Next Article in Journal
A Case Study on the Operational Performance Evaluation of a Manufacturing Process and System (MaPS) Sustainability Analysis Tool for Engineering Education
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Objective Optimization for Pareto Frontier Sensitivity Analysis in Power Systems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 14
10.3390/su16145855
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Driving the Transport Electrification: Exploring Stakeholders’ Perceptions and Actions in the Indonesian Automotive Industry Transition to Electric Mobility

by
Muhammad Habiburrahman
1,
Rahmat Nurcahyo
1,*,
Azanizawati Ma’aram
2 and
Kaoru Natsuda
3
1
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, Indonesia
2
Department of Materials, Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia
3
Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Beppu-shi, Oita 874-8577, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(14), 5855; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145855
Submission received: 31 May 2024 / Revised: 6 July 2024 / Accepted: 8 July 2024 / Published: 9 July 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The rise of all types of electric vehicles (xEVs) is reshaping the global automotive sector, marking a new era of electric mobility (eMobility). While existing research predominantly explores the transition towards eMobility from the perspectives of automakers, governments, and users, a notable gap exists regarding the role of internal combustion engine (ICE) component manufacturers. This research aims to examine the transformative journey of the Indonesian automotive industry, specifically focusing on the strategic responses of Indonesian ICE component manufacturers towards eMobility. This study employs a multi-level perspective (MLP) approach through 12 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders representing government bodies, associations, automakers, academia, startups, and ICE component manufacturers. This research sheds light on stakeholders’ perceptions and actions in the transition to eMobility. The findings reveal various factors influencing transition, including current low xEV demand, companies’ perceptions of xEVs, huge investments, changes in the supply chain, technological capabilities, and government policies. This research provides an overview of the strategies for ICE component manufacturers, along with their risks and advantages. This research also recommends two policies for the Indonesian government: a gradual transition and more support for local xEV and component manufacturing.

1. Introduction

The global shift towards electric mobility, or eMobility, is rapidly gaining momentum due to an increasing recognition of its environmental advantages [1]. The European Parliament, for example, took a proactive stance by enacting legislation prohibiting the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) starting in 2035 [2]. Japan followed suit, setting a significant precedent by announcing plans to ban ICEVs by 2035 and expressing openness to alternative powertrain technologies [3]. Some states in the United States committed to banning the sale of new ICEVs by 2035, although the specifics of the replacement technologies differ between states. Meanwhile, China set an ambitious target to phase out all ICEVs by 2035, replacing them with all types of electric vehicles (xEVs) [4].
The xEVs offer significant environmental benefits due to their technological differences from ICEV. ICEVs, which convert chemical energy into mechanical energy, are the backbone of the automotive industry and contribute to air pollution issues [5]. Despite advancements in efficiency and emissions reduction, ICEV remains a major contributor to air pollution. Meanwhile, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) gained prominence due to their eco-friendly nature and operational flexibility [6]. BEVs produce no tailpipe emissions and have a simpler mechanical structure with fewer moving parts [7]. They use electric motors, require plug-in charging, and have a driving range tied to battery size [8,9]. BEVs charged with renewable energy sources are considered zero-emission vehicles [10]. Hybrid cars, including hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), combine the technologies of ICE and BEV, offering a lower carbon footprint [6,8,9]. This shift in vehicle technology is considered to be a solution to environmental problems.
The advent of xEVs, particularly the BEV, marks a historic disruption in the century old automotive regime [11]. The fewer and different components than ICEV will significantly restructure the companies’ product portfolio [12] and the current automotive supply chain networks [13]. BEVs still maintain the shape of a car, but with an electric powertrain, many traditional automotive components related to ICE will become obsolete [14]. Obsolete ICEV components include engine (engine block, pistons and connecting rods, camshaft and valvetrain, exhaust manifold, cylinder head, crankshaft, alternator and sparkplugs), cooling system (radiator, coolant pump and coolant tank), lubrication system (oil pan, oil filter and oil pump), drivetrain (transmission, driveshaft and differential) exhaust (catalytic converters and mufflers) and fuel system (fuel tank, fuel filter and fuel pump) [15]. This transformation poses industry specific economic risks, such as declining market share, reduced financial returns, and potential bankruptcy [13].
As the largest automotive industry in Southeast Asia, Indonesia faces the potential negative impacts of transitioning to eMobility. Indonesia long possessed capabilities in ICEV manufacturing. The xEVs technology is relatively new to the domestic automotive industry in Indonesia, thus requiring developmental stages to achieve full readiness by the industry [16]. The current domestic component industries are underdeveloped and depend on imported components [17]. This transition also has potential social implications, as it is predicted that the full shift to BEVs will result in the disappearance of 30% of Indonesia’s automotive component manufacturers and the displacement of ICE workers [12]. Furthermore, there is a need for improvement in human resource capabilities, not only within automotive manufacturers, but also throughout the entire component supply chain in the national automotive industry landscape [18]. Ultimately, the transition can negatively impact the Indonesian economy as the automotive industry is a key sector that contributes significantly to it [19].
Indonesia is actively implementing various policies and incentives to foster the growth of the xEV industry, aiming to establish a manufacturing ecosystem capable of producing various types of xEVs by leveraging technological advancements [20]. The government set ambitious targets to produce 400,000 units of BEVs by 2025, with a further increase to 600,000 units by 2030 [20]. This strategic move drives the growth of the xEV sector and stimulates investments in critical component industries such as batteries, electric motors, and power control units, which are pivotal for the sector’s expansion and hold significant economic value. However, despite these concerted efforts and various incentives to boost sales, adopting xEVs in Indonesia remains relatively low, constituting only 7% of total car sales, with 71,241 units sold in 2023, of which 76% were HEVs [21]. Similarly, with a total xEV production of 71,340 units, HEVs dominated the market with 56,022 units produced, while BEVs comprised a smaller portion at 15,318 units. However, it becomes evident that there are still considerable challenges in transitioning towards eMobility in Indonesia.
Previous research attempted to analyze the Indonesian transition to eMobility from diverse perspectives. Maghfiroh et al. (2021) [16] analyzed the stakeholders’ perceptions of the xEV industry and the readiness level of xEVs in Indonesia using the Japanese Technology Readiness Assessment (J-TRA). Yuniza et al. (2021) [22] examined Indonesia’s incentive policies on xEVs. Regarding charging station infrastructure, Nurrohman et al. (2023) [23] investigated the impact of key factors on adopting xEV charging stations in Indonesia. Furthermore, research on customer intention to use and purchase xEVs was conducted by Febransyah (2021) [24], Gunawan et al. (2022) [25], and Utami et al. (2020) [26]. On the availability of resources supporting xEV manufacturing, Schröder and Iwasaki (2023) [27] examined Indonesia’s resource-cum-industrial policy to leverage domestic nickel resources for building a localized value chain from mining to xEVs, while Konewka et al. (2021) [28] studied Indonesia’s ability to build a competitive advantage as a regional xEV battery chain hub. From the perspective of the automotive industry in adopting xEVs, Negara and Hidayat (2022) [29] examined recent developments and challenges in Indonesia’s automotive industry, and Veza et al. (2022) [30] provided an academic review article related to xEV development in Indonesia. At the company level, Nurcahyo et al. (2021) [12] formulated strategies for automotive filter manufacturers impacted by the transition to eMobility. Moreover, Pirmana et al. (2023) [31] examined the economic and environmental implications if Indonesia succeeds in establishing xEV manufacturing. However, research examining Indonesian ICE component manufacturers’ transition toward eMobility is still limited.
The popularity of xEVs is predicted to continue rising in Indonesia. The Indonesian government set the domestic production and sales targets for BEV. Moreover, with 30% of ICEV components differing from those of BEVs, component manufacturers must transition to avoid facing bankruptcy. Currently, there is a lack of comprehensive studies on the transition trends of eMobility in Indonesia, particularly from the perspective of the ICE component manufacturers.
This research aims to fill this gap by examining the transition of the Indonesian automotive industry, specifically focusing on the strategic responses of Indonesian ICE component manufacturers. The objectives of this study are to:
  • Identify the challenges faced by ICE component manufacturers in transitioning to BEV production.
  • Analyze the strategies adopted by ICE component manufacturers.
  • Provide recommendations for policymakers and industry stakeholders to support the transition to eMobility.
By achieving these objectives, this research will provide valuable insights into how a country addresses the automotive industry’s transition to eMobility, offering a detailed perspective on the strategic adaptation of ICE component manufacturers in Indonesia. The main contribution of this study lies in its comprehensive analysis of the transition challenges, strategic insights for manufacturers, and policy recommendations, thus filling a significant knowledge gap in the field.
To outline, this paper consists of four sections. Section 2, titled “Materials and Methods”, explains the selection of the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) as the framework for this study. It also describes the Indonesian automotive industry’s current conditions and details the research methodologies. Section 3 presents the results obtained from the study, compares these findings with those in existing literature, and offers strategic recommendations for ICE component manufacturers and policy suggestions for the government. Section 4 contains the conclusions drawn from the study, summarizing the key insights and implications of the research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Theoretical Framework: The Multi-Level Perspective

