Elevating B2B Mobility with Sharing Autonomous Electric Vehicles: Exploring Prerequisite Criteria and Innovative Business Models

Abstract

The transition towards a circular economy compels manufacturing companies in the transportation industry to reassess how they create, deliver, and capture value for their customers. Autonomous electric vehicles, with their advanced connectivity, autonomy, and efficiency, offer innovative business opportunities and services. However, there is limited knowledge concerning the sharing of autonomous electric vehicles in the business-to-business (B2B) market, particularly for industrial manufacturing companies. This study aims to identify the prerequisite criteria and potential innovative business models for sharing autonomous electric vehicles within a B2B context. To investigate this phenomenon, the study employs a case study approach within the heavy-duty vehicle industry, which involves a vehicle manufacturer and customers from a specific industry sector. The findings reveal that economic gain, service quality, and accessibility serve as prerequisite criteria for sharing autonomous electric vehicles in a B2B context. Furthermore, by leveraging a morphological framework, the study outlines five business model scenarios to explore the potential of sharing autonomous electric vehicles in enhancing B2B mobility. This research contributes to the field of business model innovation in a B2B context by introducing a model that delineates both the prerequisite criteria and potential business model concepts for the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles.

1. Introduction

The mitigation of climate change represents one of the greatest challenges facing society today [1], which implies that entire sectors, social systems, and industries must transform [2]. To address this situation, the concept of a circular economy (CE) has attracted increased attention among practitioners, academia, and policymakers as a guiding principle to keep materials, products, and components at the highest utility rate and value at all times [3,4,5]. Although there exist critiques on the concept of the CE [6], the CE is viewed as a condition for sustainability [4]. The CE can be defined as “a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimised by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops” [4] (p. 759). Hence, adopting a more circular approach is considered as a means of enhancing companies’ competitiveness while concurrently reducing their environmental footprint.

The transportation industry accounts for 20 percent of global CO₂ emissions and stands as the second-largest carbon-polluting sector worldwide [7]. Consequently, with the electrification of vehicles, this industry has become a pivotal player in facilitating a transition to a net-zero economy and attaining the European Union’s (EU) commitment to achieving climate neutrality by 2050 [8,9]. In this regard, the construction equipment manufacturing sector in the EU, which comprises approximately 1200 companies with annual revenues totaling €40 billion, constitutes an integral component of Europe’s engineering industries and holds a key position [10]. It is estimated that throughout its life cycle, the construction built environment in the EU contributes to roughly 40% of energy consumption and 36% of CO₂ emissions [10]. Consequently, manufacturing companies within this sector discern numerous opportunities for decarbonizing construction activities, thereby delineating meaningful interim targets to be reached by 2030 in the form of science-based goals [10,11]. These targets encompass considerations ranging from the overall design of construction site projects to the organization and operation of construction sites, as well as the machinery utilized [10].

The transition toward a circular economy (CE) necessitates changes in the way a company generates value, comprehends business, and executes its operations. This implies a need for re-evaluating the business models (BMs) within companies [12,13]. Business model innovation is recognized as a key element in driving this industrial transformation [4]. While a BM can be defined as a cognitive schema that elucidates how a company captures, creates, and delivers value by exploiting diverse business opportunities [14], business model innovation denotes the design of novel changes to the fundamental characteristics or components of a firm’s business model, thus encompassing the underlying architecture that interlinks these facets whenever necessary [15]. Companies that are capable of innovating and swiftly implementing new BMs can attain a competitive edge over their counterparts [16].

For instance, a means to seize circular economy opportunities through business model innovation involves a transition from product sales to the provision of outcome- or performance-based services, thereby consequently inducing a shift in how value is both created and captured, as well as how it is ultimately delivered [17]. In another sense, this means transitioning from a product-centric to a product–service value proposition [18], such as product–service systems (PSSs) [19,20,21]. PSSs offer one of the most promising BMs, as they comprise integrated combinations of products and services [19,22], and the ownership of a product is not necessarily transferred to the customer [23]. Researchers have described that designing PSSs supports the transition to a CE, as PSS offerings have the capacity to reduce resource consumption, minimize waste, and extend lifespan; e.g., see Refs. [24,25,26,27]. In essence, these solutions yield economic, environmental, and social benefits as companies enhance product utilization and competitiveness [19], thereby contributing to the slowing, narrowing, and closing of resource usage [28].

The current transformation of the transportation industry has the potential to change the BMs of the industry, where connectivity, electrification, autonomous driving, and sharing are four important trends with which companies are currently working [29]. Thomson et al. [30]. explained that the manufacturers of industrial construction equipment are working with these trends and are therefore facing a huge shift considering the technological development and innovation within the area of digitalization, automation, and electrification. The products, as well as the technologies behind them, open a spectrum of new business opportunities and BMs for capturing value that can create a substitute for product ownership [31]. Even manufacturers of the heavy-duty vehicle industry are increasingly becoming service providers of industrial equipment and machinery [32], which can improve the intensity of product usage [33] and increase the value of their products [34].

Autonomous electric vehicles, which have been heralded as the future of mobility, introduce disruptive changes to the market, with profound implications for the economy, the environment, and society [35]. Shared autonomous electric vehicles, which are capable of sequentially accommodating requests from various customers, are poised to instigate a paradigm shift in transportation. This shift will influence customer behaviors, mobility services, and vehicle ownership, among other aspects [36]. For manufacturers in the heavy-duty vehicle industry, these interconnected autonomous electric vehicles offer fresh opportunities to embrace the circular economy. They can achieve this by reducing emissions and resource consumption through renewable energy utilization, thereby prolonging product lifecycles, optimizing battery management, promoting shared mobility, endorsing recycling and material recovery, and fostering sustainable manufacturing and design practices; e.g., see refs. [35,37,38,39,40]. The autonomy of electric vehicles itself paves the way for modular platforms that accommodate smaller vehicles, thereby departing from the traditional practice of selling larger vehicles. This shift opens up various business and ownership models in the realm of autonomous vehicles across different B2B sectors, including construction, materials, agriculture, and more. Their integration into comprehensive transportation systems and data-driven efficiency further aligns with circular principles, thus making them a vital component in constructing a more sustainable and resource-efficient mobility ecosystem [30,38,41].

Despite the potential benefits associated with shared autonomous electric vehicles, the adoption of circular economy (CE) practices in heavy machinery remains a relatively new research theme [41,42]. The market penetration of CE business models in manufacturing sectors is limited, primarily due to companies’ shortcomings in executing CE business model innovation effectively [43]. Existing approaches offer limited guidance for tailored solutions to address sector-specific challenges [13,43]. Furthermore, the contributions of users to the development of new business models are essential but often overlooked in the literature [44,45]. Therefore, more research is needed to define the criteria for user participation in transitioning from ownership to the shared usage of autonomous electric vehicles, thereby taking into account the sector-specific context.

It is worth noting that the criteria identified in the literature often revolve around nonownership business models rather than the business-to-business (B2B) sharing of electric vehicles [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. B2B relationships and B2B marketing significantly differ from business-to-customer (B2C) contexts [54,55], thereby encompassing variations in market conditions, business practices, customer behaviors, and internal and external governance [54,55]. Even the practices related to value cocreation, engagement strategies, and required capabilities are notably more intricate and distinct than those in B2C scenarios, which involve interactions among customers, sellers, and other intermediary actors [56]. B2C transactions have predominantly dominated the current market for sharing products, and research on the adoption of sharing services by B2B companies is still in its nascent stages; see, e.g., ref. [57]. There is limited knowledge regarding business models (BMs) with sharing perspectives that are tailored to industrial markets, particularly those marked by high-technology products [58], such as autonomous electric vehicles.

