The Emergence of a Nation-wide Carsharing Co-operative in Switzerland
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Emergence of a Nation-wide Carsharing
Co-operative in Switzerland
This report by Sylvia Harms and Bernard Truffer has been kindly made available by its
authors for the library. Background information on the project of which it is part is available
at http://www.jrc.es/snm/SNM case study: Carsharing
Table of contents
Summary....................................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Carsharing in Europe: The situation before the experiments .......................................... 9
1.1 The niche of organised carsharing .......................................................................................9
1.2 The Swiss carsharing co-operatives...................................................................................11
1.2.1 ShareCom ......................................................................................................................11
1.2.2 ATG•AutoTeilet Genossenschaft ...................................................................................... 12
1.3 Carsharing in Germany and in the Netherlands.................................................................14
1.3.1. Germany........................................................................................................................14
1.3.2 The Netherlands.............................................................................................................. 15
2. Development of the niche in Switzerland.......................................................................... 17
2.1 The beginning: Two organisational philosophies and growth mechanisms ......................17
2.1.1 ShareCom ......................................................................................................................17
2.1.2 ATG ...............................................................................................................................18
2.2 Strategies in technological innovation................................................................................18
2.2.1 ShareCom ......................................................................................................................18
2.2.2 ATG ...............................................................................................................................19
2.3 Development of the two carsharing-organisations.............................................................19
2.3.1 Development phases: Pre-phase (before 1987)................................................................. 20
2.3.2 Foundation phase (1987-89) ............................................................................................ 21
2.3.3 Beginning growth phase and first attempts for a fusion (1989-92) ....................................... 22
2.3.4 Consolidation phase and political support measures (1992-95)........................................... 24
2.3.5 A phase of events and changes (1995-96) ........................................................................ 26
2.3.6 Merger and foundation of the Mobility co-operative (1997) ................................................. 29
2.3.7 Pro Share, a spinn-off of the merger ................................................................................. 31
2.4 The support network for carsharing in Switzerland............................................................33
2.4.1 National traffic clubs ........................................................................................................ 33
2.4.2 Automobile industry ......................................................................................................... 34
2.4.3 Car rental firms................................................................................................................ 34
2.4.4 Local authorities and parties............................................................................................. 35
2.4.5 Media .............................................................................................................................36
2.4.6 Other organisations ......................................................................................................... 36
2SNM case study: Carsharing
2.4.7 Members ........................................................................................................................37
2.4.8 ECS and BOA .................................................................................................................37
2.4.9 Network graph.................................................................................................................39
3. Other carsharing experiments in Europe .......................................................................... 40
3.1 StattAuto Berlin: The scientific approach ...........................................................................40
3.2 „Stichting voor Gedeeld Autogebruik“: The market-led approach......................................43
3.3 Introduction of carsharing in Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands ........................47
4. The role of political support measures within the different experiments...................... 49
4.1 Political support measures in Switzerland..........................................................................49
4.1.1 Support activities............................................................................................................. 49
4.1.2 Lessons learned in the context of the promotional program ................................................ 50
4.2 Political support measures in other countries ....................................................................54
5. The carsharing-users: Is carsharing a „sustainable transportation system“? ............. 56
5.1 The carsharing-users in Switzerland ..................................................................................56
5.1.1 Data base .......................................................................................................................56
5.1.2 Bottom-up experimentation and learning from the users..................................................... 56
5.1.3 Mobility patterns and motivations...................................................................................... 58
5.1.4 The emergence of new mobility forms............................................................................... 61
5.2 The carsharing-users in Germany and in the Netherlands................................................62
5.2.1 Bottom-up experimentation and learning from the users..................................................... 62
5.2.2 Mobility patterns, motivations and new mobility forms ........................................................ 63
6. Discussion and evaluation................................................................................................... 67
6.1 Technology, niche, variation and selection ........................................................................67
6.2 Success factors...................................................................................................................68
6.3 Regime shift ........................................................................................................................70
7. References............................................................................................................................. 72
Appendix A: Background of this report .................................................................................. 76
3SNM case study: Carsharing
Summary
This report focuses on the emergence and professionalisation of two carsharing co-operative in Switzerland.
They were both founded, independently of each other, in 1987 and merged into one national co-operative in
may 1997. Today, the co-operative covers almost the totality of organised carsharing in Switzerland.
“Organised carsharing”, means that an organisation owns a number of cars which may be used by members
of the organisations following certain reservation procedures.
Switzerland was the first country in which organised forms of carsharing were developed. But only short
time later, from 1988 onwards (and independently of the ongoing developments in Switzerland) a number of
carsharing organisations were founded in other European countries as well, especially in Germany, the
Netherlands and Austria. However, the market was much more diversified here from the very beginning -
with respect to the providers as well as the organisational form of carsharing. Today, about 70.000 people are
members of a carsharing organisation in those four countries, not to count those who privately share cars
with friends, neighbours or family members. Annual growth rates are relatively high in all countries. In order
to learn about the essential societal and infrastructure preconditions which enabled carsharing to become
popular, the report compares the Swiss developments with the emergence of carsharing in Germany and in
the Netherlands.
Carsharing can be considered as a service innovation. Mobility is covered by conventional middle class
automobiles while the main innovation consists of the organisation of a shared car use. However, in order to
be successful, a number of technological innovations had to be introduced, as well. A reservation and
accounting system as well as means for access control had to be invented (e.g. by installing on-board
computers in the cars). The huge success of carsharing was thus dependent on the existence, diffusion and
maturity of new information and telecommunication technologies. In order to reach a broader market, the
support of different societal actors was essential. Besides official promotion programs lanced by national
agencies, also traffic clubs, environmental organisations, the media and others helped the carsharing
organisations on their way to success.