Researchers utilized concepts to examine the automotive industry transition, including the widely used Multi-Level Perspectives (MLP) [4]. MLP was employed to analyze transitions in various countries, such as Taiwan [32], China [4], Thailand [33], Germany [34], and Italy [35]. It is believed that MLP is one of the most used transition approaches and became the dominant framework [35,36].
The MLP, developed by Rip and Kemp (1998) [37] and refined by Geels and Schot (2007) [38], offers a comprehensive framework for understanding socio-technical transitions [39]. At its core, MLP rejects the notion of singular drivers for transitions, instead portraying them as intricate, non-linear processes arising from interactions across three analytical levels: the socio-technical landscape, socio-technical regime, and niche level [40].
The socio-technical landscape serves as the most structured layer of societal systems, representing a configuration beyond individual actors’ control [39]. It encompasses elements that sustain and challenge societal progress, influencing both technological regimes and emerging niches. It is marked by its slow pace of change, influenced by technical and material infrastructure, and external factors such as societal beliefs, media narratives, cultural norms, environmental pressures, demographic shifts, political ideologies, and macro-economic trends [38,39,40,41]. These elements form a backdrop that is immutable in the short term by those operating at the niche or regime levels [38].
A socio-technical regime is a complex mix of market, culture, user preferences, industry, policy, technology, and science that collectively stabilizes a given technological system [38]. Shifts occur slowly through the continuous alignment of technical, market, and cultural dimensions, where incremental innovations accumulate to create stable developmental trajectories. These regimes are sustained by various lock-in mechanisms, including consumer habits, regulatory frameworks, sunk investments, and the interplay of economic and political interests [39,41].
The niche level, an incubator for innovation, is shielded from dominant norms and facilitates the emergence of novel technologies [40]. This niche is characterized as “protected spaces” insulated from mainstream market forces and existing technological regimes [39]. The creation and development of niches are primarily driven by dedicated actors, such as entrepreneurs, startups, and spinoffs, who develop radical innovations that deviate from the normative constructs of existing regimes [41].
The MLP framework is applied within the automotive sector to understand transitions towards eMobility, involving diverse stakeholders such as manufacturers, suppliers, government bodies, and consumers [42]. By acknowledging the multifaceted dynamics of transitions, MLP provides a valuable lens for comprehending the complexities inherent in sustainability transitions [40].

