how the
business models will look (Danilovic & Liu, 2021; Du et al., 2018). We will
in this thesis focus on charging point operators (CPOs) for HBEV and
therefore not consider hydrogen or electric road systems. In order to make
this decision more than the technical aspects need to be taken into
consideration, CPOs must look at the complete business model for these
different infrastructure solutions. We will interview companies and
organizations in Sweden that are standing in front of these business
decisions. This is to gain an insight into the barriers to the electrification of
heavy transport.
There have been studies done on different types of electric trucks. However,
it lacks studies comparing the different charging infrastructures, especially
with the implication of each connected business model from the
infrastructure owner's perspective. This study will identify barriers to
infrastructure development for electric trucks in South Sweden, more
7
precisely in energy zone three and four. There are two types of charging
infrastructures public and private. This thesis will only focus on the public
charging/refueling infrastructure.
This thesis combines business models with technological innovation system
(TIS) to find barriers for CPOs for HBEVs business models and solutions to
these barriers. This is achieved by constructing the TIS to get a system view
and related actors that affect CPOs. A technological innovation system is a
tool to understand and illustrate the performance and system dynamics of a
system. This is done by a analyse of seven different fuctions in the TIS
(Bergek, Jacobsson, Carlsson, Lindmark & Rickne, 2008). An analysis of
the different functions will find blocking mechanisms that hinder the
development of the overall TIS. This thesis has combined the TIS with
business models and has based the blocking mechanisms on barriers for
CPOs business models. The objective of the combination of TIS and
business model is to develop a deeper understanding of what causes the
barriers for CPOs in this uncertain and emerging market. With this
understanding, we can find components in CPOs business models that will
mitigate the barriers in the system. This will be translated to
recommendations for CPOs which will be a development of the TIS
literature that otherwise only gives regulatory recommendations (Bergek,
2019).

1.1 Problematization
Electric vehicles have been sold and used for years and have improved with
time. With higher energy capacity and faster charging, electric vehicles are
more viable in modern society compared to the internal combustion engine
vehicle (Ford & Hardy, 2020). A specific vehicle that has begun to gain
traction is the heavy battery electric vehicle (HBEV). An electric vehicle
that can transport materials, food, and others, a change can come to the
transport industry relating to emissions. One thing still lacking for electric
trucks is the infrastructure that can efficiently charge these vehicles (ACEA,
2021). The technology that enables charging to heavy battery electric
vehicles already exists (Monios & Bergqvist, 2020). Even though the
technology for HBEV and charging exist, HBEV is not widely adopted in
the Swedish context. The report seeks to find out why HBEV has low
adoption in Sweden. The report will gather information from actors in the
field to understand why and what barriers stand in the way of electrification
of heavy transport.
In south Sweden there are energy shortages with increasing electricity prices
and unstable power supply. Specifically in the energy zones 3 and 4 in
Sweden. The report has this as a focus because energy zones 3 and 4 are

8
similar in energy shortage except in the southern part of energy zone 4,
where the shortness of energy peaks in Sweden. From the perspective of
transport energy zone 3 and 4 contains the most trafficked roads in Sweden
for trucks, these roads being E 20, E6 and E 4. From the infrastructure
development perspective for electrified trucks, these roads will be of interest
to companies developing electrification infrastructure (ACEA, 2021).
When observing how HBEVs are used today, the routes set for HBEVs are
often short and are charged by private charging infrastructure. To be able to
compete with ICE trucks public charging infrastructure is required for
longer routes. According to ACEA 10,000-15,000 charging points need to
be built in Europe by 2025 and 40,000-50,000 by 2030. This is to provide
public charging to the projected 270,000 HBEV for 2030. With this
realization and information a key actor in the electrification of Heavy
transport is the charging point operator (CPO). A CPO is the actor that
maintains and profits from public charging stations. The perspective of
CPOs on the barriers to establishing public charging infrastructure can give
insights into what areas need improvement.
The CPO does not act in a vacuum; some other factors and actors are
essential in the electrification of heavy transport. Therefore an approach to
gain insight into the barriers facing electrification of transport needs to
consider the factors and actors that face CPOs when charging infrastructure
is being developed. This is to understand the system that the CPO acts
within and the factors that affect them that also consider the new emergent
technology.
There are many issues facing the electrification of heavy transport in
Sweden. To understand these issues and to be able to provide the
infrastructure for HBEV the actor that becomes interesting in the Swedish
context is the CPO. To understand how the electrification of heavy transport
affects the CPO a technological innovation system will be used. The TIS
will provide the system in which the business models will operate to better
understand how their surroundings affect them. Bergek (2012) brings up
that many empirical TISs lack analyses of three functions: entrepreneurial
experimentation, market formation, and development of positive
externalities. The solution that Bergek brings up to this problem is to move
into a more qualitative analysis to develop the TIS so that the analyzer can
genuinely understand the functional dynamics in a TIS and how different
mechanisms effects each function; this can only be achieved through case
study work. This is what we aim to do in our thesis, where we will use a
qualitative case study to gather information to develop a TIS where we do
not lose focus on the function's entrepreneurial experimentation, market
formation, and development of positive externalities.

9
1.2 Research question
What barriers for Charging point operators' business models can be
identified using a technological innovation system?

1.3 Limitations
• The thesis is limited to the south Swedish context, energy zones 3
and 4.
• The thesis is limited to CPOs for Heavy battery electric vehicles.
• The thesis is limited to public charging infrastructure.

10
 2. Context

2.1 Theoretical context

2.1.1 Business model Innovation
Business model innovation is a novel process of deliberately changing one
or more components in a business model to create and capture value
(Frankenberger et al., 2013).
According to Cavalcante et al. (2011), there are four business model
changes. These are business model creation, business model extension,
business model revision, and business model termination. Business model
creation is the creation of a new business model, which only includes new
ventures. The business model extension is the process of adding activities to
an existing BM without changing the core business logic. We will use the
same interpretation as used by Chasin et al. (2020) that in addition to the
definition by Cavalcante et al. (2011), multiple business models can be
created and used in one single company at the same time (Sabatier et al.,
2010). This means that an established company that starts a new business
model will be seen as a business model extension, including cooperative
spin-offs and the accusation of existing venturers. Business model revision
is a radical and disruptive change that fundamentally reshapes the business
model. Business model termination is the complete elimination of the whole
business model or some business activities (Cavalcante et al., 2011). We
will use this categorization to look in the literature for business model
innovations regarding infrastructure for electric trucks.

2.1.2 Business models

Business models represent how a company delivers, creates, and captures
value in a simplified way. They are a template of a company's business logic
and are used to see how a company generates profits from business
activities by making them visible, analyzable, and manageable
(Osterwalder, 2004; Teece, 2010).
The conceptualizations divide a business model into different building
blocks with different value dimensions: value proposition, value creation,
value capture, and value delivery (Peters et al., 2015; Günzel & Holm,
2013; Bocken et al., 2014). The value proposition is the core component,
including the products and services offered and how these fill the customer
needs. Value creation and value delivery include customer channels,
customer relationships, and infrastructures such as activities, resources, and
partnerships. Revenue streams and cost structure goes under value capture.
(Osterwalder, 2004; Bocken et al., 2014)

11
2.1.3 Technological innovation system
A technological innovation system (TIS) is an analytical construct used to
understand and illustrate performance and system dynamics. TIS is built up
of three components that contribute to developing, diffusing, and utilizing
new goods, services, and processes: actors, networks, and institutions
(Bergek et al., 2008; Hekkert et al., 2011).
Functions define the interaction between actors in TIS. There are two
different conceptualizations of functions in TIS highlighted by Bergek
(2012), Hekkert et al. (2007), and Bergek et al. (2008); we will use the
definition developed by Bergek et al. (2008). These functions are
knowledge development and diffusion, influence on the direction of search,
entrepreneurial experimentation, market formation, legitimation, resource
mobilization, and development of positive externalities. Functions help
describe what is going on in the TIS so that this can later be analyzed. Only
describing how the different functions work currently in the TIS cannot by
itself determine if these functions have a positive impact on the overall TIS
or not. A weak working function does not necessarily mean that the TIS is
lacking this function and that this is a blocking mechanism. The same goes
for a vital working function, and this can have a negative impact on the
overall TIS. (Bergek et al. 2008; Hekkert et al. 2011)

It is not until after the TIS has been developed that the analysis of the
different functions can begin, where the functions are being analyzed on
how well they fulfilled the desired functional patterns. The desired
functional patterns in this thesis will be based on the needs of CPOs for
HBEVs (Bergek et al., 2008; Hekkert et al., 2011).

After the analysis of the different functions, the authors can identify
different blocking mechanisms that hinder the development of the TIS
towards the desirable functional patterns. This is then followed by the final
part of the TIS, which is suggestions and regulatory recommendations to
remove or mitigate the blocking mechanisms in the TIS. We desire to
develop this final part of the TIS further and provide recommendations
directly to the core actors in the TIS. Since the blocking mechanisms will be
based on components for business models for CPOs, changes to these
business models can remove or mitigate these blocking mechanisms. We
will examine changes to business models that can mitigate the different
blocking mechanisms to provide recommendations directly to the core
actors. These recommendations will be based on components in business
models for the core actors, in our case, CPOs business models. Both

12
recommendations for regulators and actors are to mitigate the blocking
mechanism's effects to stimulate the TIS's development (Bergek et al., 2008;
Hekkert et al., 2011).