During the diffusion process of carsharing, providers as well as carsharing users underwent a number of
learning processes. In Switzerland and in Germany providers and users of carsharing were identical in the
beginning. By giving the users a right to a say in organisational matters, the needs of the users could
adequately be considered in carrying out organisational changes. In return, the early carsharing users actively
helped to build up the carsharing organisations by applying specific „protection measures“ to the new
technology. In the Netherlands, the users’ needs were captured by regular market surveys.
Seen the users’ mobility behaviour, carsharing proves to be a technology that opens ways to a more
sustainable transport system. Former car owners continuously reduce their car use and make use of public
transport more frequently, former non-car owners keep their low level of individual mobility. Those learning
processes seem to be system-inherent: The reservation system and cost structure of carsharing organisations
hinder consumers from making use of the car in a habitual way.
Carsharing cannot operate without a sufficiently dense and attractive network of public transport. In regions
where such a network is at disposal, carsharing may establish itself as a complement for a largely public
4SNM case study: Carsharing
transport oriented mobility style. In the long run, carsharing has the potential to form part of a larger system
of „integrated mobility services“, i.e., a fruitful combination of individual and public transport. Such offers
have already been developed in Switzerland and in Germany in the context of the carsharing initiatives.
Acknowledgements
We thank all interview partners (the list is given below) and participants in the group
discussions for taking part in our research and answering the many questions we had. We
also thank the carsharing managers who put a lot of information material at our disposal.
Furthermore, we were in close contact to and had a lively exchange of information and
ideas with other researchers in Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands. Here we
would like to thank Sassa Franke (Berlin, Germany), Andreas Knie (WZB, Berlin), Rens
Meijkamp (Delft, The Netherlands), Felix Davatz (Zurich, Switzerland), and Conrad
Wagner (Lucerne, Switzerland) for this interesting and stimulating exchange. Special
thanks are due to Peter Muheim (Lucerne, Switzerland) who extensively reviewed the
case study material.
Finally, we would like to thank our project-coordinators, partners and the members of the
user group in the Strategic Niche Mangement project for their many valuable comments
and hints during project workshops and the very positive working environment over the
entire project time.
Responsibility for the statements made in the report remains with the authors.
5SNM case study: Carsharing
Introduction
The report on the emergence of a nation-wide carsharing co-operative in Switzerland was
carried out for the research project «Strategic Niche Management as a Tool for Transition
to a Sustainable Transportation System» (duration: May 1996 - October 1998). This
project is supported by the European Commission, DG XII, within the area "Human
Dimensions of Environmental Change" of the RTD Programme "Environment and
Climate".1
The report is based on a number of different sources:
• We analysed official documents published by ATG and ShareCom (the original Swiss
carsharing co-operatives, see below), by Mobility (the new, national carsharing co-
operative) and ProShare (the spin-off carsharing association), and by different
carsharing organisations in Germany and in the Netherlands. Those documents ranged
from statutes of the respective organisations, member journals and information for new
members, to reports on surveys among their members and reports on the development
of their organisation.
• We analysed media reports on carsharing and reports and lectures regarding
carsharing in Switzerland, Germany and in the Netherlands.
∞ We carried out personal interviews with the carsharing organisers (on different
organisational levels). A list of our interview partners is given below. Those interviews
were non-standardised in-depth interviews, following a detailed interview guide. In the
interviews, we wanted to learn about the development of the respective organisation,
developmental phases, facilitating and hindering factors in the development, the goals
and expectations of the organisers with respect to their enterprise (and possible
changes of those expectations by time), the supporting network surrounding the
organisation, received and desired political support measures and the experiences they
made with the members of their organisation. The interviews thus tried to understand
the organisational development as well as the accompanying learning and change
processes during the course of the years. Such processes can best be grasped with
open, non-standardised interviews since no fixed answer format is given and the
interview partners’ readiness to answer and their openness is enhanced. All interviews
were fully transcribed and analysed along the main topics of the interview guide.
∞ We carried out personal interviews with people who influenced the development of the
carsharing organisations or who were affected by this development (the "network" by
which the carsharing organisations are surrounded). A list of our interview partners is
also given below. Currently a Swiss research project on carsharing is carried out which
besides other aspects interviews institutions in the environment of carsharing. We will
be able to complement our work by the results of this study, which will be finished by
March 1998. We restricted our data gathering process mainly on the Swiss carsharing
1
More details on the research context of the report are given in Appendix A.
6SNM case study: Carsharing
network. For analysing the situation in Germany and in the Netherlands we rely on
respective statements given by the carsharing organisations themselves. Again we
held non-standardised in-depth interviews led along an interview guide. First, our
interview partners were asked to describe the structures of their own organisation and
the activities they were busy with. Then they were asked how much they knew about
carsharing, how long they already followed the development of carsharing in
Switzerland, how they assessed those developments and, if applicable, which activities
they had undertaken in order to support carsharing. Finally they should give their
opinion on political support measures for carsharing, their preferences about the
organisation of such support measures and their expectations about the future
development of carsharing.
• We carried out qualitative interviews and group discussions with carsharing members
in Switzerland (40 members in total). The procedure of this survey is described in
chapter 5. With respect to the carsharing members we also relied on quantitative
surveys either carried out by the carsharing organisations of their own accord or by
independent researchers who worked on behalf of national ministries. The latter
studies aimed at finding out if carsharing is indeed an environmentally benign
alternative to private car ownership and at estimating its future market potential.