2.2. Indonesian Automotive Industry

Having started vehicle assembly as long ago as the 1920s, Indonesia’s vehicle production reached over 1 million units for the first time in 2012 [43]. Between 2018 and 2023, the Indonesian automotive industry’s performance exhibits fluctuations in production, sales, exports, and imports (Figure 1). Based on Gaikindo (2024) [21], production consistently maintained levels above one million units, reaching 1395,717 units in 2023. Similarly, sales fluctuated within one million units, with retail sales amounting to 998,059 units in 2023. Meanwhile, exports experienced continuous growth, rising from 264,000 units in 2018 to 505,134 units in 2023. The world witnessed anomalies in 2020 primarily attributed to the disruptive impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Indonesian automotive industry experienced a significant downturn during this period, yet the industry managed to stabilize and regain normality in subsequent years, reflecting the industry’s resilience and adaptability in response to external challenges.
The Indonesian automotive industry is supported by 26 car assemblers with a total production capacity of up to 2.35 million units per year, with a total investment of approximately USD 4.5 billion [44]. The domestic market’s current production is around 1 million units, with exports nearing 500,000 units. This sector is capable of providing direct employment to 38,000 individuals, along with over 1.5 million people engaged in various parts of the industry’s value chain [44]. Based on GIAMM data, foreign direct investments with connection to Japan account for 83% of the ownership of Indonesian automotive companies (car assemblers, tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3). Conversely, 80 companies are from domestic investments. Japanese automakers also have a strong presence and influence in the Indonesian automotive industry in terms of sales, production, exports, and imports. According to Gaikindo (2024) [45], the ICE car market performance is dominated by Japanese companies, with 81.2% of retail sales attributed to Japanese automakers, with Toyota leading with 32.6%. Similarly, Japan holds a significant share in production, 84.2% of the total production, with Toyota contributing 42%. In terms of exports and imports, Japanese automakers facilitate a substantial 74.4% of exports and 77.6% of imports. This distribution highlights a significant presence of Japanese investment.
In 2023, the domestic sales of BEV grew by 65% compared to the previous year, reaching 17,062 units (Figure 2), with exports totaling 1504 units [21]. Among the best-selling BEVs were the Hyundai Ioniq 5 (Toyota, Aichi, Japan and Suzuki, Hamamatsu, Japan), which recorded 7176 units sold, and the Wuling Air EV (SAIC-GM-Wuling (SGMW), Liuzhou, China) with 5575 units sold. These models benefited from the government’s Value Added Tax (VAT) discount, reducing the rate from 11% to 1% due to fulfilling the minimum 40% domestic component level (Tingkat komponen dalam negeri or TKDN) requirement. Meanwhile, hybrid car (HEV and PHEV) sales reached 54,179 units, with exports totaling 27,710 units [21]. The most popular hybrid models included the Toyota All New Kijang Innova Zenix (Toyota, Japan) (27,539 units), followed by the Suzuki XL7 Hybrid (6154 units) and the Suzuki All New Ertiga Hybrid (3982 units) (Hamamatsu, Japan). Until February 2024, sales of BEVs still lagged behind HEVs.
According to Natsuda et al. (2015) [46], major automotive manufacturers are optimistic about Indonesia’s production hub capabilities. Indonesia has several advantages that contribute to its potential as an automotive producer, such as its strategic geographical location, vast market potential, and economic development. This potential attracted investments even without the need for more attractive incentives. Consequently, expanding foreign companies in Indonesia presents opportunities for domestic manufacturers to enhance their capabilities through joint ventures.

2.3. Methods

Given the complexity of the phenomenon and the need to understand the interactions between actors within the context of eMobility, a qualitative approach was selected as the most suitable method. Researchers use this approach to explore, robustly investigate, and learn about social phenomena, to unpack the meanings people ascribe to activities, situations, and events, or to build a depth of understanding about some dimension of social life [47]. The values include the importance of people’s subjective experiences and meaning-making processes and acquiring a depth of understanding (detailed information from a small sample). Qualitative research allows for an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon, emphasizing the importance of contextual and situational factors underlying complex social phenomena [48].
There is no specific answer to how many participants one should include in a study; the literature contains a variety of perspectives [48]. One commonly used approach is the idea of saturation, which suggests that data collection should stop when the categories or themes become saturated—that is, when gathering fresh data no longer spark or reveal new insights. At this point, it can be said that an adequate sample was achieved [48]. Guest et al. (2006) [49] assert that saturation often occurs within the first twelve interviews, although the basic elements for metathemes can be present as early as six interviews.
In this research, 21 automotive industry experts were contacted by email in early 2023, of whom 12 participated, with each interview lasting approximately 90 min. The interviewees represented diverse expertise, including automotive component manufacturers, automakers, academics, government officials, startups, and associations. While the sample size is not large, it encompasses a broad spectrum of perspectives, ranging from company capabilities to broader national policy considerations. This diversity of perspectives is critical for a comprehensive understanding of the transition trends in the Indonesian automotive industry. Moreover, the number of interviews conducted in this study aligns with other research using the MLP framework that also relied on interviews. For example, Vagnoni and Moradi (2018) [35] and Whittle et al. (2019) [50], each conducted interviews with 11 respondents in their respective studies.
Interviewees were selected based on their knowledge of the automotive industry, ability to provide insights from multiple perspectives, and involvement in the transition process (Table 1). This study focuses on the transition of ICE component manufacturers rather than emerging niche companies. Consequently, the selected interviewees primarily come from ICE component manufacturers.
The interview questions were structured based on the MLP framework, incorporating probing questions to elaborate on the interviewees’ responses. During the interviews, the researcher took notes on key points raised by the participants. At the end of each interview, the researcher confirmed the accuracy of the notes obtained. Subsequently, we highlighted the keywords, created a list of these keywords, and grouped them into categories. From these categories, we identified and developed themes as articulated by the interviewees.
The justification for using MLP lies in its ability to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the complex and multi-actor interactions involved in this transition. In applying the MLP framework to the Indonesian automotive sector, we analyzed niche innovations by examining the development of xEV technologies and the emergence of a new EV conversion startup. For the regime analysis, we evaluated the existing automotive system, particularly the responses of ICE component manufacturers to the growing shift towards eMobility, including their strategic adaptations, technological upgrades, and market positioning. Lastly, we considered landscape pressures such as government policies, global market trends, and environmental concerns influencing the transition.
In Indonesia, specific guidelines dictate that ethics approval is mandatory primarily for research involving medical subjects where there is direct interaction with human subjects that could impact their rights or welfare. This research did not fall within this category and thus did not necessitate formal ethics approval. All participants were informed verbally about the purpose of the interviews, which were conducted strictly for research purposes. They had the option to accept or decline participation or withdraw at any time without prior notice. The decision to withdraw had no negative impact on them. Moreover, they were assured that their personal information would be kept confidential and would not be published, adhering to ethical research practices by safeguarding participant anonymity and minimizing the risk of harm.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Socio-Technical Landscape