2.1.4 Functions
As mentioned previously, we will use the definitions of functions developed
by Bergek et al. (2008). In this section, we will explain each one of these
seven functions.
Knowledge development and diffusion are how well the TIS performs in the
overall knowledge base and how knowledge is diffused in the TIS. The
knowledge can be distinguished between different types such as scientific,
market technological, and production. Knowledge can also come from
different sources such as R&D, production, and learning from new
applications.
Influence on the direction of search is the combined strength of incentives
and pressures for organizations to enter the TIS. This also covers the
direction the overall TIS is heading in competing technologies, applications,
and business models. Influence on the direction of the search will be
measured by qualitative factors such as beliefs in growth potential,
incentives, and regulatory pressures.
Through trial-and-error experimentations, entrepreneurial experimentation
reduces uncertainty around technologies, applications, and markets. There
has been a misunderstanding about the meaning of entrepreneurial
experimentations, leading scholars to believe that this only refers to new and
small firms (Bergek et al., 2012). In this context, "entrepreneurial" means
acting under uncertainty (cf. Kirzner 1997; Schumpeter, 1934). Established
firms can also participate in entrepreneurial experimentations such as
demonstration plants, pilots, and exploration of new applications or
technologies. This function is essential for a TIS not just in the early phases
but also has a vital role in the later phase of developing a TIS.
The market formation is how the market around the TIS develops and what
the drivers are for the market formation. The market formation will take
time, and for an emerging TIS, the market can be underdeveloped with no
apparent customer demand and with a poor price/performance of the new
technology. We will gather qualitative data from the different actors in the
TIS to find what drives the market formation.
Legitimation is referred to the social acceptance and compliance with core
institutions. New technology and its advocators need to be suitable and
desirable to the relevant actors in order for them to mobilize resources
toward the technology, demand to form, and gather political strength.
Legitimation influences actors in the TIS and therefore also influences the

13
direction of search. In order to measure the legitimation in the TIS, we need
to analyze both the legitimacy of the stakeholders and relevant actors, as
well as the actors in the TIS that increase the legitimacy.
Resource mobilization is referred to the different resources that need to be
mobilized for a TIS to develop. We will focus on the resources, finance
capital, and complementary assets such as infrastructure products and
services.
The development of positive externalities is an essential function of the
development and growth of a TIS. This function refers to the creation of
resources on a system level. This ranges from complementary technologies,
pooled labour markets, and specialized suppliers, which are available to the
system actors but were created from the system itself, therefore not
contributing to building the system up in the first place. The development of
positive externalities positively influences legislations and other functions
such as resource mobilization, influence on the direction of search, market
formation, and entrepreneurial experimentation. (Bergek et al. 2008)

2.1.5 Business models with Technology innovation system

TIS gives the system understanding on a macro-level that affects a business

operating on a micro-level (Lamprinopoulou et al. 2014). TIS gives greater
knowledge and understanding about the system that business models are
operating in. To further link the connections between business models and
TIS, the barriers that exist for CPOs business models will be translated into
blocking mechanisms in the TIS. Business models will not construct the TIS
itself. However, the blocking mechanisms will be based on barriers that
exist in the TIS for CPOs business models. The reason for this is that from a
business model perspective identifying barriers for existing business models
new blocking mechanisms can be identified and provide a new perspective
on a TIS.
TIS gives the ability to look on a deeper level for barriers regarding business
model and how these effects the business model of the core actors. If the
study were only in the scope of the core actors, in this case CPOs, it would
be hard to investigate what causes the barriers for nearby actors. The TIS
involves the nearby actors, which gives a greater understanding of how
these barriers occur and gives the analysts the ability to find solutions to the
underlying problem causing the barriers. This can then be translated into
business models and how they can solve the underlying problem causing
these barriers. This would not be possible without the system understanding
that the TIS brings. (Bergek et al. 2008)

14
2.2 Empirical context
2.2.1 Electric vehicles and charging technologies
Electric trucks are a growing trend, and many truck manufacturers are
committed to completely switching their production to only electric trucks.
The trucks are not all the same just because they are electric; there are two
main designs, battery-electric and fuel cell electric trucks. Fuel cell electric
trucks use hydrogen as an energy source and get this from refueling stations,
much like diesel and petrol. For battery electric trucks there are three
subgroups of electric trucks, and these differ from each other in the way
they are being charged. First, there is the plugin battery-electric trucks that
use a physical cable to charge the batteries. Battery swapping trucks are the
second type of battery-electric truck, and these can physically change their
empty battery in a battery-swapping station to a fully charged one. Finally,
there are inductive charging battery trucks that are continually charged by
an electric road system as it drives. Battery swapping and inductive
charging battery trucks can use plugin charging. This means that they are
not completely locked into their charging solution and can be seen more as a
plugin battery truck with complimentary charging solutions. (Monios &
Bergqvist, 2020; Danilovic & Liu, 2021)

2.2.2 Charging infrastructure

Plugin stations have become the standard for electric cars. These charges the
vehicle thru a physical cable, the time it takes for a truck to be fully
recharged varies from 2,5 to 9 hours, dependent on the charger's capacity
and how big the truck's battery is. The time it takes to fully recharge a truck
is the biggest downside of plugging charging (Monios & Bergqvist, 2020).
V2G is a new emerging complementary that can be used with plugin
charging. V2G sends energy back to the grid from the battery when energy
is expensive; this lowers the stress on the grid and gives the users some
income (Calabrese et al., 2018; Chasin et al., 2020; Ford & Hardy, 2020).
Technically electric trucks can use plugin stations built for electric cars; the
only two problems are space and capacity of the chargers. Some of the
existing plugin stations that are built for electric cars have parking spaces
with chargers making it hard or impossible for trucks to use these for
charging (Monios & Bergqvist, 2020). The capacity of the chargers built for
electric cars vary, which is a problem for electric truck though they need a
high capacity to charge their bigger battery faster. Existing charging stations
can be built out to include trucks, or new stations could be built to serve
both trucks and electric cars. Plugin stations need much space, especially if
they are built to serve electric trucks, because of the parking space required
to charge multiblade trucks simultaneously. The types of electric trucks they
can serve are plugin, battery swapping, and electric road system battery
trucks. It is only the service of plugin charging they can offer, and they will
15
not have battery swapping ability or be connected to an electric road system
but can still serve trucks built for these systems(Danilovic & Liu, 2021; Du
et al., 2018).

Battery swapping stations are a new emerging charging solution that is

starting to come to Europe for electric cars after being highly adapted in
China (Danilovic & Liu, 2021). Even if battery swapping stations were first
adapted for electric cars does not mean that there is no future for swapping
stations for electric trucks. In fact, the business model of battery swapping is
more suitable for trucks than cars, and trucks are more accessible designed
to implement battery swapping (Danilovic & Liu, 2021). Battery swapping
stations bring many benefits, such as faster charging time and less space
needed than plugin stations. Instead of having much space for parking, a
swapping station only needs space for one truck and the batteries in the
station. This is because a battery change only takes a couple of minutes
instead of hours, and therefore they can serve one truck at a time (Du et al.,
2018; Monios & Bergqvist, 2020). When the batteries are in the battery
swapping station, there is no need to charge them up as fast as possible
which extends the life of the batteries compared to charging them fast. This
also allows battery stations to charge the batteries when the energy demand
is low, which lowers the energy price. They can also use the same principle
as V2G, where they can sell energy back to the grid when the price is high
or help stabilize the grid. (Danilovic & Liu, 2021; Naor et al., 2018) The
most significant limitation of battery swapping stations is the different
amounts of batteries and vehicle types they can handle. Different types of
batteries could have different charging standards and designs, limiting each
battery-swapping station to only work for one or a few different models
(Danilovic & Liu, 2021; Monios & Bergqvist, 2020).

2.2.3 Business models for CPOs

Each new charging infrastructure technology has its own opportunities and
limitations for the owners; this gives the owners new possibilities to capture
and create value, giving rise to business model innovation.
Plugin charging stations' business model is providing charging to the trucks
by fast chargers to charge the trucks as fast as possible. For this service, the
truck owners will pay the charging station. The price of this service will
fluctuate a lot over the day because of the changing energy price. These
stations will need many high-power cables to be able to provide the
charging, and this could increase the prices of the service even more.
(Biancardi et al., 2021; Monios & Bergqvist, 2020; alabrese et al., 2018;
Chasin et al., 2020; Ford & Hardy, 2020). These stations will need much
space to provide charging to many HBEVs simultaneously (Du et al., 2018).