ATG:
• Conrad Wagner (founder and president, 2 interviews)
• Christian Vonarburg (managing director)
• Peter Muheim (member of the board and researcher)
• Christoph Bucher (branch leader)
• Heiner Zweifel (former active member, car-operator)
ShareCom:
• Charles Nufer (founder and president until the end of 1996)
• Lorenzo Martinoni (managing director, 2 interviews)
• Monika Tschannen (managing director of sister-organisation CSC)
• Marcel Gehrig (regional coordinator)
• Alois Murer (co-founder and former active member, car-operator)
• Lukas Neff (former active member, car-operator)
Mobility:
• Discussion workshop with members of the Mobility board (Conrad Wagner, Monika
Tschannen, Peter Muheim, Michel Flamm)
ProShare:
• Charles Nufer (founder, same interview as above)
• Lukas Neff (founder, same interview as above)
European carsharing
• Carsten Petersen, StattAuto Berlin (managing director)
• Joachim Schwarz, StattAuto Bremen and ECS/European CarSharing (managing
director ECS)
7SNM case study: Carsharing
• Roger Theunissen, „Stichting voor Gedeeld Autogebruik“ (managing director of the
Dutch foundation for carsharing)
Swiss carsharing network:
• Ernst Reinhardt, BEW/Bundesamt für Energiewirtschaft (2 interviews)
• Monika Tschannen, VCS/Verkehrsclub der Schweiz (same interview as above)
• Mr. Riedwyl, TCS/Touring Club Schweiz (interview by Felix Davatz, see above)
• Hans Hüflinger, Opel Switzerland
• Hans-Peter Schick, VSAI/Verband Schweizerischer Automobilimporteure
• Regula Hanimann, VBZ/Verkehrsbetriebe Zürich (interview by Felix Davatz)
• Mr. Gürtler, Hertz (interview by Felix Davatz)
The report starts by describing the “technology” of organised carsharing in Europe. In the
second chapter the history of the emergence and professionalisation of the two former
carsharing co-operatives in Switzerland is reconstructed. This story is especially
interesting because of the strongly oppositional managerial philosophies which guided the
two co-operatives and which eventually led to the merger into a nation-wide co-operative.
The third chapter compares the developments in Switzerland with the experiences in
Germany and the Netherlands. In the context of Strategic Niche Management, the role of
actors who support the innovation, their networks and learning processes are especially
important. In the case of carsharing in Switzerland, policy programs and carsharing users
played a major role. The fourth chapter, therefore, analyses the role of political support
measures within the different national experiences. The following chapter concentrates on
the role of users in the development of the innovation and on the user’s learning processes
at the level of mobility behaviour. Finally, the potential of carsharing to lead to a more
sustainable mobility system is discussed in the sixth chapter.
8SNM case study: Carsharing
1. Carsharing in Europe: The situation before the experiments
1.1 The niche of organised carsharing
Carsharing means the common use of vehicles by various users in succession and
independent of each other. The duration and target of individual car trips is self-determined
by the respective car users. If various persons make use of the same car at the same time
(e.g. several people going to the same workplace in the same car) one speaks of car-
pooling (Muheim 1996). While sharing cars with others, a spontaneous use of cars is more
difficult, because the most important feature of carsharing is an uncoupling of the
ownership and use of cars: The individual right of disposal is substituted by a collective
one (Baum & Pesch 1994).
Almost every country knows private (informal) forms of carsharing, i.e., neighbours, friends
or family members share a car. The ownership can be arranged in different ways: Either
one person owns the car and others may also use it (which is often the case if family
members share a car) or several people together own the car and make arrangements
about the rights and duties of each owner (the preferred form if different families or friends
share a car). The degree of formality of sharing cars can also vary: Some people only
make informal arrangements about the use of the cars, others sign detailed formal
contracts. Since the most problematic threshold for sharing cars with others are
assurances (covering themselves in the event of a claim), national associations (e.g. the
German traffic association VCD, “Verkehrsclub Deutschland“, see VCD 1996, or the Dutch
foundation for carsharing, „Stichting voor Gedeeld Autogebruik“) support such private
forms of carsharing by distributing specimen contracts to interested persons. Additionally,
they negotiate with assurances in order to facilitate carsharing.
It is difficult to estimate the total number of private carsharers, since no formal registration
is needed. In most countries many more people own a driving license than a car. In 1990,
e.g., there were 36 million owners of a driving license in Germany (West-Germany only,
Der Bundesminister für Verkehr 1993, see Baum & Pesch 1994), but only 26 million cars.
So there must be a number of cars which are not used by one person only, but which are
also lent to others. The estimated number of carsharers in the Netherlands is about
50,000. This certainly is a conservative estimation, since currently there are 6 million cars,
but 9 million owners of a driving license. The number is given by the Dutch foundation for
carsharing and it is based on the number of inquiries they get from private persons who
seek for help in organising carsharing (the foundation runs a public telephone line which
can be contacted by interested people).
For the purposes of the SNM project, a niche is defined as a specific domain for the
application of a new technology in which producers and users form an alliance to protect
new technologies against too harsh market selection. A technology niche is characterised
by:
a) the technology under development
9SNM case study: Carsharing
b) a specific network of actors/partners
c) a specific application
“Organised carsharing” is the niche towards which the experiments we have analysed is
directed. It is posited somewhere in between traditional forms of “private carsharing” and
car rental. “The private car” is often a resource which is shared within a restricted circle of
users, normally located in or around a specific household and encompassing relatives and
friends. The ownership-right and therefore the responsibility for maintaining the car is often
held by a specific member of this household (typically the male “head” of the household).