The global shift towards environmental conservation and the surge in oil prices catalyze the shift in the automotive industry, particularly towards eMobility. Respondents G1 and G2 highlight the current growth in the popularity of xEVs, coupled with global pressure on Indonesian governments to reduce emissions and meet the targets outlined in the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals. These obligations necessitate a strategic focus on promoting eco-friendly transportation, notably xEVs, to reduce emissions. Research by Utami et al. (2020) [26] and Hidayat and Cowie (2023) [51] highlight Indonesia’s commitment to fulfilling the Paris Agreement targets, including a 29% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 through the promotion of xEV adoption. At the regional level, ASEAN aspires to emerge as the next global hub for xEVs, fostering collaboration among nations to accelerate xEV adoption [52]. Road fleet electrification policies emerge as the key strategies in the ASEAN region’s attempt to decarbonize the transportation sector, with xEVs considered more efficient and effective in reducing pollution and emissions [53]. This aligns with findings by Guzek et al. (2024) [1], indicating that the increasing reputation of xEVs worldwide and anticipated restrictions on ICEVs position xEVs as the primary mode of propulsion shortly.
In response to this shifting landscape, respondents G1 and G2 stated that the Indonesian government enacted Presidential Regulation Number 22/2017, which outlines the General Plan for National Energy, including targets for the production of xEVs and a ban on the sale of ICEVs starting from 2040, align with the findings from Utami et al. (2020) [26]. The transition to eMobility assumes critical importance for Indonesia’s energy security and decarbonization efforts, given its status as a net oil importer since 2004 [16]. This transition is anticipated to drive a significant increase in xEV penetration, leading to substantial petroleum savings and pollution reductions, thereby enhancing urban health and welfare [53].
From a corporate standpoint, the competitive landscape is evolving with the emergence of players such as Tesla and various Chinese brands, compelling ICE automakers to recalibrate their strategies toward xEV manufacturing (Respondent A2). This pressure extends to ICE component manufacturers, as evidenced by global firms transitioning towards xEV-compatible offerings. Indonesian ICE component manufacturers are also influenced by global market dynamics and competition. With the increasing global sales of xEVs, Indonesian ICE component manufacturers began conducting studies on the impact, risks, opportunities, and alternative products to determine the future direction of their companies. They are also initiating communication and exploring offers with new automakers entering the Indonesian market, hoping to supply components to these manufacturers. Indonesian ICE component manufacturers are competing with major international companies that are rapidly advancing in key EV technology, investing heavily in R&D to develop more advanced products. For instance, companies such as CATL (Ningde, China), Bosch (Gerlingen, Germany), and DENSO (Kariya, Japan) established themselves as leaders in battery technology, electric motors, and electric drivetrains, respectively. Companies that adopt xEV technologies have the opportunity to access growing markets and receive global recognition for their dedication to environmental responsibility (Respondent S3).