Hence, the present study aims to address these two gaps pertaining (1) to the criteria for B2B sharing from the customers’ perspective and (2) to advance the understanding of the business models (BMs) with sharing orientations tailored to industrial markets. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to investigate the prerequisite criteria and potential business models for sharing autonomous electric vehicles within a B2B context. The study is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: From the customers’ perspective, what are the prerequisite criteria for sharing autonomous electric vehicles in a B2B context?

RQ2: How can business models be adapted to facilitate the sharing of autonomous electric vehicles in a B2B context?

The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the study’s theoretical background. Section 3 describes the research methodology, including the research approach, case company, data collection, and analysis. Section 4 reveals the empirical findings, and Section 5 discusses and analyzes the study’s findings. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the main conclusions, addresses limitations, and makes suggestions for future research.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Circular Economy and PSS Business Models

An evolution towards product–service systems (PSSs) from a product-centered approach within firms can be conceptualized as a servitization strategy [59]. This progressive transformation encompasses various organizational facets, including strategy and structure. The initiation of this journey may involve providing basic or intermediate services (such as maintenance or repair) and subsequently progressing towards more sophisticated, advanced services such as digital services, smart services, autonomous services, or smart circular services [21,60,61]. Product–service system (PSS) business models are being increasingly considered as a way to achieve a circular economy [3,23,62]. PSS concepts can be divided into three main categories: product-oriented services, use-oriented services, and result-oriented services [22]. Product-oriented services are focused on the sales of products, and additional services are added through maintenance and consultancy [22]; meanwhile, use-oriented services and result-oriented services are more advanced, thereby requiring new business concepts [63]. Use-oriented services means that the product remains in the ownership of the providers but is made available for users in different forms and is sometimes shared by the users to increase the capacity utilization of the product [22]. Use-oriented services include three options regarding the products’ accessibility to the user: leasing, renting, and pooling (Roy, 2000; [22]). Finally, in result-oriented services, the user buys a result instead of a product [22]. Result-oriented services also have three categories: outsourcing, pay-per-service unit, and functional result [22]. All three categories of PSSs can enable circular strategies, which can be applied simultaneously.

2.2. Creating New Business Model Concepts

The existing literature has put forth various typologies, strategies, frameworks, and tools to generate innovative business model concepts (e.g., Refs. [22,24,63,64,65,66,67,68]). Each of these proposals offers distinct perspectives and analytical approaches. A thorough analysis of the literature reveals that the morphological frameworks introduced by Lay et al. [63] and Kley et al. [64] are particularly suited for investigating the phenomenon at hand and warrant further exploration. These frameworks offer a visual representation and a classification scheme for key characteristics or attributes, thereby presenting a range of potential options to select and adopt diverse business model concepts. Notably, these two frameworks encompass crucial attributes that must be considered when facilitating business model concepts for the sharing economy within a B2B context, especially for industrial manufacturing companies.

Lay et al. [63] provided a set of characteristics through which it is possible to create a fine-grained characterization of product–service-like BM options—namely, ownership (during the phase of use and after the phase of use), personnel (manufacturing and maintenance), the location of operation, single/multiple customer operation, and payment model. For example, ownership during the phase of use refers to which party has the property rights to the equipment or machinery during the term of the contract. The equipment producer can either remain in the possession of the equipment or sell it to the customer. Another option is selling the equipment to a third party that leases the equipment back to the provider or to the customer. The customer also has the option to form a joint venture with any third party to buy the equipment. Ownership after the phase of use refers to who has the right of disposition after the contract expires. Responsibility for personnel describes the allocation of the workforce in a BM, which can be assumed either by equipment producers, by customers, or by a joint venture [63]. Accordingly, the payment model consists of options such as pay per unit, pay for availability, pay a fixed rate, or pay for equipment.

Similarly, Kley et al. [64] identified potential PSS BMs specifically for electric mobility that considered both the vehicle and the battery levels based on four characteristics: ownership, type of billing, after-sales service provider, and exclusiveness of use. They further defined five actors in the ownership options: the vehicle manufacturer, customer, independent provider, battery producers, and energy utility companies. The battery and vehicle do not necessarily have to belong to the same owner, which means that multiple combinations are possible. Another characteristic that plays a role throughout the entire life cycle of the vehicle and battery is the after-sales service provider. In new BMs, it is particularly important to know which stakeholder is responsible for any repairs and the maintenance of both the vehicle and the battery. All five actors mentioned herein are included as potential service providers. In addition, both vehicles and batteries can be used by one or several customers, such as in a car-sharing scheme, which is described under the last characteristic, exclusiveness of use.

Based on the analysis of these two models and considering this study’s focus and purpose, a new morphological box was created for further investigation based on the four characteristics relevant to this study (see Figure 1): ownership, after-sales service provider, exclusiveness of use, and payment model. As the location of operation cannot be moved to any of the other options due to the type of industry investigated in this study, the location of operation is at the customer’s establishment; thus, the characteristic was not found relevant for inclusion in this study. The last characteristic excluded from Lay et al. [63] is the single/multiple customer operation. Lay et al. [63] explained that, in cases where the location of operation is in the customer’s establishment, only one customer can use the machine. However, if the machine is not operating in the customer’s establishment, the machine can serve multiple customers in parallel. In this study, the number of customers was replaced with exclusiveness of use, for which Kley et al. [64] included the sharing perspective of the vehicle and explained that the vehicle could be used by one customer or made available for several customers (e.g., via a car-sharing scheme).

2.3. Criteria for Changing the Ownership of Products

The existing literature has presented different types of criteria for changing the ownership of products; however, these criteria are not necessarily about the B2B sharing of an autonomous electric vehicle. Instead, they focus on the perspective of nonownership BMs mostly for vehicles, such as carpooling. For example, Hamari et al. [49] found that factors such as economic gains, enjoyment, and sustainability can motivate users to participate in sharing the product. Möhlmann [47] indicated that users are predominantly driven by rational reasons, serving their self-benefits when engaging in sharing activities. Cost savings, utility, trust, familiarity, service quality, and community belonging are important criteria according to Möhlmann [47]. Bardhi and Eckhardt [46] explored motivations in the context of car-sharing and found that convenience and savings are the motivations. Mavlutova et al. [53] identified motivational factors for the usage of car-sharing services—namely, economic benefits (including cost savings, financial savings, access to know-how, and time gains), individual utility (the need for a vehicle but no need to own one), and convenience (quality and availability). According to Akbar and Hoffmann [51], access to a product is fundamental for the users. Users of share-based PSSs take access for granted, and, thus, they will be extremely dissatisfied if the provider fails to fulfill the access promise [51]. Tukker [48] proposed that users only change their ownership of products if doing so enables cost savings. Arteaga-Sánchez et al. [52] found the determinants of behavior in ride-sharing services to be economic benefits, service quality, perceived usefulness, trust, environmental impact, and social value. Billows and McNeill [50] found that saving money in the form of reduced expenses and environmental preservation are important criteria for shared products.