16
Plugin charging provides the ability of V2G, but this service is best suited
for private charging stations, not public. The charging time is the biggest
problem for public charging stations, which takes time from the truck
operators where the trucks stand still and do not provide money. There will
not be time to send energy back to the grid when trucks leave the station as
fast as possible. (Monios & Bergqvist 2020). The only scenario where V2G
could be an option is if trucks stay overnight when the driver sleeps. The
benefits of plugin charging stations are that they could be combined with
charging stations for passenger vehicles and can provide service for many
different battery-electric trucks. In the future, the charging time could be
lower if fast chargers continue to evolve, these could then be added to
plugin charging stations (Biancardi et al., 2021; Furszyfer Del Rio et al.,
2020; Monios & Bergqvist, 2020).
Battery swapping is very dependent on a business model where the whole
vehicle or only the battery is rented to the user. The owner of the battery
will most likely be the owner of the battery swapping service or the provider
of the vehicles (Danilovic & Liu, 2021). This is because users will change
between different batteries and will not keep their original battery. This
allows the battery swapping stations to use the batteries for V2G services
when they are in the station, giving an additional revenue stream. This will
lower and help with grid stress (Ford & Hardy, 2020). The most extensive
offer to the customers is how fast the service is, compared with plugin
charging (Danilovic & Liu, 2021; Monios & Bergqvist, 2020). However,
battery swapping will also offer lower energy prices because they can
charge up the batteries overnight when the price is low. This will also make
it easier to offer renewable energy to the customers because they can store it
when it is produced. Each battery-swapping station can only operate a few
different batteries and therefore can only offer the service to limited models
(Danilovic & Liu, 2021; Du et al., 2018; Monios & Bergqvist, 2020; Naor et
al., 2018). This is a limitation for battery swapping stations, but it should be
noted that each station needs fewer customers per day than plugin charging
stations to be profitable (Du et al., 2018).

17
 3. Method
3.1 Research philosophy
Saunders states that when choosing a research philosophy, if there are issues
in adopting a single philosophy of conducting the research, that would guide
you to the position of pragmatism. Pragmatism is chosen because we
consider the research question to the report's philosophy (Saunders, 2007).

3.2 Research approach

Induction is the research approach of building theory rather than testing
theory. With induction as the research approach, the data guides the theory.
The currently formed research question: What barriers for Charging point
operators' business models can be identified using a technological
innovation system?
The primary data gathered will guide the thesis, and modifications can be
made to allow for changes in theory based on the findings. The research
question also depends on the context, and according to Saunders, the
induction approach is more appropriate when the context is an essential
factor (Saunders, 2007).

3.3 Research strategy

The research strategy chosen is a Case study, where the phenomenon
studied is the electrification of heavy vehicles. More precisely, the case
being studied is the infrastructure development for heavy vehicles. A gap
was observed when reading literature in the field of business models for
electrification. There was a lack of literature on business models for
infrastructure development and the owners of infrastructure for
electrification. This phenomenon needs to be observed and analyzed to
provide researchers and industry insight into this area. According to
Saunders, a case study allows the researcher to understand a phenomenon
that few have considered before (Saunders, 2007).

3.4 Research choice

Mono-method was chosen for the thesis because the data collection and
analysis are qualitative methods. The authors believe that qualitative data
collection is best suited for answering the research question. This is because
what question usually is used for quantitative research and the question has
an element of subjectivity. The subjectivity being the perspective from
CPOs. To gather and analyze these subjective perspectives the authors chose
a qualitative approach.

18
3.5 Time horizon
Cross-sectional studies are when a moment in time is being analyzed. The
time horizon for this thesis will be cross-sectional because the data collected
investigates the current time and what the current time tells us about the
future (Saunders, 2007).

3.6 Techniques and procedures

3.6.1 Primary Data
To get a systematic understanding of the system surronding CPOs in the
south Swedish context 17 interviews were conducted with different actors in
the system. This ranges from HBEV manufacturers, station operators,
energy producers HBEV operators, research intuitions, industry
partnerships, and governmental institutions. The data were collected using
semi-structured interviews, and the interview questions were different
depending on what type of company that was interviewed. When
interviewing a CPO, the questions were business model oriented to gain
insight into how the CPOs business model was constructed in the areas of
Value proposition, Value Creation, and value capture. This data was used to
create a general overview of how a CPO business model was constructed.
This is to get a system understanding from different perspectives to give a
holistic perspective. The primary data was collected from actors in the
electrification of heavy transport. The actors included infrastructure
developers, truck manufacturers, energy providers, and electrification
institutes. These data are a collection of actors that are a part of the system
for electrification of heavy transport, primarily actors for infrastructure
development. The criteria for selection for interviewees were that they were
actors in the field of electrification of transport, specifically actors relating
to infrastructure development for electrification. These interviews were
conducted to get insight into how the company relates to the evolution of
electric vehicles and how the company sees new trends and opportunities in
the electrification of transport.

19
 Interview Company/Institu Position: Time:
Number: tion:
1 ABB 53.42
2 Haulage 50.22
Company
3 Haulage 30.54
Company
4 Circle K 48.31
5 Energy provider 1.14.48
6 Electrification 35.38
HUB
7 Göteborgs Energi 45.12
8 East Sweden 1.27.16
Battery-Swapping
Initiative
9 Nima Energy 28.09
10 OK Q8 43.11
11 Pathway 58.54
Coalition
12 Scania 1.04.22
13 Svensk 51.28
Fordonsladdning
14 Swedish 57.31
Electromobility
Centre
15 Swedish Electric 56.22
Transport
Laboratory
16 Trafikverket 42.40
17 Volvo Energy 1.00.17
Table 1 Interviews

Interview procedure: When interviewing another actor in the system, the

questions were primarily focused on how their operations affected CPOs,
and the system of electrification of heavy transport. The questions in these
interviews were changed over time because of the interviews with CPOs.
When a CPO proposed a barrier or a problem, questions were asked to
actors to which this problem was related. The companies that were
contacted were gathered from a publication from the Swedish government
institute called "elektrifieringslöftet”. When reading the report, the
companies working with infrastructure development and electrification of
heavy transport were contacted per e-mail. A date was set for an interview
and before the interview, a document was sent to the interviewee to explain
the subjects that were going to be discussed. At the beginning of the
interview there was an introduction of the research team and the interviewee
and a discussion about how the material would be used. What followed was

20
a semi-structured interview divided into three parts. The parts were value
proposition, value creation and delivery, and value capture. These parts
were used because of Osterwalders' definition of business models
(Osterwalder, 2004). Other than the different parts, a few questions were
prepared to not obstruct the discussion. The reason for this was to get as
many thoughts and perspectives from the interviewees as possible.
While interviewing, the authors were assigned a primary interviewer and a
secondary interviewer. The primary interviewer's role was to lead the
interview and ask the prepared questions and engage in discussion. The
secondary interviewer's role was to take notes during the interview and
ensure that the transcription and recording were working. At the end of the
interview, when all prepared questions had been asked and answered, the
secondary interviewer ensured that all questions had been answered. This
division of labour was done to guarantee that our software for recording and
transcription didn't malfunction and to make sure that all questions were
asked.

3.6.2 Secondary Data

The secondary data is collected from articles regarding electrification. This
is done to provide hard data such as numbers to give perspective to different
issues that are discussed in the TIS.

3.6.3 Analysis
The interviews were conducted over electronic communication tools such as
Zoom and Microsoft teams. The authors were present at the University
when the interviews were conducted so a discussion could take place after
each interview. The discussion was done to reflect over the topics discussed
and a summary of what was discussed was written for each interview. The
summary contained the perceived problems and solutions for barriers and
information relating to the TIS. If any new information emerged from the
interview, a discussion was conducted to see if and how we could formulate
a question regarding that topic to get more information from later
interviews.

The information gathered from the interviews was synthesized and

discussed among the authors. After each interview, a primary discussion
was held to determine important information regarding business models.
The moment all interviews were conducted a secondary verification process
was held to verify the information previously gathered and the identification
of new information. After the business model processes were gathered, they
were categorized into value proposition, value creation, and value capture.

21
These were then summarized into a general business model for CPOs. A
general business model was chosen because the industry for infrastructure
development for HBEV is still in its infancy, and the business models do not
differ much. The text describes these differences to provide different
perspectives of business models for CPOs. The interviews used for this
section are 4, 7, 9, 10, and 13.

The information gathered from the interviews was then discussed between
the authors to determine the relevance of the information provided and then
transcribed into the TIS in its respective areas. The criteria for inclusion in
the TIS is that the information is related to identifying barriers in the
system.