3.2. Socio-Technical Regime

3.2.1. Market, Culture, and User Preferences

Indonesia is in the early stages of xEV adoption, with xEV sales comprising only 7% of total car sales. Respondent A2 noted that the existing BEV offerings do not align with most Indonesians’ preferences and needs, such as seven-seaters, multi-purpose vehicles (MPV) priced between IDR 200 and 250 million, suitable for long-distance travel during holidays. This finding is supported by Febransyah (2021) [24] and Yuniza et al. (2021) [22], who state that the prices of xEVs in the Indonesian market are still beyond the reach of the majority of existing car owners, making xEVs luxury goods accessible mainly to the upper-middle class. Regarding vehicle models, Sasongko et al. (2024) [17] support this research by indicating that Indonesians prefer seven-seater cars, while currently, only HEVs are available in this category. For long-distance travel during holidays, infrastructure availability to support the operation of BEVs is considered a significant barrier to BEV adoption [16,17,22]. Moreover, respondent M1 emphasized the convenience of refueling conventional ICEVs compared to the relatively longer charging times for BEVs. Therefore, the transition to eMobility must consider the behaviors and preferences of Indonesian car users (Respondent U1).
Respondent A2 also mentions that the current level of environmental awareness is still low. The current xEV users in Indonesia are not solely concerned about the environment, but most of them are looking for pride, a new experience of using an xEV, or looking for savings from reduced fuel costs. Similarly, Paramita et al. (2024) [54] find that Indonesians are more likely to adopt xEVs to gain status and respect.
High prices, limited charging infrastructure, and low public awareness are significant barriers not only to xEV adoption but also to xEV manufacturing. The Respondent S3 company, for example, even though it released a product for xEV, encountered difficulties securing customers due to the limited demand for xEVs. The existing demand does not sufficiently support a transition to eMobility. Component manufacturers wishing to shift to xEV component manufacturing need guarantees of sustainable demand from automakers and guarantees of quantity to achieve economies of scale (Respondent A1), which aligns with the findings from Bohnsack et al. (2020) [55], Corradi et al. (2023) [36] and Schwabe (2020) [14]. This issue also occurs in other countries such as Thailand, where the public still prefers ICEVs over xEVs [56]. Hence, the scaling up of xEV orders is crucial for xEV and component manufacturing [57].

3.2.2. Industry

Stakeholders’ perceptions in transitioning to xEV mainly concern the transition path, required investment, and changes in the supply chain. Some companies are hesitant to undergo a radical shift to BEV due to the perception that “BEV is still far away” (Respondent S1). While Korean and Chinese automakers actively endorse a faster transition to BEV, some Japanese automakers prefer a gradual transition, starting with HEV (Respondent A2). Consistent with findings by Sasongko et al. (2024) [17] and Negara and Hidayat (2022) [29], foreign automakers that dominate the Indonesian automotive industry still prioritize ICEVs and prefer a gradual transition, influencing the perception of automotive companies in Indonesia. Research in other countries explains that many established automotive companies are hesitant to shift their focus towards xEV development [36,42] due to their expertise in ICE technology [58] and belief in its long-term viability [59]. Respondent U1 stated that their product offerings show automakers’ perceptions of xEV. Moreover, the BEV industry ecosystem is not yet prepared in Indonesia and requires time for the transition to align with the readiness of the BEV ecosystem (Respondent A1).
Respondents expressed concerns regarding the high investment required to transition to xEVs component manufacturing (Respondent G2, A1, S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5). The transition demands significant investments in new machinery [33], R&D in xEV technologies [60], modifications to production procedures [61], new product development [14], human resources development programs, and new quality control measures [62]. Companies already made significant investments in existing ICE component manufacturing systems, making it challenging to invest in new capabilities (Respondent S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5). Sasongko et al. (2024) [17] further state that the high investment needed for xEV and component manufacturing challenges xEV manufacturing in Indonesia. Moreover, concerns are raised about the readiness of human resources in Indonesia, with a lack of knowledge and information about xEV technology necessitating human resources development programs [18]. Since mechanical competency is becoming less relevant [63], automotive companies need to acquire electrical [62], electronic [61,64], computing [65], and software [66] proficiencies to develop xEVs portfolio [67]. Mubarok and Kartini (2023) [18] suggest a strong collaboration between relevant stakeholders, including the government, private companies, vocational schools, and Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET) for smooth upskilling and reskilling. While no research is estimating the required investment to support xEV manufacturing in Indonesia, comparisons can be drawn, as Yang and Fulton (2023) [68] estimate investments in xEV production (car assembly, component manufacturing, and battery production) in the US ranging from 20 to 143 billion USD.
Respondent A1 points out that Indonesia’s xEV industry faces challenges in its supply chain readiness. Despite the ongoing construction of an xEV battery factory scheduled to commence operations by the end of 2024 (Respondent G1 and G2), there is a lack of domestic companies producing crucial xEV components (Respondent E1). Additionally, Respondent S3 indicated that specific components of their xEV products, such as permanent magnets and power control units (PCUs), are still imported, while gear components, including aluminum gears, will be locally manufactured in Indonesia. Similar to the findings from Sasongko et al. (2024) [17], the domestic supply chain is dependent on imports of raw materials and critical components and lacks readiness in the local industry. There is a shortage of domestic companies producing crucial xEV components such as batteries, electric motors, controllers, software, and semiconductor components, which must be imported from the global supply chain. Respondent A1 compares to Malaysia, where a well-established electronics industry supports xEV production, contrasting with Indonesia’s less developed electronics sector. However, for xEV batteries, Indonesia’s abundant raw materials and the establishment of the Indonesian Battery Corporation signifies a commitment to developing an integrated xEV battery industry ecosystem and increasing domestic xEV manufacturing [16,69].
“Currently, Chinese suppliers dominate in terms of pricing and order flexibility, although they occasionally offer less quality compared to European products. European suppliers offer high-quality products but struggle to compete with China’s pricing. Local Indonesian suppliers lack of quality, order flexibility, and pricing, often offering higher prices than the Chinese companies.”
(Respondent E1)
Research in other countries emphasizes that the transition to xEVs production brings disruption in the supply chain, ranging from minor to significant or radical transformations [70]. This shift introduces heightened competition within the supply chain [57], placing established component manufacturers against powerful newcomers such as Chinese automotive companies [71]. Therefore, as stated by Respondent U1, the successful localization of Indonesian xEV manufacturing requires independent local component manufacturers.