After reviewing the relevant literature and analyzing different criteria and their definitions, this study produced a synthesis of the customers’ possible criteria for sharing a product in seven categories: economic gain, service quality, trust, environment, accessibility, social, and utility (see

Table 1. A synthesis of possible criteria for sharing a product.

Categories of Criteria	Criterion
Economic gain	Economic benefits:	Cost savings:	Economic gain:
	Arteaga-Sanchez, et al. [52] Mavlutova, et al. [53]	Möhlmann [47] Tukker [48]	Hamari, et al. [49]
		Bardhi and Eckhardt [46] Billows and McNeill [50]
Service quality	Service quality: Arteaga-Sanchez, et al. [52] Möhlmann [47]
Trust	Trust: Arteaga-Sanchez, et al. [52] Möhlmann [47]	Familiarity: Möhlmann [47]
Environment	Environment: Arteaga-Sanchez, et al. [52]	Environmental impact: Billows and McNeill [50]	Sustainability: Hamari, et al. [49]
Accessibility	Access: Akbar and Hoffmann [51]	Convenient: Bardhi and Eckhardt [46] Mavlutova, et al. [53]
Social	Social value: Arteaga-Sanchez, et al. [52]	Community belonging: Hamari, et al. [49]	Enjoyment of the activity: Möhlmann [47]
Utility	Utility: Möhlmann [47]	Individual utility: Mavlutova, et al. [53]	Perceived usefulness: Arteaga-Sanchez, et al. [52]

). As Table 1 demonstrates, earlier research criteria were mentioned in an overlapping manner. For example, previous research described the criterion category economic gain as “cost savings” [47,48], “savings/save money” [46,50], or “economic benefits/economic gains” [49,52,53]. The criterion trust was also related to the term “familiarity” [47]. Trust refers to having a good feeling, thereby ensuring users’ faith in a provider’s reliability and ensuring security during use or transaction [47]. The criterion accessibility has been explained as “convenient” [46,53] or “access” [51]. Bardhi and Eckhardt [46] concluded that access could be motivated by convenience, meaning that the product must be located geographically close in order to motivate customers to use it. Finally, Akbar and Hoffmann [51] explained that customers take access for granted, meaning that they will become dissatisfied if the access promise is not upheld.

The social criterion category has been described as “social value” [52], “enjoyment” [49], and “community belonging” [47]. Arteaga-Sánchez et al. [52] described social value as meeting new people and helping each other as well as caring for a common interest, such as the environment. The enjoyment derived from the activity is what Hamari et al. [49] explained as the motivation for sharing a product. Finally, Möhlmann [47] explained that community belonging is a criterion for being part of a nonownership BM; it is explained as the aspiration to be part of a group or community. The final criterion category is utility, which has been explained in the previous literature as “utility” [47], “individual utility” [53], or “perceived usefulness” [52]. According to Möhlmann [47], utility refers to an individual’s self-interest in maximizing utility, which influences customers’ decisions and habits related to being part of a non-ownership BM.

In conclusion, in drawing upon the literature analysis of potential criteria for product sharing and the morphological framework for creating novel business model concepts in sharing contexts, the following model has been devised to steer the empirical investigation (refer to Figure 2).

3. Research Methodology

This study sought to provide an understanding of an issue that a large manufacturing company in the construction equipment industry is facing in its real-life context. The challenge of grasping the essential prerequisite criteria (RQ1) and potential business models (RQ2) concerning the sharing of autonomous vehicles within a B2B market exhibits multifaceted and context-specific characteristics [69]. Therefore, a qualitative research approach employing a case study design was considered appropriate [70,71]. This approach is particularly advantageous for yielding in-depth comprehension, description, and exploration of a real-life issue, event, or phenomenon [70,72]. Moreover, case studies excel in facilitating exploratory research, which are geared towards revealing the nuances of a contemporary phenomenon, eliciting new insights, and cultivating ideas for new research [70,73].

The case study methodology adeptly captures and elucidates the social and organizational contexts surrounding an evolving phenomenon [70], such as the exploration of prerequisite criteria and potential business models pertaining to the sharing of autonomous vehicles in a B2B context. By affording the opportunity to gather multiple observations, a case study adeptly dissects intricate relational processes, including viewpoints from both customers and providers on the subject of investigation [74,75,76]. Furthermore, a case study offers a means for delving into intricate social units composed of numerous variables of potential significance in comprehending the phenomenon [77]. Additionally, case studies assume heightened significance when the research purpose revolves around addressing “how?” (RQ2) and “what?” (RQ1) inquiries pertain to a contemporary phenomenon embedded within a real-world context [70], thus harmonizing seamlessly with the focal point of this study.

3.1. Case Company

A case study was chosen through purposeful sampling, which is a method that offers a systematic and judicious approach for selecting cases rich in information and is suitable for an in-depth investigation [78]. The selection criteria for the case were guided by the study’s two research questions (RQ1 and RQ2). These questions underscore three pivotal aspects: the backdrop of sharing autonomous electric vehicles in a B2B context, customers’ criteria for sharing, and the adjustment of business models for sharing. These aspects provided the foundation for selecting the case company for examination within this study.

The case company considered in this study is a large manufacturing company within the heavy-duty vehicle and construction equipment industry that is among the world-leading manufacturers of articulated haulers and wheel loaders, as well as one of the leading manufacturers of excavation equipment, compact construction equipment, and road development machines. The services offered include, among others, financing, rental, servicing, and used equipment. The case company, as for all manufacturers, has strived to make as many products as it possibly can. The large number of machines produced each year consume enormous amounts of natural resources in building them and even more resources to continue working. In a promise to reduce its carbon impact to help meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, and as a part of their science-based target goals, the case company challenged itself to achieve net-zero value chain emissions by 2040, with significant reductions as early as 2030.

The majority of today’s machinery is propelled by diesel engines. However, looking forward, the case company is compelled to align with the Paris Agreement 2030 by becoming emission-free and to cater to customer demands for emissions reduction. The company has committed to ensuring that 35% of their machine sales are electric by 2030. The company’s current product range spans from electric compact machines to larger mid-size excavators and wheel loaders, thereby constituting a significant impetus towards their ambitious goal of achieving 100% fossil-free operations by 2040. The company has shown awareness of the need to transform its current business models, as is evident in its shift from producing as many machines as possible to producing fewer machines. This transformation will involve a move from machine ownership to machine access.

Consequently, the case company initiated an autonomous solutions business sector three years ago, with the objective of revolutionizing the transportation of goods through efficient, sustainable, and secure autonomous transport solutions within specific industry verticals. The aim is to expedite the advancement, commercialization, and sales of these autonomous transport solutions, thereby complementing the company’s existing products and services. Within the autonomous solutions division, the company provides autonomous vehicles and machinery, alongside comprehensive optimization for transport solutions, which is customizable to various customer requirements.

The company aspires to establish a complete autonomous transport ecosystem, which aims to be founded on delivering essential function as a service model. This conceptualization encompasses the autonomous transport solution, thereby encompassing a fully automated electric dumper, virtual driver, and necessary site infrastructure support. The autonomous solutions provide new B2B business model opportunities in the form of modular platforms as well as creating different options of ownership, where there is a possibility to sell several smaller vehicles rather than selling large vehicles that have been the trend in the case company due to the requirement of efficiency and productivity in the business. Through the company’s autonomous transport solutions, customers can reap advantages such as around-the-clock operations, heightened productivity, and increased flexibility. The other key benefits for customers include elevated energy efficiency, zero local emissions, heightened safety measures, and an overarching surge in process efficiency. From boosted safety and reduced emissions to heightened productivity, the transport system is meticulously crafted to embody the entire spectrum of benefits, including automation, electrification, and connectivity on a site under human supervision. For instance, an operator can simultaneously control multiple autonomous vehicles, thereby ensuring a continuous flow and greater productivity. Meanwhile, the performance dashboard can gather and present data, thereby allowing the operator to oversee productivity, energy consumption, battery capacity, and machine positions, thereby facilitating ongoing enhancements. The company’s customers’ sectors include construction sites and quarries, mining and industrial material handling, ports and logistics centers, and agriculture.