Therefore all the use conflicts which may generate may be handled with a purely private
mode of conflict resolution. Organised forms of car sharing challenge this conception by
creating a new use-and-ownership paradigm for transport which expands the circle of
users which may have access to a specific car and professionalises the duties which are
associated with the ownership of a car. By this they bridge the currently still deepening
division between “public” and “private” forms of transport and plant the seed for a radical
transformation of the prevailing transport regime2. Table 1 classifies different forms of non-
purely private use of cars.
Table 1: Different forms of a common use of cars (Baum&Pesch 1994)
informal formal
Car-Pooling informal car pools agency for arranging lifts,
agency for job commuters
Car-Sharing carsharing within households, with organised carsharing,
friends/family members „neighbour cars“
car renting,
taxi
Organised carsharing creates a new use-and-ownership paradigm, by offering an
availability of cars which is almost as reliable, comfortable and flexible as possessing a
car, but at the same time it liberates the customer from all the negative implications of
actual ownership. The development of such a system has only been possible in the last
decade and has to be seen as a product innovation in its own right. This innovation seems,
at a first look, to have had mainly organisational and marketing components. However, the
huge success of some of these experiments was crucially dependent on the existence,
diffusion and maturity of new information and telecommunication technologies. These
technologies enhanced the comfort for the reservation of cars and increased the flexibility
of attributing a pool of cars to a multitude of users. In the near future, automatic tracking of
vehicles and automatic billing of trips with the help of on-board computers will play an even
more important role in the further diffusion of the innovation. The innovation we refer to
constitutes, therefore, a fully fledged example of a technological niche, in which users and
technology and their mutual shaping may be analysed. The comparison between the
Swiss experiments and the developments in Germany and the Netherlands shows that
there has been ample room for variation of the concepts and that they carry the potential
to transform fundamental building blocks of the prevailing transport regime.
2
A technological regime is defined as ”the whole complex of scientific knowledge, engineering practices,
production process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, and institutions and
infrastructures that make up the totality of a technology.” (Kemp et al, 1997)
10SNM case study: Carsharing
1.2 The Swiss carsharing co-operatives
In Switzerland, two carsharing organisations developed out of a number of private
carsharing initiatives since 1987 - ShareCom, mainly located in the German-speaking
parts of Switzerland with a focus in and around Zurich and ATG ("AutoTeilet
Genossenschaft"), spread all over Switzerland. They both had the form of a co-operative.
Their members purchased a certain share before joining the system, which they got back
when they left the organisation. In May 1997 both co-operatives merged. The newly
founded organisation, still a co-operative, is named "Mobility, CarSharing Switzerland" and
is based on a professionally organised system mainly orientated along the former ATG-
rules.
1.2.1 ShareCom
Fees: In 1996, ShareCom-members purchased a share of 1000 SFR, paid a fee of 60 SFR
per year and a combined charge of km driven and time for renting the car. This charge
was dependent on the car type (e.g. for a family car 0,55 SFR per km and 1,25 SFR per
hour). Included in the price were all costs, ranging from gasoline to assurances. All users
were assigned to a regional "user-group", i.e., to a certain location of the car(s) in their
immediate vicinity. If people were interested in founding a new user-group, at least 5
households had to bring in at least 10,000 SFR, in total, into the co-operative so that a
new car could be bought.
User groups: For each user-group there was one central group leader
("Benutzungsgruppenleiter") and a number of "car-operators" ("Wagenchefs") who were
responsible for a car each and who on an unpaid basis took care for the technical state of
the cars (i.e., bring cars into car repair shops if necessary). The group leader also worked
on an voluntary basis. S/he was the person to be contacted when problems with the cars
or with the organisation occurred and thus represented the communication interface
between the users and the organisation. The responsibility of being a car operator was a
yearly alternating job among the members of a user-group. Additionally, all members
should take care of the car wash in alternation. User-groups met annually and determined
a delegate for meetings of the whole organisation (see fig. 1).
Co-operative organs: The central decision making organ for decisions concerning general
principles of the co-operative was the totality of all members. General decisions were
made by ballots. On the organisational side there was a central office ("Geschäftsstelle")
who carried out the financial and other administrative duties. It was subjected to a
governing board ("Verwaltungsrat") who was in overall control of the business
responsibilities of the co-operative. Delegate meetings were the platform for information
exchange and information dissemination between members and organisation. Members
were also informed about new developments by a member journal published twice a year.
Additionally, an "ethical board" ("Ethischer Rat") was created in order to give advice in all
ecologically relevant questions of the co-operative (see fig.1).
11SNM case study: Carsharing
Fig. 1: Organisation of ShareCom
governing board
ethical board
central office
group leader group leader group leader
group leader
car-operator car-operator car-operator
user groups
Totality of all members: Ballots & delegate meetings
Reservation and use system: At the end of 1996, ShareCom had 5400 members who in
total ran 286 cars, mostly in the German-speaking parts of Switzerland (with a focus in and
around Zurich). Reservations for a car could be made by audiotex (telephone computer) or
by PC. ShareCom members could make use of all ShareCom-cars. However, most
reservations were made for cars in vicinity to the own house. 69% of all ShareCom-users
lived at a distance of less than 10 minutes to the closest ShareCom-car. Only 6% had
travelled more than 20 min (ShareCom 1995). Dependent on the number of users in a
certain region, an all-purpose car or a number of different car-types were available at one
location. All members disposed of a special key which could be used for opening a metal
box at the location of the car in which the car keys were deposited. A journey book for the
registration of the driven km and of special occurrences was located in the car (see fig.2).