3.2.3. Policy

The Indonesian government published a roadmap and regulations to accelerate the transition to eMobility while protecting the national automotive industry by implementing rules regarding the TKDN (Respondent G1, G2, and U1). The roadmap includes developing essential components such as batteries, electric motors, and converters (Respondent G1 and U1). One of the 2030 objectives is to produce 600,000 BEVs with 80% TKDN. This regulation mandates that the automakers prioritize the use of domestic components. As a component manufacturer, Respondent S3 stated that his company strives to comply with regulations, align with TKDN, and keep pace with evolving xEV technologies. Similarly, Veza et al. (2022) [30], Nuryakin et al. (2019) [72], Sudibyo et al. (2023) [73], also stated that the roadmap and regulations emphasize the production of domestic components to increase the value of TKDN in xEV. The most significant policy is the Low Carbon Emission Vehicle (LCEV) program, which includes various vehicles such as Low-Cost Green Cars (LCGC), Full HEV, Mild HEV, PHEV, BEV, FCEV, and Flexy Engine (Respondent A1). The LCEV program offers substantial PPnBM (luxury goods sales tax) incentives based on CO2 emissions. BEVs and FCEVs have a PPnBM tax rate of 0%, HEVs and PHEVs of 6–12% depending on the type of hybrid (strong/mild), and ICEVs have a tax rate ranging from 12% to 125%. The government also provides a reduction in VAT from 11% to 1%. Details of the tax reduction for BEVs can be found in Table 2.
Moreover, the government allowed import duty exemption for CBU BEV until 31 December 2025 (Respondent G1). The incentives are only given to automakers participating in the LCEV program and committed to building an xEV manufacturing plant in Indonesia [74]. Incentives for companies importing CBU BEVs include exemption of import duty, reduction in PPnBM, and exemption or reduction in local taxes. Additional incentives for domestically produced BEVs include exemption of import duty for importing machinery, goods, and materials for investment purposes and exemption of import duty for importing raw materials and auxiliary materials used in the production process. Moreover, economic incentives for xEV manufacturers include corporate tax reductions (for 5 to 20 years), and income tax incentives (deducting 5% per annum for 6 years).
The government also demands investment and production commitments from automakers, stating that products must be ready for commercial production by 1 January 2026 and meet the minimum target achievement of the TKDN by 31 December 2027. Import quotas will be given if the manufacturer commits to producing the number of units by 2027 corresponding to the units imported (1 unit imported:1 unit produced).
The government also issued other fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to increase demand, including a reduction in vehicle registration fees, reduction in annual vehicle tax, 30% electricity tariff discount, and exemptions from road usage restrictions [22,51,74]. The government also encourages government agencies to use BEVs as operational vehicles [74]. In the future, Respondent G1 states that the Indonesian government will restrict the sale of ICEVs, allowing automakers to produce ICEVs only for export.
Several challenges were encountered during its implementation. For example, the sales targets for 2023 were not met, and the domestic industry for key EV components is not yet ready. The government evaluated these issues and extended the 1% value-added tax incentive until December 2024. Regarding the TKDN, the government also relaxed the requirement, originally set at 60% for 2024, to be achieved by 2026.
To ensure compliance, the government appointed an audit team that conducts regular audits to calculate the TKDN level contained in the vehicles annually. They impose a reduction in benefits (tax incentives) for non-compliance with TKDN requirements.

3.2.4. Technology and Science

The automotive industry possesses mature ICE technology capabilities, whereas xEVs utilize different energy and propulsion systems. The production of xEVs necessitates a significant transformation in technological capability [55,64]. The development of xEV key components requires new know-how [33] and demands adaptations in production systems [75], as these systems differ significantly from those used in conventional vehicles [36]. All interviewees acknowledge that mastering xEV technology is one of the challenges in the transition. Respondent U1 stated that xEVs and their component manufacturing require distinct technological capabilities. While some companies engage in reverse engineering by dismantling some BEV units to identify components similar to those in their current products (Respondent S1 and S2), some conduct internal research to identify potential product applications outside the automotive industry (Respondent S4). Others follow global directives since R&D activities are conducted at their parent company (Respondent S3).
After identifying alternative products that can be produced, the technological barrier faced by companies is the establishment of new production lines by mastering manufacturing processes and equipment, necessitating significant changes in machinery. Respondents S1 and S4 engaged in collaborations and consultations with other companies to achieve new technological capabilities, including contracting technical assistants. For example, respondent S1 set up a new production line for EV charging devices, requiring a dust-free sterile environment and high precision. Regarding raw materials, the main components, such as electronics and sensors, are still sourced from abroad, as noted by Respondent S3. Furthermore, after the products are successfully manufactured, Respondent S1 is required to comply with stricter quality control and high standards.
Respondent E1 acknowledges challenges arising from the rapid development and lack of standardization in current xEV technology and components, unlike mature and standardized components in ICEVs. This necessitates quick adaptation to evolving xEV technology.
There is enough time until 2030 for companies to transition, whether by utilizing current facilities or upgrading their capabilities (Respondent G2). Domestic automotive companies need to aim for market leadership in essential xEV components such as batteries, electric motors, battery management systems, sensors, and semiconductors to bolster the local component sector. Respondent M1 stresses the importance of evolving the domestic automotive industry through the shift to xEVs. The TKDN mandates that automakers not only conduct assembly operations domestically but also participate in research and development, set up local production facilities, and empower local component manufacturers (Respondent G1).
“R&D regarding xEV and its ecosystem continues to be undertaken by various universities in Indonesia, research centers, state-owned enterprises, and collaborations among them. Some of these initiatives include collaboration in researching and developing electric buses, developing battery technologies, and establishing fast-charging stations.”
(Respondent U1)
The findings align with previous research by Sasongko et al. (2024) [17], indicating that there are currently technical barriers to xEV manufacturing in the form of a lack of local industry readiness. Meanwhile, the limitation in production facilities is not a critical technical barrier because the development is still in the early stages [17].