Image 1: TIS

Actors within the TIS. The layout is according to Kushnir et al. (2020) and
Hekkert et al. (2011), based previously on Kuhlmann et al. (2001).
The TIS is developed from the context of CPOs for HBEVs in south
Sweden. We have used interviews with these different actors in the TIS to
develop the TIS. The TIS with the different actors and their relationships are
represented in image 1 TIS. CPOs were represented by interviewees 2, 4, 5,
7, 8, 9, 10, 13 & 17. Interviewees 9 and 13 are not directly CPOs but
develop charging stations for CPOs and represent the development of
charging stations. HBEV manufacturers are represented by interviewee 12
and 17. Interviewee 1 represents infrastructure manufacturers. Haulage
firms are represented by interviewee 2 and 3. Energy producers are
represented by interviewee 5 and 7. Research institutions are represented by
interviewee 6 and 15. Industry partnerships are represented by interviewee 8
and 11. Universities are represented by interviewee 14. Swedish

22
Government is represented by interviewee 7 and 16. These actors are not
fixed, and some interviewees represent two different actors in the TIS
because their companies or organization are active in several different parts
of the TIS and can therefore represent more than one actor.
The different functions were analyzed from the questions and discussions in
the different interviews. The information for the first function, knowledge
development and diffusion, was gathered from the question "Who provides
you with information about HBEV" where the responses from CPOs and
haulage firms played the most significant role. Influence on the direction of
search was based on the overall discussion with the interviewees with
follow-up questions on how they believe the future will evolve. The
information on the third function, entrepreneurial experimentation, was
gathered from the question "What service do you provide and with what
product?", where the interviewees told what they have and currently
provide. Where they also explained what they have tested and are currently
experimenting with regarding HBEV. There also accrued discussion in
several interviews about what different actors have or are currently
experimenting with. The market formation function was gathered from the
first part of the question "What is needed for this market to grow from our
perspective". And a discussion with the different actors on why they are
moving in the current direction that accrued from the question "What
service do you provide and with what product?". The information about
legitimation was gathered from the question "How do you feel about the
other products and its benefits and drawbacks?". Where the focus was to
bring up the different solutions or products that the actor does not use, to
understand why and if they do not believe in them. Resource mobilization
was gathered from the question "What is needed for you to provide this
service?" where the interviewees described what is needed from different
resources to provide different services regarding HBEV. Finally, the
information regarding positive externalities was gathered from the question
"Will you have any additional revenue streams?" where new products and
services were presented to help new actors in the TIS in the future.

The barriers were gathered from the interviews with questions relating to the
system or business models. The questions were created to identify the issues
facing the electrification of transport. When the interviewee identified an
issue during the interview, a discussion was conducted to explore the issue
further to identify the reason why the issue occurs and what impact it has on
the industry.
The authors collected these barriers and discussed regarding relevance to the
research question and the scope of the report. The barriers were then
bundled into more significant and overlapping barriers and then related to
either the output of a traditional TIS or business model solutions. This is to
give different solutions to the same barrier from different perspectives. This

23
was highly relevant because the TIS and information gathered were
primarily from a business model perspective.
An analytical process was conducted to identify the barriers and convert
them to blocking mechanisms. Interviews were conducted with CPOs and
the areas where the implementation process was slow or bottlenecks were
considered possible barriers. The barriers from the business model
perspective were areas where other factors impeded the development
process. To identify these areas, questions such as "What is halting the
progress of charging stations in Sweden" were asked. The answers that were
provided were analyzed from the perspective of the TIS to get a concrete
blocking mechanism that later was analyzed, and solutions were proposed.

Then we did one qualitative data collection by interviews divided into two
parts. One to collect data for CPOs business models and one for data
collection regarding surrounding actors in the TIS to develop the analysis of
the different functions in the TIS. The CPOs business models were then
used as a filter to analyze the functions in the TIS to find barriers to CPOs
business models. These barriers were then combined into five different
blocking mechanisms. Because the blocking mechanisms are grounded in
barriers to CPOs business models, changes to these business models can
mitigate the effects on the blocking mechanism. This provided the ability to
develop the TIS to not only give regulatory recommendations but also give
recommendations to the central actor in the TIS. We provide this
recommendation to CPOs thru changes or additions to their business
models. Business models and TIS have a symbiotic relationship where the
TIS provides the system where the business models exist. The business
models then provide the blocking mechanisms based on the TIS functions.
The business model recommendations can be made to the core actor in the
TIS.

3.7 Research Quality and Ethics

During a research process the quality aspects that need to be considered are
reliability, validity and ethics (Saunders, 2007). Reliability is the aspect that
considers if the data collection and analysis have provided consistent results.
To ensure reliability in the thesis the same core questions have been asked
to all the participants, the only deviation being follow-up questions. In the
analysis a summary was made of all the interviews to not let a single actor
dictate the findings, instead a general overview was provided from actors in
the south of Sweden. This was done to get an industry view rather than one
company's perspective.

24
Validity in a thesis is that the information gathered, and findings are about
what the thesis seeks to analyze (Saunders, 2007). To ensure this was all the
interviews recorded and transcribed. The interviews could then be listened
to again and read to not confuse any statements and to make sure that the
answers were related to the question. The information provided from the
interviews was also crossed checked with secondary data to confirm certain
pieces of information.

During the data collection process all the participants were asked if the
company name could be used in the thesis. Information relating to the
answer of one participant was also checked with that participant after the
interview before being used in the thesis. This agreement was made with all
the participants to ensure that they could speak freely and give an honest
perspective.

25
 4. Data

4.1 Business models

The industry of infrastructure development for HBEV is still in its infancy;
therefore, the business models focus on the core essence of the service they
provide. The core essence is providing their customers with fast and reliable
charging solutions.

4.1.1 Value proposition:

The most given response to what the companies wanted to provide the
customers was availability. This term kept resurfacing when questions
relating to value proposition were asked. This value proposition was defined
in different ways, availability in the sense of a charging station being
available so the customers do not need to wait and have available capacity
so the vehicle can be charged fast. Both definitions of availability were a
part of the second most used term in value proposition, booking. Providing
booking services to charging stations would allow consumers to guarantee
that there was a spot available for them. A system for this service has not
been widely adopted yet, perhaps because of the current low utilization of
charging stations in Sweden. The benefits of booking systems collected
from the interviews were: additional revenue stream, guaranteed charging
for customers at a defined time, and possible higher utilization.
Other core aspects of business models for infrastructure for HBEV are
reducing CO2, Parking space, and semi-public charging stations. Reducing
CO2 as a value proposition is nothing unique and is being used by all
industries working with electrification. Some infrastructure developers have
this as a higher focus where integration of their own sustainable energy
production and storage can ensure that the energy charging the HBEV is
green. Parking space can be vital for a charging station for HBEV because
lack of space and inefficient layout can make it harder for customers to
charge the vehicle. A charging station with a clear driving pattern, easy-to-
access stations, and separation between HBEV and BEV can make a
charging station more appealing, especially to haulage contractors.

4.1.2 Value Creation:

To create value for the customer, the interviewed companies focused on
providing a service with an emphasis on comfort and amenities. This will
include providing other services such as facilities, food, and a safe resting
place for overnight visits. This has been a focus for new charging stations to
provide the value of comfort for truckers, and this is because the
interviewed parties have gathered this information from their users and the
industry wants it. Another important aspect is to provide the core value of a
26
charging station which is fast charging. To ensure fast and reliable charging
the interviewed companies had solutions for this in the form of ensuring
capacity, energy storage, and energy production.

4.1.3 Value Capture:

The essential value capture process gathered from the interviews was the
location. The location where a charging station is will impact all parts of the
business model, the difference is that from the value capture perspective, it
will reach new customers. This will drive traffic towards stations, which
was also an answer the interviewees provided.
The cost structures also vary between the companies interviewed. The main
cost structure that the majority agreed on and have implemented is that the
price is based on KWH charged. The opposition to this was a fixed price per
charge. When it comes to payment, there is a mixed batch, implemented in
both card payment, apps, and tags for charging stations. All the companies
are interested in future payment technologies such as Plug and Charge.

4.2 TIS
4.2.1 Actors and networks
The actors and networks in the TIS can be seen in "Image 1 TIS" these are
the regulatory actors and networks that act on the rest of the actors; these are
the Swedish government and the EU. The core of the TIS are manufacturers
for both HV and infrastructure together with charging stations; both plugin
charging and battery swapping that are operated by CPOs. In the electric
system there are two different types of actors. First, the grid operators that
have a closer connection to charging stations because they provide the
power needed for the stations. The second is energy producers. Some of
these actors are currently expanding their services by building their own
charging stations. The demand comes from retailers that need the service
that HBEV provides. Haulages is the owner of the HBEV and provides
retailers with the service. Haulage firms are closely connected to HV
manufacturers that provide the firms with their HBEVs, and they are also
connected to the CPOs charging stations where they charge their trucks.
Other supporting actors, such as financial actors, are mostly connected to
charging stations and haulage firms, where both types of actors need finical
support to fund their investments. Intermediaries are networks with different
actors in such as industry partnerships that connect actors from different
parts of the TIS. Research institutions also connect the different actors with
research projects. Finally, there are two different reach actors, universities
and privet research. Many different actors from the different sectors are
planning to move into charging stations such as HV manufacturers, energy
producers, haulage firms, and even industry partnerships.

27
4.2.2 Institutions
Institutions include informal and codified to give the rules of the game and
the expectations (Bergek et al., 2015). The codified aspects that are the most
relevant, and are acting on the TIS, come from the Swedish government
laws surrounding both climate and HVs. The Paris Agreement and the
European Union Fit for 55, which refers to the EU goal to reduce the
greenhouse gas emission by 55% by 2030, this will be achieved with new
EU legislation towards this goal (EU, 2018; Fitt for 55, 2022). Sweden is
characterized with a high degree of public support for environmental policy
and with high trust in overall state institutions. (Harring & Jagers, 2018;
Harring et al., 2018) There is a high willingness from the public to support
and also punish firms in order to achieve environmental goals (Kushnir et
al., 2020).