1.2.2 ATG•AutoTeilet Genossenschaft
Fees: ATG did not differ much from ShareCom in its structure. Members either purchased
a share of 1000 SFR and paid an entrance fee of 200 SFR and no further annual fees, or
they did not buy any share but paid an annual fee of 100 SFR instead. ATG's driving
charge per hour was higher than ShareCom’s and somewhat lower per km driven (e.g., in
12SNM case study: Carsharing
1996 users had to pay 0.50 SFR per km for a family car (up to 100 km driven), 0.40 SFR
from 100 km onwards and 2.35 SFR per hour, all costs included).
Branches: Members were not gathered in "user-groups", but in "branches" ("Filialen") who
annually met and also determined delegates who had to represent the group in meetings
of the co-operative. Like ShareCom, ATG knew "branch leaders" ("Filialleiter") and car
operators. In contrast to ShareCom the users themselves did not have to take care of the
cars (car wash etc.). Instead, the branch leader and car operators looked after them and
were financially compensated for their work by a flat rate.
Co-operative organs: With the exception of an "ethical board" (which was substituted by an
auditing commission) the organisational structure and means of information dissemination
(a member journal) were the same.
Reservation and use system: Reservations for the cars were made by telephone via a 24-
hours attended telephone-line. The key-and-box-technology was the same as for
ShareCom, and users also had to register the km driven in a journey book located in the
cars (see fig. 2).
ATG was spread all over Switzerland and counted 6800 users and 350 cars at the end of
1996. ATG-members could make use of all ATG-cars, but like in ShareCom the car most
often used was the car of the branch a person belonged to.
Fig.2: Carsharing (ATG & ShareCom): Reservation and usage system (Autoteilen Österreich 1997)
1. make a reservation
(by telephone or PC)
2. go to car location
with personal key 4. write down driven
hours and kilometers
3. drive during reserved
time, bring car back to
original location
13SNM case study: Carsharing
1.3 Carsharing in Germany and in the Netherlands
1.3.1. Germany
Currently there are more than 60 carsharing organisations in Germany with about 20,000
carsharing members (Bröer 1997b). A number of carsharing organisations is only present
in one city or a smaller area, some others are branches of a greater umbrella organisation,
the „Carsharing Germany o-operative“ („Car-Sharing Deutschland Genossenschaft e.G.“),
founded by the „green“ German traffic club VCD („Verkehrsclub Deutschland“) in order to
spread carsharing in smaller towns or even rural areas, too (see 3.1).
Organisational forms: In Germany, carsharing is not bound to a specific legal
organisational form. There are currently three different forms chosen by the organisations:
Registered societies („eingetragener Verein“/e.V.), registered co-operatives („eingetragene
Genossenschaft“/e.G.) and limited companies („Gesellschaft mit beschränkter
Haftung“/GmbH).
More than half of the carsharing-organisations opted for the form of a registered society,
because joining and withdrawal can easily be organised and the members dispose of a
number of rights of participation. Registered societies can, however, only follow idealistic
aims, i.e., if they strive for mere economic aims, they have to be organised in a different
manner (e.g. in the form of a limited company, Baum & Pesch 1994). Because of the ease
to found a registered society, this form is especially suitable when an organisation is newly
founded. By time, a transition to other organisational forms can be made, e.g. to a limited
company.
The advantage of a limited company is the possibility of unhindered economic activity. It is
a favourable form for bigger organisations who understand themselves as business
enterprises. In this case, they offer the service of a common use of vehicles to external
clients who have no right to a say in a matter. Disadvantages are a number of formal
regulations and foundation costs.
In order to nevertheless integrate the carsharing members/clients into organisational
discussions, mixed forms are also possible. E.g. the members found a registered society
which is independent of the limited company and which represents their interests with
regard to the organisation. By this measure, a profit-oriented enterprise policy chargeable
to its members is avoided (loc.cit.). One organisation who introduced such a mixed form is
StattAuto Berlin. As Carsten Petersen, managing director, puts it: „ ...the other reason (for
choosing the form of a limited company) were a bit egocentric reasons, that we said, we
want to have this thing in our hands and we want to decide. That we said, we want this
flexibility. (...) No enterprise without risk. Co-operatives are not inclined to take risks,
because the members of the co-operative (...) would say: Why then? We are fine. Why
should we do something of which we do not know the exact result? (...) (On the other
hand) we are very dependent on this right to a say of our users. (...) (Carsharing) is a very
complex system that everybody has to go along with, and therefore one has to try to
create a certain identification of the clients with the organisation, and there has to happen
14SNM case study: Carsharing
more between consumer and organisation. (...) This way, it is possible to strongly reduce
the damages, res. if a damage happens, that people indeed report it to the centre.“
20% of all German carsharing-organisations are organised as a registered co-operative.
The aim of a co-operative is self-help of its members by mutual support. The members
bring in the necessary capital and, as a countermove, participation, in-house democracy,
self-administration and transparency are guaranteed. Due to legal reglementations, the
foundation of a co-operative in Germany is, however, a time-intensive and costly
endeavour. The same holds for corporations, („Aktiengesellschaften“/AGs), too (statement
of Carsten Petersen). In Switzerland, it is just the opposite, and therefore a high number of
co-operatives and corporations exist here in different societal areas. The choice of an
organisational form for carsharing is thus not only dependent on the aims followed by the
organisation (i.e. if it stronger focuses on idealistic aims or if it wants to become a business
enterprise), but it also depends on legal reglementations.