3.3. Socio-Technical Niche Management

The Indonesian government aspires to become the xEV manufacturing hub in Southeast Asia. According to Respondent G2, there are five electric bus companies with a production capacity of 2480 units/year, three electric car industry companies with a production capacity of 29,000 units/year, and 43 electric motorcycle industry companies with a production capacity of 1.04 million units/year. As of 6 February 2023, the Ministry of Transportation reports 49,332 registered electric cars. Moreover, regulations require automakers to use certain TKDN in their xEVs.
“Out of 50 xEV sub-components, 25 can be produced domestically, five are in-house, and ten do not have local manufacturers yet. … The government is actively working to enhance downstream industries, particularly in batteries, electric motors, and PCU/inverters. Existing downstream industries have the capacity to produce lithium-ion battery cells with an approved production capacity of 25 million cells, equivalent to 256 MWh/year. Additionally, a State-Owned Enterprises consortium with an Integrated Battery Industry concept has been established, covering mining to battery cell and pack production, capable of producing up to 10 GWh/year. … Currently, nine companies support the battery industry, five provide battery raw materials, and four are battery manufacturers. The domestic battery industry aims to produce up to 10 GWh, supporting the entire xEV supply chain.”
(Respondent G2)
The government is open to global investments in the automotive sector, inviting several automakers to invest in the country to encourage the development of the BEV industry and its supporting ecosystem (Respondent G1). The government extends flexibility to automakers who are willing to invest in assembly plants and R&D in Indonesia as required by TKDN. Indonesia’s government encouraged major automakers such as Tesla (San Carlos, CA, USA), Daihatsu Motor (Ikeda, Japan), and BYD (Shenzhen, China) to invest in the country’s BEV development [76]. Actualization of investment, such as Wuling Motors invested USD 950 million in a car factory in Indonesia, and Hyundai, invested USD 1.55 billion in constructing a BEV manufacturing facility in Indonesia, with plans to start local battery production [77]. BYD plans to invest USD 1.3 billion in establishing manufacturing facilities, and Mitsubishi (Tokyo, Japan) is committing USD 801 million to align with its plans for BEV production in Indonesia. Other Japanese automakers, such as Toyota and Suzuki, focus on HEVs. Toyota introduced the Innova Zenix HEV in Indonesia, featuring a local content level of 65%.
Respondents identified the optimization of the TKDN as a crucial factor in reducing production costs and fostering the growth of the Indonesian xEV industry. The TKDN policy is important in Indonesia’s xEV manufacturing initiatives (Respondent G2 and U1). The regulatory states that 80% of xEV components must be domestically sourced, promoting domestic industries’ growth (Respondent G2) and compelling local companies to develop high-quality products (Respondent U1). In 2024, Respondent G2 predicts an acceleration of TKDN by developing major xEV components and supporting components, producing charging station equipment, and strengthening precision processes and measurement capabilities in tier 2 and 3 of the xEV supply chain.

3.4. Theoretical Implications

This study extends the application of the MLP concept by contextualizing it within the Indonesian automotive industry. It highlights how MLP can be used to analyze transitions in a developing country where the automotive industry is predominantly controlled by foreign companies, which may have different dynamics compared to developed countries with national automakers, such as the work done by Krätzig et al. (2019) [34] in Germany. Additionally, although this research integrates diverse stakeholder perspectives, including government bodies, associations, automakers, academia, and startups, to understand the perceptions and actions of each stakeholder, this study addresses a notable gap in the MLP literature by understanding the role of incumbent industries in eMobility by focusing on the strategic responses of ICE component manufacturers, an often-overlooked group in the literature on eMobility transitions. It also links MLP with strategic management by outlining various strategic responses from ICE component manufacturers, contributing to the strategic management literature. This research demonstrates how incumbent companies can reposition themselves in response to industry wide disruptions, offering a roadmap for strategic adaptation in other sectors facing similar transitions.