In partnership with the case company, a selection was made of various individual customers within a strategic industry sector to gather their insights regarding the sharing of autonomous vehicles and potential suitable business models. This particular sector was chosen due to its relatively unexplored nature and its rapid expansion in the adoption of autonomous solutions. This selection provides the opportunity to engage with numerous customers who are receptive to sharing their requirements for implementing autonomous vehicle sharing within their business operations. Furthermore, during the study period, customers from this particular industry sector were actively engaged in an ongoing project with the case company. This provided advantageous access to a real-life context and yielded valuable insights into the domain of sharing autonomous vehicles.

In this regard, the case company fulfills three pivotal aspects (i.e., the backdrop of sharing autonomous electric vehicles in a B2B context, the customers’ criteria for sharing, and the adjustment of business models for sharing) that are needed for the investigating phenomenon. Hence, this large manufacturing company within the heavy-duty vehicle industry was chosen as a case study for this research.

3.2. Case Study Research Procedure

The following steps outline the procedure followed for conducting the case study research, which span from the definition of the study’s purpose to drawing conclusions:

• Initial literature analysis led to the formulation of the study’s purpose and the two research questions.
• With the research questions as a foundation, further literature analysis was undertaken to craft a theoretical synthesis of potential customer criteria for product sharing (Table 1) and a morphological framework for generating new business model concepts in sharing contexts (Figure 1). A model was devised to guide the empirical investigation (Figure 2).
• A protocol for the empirical investigation was established, thereby encompassing both the vehicle manufacturer and customers (Appendix A).
• Formal and informal interactions were initiated within the case company to position their endeavors concerning autonomous electric vehicles, business model innovation, sustainability, and circularity.
• An industry sector was selected for customer interactions, wherein semistructured interviews were conducted (Appendix A).
• A workshop convened with the company’s circular economy network, thereby representing crossfunctional entities aimed at identifying conceivable business model scenarios for sharing autonomous electric vehicles.
• Collected data were analyzed in alignment with the guiding model (Figure 2).
• Follow-up unstructured interviews were conducted within the case company to generate novel business model concepts (Appendix B).
• Results and conclusions were subsequently drawn, thereby shedding light on prerequisite criteria and the formulation of business model concepts for sharing autonomous electric vehicles.

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection was performed both physically at the company and through online team meetings. Firstly, formal and informal interactions with the research strategy manager as well as ten other key stakeholders from the case company were performed at an early stage of the study to understand the scope and how the company is positioned in its work with its BM, autonomous electric vehicles, sustainability, and circularity. The team of ten key stakeholders encompasses roles such as the Head of Equipment-As-A-Service, Chief Project Manager for Advanced Engineering, two Research Owners, the Head of Environmental Sustainability, three Researchers, the Head of Emerging Technologies, and the Offering and Business Model Manager. These pivotal stakeholders were meticulously chosen at the case company, thereby aligning with the following criteria: (1) direct involvement in business model innovation efforts, (2) active participation in sustainability initiatives, (3) engagement in strategic undertakings to explore fresh opportunities in autonomous transport solutions, and (4) a willingness to generously share their experiences and insights with the authors’ team.

Secondly, a series of five semistructured interviews was carried out with diverse customers from one of the strategic industrial sectors affiliated with the case company. These interviewees held pivotal roles as process owners within this sector. The selection of these interview participants was driven by their status as potential customers for autonomous electric solutions within a strategic industry sector. These individuals exhibited the potential to engage in vehicle sharing with another industry. Obtaining the customers’ perspectives on the essential criteria for embracing the new business model concept of sharing was deemed vital. The semistructured interview questions were developed based on the criteria identified during the literature review (as shown in Table 1).

Thirdly, a workshop convened, involving thirteen participants from the case company’s circular economy (CE) network, which provided a group significantly engaged in the study’s initial phase. The workshop also included two supplementary informants holding roles as a business developer and a service innovation manager. Collectively, this CE network boasts substantial experience in addressing matters connected to the underexplored phenomenon in question. Its members play key roles in shaping strategies concerning business model innovation, technology, sustainability, and circularity.

Finally, three unstructured interviews were subsequently carried out with employees from the case company. An unstructured interview is another method of collecting empirical data for qualitative research and tends to be similar in character to a conversation [79]. During the unstructured interviews, a single open question was asked, and Figure 1 was shown to respondents, who were asked to fill it in and explain their decisions. Based on the respondents’ answers, five scenarios of PSS BMs were identified. In addition, follow-up questions were asked to clarify and explain important views on BMs. The selection of interviewees for these discussions was grounded in obtaining an internal perspective on the new PSS business models for autonomous electric vehicles. This was deemed crucial to capture their viewpoints on this innovative business concept. Participants in the unstructured interviews were selected based on the condition that, at the time of the interviews, they were actively working on developing new BMs and working with customers from the chosen industrial sector on an ongoing project.

The sample size employed for data collection (including 5 semistructured interviews, 3 unstructured interviews, 11 formal and informal interactions, and a workshop with 13 participants) is well justified. Research demonstrates that data saturation in qualitative studies can be achieved with relatively small sample sizes, typically ranging from 9 to 17 interviews or 4 to 8 focus group discussions [80], particularly when dealing with relatively homogenous study populations and precisely defined objectives [80], both of which align with the aspirations of this study’s purpose and its two research questions. It is acknowledged that the sample size can be influenced by various study attributes, such as research goals, the nature and complexity of the phenomenon under investigation, the structure of the research instrument, the sampling strategy, the researcher’s qualitative research experience, and the saturation objective [81,82].

Given that this study integrates a guiding model derived from theory to facilitate empirical investigation, the saturation objective becomes inherently evident. Furthermore, the study not only furnishes ample information for replication [83], but also precludes the possibility of obtaining additional information [84]. These two supplementary factors bolster the estimation of the data saturation.

Table 2. Overview of participants and their roles in the data collection.