4.2.3 Knowledge development and diffusion

Knowledge diffusion
The overall knowledge surrounding HBEV is relatively low due to the
newness of the HBEVs. The majority of the knowledge in the TIS comes
from the HV manufacturers that spread the knowledge to CPOs, energy
producers, and especially haulers. CPOs and energy producers have some
prior knowledge surrounding BEVs but not all of this knowledge is useful
for HBEVs. Haulers usually do not have any prior knowledge of BEVs and
are used to getting their information regarding HV from the different HV
manufacturers.

4.2.4 Influence on the direction of search

Charging standards
There is a clear focus on plugin charging in the overall TIS. The HV
manufacturers and charging manufacturers have committed to the CCS
standard. This is the same standard that is used for EV charging. This gives
the ability to use EV chargers to charge HBEVs. For many actors, the next
step in the evolution of chargers for HBEVs is mega chargers that are
categorized at 500-3500 kW. These will be made for HBEVs and will have
a new standard that is under development right now. Many actors in HV and
infrastructure manufacturers are on the same page and want one standard.
They believe that a standard in mega chargers will help everyone. Where
there is no standard in sight is where on the HBEV the charging outlet is
placed. This leads to that public charging stations need more space for
HBEV to access the charger from different sides.

28
Firms entering public charging stations
The strength of entry in the TIS is strong, especially for actors entering the
public charging stations. Ther are actors from HV manufacturing, haulers,
intermediates, electric system, and new ventures. The general belief in the
market's growth potential is strong and is what is driving most of the entry
right now. Many actors have stated that they know that public charging
stations for HBEV are not profitable right now. However, they believe that
it will be profitable in the future and are willing to lose money right now to
get a better position for the future and to reap the rewards later. The other
push into the public charging stations market is from actors that need public
chargers for their primary business and sees these investments into public
charging stations as secondary to their primary business. These are primarily
actors from HV manufacturing and haulers.

Energy storage & Energy production

Energy storage combined with HBEV charging stations is a strong trend that
many actors see as beneficial. The primary energy storage system is with
batteries which can help the station with peak power and lower the price of
electricity for the customers. The grid cost will be lower if part of the peak
power is taken from the energy storage system and not the grid, and it can
also help build a bigger station where grid power is a problem. V2G is seen
as a possible revenue stream but not from HBEV public charging stations,
but the same technology can be used for the battery energy storage where
actors see the potential. In this case, public charging stations can have an
additional revenue stream from energy arbitrage and frequency control from
the battery storage to the grid. When it comes to energy production
connected to the charging station, this is seen as mainly an addition for
publicity and will not significantly affect the charging station. The total
production and peak demand needed for a charging station are hard to
produce on-site with both wind and solar energy.

Hybrid solutions
Especially new actors in HBEV charging stations are considering combining
HBEV charging with EVs to increase the utilization of the chargers and
therefore the profit potential. This means that HBEV chargers must not only
be used by HBEV but can also be used by EVs. This is possible because
they use the same standard CCS, which is considered a short-term solution
when the HBEV is still relatively small.

29
Payment solutions
The industry wants to learn from the mistakes of EV charging stations and
create an easier way to pay for charging to avoid over ten different apps
depending on which charging stations are being used. Work is being done
for plug and pay charging where the payment will occur automatically when
plugged into the charger. In contrast to EV charging stations, many actors
see that a booking system is needed for HBEV charging stations and are
working on a booking system. This is to ensure that when an HBEV arrives
at the station, it does not need to wait for a charger to be available.

Battery

HBEV differs from diesel HV; the engine is less important because of the
relative simplicity of an electric motor. This shifts the focus of HV
manufacturers from engines. Batteries will be very impotent for HV
manufacturers, and the battery will give a competitive advantage for HBEV.

Rest time

Regulation around driving rest time is a prominent factor that influences the
market. This regulation directs how fast a recharge needs to be and how
long the gap between charging stations needs to be on longer transporting
roots. To minimize unnecessary time where the HBEV stands still charging
should co-occur when the driver needs rest time.

Government
Several actors have moved into the HBEV industry but have not fully
committed due to uncertainty regarding the market's direction. Several
actors are looking to the government to take the leading role and show the
direction that the industry should take. Governmental actors such as
government institutes and governmental owned companies do not want to
close any doors and have many options opened in order for the market
actors to lead the way forward. This leads to a stand where government and
market actors expect the other to lead the way forward.

Battery swapping

Battery swapping has not broken ground in Sweden or Europe for HEBVs
mainly because no manufacturer provides HBEVs with battery swapping
capabilities. However, there are some actors that want battery swapping

30
HEBV and are planning to order them from China together with five battery
swapping stations.

Competitive technologies
There are two competitors when it comes to other fossil-free solutions:
hydrogen HEV and diesel trucks that run on HVO diesel. Many actors
believe that hydrogen will be part of a larger ecosystem with both HBEV
and hydrogen HEV but that the dominant design will be HBEV. Hydrogen
HEV still has some years left before they will be available to purchase from
the HV manufacturers. Diesel trucks that run on HVO are a significant
competitor to HBEV though they can be seen as a fossil-free transport.
Instead of purchasing HBEV, Haulers can use their existing diesel trucks to
fuel them with HVO diesel to deliver fossil-free transport. HVO diesel
transport is considered to be cheaper today than transport with HBEV.

4.2.5 Entrepreneurial experimentation

Charging system
HBEV has not had much experimentation in Sweden or the rest of the
world. However, the plugin charging system CCS that is used for HBEVs
has existed for a long time and has had much experimentation. Not much
experimentation is needed or ongoing regarding the technology of CCS
charging. However, much work is being done regarding mega chargers that
are considered the next step for HBEV chargers.

Grid flexible contracts

There have been some experimentations and pilot testing regarding flexible
grid contracts in the TIS. Flexible grid contracts differ from regular grid
contracts because they do not grant the user a predetermined power from the
grid. This means that the user can get a lower power output from the grid
than what was set from the beginning if the power is used by someone else.
The benefit of a flexible contract is that a higher peak power can be
achieved where it otherwise could not.

Public charging stations

The Swedish government has offered 1,5 billion Swedish kr for

experimentation pilots regarding HBEV public charging stations. These
stations will be operational for at least five years and give public
information about user time, power use, and degree of use, with more. There

31
have not been any dedicated charging stations for HBEV in Sweden as of
right now. All public charging stations that will receive support for pilots
have to be finished before September 2023. This will provide much
information regarding the use case of public charging stations for HBEVs.

Haulers
Experimentation from haulers is low, especially regarding public charging.
Most of the few HBEV that exists in the TIS only charge overnight by
private charging stations. There are some HBEVs that have used public
charging stations, but that is meant for EVs.

Battery swapping
There is no experimentation regarding battery swapping for HBEV in
Sweden; this could change in the upcoming years, though some actors have
this goal. Experimentation has started for battery swapping EVs in Norway
in 2022 by NIO.

4.2.6 Market formation

HBEV & charging stations

The most significant need for the market to grow for public charging
stations is more HBEVs, and one of the most significant needs for the
market to grow for HBEVs is public charging stations. Many actors call this
a "catch-22" scenario where the markets are in a limbo where no market can
grow because the other market needs to grow first. However, haulers do not
necessarily need public charging stations. Public charging stations will help
increase the degree of use and the use case for HBEVs. Many actors in the
TIS, even CPOs believe that haulers need private chargers first, in order for
the HBEV market to grow. HBEVs can charge overnight with private
chargers and serve local distributions on the day. Then public charging
stations can start developing to offer fast charging with short breaks to
increase the degree of use and use case for HBEV so that more extended
transport can be possible. Finance for public charging stations is not a big
problem; many actors have and are willing to spend much money to provide
public charging for HBEV. When it comes to haulers, finance is a bigger
problem. With already tight profit margins are buying an expensive HBEV a
significant risk. Haulers express that they need lower the risk in order to
choose HBEVs. Today this is achieved by leasing the trucks from the HV
manufacturers. The last big factor for the HBEV market is their customers
procuring willingness for fossil-free transport with HBEVs. Because of the

32
risk and uncertainty for HBEV, a higher price is needed to provide the
service with fossil-free electric transport from haulers.

HBEV uses cases

The first HBEV that enters the market will transport goods locally or
regionally from point to point. Shorter local transport will not necessarily
need public charging stations if haulers have their own private chargers.
However, public charging stations can provide faster charging that can
increase the root of the HBEV. More extended regional transport needs
public charging stations to reach the destinations. Regional transport will
most likely also charge on private chargers overnight and use public
chargers as a compliment to increase their range. Long haulers stand for the
more extended transport that needs night stops on the way. These need
public chargers during the day and at night combined with several hours of
rest time. HBEV long haulers will not enter the market for some years.

Additional emphasis
Several CPOs want to have their charging stations close to facilities to
provide the drivers with food and restrooms to make the charging stop more
convenient for the driver. However, several haulage firms think these
facilities are a bonus but not the determining factor for choosing a charging
station. The determining factor for haulage firms is the location and that the
stop fits nicely in with the timing for the driver's rest time and the driving
root of the HBEV.