Reservation and use system: The carsharing-system equals the Swiss one: Interested
persons become members of the organisation, pay an annual or monthly fee (or a unique
deposit/share without further administrative fees), get a key or a chipcard for a box that is
installed at the car location and can take the car if they made a reservation in advance
(mainly by telephone. Often the organisations do not run an own reservation line, but they
are connected to a taxi enterprise or a similar organisation which can be reached during
24 hours of the day). Reservations can be made a very short time in advance, and the
minimum reservation time is 1-2 hours. After having used the car, users have to write
down the kilometres and time they have driven, or their chipcard automatically registers
the driving data and transfers them to a central office. Driving charges have to be paid
monthly.
Labour input of the members: The organisational philosophies differ among the different
carsharing organisations. Whereas own labour input of the members is forced by some
organisations (especially in co-operatives), others understand themselves as service
enterprises and offer a full car service to their members. They pay car-operators who are
responsible for such duties (e.g. StattAuto Berlin, see Petersen 1994).
1.3.2 The Netherlands
The structure of carsharing in the Netherlands largely differs from Germany and
Switzerland, not only with respect to its organisational forms, but also with respect to its
reservation and usage system.
Organisational forms: There are about 30 different carsharing-organisations in the
Netherlands with up to date more than 25,000 members (Autodate 1997a). On the one
hand, some carsharing-organisations were founded in a bottom-up manner like in
Germany and in Switzerland (see 3.2). The cars of those organisations are located in
vicinity to their member households. However, in contrast to the other two countries, their
organisational form is a mere service enterprise without the right to a say of the members
in organisational matters. On the other hand, already existent mobility providers like car
renters, the automobile industry and the national traffic club introduced innovative forms of
15SNM case study: Carsharing
car renting which are also subsumed under the label of carsharing. The definition of
carsharing is thus broader than in Germany and in Switzerland (which might explain the
above mentioned high number of carsharing members). This broader definition also finds
its expression in the fact that only two of the Dutch carsharing-organisations are allowed to
be a member of the European umbrella organisation for carsharing, ECS („European Car
Sharing“, see 2.4.8). The distinctive criterion between car renting and carsharing is seen in
a „long-lasting contact (...) between the provider and the consumer“ which should be
present in order to speak of carsharing (statement of Roger Theunissen).
Reservation and use system: Three (four) different carsharing schemes can be
distinguished in the Netherlands (Autodate 1997a, van Roessel 1996b, information
brochures of different carsharing providers):
• Neighbourhood-carsharing: The cars are located in vicinity to the households of the
carsharing members. This system resembles the Swiss and the German system.
Members pay a monthly or an annual fee for their participation, plus a unique deposit
or share which they get back when they leave the organisation. They get a personal
chipcard with which they can open a box which contains the car keys and which is
installed at the car locations. Most often, a board computer directly transfers the driving
data to a central office. The minimum reservation time is one hour. There is a time-,
kilometre- and car-dependent tariff for driving. The cars have to be brought back to the
same location where they were taken. Organisations who introduced this system are
e.g. Greenwheels or Autodelen.
• Carsharing per coupon: The users purchase a „chequebook“ with a number of coupons
for using the cars of a car rental fleet. When renting a car, those cheques can be
cashed in. The cars should be reserved some days before actually using them. This
system is mainly offered by the car rental firms, e.g. by Europcar („Go Green“
programme) or Budget („Snel Weg Plan“). Reservations can be made during the
opening hours of the rental firms, and the cars are centrally located at the firms’ sites.
In contrast to normal car renting, the reservation of the cars is facilitated (by telephone
via a member number) and payment is done in advance via the chequebooks. The
renting prices are somewhat lower than in normal car renting. Still, when renting the
cars a driving license has to be shown every time, and a deposit has to be left. The
cars have to be brought back to the same location where they were rented. The
minimal reservation time is half a day.
• Carsharing on subscription: The users of this system decide in advance how many
days per year they would like to rent a car and which kind of car they would like to
have. Then they purchase a special car rental subscription. If the car is needed on
more days than originally planned or if a different kind of car is needed, a change is
easily possible by paying an extra fee. A small administrative fee is paid per year, but
no deposit has to be left. The cars are available at the (mainly centrally located) offices
of the organisation, and there is the possibility to give back the car at other locations.
Reservations can be made during the opening hours of the organisation. The cars
should be reserved at least some hours in advance. The minimal reservation time is 24
hours (and in total at least 10 days per year), and it can be done by telephone via a
16SNM case study: Carsharing
personal member number. Reservation and payment are thus easier than in normal car
renting, and additionally some extra offers are given to the users (e.g. a reduced tariff
for using a taxi to the firm’s office). Organisations who introduced this system are e.g.
the Dutch traffic club ANWB („Algemene Nederlandse Wegenbond“) or garagists who
are organised in the national automobile association BOVAG („Bond van
garagehouders“).
• Business carsharing: A firms buys a number of cars and organises an internal
carsharing-system for its members. This internal firm carsharing can be considered as
a part of the carsharing niche, but it shall be left out of consideration here.
Labour input of the members: None of the Dutch carsharing organisations knows an
volunteer labour input of its members. All understand themselves as service enterprises.
The Dutch carsharing foundation („Stichting voor Gedeeld Autogebruik“, see 3.2) supports
such an attitude: „We say: Leave the service of your cars over to the professionals! In the
Netherlands, we are used to rent everything, except the car. And everything that we do,
we have it done by professionals.“ (statement Roger Theunissen).