Informants and Their Job Role	Topic of Discussion	Type of Meeting	Duration
Formal and Informal Interactions at the Case Company
Research strategy manager	Exploration and coordination of the study	Weekly meetings for 4 months. Physical and online meetings	1 h/meeting
Head of Equipment-As-A-Service	Investigate business models	Online meeting	1 h
Research Strategy Manager AE Chief Project Manager Two Research Owners	Determine the focus	Physical meeting	1 h
Head of Equipment as a Service	Discussing potential business models	Physical meeting	1 h
Head of Environmental Sustainability	Company sustainable work	Online meeting	1.5 h
Research owner Three researchers	Input to the business models	Online meeting	1 h
Head of Emerging Technologies	Input to the business models	Physical meeting	1 h
Offering and Business Model Manager	New business models for the company	Physical meeting	1 h
Semistructured interviews with the customers of the case company from one sector
Process owner 1, Respondent 1	Criteria for sharing autonomous electric vehicles	Physical meeting	1 h 15 min
Process owner 2, Respondent 2	Criteria for sharing autonomous electric vehicles	Physical meeting	47 min
Process owner 3, Respondent 3	Criteria for sharing autonomous electric vehicles	Physical meeting	55 min
Process owner 4, Respondent 4	Criteria for sharing autonomous electric vehicles	Physical meeting	1 h 7 min
Process owner 5, Respondent 5	Criteria for sharing autonomous electric vehicles	Physical meeting	1 h 7 min
Workshop at the case company
Company’s CE network: 13 participates representing different functions	Discuss business model framework and identify business model scenarios	Physical meeting	2.5 h
Unstructured interviews at the case company
Manager, strategy and business development, Respondent 6	Business model scenario and new business model concepts	Physical meeting	50 min
Offering and Business Model Manager, Respondent 7	Business model scenario and new business model concepts	Physical meeting	30 min
Research owner, Respondent 8	Business model scenario and new business model concepts	Physical meeting	45 min

provides an overview of the data collection efforts conducted at the case company and their customers.

All interviews were recorded and then transcribed. The data from interviews, workshops, and interactions were analyzed by consolidating, reducing, and interpreting the data from the respondents [85]. A thematic analysis was performed to compare the respondents’ answers with the theory and structure it into relevant themes [79]. For RQ1, the empirical data were divided into the seven categories of criteria that were previously identified to ensure that relevant data were collected. For RQ2, the empirical data were divided into the three categories of PSSs and further analyzed to identify potential business models for sharing autonomous electric vehicles.

4. Results

4.1. Prerequisite Criteria for Sharing Autonomous Electric Vehicles in a B2B Context

4.1.1. Economic Gain

All respondents mentioned economic gain as the most important criterion for accepting the new BM of sharing a vehicle. Respondent 1 explained that economic gain is the most important factor to consider before considering other criteria because “the economy is number one”. Similarly, Respondents 2 and 3 mentioned that economic gain is the primary motivator for sharing a machine. To produce economic gains, the new BM needs to offer the machine at a lower price than it costs to buy it. Furthermore, Respondent 5 explained that the new BM should offer at least the same economic gains as owning a machine: “From the economic perspective, the new BM should compete with owning. I am very fixated with money”. Meanwhile, Respondent 4 explained that the new BM does not necessarily need to create a bigger economic gain than what the company receives today, but the company should not lose money when accepting the new BM.

4.1.2. Service Quality

All respondents also mentioned service quality as an important criterion for sharing a vehicle. Regarding service quality, Respondents 1 and 2 asserted that machine maintenance should be offered and completed within a short period, when needed, and mentioned that this is not available when owning a machine. Respondent 2 also mentioned that the service should guarantee a fully functional machine and make the latest updates to the machine. Respondents 3, 4, and 5 similarly mentioned that machine repairs should be offered and completed in a short period, when needed, and believed that the service should guarantee a fully functional machine within a shorter period than what could be offered today. Respondent 3 explained this as follows: “It is especially the service and to always have a more modern machine. It is an advantage to stick to newer things that are more efficient and modern. In addition to the economic gain, this is the second most important criterion”. Indeed, during peak periods, it is important that customer service be available around the clock. The company is expected to achieve better results because of the new machines and technologies.

4.1.3. Trust

The trust criterion was mentioned by Respondent 1, who took it for granted, as there is trust in the case company. Respondent 1 did not see the need for trust between the users as long the case company is involved. Similarly, Respondents 3, 4, and 5 thought that trust is vital, but during the interview, it became clear that trust is something taken for granted, as the case company is a professional organization. Respondent 3 said: “But I am not worried about working with a big organization because it will be so professional from all parties”. What might affect the trust of Respondents 3 and 5 is the case company failing to provide accessibility to a machine when needed. Unlike the other respondents, Respondent 2 concluded that trust is an important criterion to accept the BM of sharing a machine: “I am quite worried about such a business model since it is what we have invested in to avoid because we want to have the influence and responsibility ourselves”. Respondent 2 suggested guaranteeing a certain capacity of the machine each hour; if that capacity is not upheld, a refund for the loss of production should be provided by the case company to enhance trust in it.

4.1.4. Environment

All respondents considered the ecological environment to be important. Respondent 1 stated that protecting the ecological environment is important, and Respondent 2 indicated that the preservation of the environment could motivate them, although economic gains are still the priority. Respondent 3 explained that the new BM would not be of interest to their organization if it is not environmentally better than what the company currently has. Respondent 3 said: “I have a driving force for us to have a more sustainable society”. Similarly, Respondent 5 explained that the ecological environment is important; everything they do should be beneficial to the ecological environment. Respondent 4 agreed. When asked if the environmental criterion is important for accepting the new BM, Respondent 5 said: “We as consumers will not accept anything else. Whatever is done, it should be as environmentally sound as possible. Our environmental footprint should be as small as possible”.

4.1.5. Accessibility

The importance of accessibility was also mentioned several times in different contexts when discussing the service of sharing a machine (Respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). Respondent 1 explained that not owning the machine could limit accessibility, which could affect flexibility when working. When asked about which criteria are important for accepting the new BM, Respondent 2 said: “Availability. It must be there and function as it should, but you have to assume that, if I am to have it tomorrow, it will also show up and work tomorrow”. When Respondents 3 and 5 were asked about the biggest challenges when changing how a machine is owned, they responded that, if the accessibility issues are solved, such a change will not be an issue. Respondents 4 and 5 said that accessibility was the second most important criterion after economic gain. Respondent 5 said: “If you can fix the economic gain and that the machine is available when we want it, then we will solve everything else”. Respondent 4 also mentioned that accessibility cannot be compromised and that the case organization should have machines available for everyone in need: “It is accessibility, and if you are to share with others, you cannot have a priority order, because everyone wants their own best”.

4.1.6. Social

The social criterion was experienced differently among the respondents when the case company owns the machines. According to Respondent 1, it plays a role, but it is not the most important criterion. Respondent 2 considered the social criterion to be important for people working within their industry seeking to discuss ideas and meet new people. However, Respondent 2 was hesitant about how it would work, as booking the machine might be done through an application on a device. Respondent 3 concluded that the social criterion could be of importance: “Somewhere there is a social value in the fact that we were early on this project and tried it. Still, there is value if it is enjoyable”. Neither Respondent 4 nor 5 perceived the social aspect as an important criterion for accepting the new BM. Respondent 4 said: “Personally, I do not think I would be affected by that aspect. It is always fun to be a part of something that develops, but it is probably the other factors and criteria that affect me more”. However, Respondents 1, 2, and 3 explained that the social criterion would be more important if customers owned the machines themselves. According to Respondent 1, when co-owning or renting a machine with a neighboring company, the type of relationship they have with each other, as well as their trust, could affect the willingness to co-own or rent a machine. Respondent 2 had previous experience with co-owning a machine with a neighboring company in which they used an “every other day” system for accessing the machine. However, it did not work; it became too difficult to make it work because, for example, they did not have the same view of what good service is (Respondent 2). Respondent 2 further said: “There can be collaboration problems. If you look at the industry, I think there are very few machine collaborations today that work. It works if someone allows themselves to lose money in order for someone else to make money. That’s how it feels to me”. Similarly, Respondent 3 had experience with co-owning a machine with a neighboring company. However, Respondent 3 explained that, with the right collaborative partner and planning, there will be no issues; therefore, personal chemistry is vital.