Battery swapping
One of the big HBEV manufacturers needs to provide HBEVs with battery
swapping capabilities for battery swapping stations to break through. Many
actors believe that public battery swapping stations need a standard in
batteries for HBEV to succeed. This can be true for a market with many
different HV manufacturers, but two HV manufacturers are dominating the
Swedish HV market. This allows one of these HV manufacturers to offer
HBEVs with battery swapping capabilities and together with other actors, or
on their own, build a network for battery swapping. Battery swapping will
still only be considered complementary to plugin charging which means that
battery swapping HBEVs does not need battery swapping stations because
they can use plugin charging stations. Public battery swapping stations
depend on the degree of use to be profitable; the degree of use does not need

33
to be as high as for public charging stations. This allows one manufacturer
with a large market size to make their own battery swapping standard and
not need to partner up with competitors.

4.2.7 Legitimation
HBEV

HBEVs have gained much acceptance over the last years, with the biggest
HV manufacturers starting to produce HBEV and wanting to completely
change their HVs to electric over the coming years. Haulers do not question
the technology around HBEV but have concerns about the profitability of
HBEV and its flexibility. The degree of use for a HBEV is lower than for a
diesel HV and more logistics are needed. Matching to time and finding
charging stations is more crucial for HBEVs. The cost is a factor for
legitimation regarding haulers, where a significant upfront cost for HBEV is
repulsive.

Retailers
Retailers that buy the transport service from HV operators are willing to pay
extra for fossil-free transport. The fossil-free transport can be achieved by
diesel trucks with HVO fuel and with HBEVs. Retailers are less willing to
pay more for transport with HBEV than diesel trucks with HVO fuel.

Battery swapping & HV manufacturers

Battery swapping has a low legitimation in the TIS, especially from HBEV
manufacturers. The belief is that battery swapping HBEVs needs a standard
battery for all HBEV manufacturers, which is not something HBEV
manufacturers want. It is not only the competitive disadvantage that is
repulsive regarding battery swapping, but also that it could look in HBEV
manufacturers to one technology regarding batteries which could be
outdated fast. There are also safety concerns with battery placements and an
overall stigma towards “China technology”. The legitimation from
infrastructure manufacturers regarding battery swapping is also low with no
known R&D projects regarding battery swapping towards HBEV.

34
Battery swapping, haulers & CPOs
Haulers are under the impression that battery swapping is a technology that
does not work; however, if they were presented with the option, they see
several benefits with battery swapping. CPOs see battery swapping as an
opportunity if HV manufacturers start to deliver the HBEV in the future.
Some have even stated that they would be willing to partner with one of the
big HBEV manufacturers to provide battery swapping services for just that
brand. This is because the Swedish market is dominated by two more
prominent brands. If one of these were to offer battery swapping, it would
be large enough of a market share to consider offering battery swapping.

Flexible grid contracts

There are mixed opinions on flexible grid contracts from CPOs. Several
CPOs highlight that it is essential for them always to be able to deliver the
high-power charging that they promise their customers. This makes station
operators uncertain about the use case regarding flexible grid contracts.

4.2.8 Resource mobilization

Grid infrastructure

Grid infrastructure is a core component for all public charging stations.

With high-power chargers of 350 kW each, there need to be high power
cables that provide the power. These are not cheap and take a long time to
provide from the grid operators. The grid operators cannot by law build the
grid based on predictions and can first start the process of building the grid
when a request for power is received. Only the process of asking if there is
available power in the vicinity of a proposed charging station to receive an
answer can take a long time. If there is no power available, it can take five
years for the grid operator to provide the power needed.

Location

Location is essential for charging stations. It is vital to have a good location

where there is a need and traffic from HBEV and space to provide charging
for many vehicles. It is hard for station operators to find a location with
power from the grid available, high traffic flow of HV, and the space
needed. Battery swapping stations do not need as much space as plugin
charging stations and do not require as much peak power from the grid.
However, battery swapping stations do still require space and power from
the grid.

35
Finance
Finance is needed for both station operators and haulers. It seems more
critical for haulers to lower their finical investments than for station
operators. Serval CPOs are large cooperations with financial support, where
they see public charging stations for HBEV as a side business and not their
primary business. Haulers on the other hand do not have another business
that will generate them money. This combined with small profit margins
makes it hard for HV operators to convert their HV fleet to HBEV without
financial support.

4.2.9 Development of positive externalities

Batteries
Second-life batteries for battery storage have been proposed to reuse the
batteries from HBEV that are not performing sufficiently but can still
provide value. This will lower the price of battery storage in the future
which will be very beneficial for station operators that are considering using
battery storage.

Market growth

The development and growth of the HBEV market will positively affect
future CPOs and haulers. More HBEV will give rise to more public
charging stations, increasing the willingness for haulers to convert to
HBEV. The market and new ventures entering the market will benefit from
the early market growth.

4.3 Blocking mechanisms

4.3.1 Grid infrastructure
The grid greatly impacts CPOs and is vital for value proposition and value
creation. The grid has several barriers connected to it from a CPO
standpoint. A grid connection is crucial for a charging station, the problem
is that these connections take a long time, can be costly and locations with
available power are becoming scarce. This is connected to Swedish
regulation that prohibits grid operators from building the grid on
expectations which makes the grid infrastructure fall behind. This,
combined with a large area that is needed for charging stations and that the
station also needs to be close to a road with a high traffic flow, complicates
the process of finding a location for a station even more complicated. If the

36
proposed location does not have available power in the grid, a long process
needs to be started to build out the grid. To avoid this lengthy and
sometimes costly process station operators want to find locations where
power is available. This leads to the second problem connected to the grid:
companies must ask if the grid operators have power available at a
particular location. It is tough to know if power is available in the location,
and only the grid provider can get a clear answer. Only getting an answer if
an attractive location has available power can take a long time, dragging out
the process of developing a charging station from the beginning.

4.3.2 Grid cost structure

The cost structure for using grid power is not beneficial for CPOs. The cost
is based on the highest peak power per month, even if this peak only occurs
for a few hours per month. Charging stations have a low degree of use over
a day; however, if many HBEV stays on the same time around lunchtime to
combine the driver's rest time with the charging time, the peak use and,
therefore, peak power will be high even though the total degree of use and
power use will be relatively low compared to the peak demand and power.

4.3.3 Adoption
In order for charging stations to capture value they need users and the
degree of use for charging stations is currently low in the TIS. There needs
to be more HBEV for charging stations to be profitable. The mechanisms
that are hindering the adoption of HBEV are the high cost and uncertainties
from HV operators. The upfront for HBEV is high and the value added for
HV operators is low in comparison. The benefit of providing fossil-free
transport can be provided cheaper and more manageable with HV fueled
with HVO than with HBEV. Retailers value fossil-free transport but do not
seem to value HBEV transport over HVO transport. This leads to slower
adoption of HBEV because diesel HV with HVO can, from a market
standpoint, fulfill the need that HBEV provides.
The uncertainties regarding HBEV for haulage firms are if the dominant
design is not set, new driving patterns, where to be able to charge and what
the end-of-life value of the HBEV is. Uncertainties regarding if the
dominant design is not set and the end-of-life value is connected to the
newest HBEV and the belief that HBEV will improve over the coming
years. In order to lower the unnecessary time, when the HBEV stands still,
more focus for haulage firms needs to be put on driving and charging
patterns.

37
4.3.4 Battery swapping
Battery swapping needs one of the big HV manufacturers to provide HBEV
with battery swapping capabilities. Why HV manufacturers are not
providing battery swapping or considering it soon has several factors:
unwillingness to have an industry-standard battery, low customer demand,
and overall disbelief in the technology. The battery is an essential part of the
HBEV for HV manufacturers, where large parts of the competitive
advantage will come from. Therefore, HV manufacturers do not want to
create an industry standard. An industry-standard can also create a standard
that will be outdated fast due to technological advancements regarding
batteries, discouraging HV manufacturers from a battery standard. The
benefits battery swapping bring are beneficial for haulage firms; however,
battery swapping is still not demanded. Haulage firms do not trust or believe
in battery swapping technology. This skepticism comes from HV
manufacturers that spread negative information about battery swapping to
other actors, especially haulage firms. This influences haulage firms and
creates a belief that battery swapping is unreliable; thus, the demand for
battery swapping remains low. There is no entrepreneurial experimentation
in the TIS regarding battery swapping, which could increase the legitimation
from HV manufacturers and haulage firms.

4.3.5 Interoperability
Several actors in the TIS want a standard payment system so that HV
operators do not need a particular app for a particular charging station and
end up with several different apps. Several actors are also procuring
booking systems for their charging stations. In contrast to the payment
system, there does not seem to be much effort in developing one booking
system or several with interoperability. This can lead to several different
apps for different booking systems that are needed for different charging
stations, the very problem many actors want to avoid. This may not seem to
be a big issue; however, it complicates the use of HBEV even more for
haulage firms, leading to lower adoption of HBEV and lock-in users to a
few stations.