2. Development of the niche in Switzerland
2.1 The beginning: Two organisational philosophies and growth mechanisms
2.1.1 ShareCom
Organisational philosophy: The activities of ShareCom were not restricted to carsharing
although the common use of cars took the greatest share. ShareCom’s official slogan was
"using instead of owning", which means that they aimed at an energy-, resources- and
environmentally benign use of consumption goods as well as at the common ownership,
use and maintenance of those goods (ShareCom Statuten 1994). ShareCom understood
itself as a non-profit enterprise. Honorary, non-paid co-operative work played a central
role: It guaranteed for a maximum identification of the members with the co-operative
system and allowed for low use fees. As this system reached its growth limits, a pure
carsharing-sister-organisation was founded in 1995, the "Car Sharing Company" (CSC,
see 2.3). CSC gave up the principle of volunteer work and was explicitly set up as a
service enterprise.
Growth mechanism: With respect to organisational growth ShareCom understood itself as
an "organism that divides into more and more cells in the course of time" (statement of the
ShareCom-management). Thus, they strove for organic, bottom-up growth of their
organisation. The system should convince by itself and ideally no publicity should be
necessary for growth. The administrative system should be as small as necessary in order
not to create too many hierarchies and to remain cheap.
17SNM case study: Carsharing
2.1.2 ATG
Organisational philosophy: ATG started as a pure carsharing-organisation from the very
beginning. It aimed at a well-considered and economical use of individual means of
locomotion in order to protect the environment. The costs for this sort of use should be
kept at a reasonable minimum (ATG Statuten 1992). Carsharing was considered as only
one means of reducing the negative environmental effects of individual transport. In the
long run ATG strove for establishing new, integrated mobility products in co-ordination with
public transport. Though explicitly organised and named as a co-operative ("AutoTeilet
Genossenschaft") ATG underwent a development into the direction of a service enterprise
by determining and financially compensating (though not really paying) people responsible
for the maintenance of the cars and administrative tasks. Additionally, the word "co-
operative" disappeared from official publications, and the organisation very soon named
itself "carsharing Switzerland" ("AutoTeilet Schweiz").
Growth mechanism: Contrary to ShareCom ATG did not want to passively wait for bottom-
up-movements in order to grow but actively tried to force their growth top-down by
establishing a net of car locations all over Switzerland. When having placed a car in a new
location they actively ran advertisements in order to acquire the needed number of users
for this car. In the way ATG strove towards becoming a service enterprise their
management had to be more labour-intensive.
2.2 Strategies in technological innovation
From the very beginning, ATG and ShareCom both faced enormous growth rates between
some hundred percent in the first years and 50-75% from 1991 onwards. Interestingly
enough both grew with the same pace up to 1995, and only from 1996 onwards ATG
scored higher growth rates than ShareCom (see 2.3).
The technological strategies of coping with growth differed in both organisations due to
differing organisational philosophies.
2.2.1 ShareCom
Based on its philosophy of little organisational hierarchies and cheap driving charges,
ShareCom sought technologies that demanded little labour input. Therefore they relied on
a broad net of volunteering members and decentralised all administrative and technical
tasks as long as possible. Only in 1992 they were forced to found a central office taking
over the main activities. For guaranteeing low intensity of formal labour also in the long
run, ShareCom invested in the development of an electronic reservation system. With their
telephone keyboard, members could make reservations by choosing the location where
they needed a car, state their preferred time of use, cancel and change reservations and
also give in information when they brought back their car at an earlier point in time. In
order to facilitate administrative tasks, an electronic data processing (EDP)-system for
accounting and charging was developed and installed. Furthermore, ShareCom developed
a board computer to be installed in the cars which should automatically register driving
data and transfer them to a central accounting computer.
18SNM case study: Carsharing
2.2.2 ATG
Though also relying on a co-operative structure, ATG started centralising functions more
early. Single responsibilities as car operators and branch leaders were handed over to
specific persons who were financially compensated for their work. As ATG understood
itself as a service enterprise, they did not invest in an electronic reservation system but in
a personally attended telephone line. For the facilitation of administrative tasks they also
invented and installed an EDP-system. In the medium term, the development of a board
computer would have also been necessary for ATG, not only in order to save labour costs,
but also to avoid reservation errors and to avoid abuse of their cars. This is especially true
in times of ongoing growth rates and an increasing anonymity among members. However,
in the beginnings of the 90ies the technology seemed not to be mature enough for the
needs of ATG.
2.3 Development of the two carsharing-organisations
Though pursuing different organisational philosophies and growth mechanisms and though
relying on different innovation strategies, both organisations up to 1995 grew with the
same pace. Both scored growth rates between some hundred percent in the first years
and 50-75% from 1991 onwards. In 1996 ATG sped up and counted a higher increase in
members than ShareCom (see fig. 3).
Fig. 3: Growth in members
7000
number of members
6000
5000
4000 ATG
3000 ShareCom
2000
1000
Dec.95
0
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Jun.95
Jan.97
Due to its bottom-up growth mechanism ShareCom was not so widely spread over
Switzerland and thus had locations in less communities than ATG (see fig. 5). In places
they were active in, they disposed of a more dense net of locations and thus their cars
19SNM case study: Carsharing
were better utilised (see fig. 4). The history of this growth success of both organisations
will be described in the next chapters.
Fig.4: Growth in cars
350
300
250
200 ATG
ShareCom
150
100
50
Dec.95
0
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Jun.95
Jan.97
Fig. 5: Growth in communities
160
140
120
100
ATG
80
ShareCom
60
40
20
Dec.95
0
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Jun.95
Jan.97
2.3.1 Development phases: Pre-phase (before 1987)
The two carsharing organisations were both based on private initiatives and developed
independently of each other.