4.2. The Morphological Framework Applied to Create New Business Model Concepts for Sharing Autonomous Electric Vehicles

The analysis of the unstructured interview data identified five business model concepts for sharing autonomous electric vehicles. Each scenario is discussed in this section. All the chosen options for each scenario and concepts are highlighted in grey-colored boxes (refer to Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7).

4.2.1. Scenario 1

In this scenario, the vehicle manufacturer is chosen as the owner of the electric vehicle during and after the phase of use. The vehicle manufacturer is also responsible for providing after-sales services, such as maintenance and repair, and replacing the machine, if necessary. However, a third party with which the vehicle manufacturer is in contact is responsible for executing the work. The third party in this case could be the case company’s retailer. In this scenario, the one customer option in the exclusiveness of use was chosen, because it was found to be the most relevant if the vehicle manufacturer is the owner of the vehicle. The payment model should be a combination of pay for availability and pay per use, meaning that customers buy the availability, but they are paying for the number of hours in use. Scenario 1 is visualized in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The visual representation of characteristics and options for Scenario 1.

Figure 3. The visual representation of characteristics and options for Scenario 1.

4.2.2. Scenario 2

In this scenario, the customer is responsible for ownership both during and after the phase of use. In this type of business, the customer is also responsible for the after-sales services for the machine and system, where they have the possibility to buy it as a service from an independent provider, such as the case company’s retailer. According to respondents, this type of business was considered a good option because, in the characteristic exclusiveness of use, more than one customer would be able to use the machine; thus, in this scenario, sharing could be possible. Furthermore, in this scenario, paying for equipment is the most suitable payment model, as the customer buys and is responsible for both the vehicle and the system. Scenario 2 is visualized in Figure 4.

Figure 4. The visual representation of characteristics and options for Scenario 2.

Figure 4. The visual representation of characteristics and options for Scenario 2.

4.2.3. Scenario 3

In this scenario, the vehicle manufacturer is the owner both during and after the phase of use. Respondents believed that the vehicle manufacturer should be responsible for after-sales services, but an independent provider, such as the retailer, should be executing the work. For the exclusiveness of use, respondents believed that the foundation for this type of business is to have the option of more than one customer because, in order to succeed with this type of business, it is essential to have more than one customer. Furthermore, the pay for availability of the electric vehicle would be the most suitable option as a payment model in this scenario. Scenario 3 is visualized in Figure 5.

Figure 5. The visual representation of characteristics and options for Scenario 3.

Figure 5. The visual representation of characteristics and options for Scenario 3.

4.2.4. Scenario 4

In this scenario, the machine manufacturer is the owner, as well as an independent provider. If the vehicle manufacturer or operating joint venture/independent provider owns the machine, they should also be responsible for the after-sales services. Regarding exclusiveness of use, both options—one customer and more than one customer—are possible and should be considered according to respondents based on the needs of the customers. Finally, the payment model should include a combination of pay for availability, pay per unit, and pay per use. Scenario 4 is visualized in Figure 6.

Figure 6. The visual representation of characteristics and options for Scenario 4.

Figure 6. The visual representation of characteristics and options for Scenario 4.

4.2.5. Scenario 5

In this scenario, the customer or operating joint venture are possible options for ownership during and after the phase of use. In terms of the after-sales service provider, the customer should be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the vehicle. However, the customer could also buy the service from an operating joint venture/independent provider. Respondents also mentioned that, for the exclusiveness of use, both options are possible, as the vehicle could be used by one customer or more than one customer. Finally, pay for equipment was considered the suitable option if ownership stays with the customer or if operating a joint venture. Scenario 5 is visualized in Figure 7.

Figure 7. The visual representation of characteristics and options for Scenario 5.

Figure 7. The visual representation of characteristics and options for Scenario 5.

5. Discussion

5.1. Prerequisite Criteria for Sharing Autonomous Electric Vehicles

Economic gain was found to be the most important criterion for sharing autonomous electric vehicles. According to Bardhi and Eckhardt [46], Mavlutova et al. [53], and Arteaga-Sánchez et al. [52], economic gain is relevant in other contexts, such as car-sharing and ride-sharing contexts. In the B2B sharing of an autonomous vehicle, the new BM needs to offer the service at a price that is lower than buying and owning it themselves in order to shift their way of operating today. Meanwhile, the utility criterion was mentioned or expressed in other ways during the study and was strongly related to the economic gain. To share a vehicle, service quality was found to be most important for customers of the case company, which contradicts what has been stated in the literature. For example, Möhlmann [47] considered perceived quality of the service as crucial, but Bardhi and Eckhardt [46] and Mavlutova et al. [53], who studied car-sharing services, did not find service quality to be a criterion. In the current study, all respondents concluded that the new BM should guarantee a fully functional vehicle with the latest updates, when needed. It is therefore of utmost importance that customers’ expectations of the service quality be satisfied; otherwise, it could affect their willingness to use the service again and potentially affect other criteria, such as trust in the case company. As with economic gain and service quality, accessibility was found to be critical for the B2B sharing context of an autonomous vehicle, thereby supporting the previous findings of Bardhi and Eckhardt [46] and Mavlutova et al. [53] in other contexts. Access was clearly not taken for granted, which differs from Akbar and Hoffman’s [51] finding that customers take access for granted. If access is not guaranteed by the case company or if it cannot offer the vehicle when needed, it could potentially negatively affect trust in the company. As with the service quality criterion, if customers are dissatisfied with accessibility, it could affect other criteria, such as trust.

Unlike the criteria discussed thus far in the literature, trust, environment, and social criteria were not mentioned to the same extent in the current study. Many respondents did not express any trust issues toward the new BM. Based on their answers, they had faith in the reliability of the case company, which is similar to Möhlmann’s [47] description of trust, thereby ensuring the users’ faith in a provider’s reliability and trust in the parties with which one is sharing. Such empirical findings could indicate that the trust criterion depends on who retains the ownership of the electric vehicle: It is more vital if the case company owns the vehicle but less vital if it co-owns or rents the vehicle to neighboring companies. The environmental criterion was not spontaneously mentioned during the discussions of the important criteria for sharing the vehicle, although all respondents thought it was important once specifically asked about it. All respondents believed that the ecological environment is important, but its importance varied among respondents. For some, economic gain was still a higher priority than the environmental perspective. The social criterion was not mentioned during the discussions until the respondents were specifically asked about it, and respondents’ assessments of its importance varied. As with the environmental criterion, it is hard to generalize how important the social criterion is in practice and if it might impact respondents’ decisions related to shifting toward the new BM. Indeed, Bardhi and Eckhardt [46] and Mavlutova et al. [53] did not find that the social criterion motivated the users of a car-sharing service.

5.2. Description of New Business Model Concepts for Sharing Autonomous Electric Vehicles

5.2.1. Scenario 1: Result-Oriented Characteristics

Scenario 1 (see Figure 3) showed that the vehicle manufacturer should retain ownership of the vehicle during and after the phase of use and be responsible for ensuring that after-sales services are provided. In this BM, when the vehicle manufacturer is the owner of the machine, the focus is on new arrangements of ownership—namely, equipment as a service (this is a capacity that is sold to the customer, and then vehicles are added to fulfill this capacity guarantee). This scenario is similar to the “pay per service unit” category in the result-oriented services [22]. In Scenario 1, the vehicle is used by one customer for a longer period of time (i.e., between 8 and 10 years); hence, there is a risk of idle machinery time, meaning that the vehicle would not be fully utilized during its lifetime. This scenario does not fall in line with how the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [5] defined the CE, which aims to keep—among others—products at their highest utility at all times.