38
5. Discussion
5.1 Business models
Electrification of heavy vehicles in Sweden is an immature industry. With a
low amount of electric trucks being used by haulage firms in Sweden. With
a low adoption of HBEV, CPO business models focus on the core value of a
charging station. To still be operational and make a profit, charging stations
for HBEV have found two solutions. These solutions are semi-public
charging stations and public charging stations for HBEV that can also
accommodate BEV. The owner primarily uses semi-public charging stations
but also allows other actors to charge their vehicles. These charging stations
are being built by haulage companies to charge their fleet during the night
and when the vehicles are not in use and can be used by other haulage firms
or private actors when not in use or at a set time. The other solution, letting
BEV:s charge at public HBEV charging stations, increases the utilization of
the charging stations and further assists the station in reaching the break-
even point of approximately 20% utilization according to one of the CPOs
interviewed.
Solutions for when a higher adoption of HBEV has been reached are more
focused on primarily serving HBEV. The activities discussed during the
interviews can be categorized into three different types of activities. Firstly,
increase the charging stations' utilization, energy solutions, and
complimentary services. Solutions to support this includes booking systems
to provide a plannable availability to the haulage firms and increase the
utilization for the CPOs.

5.2 Technological innovation system

The TIS goes down on a more detailed level than other TISs such as Blum
(et al. 2015) that also include a qualified data collection with a case study.
This can be related to the combination of business models and TIS. In order
to understand barriers to CPOs business models, a data collection on both a
micro and meso level was conducted. This could then be translated into a
TIS with a more in-depth meso analysis that gives a greater understanding
of the market formation and the influence on the direction of search. The
developed TIS describes these functions from different actors' perspectives
and is necessary to understand how CPOs are affected by the different
actors.
The TIS is dominated and controlled by the HV manufacturers, who are the
big established companies that know the technology regarding HBEVs.
Their product, HBEV, is the core of the market. Other actors in the TIS
adapt to the HV manufacturers and do not question them.

39
5.3 Blocking mechanisms
The blocking mechanism is based on CPOs business models but affects the
entire TIS. Charging stations are vital for the development of HBEV on a
large scale, therefore are barriers to charging station blocking mechanisms
for the entire TIS. The grid provides two different blocking mechanisms,
both grid infrastructure and grid cost structure. These emerge from the
disruption that charging stations brings to the grid infrastructure. They
demand high peak power irregular, which differs from other connections to
the grid with more steady power demand. Regulations regarding the grid
have not had time to be adapted for charging stations, which has led to the
blocking mechanisms regarding the grid for the TIS. A market needs users,
this market does not differ, the market is still very new and is developing,
but more is needed to incentive new adopters to choose HBEV. Both battery
swapping and interoperability could help to mitigate other blocking
mechanisms. There are today barriers to both battery swapping and
interoperability that need to be solved before they can be part of the solution
for the other blocking mechanisms.

5.4 Recommendations
5.4.1 Business models
Grid infrastructure
The blocking mechanism regarding grid infrastructure is based on
regulatory factors and these are hard for individual companies to impact.
However, there are still adjustments that can help CPOs to tip the scale in
their favor. Battery storage can lower the peak power needed to form the
grid, making lower power grid connections also suitable for charging
stations. Battery storage combined with a flexible grid contract will also
increase suitable grid connections where the battery assures that the station
can deliver sufficient peak power even when the grid is throttled. To
increase locations with sufficient space, a suitable grid connection, and
close to large traffic flows, station operators can focus on several small
stations rather than a few big stations. Smaller stations require less peak
power and space, increasing suitable locations for charging stations.

Gird cost structure

To avoid using peak power from the grid charging stations can use battery
storage for peak shaving. This will lower the peak power and therefore the
cost to the grid operators based on the peak power every month. The battery
storage can also be used for energy arbitrage and frequency control which
will be an additional revenue stream for the charging station. Battery storage

40
will increase the initial cost for the charging station but lower the running
cost. Finance for starting capital seems to be a minor problem for charging
operators; therefore, additional battery storage should not hinder charging
station operators. What is a hindrance is the degree of use that is needed to
break even, which is also connected to the blocking mechanism of adoption.
Lower running grid cost will lower the break-even point for the degree of
use.

Adoption
To lower the investment cost for haulage firms charging stations can
provide semi-public stations where the stations are public during the day
and booked at night. This allows haulage firms to not invest in private
charging stations and lower the initial cost. It also gives charging stations an
additional revenue stream. This will be beneficial at the beginning of the
market where haulage firms have not invested in private charging and where
long ha that needs night charging has not converted to HBEV; therefore,
should the stations be relatively empty. To lower the uncertainty for haulage
firms on where to be able to charge, an option to book a charging point in
advance can be helpful. There are two other approaches that station
operators are considering to lower the uncertainty on where to charge. The
first is to build a large station to always have available charging points for
the users. The second is to build several smaller stations to spread the users
to several charging stations. Smaller stations can also favor haulage firms
with lower demand on optical driving patterns though charging stations will
be denser. Hybrid stations where the charger can be used by both EV and
HBEV will increase the degree of use for the chargers. Hybrid stations
should be combined with a booking system that prevents EVs from taking
over the charging spot meant for HBEV. In this case, HBEV book the time
they want to charge, and in the other free time where the chargers are not
booked, EVs can use the charger to increase the degree of use of the
charger.

Battery swapping
Collaborations between CPOs and HV manufacturers are needed to provide
battery swapping stations. The CPOs depend on batteries from the HV
manufacturer because there is no standard in batteries for battery swapping.

Interoperability
Instead of developing their own booking system CPOs should collaborate to
create one standard booking system. If each CPO develops its own system

41
without interoperability with other booking systems, they will create the
same problem with several different systems they want to avoid.

5.4.2 Regulations
Grid infrastructure
Locations with sufficient power from the grid are hard to find and are
slowing down the development of charging stations. This is predicated on
the regulation regarding grid development, which states that grid operators
cannot build the grid based on predictions. Changes to the regulation about
grid development to make it possible for grid developers to build the grid
based on forecasts will help the development of public charging stations.
The process of finding a location with a suitable grid connection is long and
can slow down the development of a charging station from the beginning.
Several charging station operators have stated that a grid power map would
be beneficial for finding suitable locations and that this would make the
process faster. A grid power map to show where there is available power in
the grid and where the power is lacking could be developed by
governmental institutions together with grid operators.

Gird cost structure

In order to help charging stations break even, a new cost structure for grid
power use should be developed for charging stations. The current cost
structure is based on peak power use each month even if that use is only
reached for a couple of hours per month. Charging stations have a low
degree of use and use the grid at a low percentage overall; therefore, a new
cost structure more suitable for the use case of charging stations should be
developed. This will lower the degree of use needed to be profitable and
therefore increase the likelihood of more charging stations.

Adoption
The Swedish government has subsidies HBEV public charging stations but
has not focused much on subsidies for HBEVs or private charging stations
for haulage firms. It is crucial for the market that haulage firms get
incentives to pursue HBEVs. The upfront cost is one of the biggest
hindrances for haulage firms to convert their HV to HBEV. They need to
buy HBEV that is more expensive than a regular HV and they also need to
invest in charging points in order to charge their HBEV over the night.
Developing new grid cost structures and regulations about grid development
can also have a smaller positive effect on private charging stations and
thereby haulage firms that will have their own private charging stations.
Subsidies for both HBEVs and private charging stations would lower the

42
upfront cost for HV operators and increase the number of users of HBEVs.
A distinction should be made between HBEV transport and HVO transport,
where incentives towards HBEV transport would make HBEV transport
more valuable for retailers. This is to increase the demand for HBEV
transport from retailers and to insentience HV operators to provide HBEV
transport.

Interoperability
If every actor develops their own booking system haulage firms need to
have the software for every system, this is what several actors want to
prevent. The focus has been on the payment system and creating a standard
payment system so that haulage firms do not need several different payment
systems. The same focus needs to be put on the booking system otherwise
the problem will still occur, but for booking systems instead of payment
systems. This will favor haulage firms and can positively affect the adoption
of HBEVs.

Battery swapping
Battery swapping has many benefits for the development of the TIS and can
help with the blocking mechanisms of grid infrastructure, grid cost
structure, and adoption, as shown in 4.2. The biggest problem with battery
swapping is the lack of legitimation of the technology in the TIS. There is
low user demand and inessives from HV manufacturers to develop HBEV
with battery swapping capabilities. To increase the legitimation of the
technology in the TIS battery swapping tests should be funded. This
combined with spreading information about the opportunities with battery
swapping will help legitimize battery swapping in the TIS from haulage
firms and HV manufacturers. Some actors believe that there needs to be a
state-regulated standard for batteries in order for battery swapping to be
viable. However, this is not something HV manufacturers want.

5.5 Theory
This thesis has provided three theoretical contributions, the first is the
development of the TIS to include recommendations to actors in the TIS.
This was provided with recommendations for components in business
models that could mitigate the blocking mechanisms. The second theoretical
contribution was developing a TIS with a qualitative data collection which
was recommended by Bergek (2019). This was done with the focus on
business models to further increase the understanding of the different
functions in the TIS. The final theoretical contribution was combining the
TIS and business models to evaluate and find important components in

43
business models for actors in a new a developing market. This is a new
method to understand better the system in which the business models will
act. This gives the ability to understand better what different components in
business models will be important in new emerging markets where no
standard business model is set.