20SNM case study: Carsharing
ShareCom: In Zurich, two young families who knew each other began sharing a car in the
beginning of the 80s and were inspired with this idea by a third person, the later founder
and president of ShareCom who lived in an other part of the city. They all considered
themselves as idealists, showing somewhat "green tendencies" and also liked the idea
because it proved, besides having environmental effects, to be much cheaper than driving
an own car. They all were infrequent car users but nevertheless had a need for individual
mobility. From the very beginning the families had clear reglementations about how to use
the car, and they mutually signed user contracts. The later founder of the ShareCom as
well as the two families tried to convince friends and acquaintances of the idea of
commonly owning a car, and when a number of 16 interested persons was reached, they
decided to give this idea a more structured form. A co-operative was founded in June
1987. As some of the interested persons not only shared a car, but also a video camera,
the co-operative was not restricted to carsharing, but was generalised to common use of
consumer goods (statements of the ShareCom-founders). Some of those early members
seemingly were not only environmentally motivated but they also aimed to face the
societal problems of excessive individual consumption (see also Zierhofer 1991).
ATG: At the same time two young people in a small city near Lucerne developed the same
idea of commonly using a car. They were inspired by an environmentally more benign as
well as more cost-effective mode of individual transport. Soon four other persons were
convinced of the idea of a common use of cars, so that also here the need for a more
structured form of carsharing rose (statement of the ATG-founder). Again a co-operative
was founded in 1987. The official foundation took place some months before the
foundation of ShareCom (Petersen 1995).
2.3.2 Foundation phase (1987-89)
Mutual ignorance: Until the beginning of 1989 both co-operatives lived in almost total
ignorance of each other. First the presidents of the organisations got to know each other
and stayed in mutual contact. Both thus had developed a similar concept of carsharing
(concerning the organisational form) independently of each other. Private carsharing
proved to be popular at that time, and a transition from private to organised carsharing
seemingly "was in the air" (statement VCS). The mutual ignorance between the members
of both co-operatives during that time led to a comfortable "island position" of both
organisations. ShareCom stayed a small group of 16 people until the beginning of 1989
and did not actively promote their co-operative. ATG seems to have been somewhat more
active on the communication side as they in the first two years grew much more rapidly
than ShareCom. At the end of 1989 ATG already counted 124 members, whereas
ShareCom only attracted 55 people.
Growth mechanisms: The growth mechanisms of both organisations were similar in both
organisations. As soon as a member moved to an other part of the city or a totally different
region of Switzerland, it became difficult for this person still to share a car with the same
group. Thus, the moving person actively looked for people interested in carsharing in the
new living place. As soon as enough people were found in order to finance a new car (or,
alternatively, as soon as a person was found who already owned a car but did not use it
that extensively so that he or she agreed to share it with others) those people were taken
21SNM case study: Carsharing
up in the co-operative. The system of "user-groups" was born. Also ATG formed "user-
groups" at that time (and also called them that), and like ShareCom their system relied on
voluntary work.
Reservation and use systems: The reservation and use systems were rudimentary in both
organisations at that time, though more sophisticated within ATG than within ShareCom.
ShareCom-members had to call the car-operator, make a reservation, get the car at the
last user's house and write down the km driven in a book located in the car. Alternatively, if
a member had brought in a private car into the organisation, other members had to call
this person and had to make arrangements about when to use the car and how to get the
car keys. ATG developed a "reservation board" at a fixed car location which soon was
substituted by a metal box. All users owned a key for this box which not only comprised a
reservation book but also the car keys. I.e., if somebody wanted to make use of the car, he
or she had to go to the car location some time in advance, had to check if the car would be
free at the time s/he wished to drive and had to make a reservation. After the ride, the
driven km had to be written down. Accounting and charging in both organisations was
done on evenings and weekends by member households on an honorary basis. In this
early phase, both organisations merely knew a km-tariff, but no time-dependent tariff.
2.3.3 Beginning growth phase and first attempts for a fusion (1989-92)
Professionalisation tendencies within ATG: ATG soon noticed (by growing numbers of
members) that there could be a market for carsharing, and they slowly began following a
professionalisation strategy. This strategy was pushed by ATG's president and supported
by the governing board. The early users had different opinions about this step, and at least
some of them feared that the organisation would lose its co-operative character into a
commercial enterprise with a hierarchical organisation structure. ATG decided to actively
spread their network of car locations over the whole of Switzerland, in the long run, and
they were thus forced to advertise their co-operative. Within ATG there were some
opponents to this course as it was feared that such a strategy would exceed the financial
power of the co-operative. This opponents, however, never proposed a formal counter
proposal.
First contacts and conflicts between both organisations: In 1989, members of both
organisations slowly got aware of the respective other organisation. As long as each
organisation had stayed in its own region (ShareCom in Zurich, ATG in the region of
Lucerne), this double existence was accepted by the members. They however got in
conflict in regions where both organisations got active.
In cities with car locations of both organisations, ATG and ShareCom users soon started
requiring cross-usership agreements from their respective organisations since this would
enhance their own flexibility. But the governing boards of both organisations were stuck in
communication problems at that time. This was mostly due to differing organisational
philosophies and little willingness to compromise. "Everyone wanted to keep his own
child", a child that was not allowed to change in character (statement of ATG- and
ShareCom-management). These differences grew so big that in the end (1992) ATG and
ShareCom stopped their official communication.
22You can also read