5.2.2. Scenarios 2 and 5: Product-Oriented Characteristics

Scenario 2 (see Figure 4) could be compared to product-oriented services, which is the traditional BM [63]. However, one major difference between product-oriented services and Scenario 2 is that the provider does not add any additional services, such as maintenance. The customer is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the vehicle or has the possibility to buy it as a service from an independent provider, such as the case organization’s retailer. In contrast to Scenario 1, this scenario allows more than one customer to enjoy the exclusiveness of use. Scenario 2 provides a possible option for sharing the electric vehicle among several customers, although it is up to the customers themselves to decide.

In Scenario 5 (see Figure 7), operating joint ventures were added as possible owners during and after the phase of use in addition to the customer being a possible owner. The after-sales services in Scenario 5 are the same as those in Scenario 2, meaning that the customer is responsible for the maintenance and repair but could also buy the service from a retailer. For the exclusiveness of use, both options are possible, and the appropriate option depends more on the customer’s need for the vehicle. The importance of the social criterion can vary depending on whether the case company owns the vehicles and makes them exclusive to more than one customer or if customers own the vehicles and share them with neighboring companies. In these scenarios, the customers own the vehicle and can decide whether to share it or not. If customers own the vehicle, then the social criterion would play a bigger role, since it is more important to share it with someone they know and trust and with whom they can collaborate. A possible downside of customers owning the vehicle is that there is a risk that the vehicle will not be shared, thereby limiting the circularity.

5.2.3. Scenarios 3 and 4: Use-Oriented Characteristics

Scenario 3 (see Figure 5) can be compared to use-oriented services, similar to Tukker’s [22] renting or sharing category. The vehicle manufacturer owns the machine during and after the phase of use but is also responsible for the after-sales services. However, the retailer of the case company should execute the work of after-sales services. Regarding exclusiveness of use, it was believed that the foundation for this type of business is to have the option for more than one customer. With this type of business, the vehicle could potentially be used sequentially by multiple customers who are sharing or renting the vehicle.

Scenario 4 (see Figure 6) is similar to Scenario 3, but the difference is that an independent provider could also be an owner of the vehicle and be responsible for providing the after-sales services. Furthermore, regarding exclusiveness of use, as in Scenario 5, both options are possible depending on the customer’s need for the machine. For the payment model, the three options to the right were chosen. In this scenario, the optimal options would be more on the right-hand side, if the risks are as small as possible. With Scenario 3, machine utilization could be increased; as explained by Kjaer et al. [86], through product sharing, product usage can be intensified. This could also be the case in Scenario 4, but there is still the option that one customer could have unlimited access to the machine, such as leasing, which could lead to less intense usage of the machine than in Scenario 3.

Finally, the study validated the model proposed through the literature analysis for the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles. This model encompasses the prerequisite criteria and potential business model concepts, as is illustrated in Figure 8. The model highlights that economic gain, service quality, and accessibility stand as the three essential prerequisite criteria for sharing autonomous electric vehicles in a B2B market. Additionally, it outlines five potential business model concepts, with each featuring selected characteristics (for details, refer to Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7).

5.3. Theoretical Implications

The study offers four significant theoretical contributions.

Firstly, it presents a model that outlines the prerequisite criteria and potential business model concepts for the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles, as is depicted in Figure 3. While this study does not delve into the detailed examination of the established links between the prerequisite criteria and potential business model concepts (which falls beyond its scope), it provides an initial model for the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles, thereby encompassing perspectives from both customers (i.e., prerequisite criteria) and vehicle manufacturers (i.e., potential business model concepts). Thus, this study extends the current literature on sharing business models within B2B industrial markets [23,32,34,58,68] concerning autonomous electric vehicles, which remains an emerging field [30,35,36,37,38,39]. The existing literature typically focuses on either discussing business model concepts for sharing [3,12,18,58,68] or delving into criteria from a customer perspective [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,57], but it rarely combines the two. This study, however, takes a distinctive approach by considering both the manufacturer and customer perspectives [55,76], thereby conducting an exploratory investigation to initiate discussions in this comprehensive direction. While the model has its limitations, this initial connection between prerequisite criteria and potential business model concepts for sharing autonomous electric vehicles within B2B markets establishes a solid foundation for further research in this direction. Given that the concept of the circular economy is critiqued from various perspectives [6], this study provides a basis for comprehending the trade-offs involved in sharing, the necessary capabilities to implement circular economy business model innovation, customer responses, and their awareness and perceptions of circular economy business models, among other aspects.

Secondly, this study identifies three prerequisite criteria for sharing autonomous electric vehicles in B2B industrial markets. The existing literature on this subject often revolves around nonownership business models rather than the B2B sharing of a product [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53], and there are limited studies, especially on the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles [57]. This study explicitly contributes to bridging this research gap, thus focusing specifically on B2B sharing business models [57,58,68], and it also considers an emerging advanced technology product in the mobility sector such as autonomous electric vehicles. By collecting and analyzing various criteria mentioned in the literature, this study first provides a synthesis of the prerequisite criteria for sharing a product from a customer perspective. Secondly, it investigates how these criteria are applicable in the context of autonomous electric vehicles through empirical investigation. This effort has led to the identification of three essential prerequisite criteria for sharing autonomous electric vehicles in B2B industrial markets. Furthermore, it provides evidence to demonstrate the interdependency of these three criteria on others, such as trust and utility. Given that the literature emphasizes the significant differences in the characteristics and practices between B2B and B2C models [54,55,56], this study makes a valuable contribution by offering empirical evidence from one of the crucial sectorial areas within the transportation industry.

Thirdly, this study mapped a morphological framework for creating new business model concepts for sharing from the earlier works [63,64,68], and it applied it in the transportation industry [10,29,36,38,40,87] for the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles [57]. Based on the validation with a vehicle manufacturer, the study shows how to create new business model concepts for sharing with a variation in the selection of suitable characteristics [63,64,68]. Although the literature contains various typologies, frameworks, and tools to create innovative business model concepts [22,24,63,64,65,66,67,68], a hands-on practical approach considering the sectorial difference is still needed [6,13,43]. In this regard, morphological frameworks [63,64,68] provide a good hands-on approach regarding the selection of suitable characteristics; based on the literature analysis, this study developed a morphological framework with four suitable characteristics such as the ownership (during the use and after the use), after-sales service provider, exclusiveness of use, and payment model. Since the market penetration of CE business models in the manufacturing sector is still limited [6,41,43], this study can provide a tailored framework with relevant characteristics to address heavy-duty construction equipment sectorial context [10,32]. Although the framework only provides a high-level skeleton overview of business model concepts, it provides a simple visual representation of the key attributes/characteristics in the initial phase of business model innovation work [12,13,15,17]. The methodology adopted and its application would be useful to advance the discussion on creating new business model concepts for the sharing economy [58,68] specifically and for the CE in general [3,8,12,16,25,41].