44
6. Conclusions

6.1 Findings for CPOs business models

Image 2: Recommendations for CPOs

This thesis has identified five key blocking mechanisms and several
components in CPOs business models that can help mitigate these blocking
mechanisms. First is the implementation of battery storage which will help
with grid infrastructure, grid cost structure, and with flexible grid contract.
Smaller stations will both be beneficial for adoption and help with lower
demand on grid infrastructure. Flexible grid contracts can together with
battery storage lower the demand on the grid infrastructure even more
without losing the available peak power. Semi-public stations will benefit
from adopting HBEV and at the same time increase the degree of use for the
stations. Implementation of a booking system can both increase the adoption
and enable hybrid stations. Hybrid stations will increase the use case of the
charging stations and therefore increase the degree of use, which is the
underlying problem for the blocking mechanism adoption. Collaborations
will help increase interoperability and be crucial if a CPO wants to invest in
a battery swapping station. Battery swapping stations do not entirely solve
the blocking mechanisms of grid infrastructure, grid cost structure, and
adoption. However, they provide better conditions and lower this blocking
mechanism's overall obstacle for CPOs. Finally, interoperability will
simplify and increase the number of users that can use the charging stations
and therefore increase the degree of use, which once again is the underlying
problem in adoption of CPOs.

45
6.2 Findings for regulators

Image 3: Recommendations for regulators.

This thesis has also identified essential components of CPOs business
models also identified seven regulatory recommendations that will help the
overall TIS develop and grow. Firstly, change regulations about grid
development so grid operators can build the grid based on predictions. This
will significantly help with increasing location with available power, which
is the obstacle regarding grid infrastructure. This can also be beneficial for
haulage firms that own private charging stations and therefore increase the
adoption of HBEV. Developing grid power maps will also help with grid
infrastructure and increase the speed of finding suitable locations with
available power. Developing a new grid cost structure for charging stations
will lower the cost for CPOs. This will help with the grid cost structure that
is toady not beneficial for charging stations, especially in the early stage of
the market when the overall utilization of the chargers is low. This will also
be beneficial for haulers' private chargers and can increase the adoption of
HBEV. Subsidies for HBEV and private charging stations will further
increase the adoption of HBEVs by lowering the financial burden for
haulage firms. The distinction between HBEV and HVO transport can
further increase the adoption of HBEVs, where HBEV transports becomes
more profitable than HVO transport for haulers. There needs funding for
battery swapping experimentation to increase the legitimation for battery
swapping by showing that the technology work. Battery swapping can have,
as mentioned in 6.1, mitigating effects on the blocking mechanisms of
adoption, grid cost structure, and grid infrastructure. Developing a
standard booking system is essential to building a complete system with
interoperability. Increased interoperability will benefit haulage firms and,
therefore, increase the adoption of HBEVs.

46
6.3 Future research
This thesis has combined business models with the TIS literature to better
understand the TIS, especially in the functions of market formation and
influence of search. However, more research is needed to test and verify that
this combination can better understand the functions of the TIS. The
combination of TIS and business models is also believed to give a greater
understanding of what affects business models for actors in new emerging
markets where different business models have not been tested. To honestly
know if this statement is correct more research is needed. Both hypotheses
can be tested by conducting two separate research studies, one with a
traditional approach and one with the one we have conducted. These can
then be evaluated to verify if our proposed hypothesis holds up.

47
References
ACEA. (May 2021). Heavy-duty vehicles: Charging and refueling
infrastructure requirements.
Bergek, A. (2012), ‘Ambiguities and challenges in the functions approach to
TIS analysis: a critical literature review’, International Conference on
Sustainability Transitions (Copenhagen).
Bergek, A. (2019). Technological innovation systems: A review of recent
findings and suggestions for future research. In F. Boons & A. McMeekin,
Handbook of Sustainable Innovation (pp. 200–218). Edward Elgar
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788112574.00019
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A.
(2008a). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation
systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy, 37(3), 407–429.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A.
(2008b). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation
systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy, 37(3), 407–429.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003
Biancardi, A., Di Castelnuovo, M., & Staffell, I. (2021). A framework to
evaluate how European Transmission System Operators approach
innovation. Energy Policy, 158, 112555.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112555
Blum, N. U., Bening, C. R., & Schmidt, T. S. (2015). An analysis of remote
electric mini-grids in Laos using the Technological Innovation Systems
approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 95, 218–233.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.002
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature
and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
Calabrese, A., Forte, G., & Ghiron, N. L. (2018). Fostering sustainability-
oriented service innovation (SOSI) through business model renewal: The
SOSI tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 783–791.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.102

I
Cavalcante, S., Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J. (2011). Business model dynamics
and innovation: (Re)establishing the missing linkages. Management
Decision, 49(8), 1327–1342. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111163142
Chasin, F., Paukstadt, U., Gollhardt, T., & Becker, J. (2020). Smart energy
driven business model innovation: An analysis of existing business models
and implications for business model change in the energy sector. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 269, 122083.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122083
Danilovic, M., Liu, J. L., Müllern, T., Nåbo, A., Almestrand Linné,
P.(2021). Electrification of the Transportation System in China Exploring
Battery-Swapping for Electric Vehicles in China 1.0.
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hh:diva-46182
Du, R., Liao, G., Zhang, E., & Wang, J. (2018). Battery charge or change,
which is better? A case from Beijing, China. Journal of Cleaner Production,
192, 698–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.021
Fit for 55. (2022, June 3). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-
deal/fit-for-55-the-eu-plan-for-a-green-transition/
Furszyfer Del Rio, D. D., Sovacool, B. K., Bergman, N., & Makuch, K. E.
(2020). Critically reviewing smart home technology applications and
business models in Europe. Energy Policy, 144, 111631.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111631
Government Offices of Sweden Ministry of the Environment and Energy.
(2018). The Swedish climate policy framework
Günzel, F., & Holm, A. B. (2013). ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL —
UNDERSTANDING THE FRONT-END AND BACK-END OF
BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 17(01), 1340002.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919613400021
Harring, N & Jagers, S. C (2018) Why do people accept environmental
policies? The prospects of higher education and changes in norms, beliefs
and policy preferences, Environmental Education Research, 24:6, 791-806,
DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1343281
Hekkert, M., Negro, S., Heimeriks, G., & Harmsen, R. (2011).
Technological Innovation System Analysis. 16.
Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E.
H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for

II
analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 74(4), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002
Harring, N., Torbjörnsson, T., & Lundholm, C. (2018). Solving
Environmental Problems Together? The Roles of Value Orientations and
Trust in the State in Environmental Policy Support among Swedish
Undergraduate Students. Education Sciences, 8(3), 124.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030124
Kuhlmann, S., & Arnold, E. (n.d.). RCN in the Norwegian Research and
Innovation System. 48.
Kushnir, D., Hansen, T., Vogl, V., & Åhman, M. (2020). Adopting
hydrogen direct reduction for the Swedish steel industry: A technological
innovation system (TIS) study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242,
118185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118185
Lamprinopoulou, C., Renwick, A., Klerkx, L., Hermans, F., & Roep, D.
(2014). Application of an integrated systemic framework for analysing
agricultural innovation systems and informing innovation policies:
Comparing the Dutch and Scottish agrifood sectors. Agricultural Systems,
129, 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.001
Monios, J., & Bergqvist, R. (2020). Logistics and the networked society: A
conceptual framework for smart network business models using electric
autonomous vehicles (EAVs). Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 151, 119824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119824
Naor, M., Druehl, C., & Bernardes, E. S. (2018). Servitized business model
innovation for sustainable transportation: Case study of failure to bridge the
design-implementation gap. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 1219–
1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.221
Osterwalder, A. (2004). The Business Model Ontology a Proposition in a
Design Science Approach.
Peters, C., Blohm, I., & Leimeister, J. M. (2015). Anatomy of Successful
Business Models for Complex Services: Insights from the Telemedicine
Field. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(3), 75–104.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1095034
Post-2020 reform of the EU Emissions Trading System. (n.d.). 8.
Sabatier, V., Mangematin, V., & Rousselle, T. (2010). From Recipe to
Dinner: Business Model Portfolios in the European Biopharmaceutical
Industry. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 431–447.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.02.001

III
Saunders, M. (2007) Research Methods for Business Students (4th edition).
Pearson Education limited
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development. An
Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation.
Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
Volvo Trucks. (2022) Electromobility made easy. Volvo trucks.
https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/trucks/alternative-fuels/electric-
trucks.html?fbclid=IwAR18IPdcn2g8rcGzTYGDoTsMtKCckJ3hSEbWA2NA
gPh4I_J4MXCXdYGhoDQ

IV
Appendices

Interview questions:
Value proposition:
What service do you provide and with what product? Why do you use this
product?
Customer needs:
What are the most important customer needs and how do you deliver these?
Are you providing any extra service? Examples?
Value creation and delivery:
What is needed for you to provide this service?
Are there anything that is blocking these needs?
Are you planning to have editions that create value for you?
Value capture:
How will your payment structure look like?
General:
Will you have any additional revenue streams?
How do you view the government involvement in the HBEV industry?
What is needed for the HBEV market to grow from our perspective?
What are the biggest hurdles for charging operators?
Who do you fell about the other products and its benefits and drawbacks?
Who provides you with information about HBEV?