Finally, the study contributes to the discussion of autonomous electric vehicles [30,35,36,37] and their role in the implementation of the circular economy [38,39,41]. As the literature acknowledges autonomous electric vehicles as platforms [31,88], this study illustrates how various ownership and payment models with autonomous vehicles create new business opportunities. This understanding is crucial for the overall design and operation of construction site projects [10], as well as for building a more sustainable and resource-efficient mobility ecosystem [30,38,41]. In this direction, our study provides distinct empirical insights from both the customer and vehicle manufacturer perspectives, which can be valuable for future investigations regarding the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles and circular economy implementation initiatives in the construction equipment sector of the transportation industry.

5.4. Practical Implications

This study offers substantial practical and managerial contributions. The findings are valuable for professionals in business development, technology management, marketing, sales, aftermarket services, digital services, circular services, and product–service management and development. These professionals seek to create new business model concepts with autonomous electric vehicles to enhance the overall design and operational efficiency of construction site projects or to build a more sustainable and resource-efficient mobility ecosystem with autonomous transport solutions. The morphological framework provides a straightforward, hands-on business modeling canvas with the crucial characteristics necessary for the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles. Various industry practitioners can utilize this developed morphological framework and suggested model to identify and explore numerous potential business model scenarios, thus subsequently evaluating which ones hold value for their respective companies. As the applications of autonomous electric vehicles and their sharing in various sectors are still emerging, the study results can assist companies in proactively adapting to dynamic sectorial needs. Understanding the prerequisite criteria of various sectorial customers and their potential business options helps companies prepare different business models for effective communication with various stakeholders across the organization. This exercise is particularly useful during business portfolio discussions, thereby enabling a careful consideration of sectorial circumstances and contexts.

The company has invested significantly in modular architecture and platform development in technology advancement. The autonomy capabilities and related autonomous transport solutions offer opportunities to provide several smaller vehicles to customers, thus departing from the traditional practice of selling large vehicles for the sake of efficiency and productivity. By offering insights into customers’ prerequisite criteria and presenting various ways to create different new business model concepts efficiently, this study can aid in the early design stages of construction site fleet management solutions for customers. These versatile autonomous vehicles can be employed for various purposes on construction sites. Consequently, by providing different ownership options for autonomous electric vehicles, vehicle manufacturers can open up diverse business opportunities across sectors such as construction, materials, and agriculture.

Lastly, the case company finds itself in the early stages of transformation, as is the case for many traditional businesses. Consequently, employees may hold various perceptions regarding the direction to take, thus recognizing multiple potential paths forward. It is crucial to ensure that the organization strives for common goals and comprehends the implications of new business models on its internal and external activities. Calculating the risks associated with the different business model scenarios outlined in this study is essential to determine which scenario entails the least risk. Thus, the model presented in this study serves as a valuable reference point for various stakeholders within the company who aim to align their efforts with circularity goals and adapt sharing business models to achieve science-based target goals.

6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Work

This study delved into the prerequisite criteria necessary for sharing autonomous electric vehicles within a B2B context (RQ1) and identified potential business models suitable for this context (RQ2). The findings revealed that economic gain, service quality, and accessibility emerge as the three pivotal prerequisites for the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles within the studied sector. Although utility was not explicitly mentioned, respondents’ responses indicated a strong inclination toward maximizing economic benefits, thus implying a close relationship between utility and economic gain. On the other hand, criteria such as trust, environmental concerns, and social factors were not as prominently emphasized as the aforementioned criteria. However, trust could play a more significant role if the availability of autonomous electric vehicles becomes an issue for customers. Moreover, when vehicles are shared, trust tends to be higher when the machine is owned by the case company rather than the customers themselves. Additionally, the significance of the social criterion might vary depending on who retains ownership of the autonomous electric vehicle. While the environmental criterion was acknowledged as important by customers, it was not prioritized unless it contributed to their economic gain.

The study presents five business model scenarios derived from the selected characteristics in the morphological framework. The analysis revealed that Scenario 1 could not be adjusted for sharing an autonomous electric vehicle, since it limits exclusiveness of use to a single customer, thereby making sequential sharing unfeasible. In contrast, Scenarios 2 and 5 could be tailored to enable autonomous electric vehicle sharing. The customer has the flexibility to choose whether to share the vehicle with other companies or maintain exclusive ownership. If the customer opts for sharing, then Scenarios 2 and 5 become suitable for autonomous electric vehicle sharing. Conversely, if the customer opts for exclusive ownership, these scenarios would not support vehicle sharing. Scenario 4 resembles Scenarios 2 and 5, with the distinction being that the vehicle manufacturer or independent provider can decide whether to restrict ownership to one customer or make it available to multiple customers. Scenario 4 could facilitate vehicle sharing only if exclusiveness of use is extended to more than one customer. Among the presented scenarios, Scenario 3 stands out as the most adaptable for electric vehicle sharing. Its chosen options closely align with the theoretical description of a sharing product–service system (PSS) business model.

Limitations and Suggestion for Future Research

This study focused on one of the customer sectors of a case company to examine the prerequisite criteria for the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles. While these criteria might have general applicability to other customer sectors, it is challenging to generalize the findings across various customer sectors within the same case company. Future research should consider investigating a second industrial sector (or more) that could potentially engage in vehicle sharing. This would enable the case company to determine if a second industry is interested in altering its vehicle ownership practices and whether the identified criteria are applicable to different industrial sectors. Additionally, it would be valuable to explore the relative importance of each criterion for this second industry. In the long term, a comparative study involving multiple industrial sectors could provide insights into how the specific context of each sector influences the prerequisite criteria for the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles.

Furthermore, the proper functioning of autonomous electric vehicles at customer sites necessitates a comprehensive system. Examining the entire system would involve the evaluation and incorporation of additional characteristics and options into the suggested morphological framework, with each operating at different levels. For instance, this could encompass factors related to the surrounding infrastructure of autonomous electric vehicles, electric vehicle batteries, or even the entire fleet of vehicles on-site, thereby encompassing various vehicle types. Taking into account these additional characteristics at different levels in future research could enhance our understanding of the interdependencies and trade-offs among available options more comprehensively. Moreover, the morphological framework could be expanded or augmented with additional characteristics across the dimensions of value (co)creation, value capture, and value delivery. Additionally, in future work, it might be beneficial to consider the characteristics related to digitalization capabilities and the role of various advanced digital technologies, such as those associated with Industry 4.0. Furthermore, assessing the risk dimension could also be a valuable avenue. This might involve an examination of how the different scenarios presented in this study are associated with varying levels of risk, thereby enabling the determination of which scenario results in the least risk or, conversely, which one carries higher risks.

Based on the empirical investigation, this study presents a model outlining the prerequisite criteria and potential business model concepts for the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles, as is depicted in Figure 3. While the study offers an initial model for the B2B sharing of autonomous electric vehicles, encompassing perspectives from both customers and vehicle manufacturers, future research should delve into a detailed examination of the possible links and interdependencies between prerequisite criteria and potential business model concepts. For instance, further research could explore how specific criteria affect the business model concepts, how the combination of criteria and their interdependencies impact potential innovative business model concepts, and how these links and interdependencies vary depending on the industrial sectorial context. Moreover, investigating how the roles of different advanced digital technologies, Industry 4.0, or digitalization capabilities affect the links and interdependencies between criteria and potential innovative business model concepts is an intriguing future research direction. In addition, future work could address the first life, second life, and recycling options in formulating customers’ prerequisite criteria and potential business model concepts. This would provide detailed insights into the intricate complexities of these concepts for both academics and industrial practitioners.