3.5. Practical Implications

3.5.1. Challenges and Strategies of ICE Component Manufacturers

ICE component manufacturers face various challenges in the transition to eMobility, such as investing in new technologies to produce alternative components for EVs, retraining the workforce to have skills aligned with new technologies, and meeting new regulations related to product standards and certifications. However, the main challenge highlighted by A1 is achieving economies of scale in EV component production, as the current demand for EVs is still low. This makes it difficult to justify the transition to EV component manufacturing, as the volume of demand is not yet sustainable. Companies are adopting a “wait and see” approach regarding the development of eMobility in Indonesia but are already making preliminary plans for their future strategies.
Companies conducted studies for alternative products. Respondent S1’s study indicates that rubber components remain necessary in BEV but have different characteristics, known as thermoplastics, that are used for cooling and battery thermal management systems. Despite technological differences, the company can acquire thermoplastics production capabilities. In addition, S1 started producing EV charging devices by establishing a new production line. Respondent S2 states that almost none of their products are used in BEV, prompting consideration of diversification into heavy equipment and marine industries or transitioning from a mechanical company to an electronic one. Furthermore, Respondent S4’s internal research reveals that 40% of its products are not used in BEV, leading it to diversify into producing air purifiers for houses and offices using its existing capabilities. Respondent S3 is venturing into the xEV industry, focusing on developing an electric motorcycle PCU and gearbox to deliver more smoothness during operation compared to conventional electric motorcycles. They assembled electric motorcycles equipped with their PCU and gearbox, presenting them at automotive exhibitions. As a plastic component manufacturer, Respondent S5 notes that the shift to xEVs is relatively minor in their current business, as their plastic components are primarily used for vehicle exteriors and interiors.
This research aligns with Nurcahyo et al. (2021) [12], that Indonesian ICE component manufacturers need to leverage their strengths to capitalize on opportunities. Companies with robust financial resources can pursue backward integration by acquiring xEV component manufacturers or forward integration by acquiring xEV manufacturers. Diversifying into related or unrelated products becomes a viable strategic alternative when a company lacks strengths or faces limited opportunities within the xEV market.
The findings also align with Schwabe (2020) [14], who found that companies prefer to implement product upgrades and market diversification strategies but differ from Özel et al. (2014) [78], who found that most companies adopt a market penetration strategy to enter the xEV market. Schwabe (2020) [14] provides the risks and advantages of the chosen strategies. The product development strategy by respondent S1 requires investment in R&D and production capacity but yields benefits such as low dependency on ICE parts. The market development strategy by respondent S2 carries the risk of a highly competitive new market, while the market penetration strategy by respondent S3 entails the risk of a highly uncertain market. Despite competition challenges, the unrelated diversification strategy by respondent S4 offers the advantage of the current good home appliance market, especially health equipment.
According to Fojcik (2013) [79], ICE component manufacturers should continue to exploit the existing market for a successful transition while concurrently exploring the types of products that can be integrated into the xEV sector. Only when the appropriate juncture arises, such as when xEV sales surpass ICEV sales, should ICE component manufacturers fully start producing xEV components.

3.5.2. Policy Recommendations

This research proposes two policies to encourage xEV adoption and manufacturing in Indonesia. The first is to implement a gradual transition according to the Roadmap for the Indonesian Automotive Industry outlined in Minister of Industry Regulation Number 36/2021, which entails starting the transition from HEVs, then moving to PHEVs, and finally transitioning to BEVs. While the government emphasized the role of hybrid cars as a crucial intermediary in the transition towards full BEV adoption [80], the benefits provided to users and manufacturers of hybrid cars still feel minimal. Respondents hope that HEVs and PHEVs will not be neglected by not providing fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to both. The government could provide equal treatment for all xEV technology types. This finding is consistent with research indicating a preference for HEVs in Indonesia [17]. Furthermore, hybrid cars integrate an ICE and an electric motor, making them suitable for Indonesia’s current infrastructure and energy conditions [80]. A similar gradual transition approach was implemented in countries such as the US and Canada. According to Chandra et al. (2010) [81], in 2000, British Columbia provided a provincial sales tax rebate on HEVs. In 2007, the Canadian federal government launched a two-year eco-auto program to boost sales through cash rebates. Meanwhile, in the US, federal tax credits for HEVs were introduced in 2005, with 13 state governments implementing tax incentives for their purchase by 2007. Moreover, numerous state and local governments in the US offer additional benefits, such as access to high-occupancy lanes, free parking, reduced registration fees, and exemptions from emission testing. It was not until between 2010 and 2014 that 15 US states provided financial incentives for consumer adoption of BEVs, such as direct vehicle rebates, state income tax credits, and state sales and use tax exemptions [82]. Therefore, a gradual transition was undertaken in other countries, and this would be an appropriate policy for Indonesia.
Secondly, the Indonesian government suggested providing more support to the automotive industry in transitioning to xEVs. Respondents expressed concerns regarding the technological capabilities, human resources, and readiness of local companies in Indonesia. Learning from other countries, two distinct approaches are exemplified by Germany and the United Kingdom. Mazur et al. (2015) [83] state that the German government supports existing automotive and component manufacturers to ensure a less disruptive transition. In contrast, the UK focuses on establishing a new local industry in eMobility, emphasizing support for xEV component manufacturers [71,83]. However, unlike Germany, Indonesia does not have national automakers, and many of its automotive companies are affiliated with foreign brands. Therefore, Indonesia could combine these approaches by implementing a gradual and less disruptive transition that allows existing automotive companies time to adapt while also supporting emerging companies that produce key xEV components. These dual approaches would facilitate a smoother transition and stimulate the development of a robust domestic supply chain for xEV. Additionally, Indonesia can learn what China accomplished regarding industrial development steps. From 2010 to 2020, the Chinese government allocated more than USD 15 billion to support (1) R&D and industrialization of energy efficient and new energy cars; (2) development of NEV pilot projects; (3) promotion of HEV and other energy saving cars; (4) development of key components; and (5) development of BEV infrastructures in the pilot cities [84]. Moreover, the Chinese government creates policies requiring foreign automotive companies to share knowledge with local companies and allocate substantial funds for R&D [84,85]. The Indonesian government can also develop engineering education since the capabilities of the automotive industries are shifting from mechanical engineering and mechatronics to chemistry, electronics, electrical engineering, and innovative materials [8]. India could be the best example; they integrate xEV technologies into college curricula and establish quality testing centers, dedicated xEV assembly facilities, mobility solutions, and prototype centers [64].

3.6. Research Limitations and Future Works

The insights provided in this paper can help the government and automotive companies face challenges and accelerate the transition towards eMobility. However, it is important to note that this paper is qualitative, employing an MLP through semi-structured interviews to examine the transition in the automotive industry. For future research, a specific recommendation is made to conduct a competitiveness analysis of countries and compare them, for instance, between developed and developing countries or among countries aspiring to become global xEV leaders. Furthermore, future research is also recommended to employ quantitative methods to enrich the analysis.

4. Conclusions

This research examines the transformative journey of Indonesian automotive industry stakeholders, specifically focusing on the strategic responses of Indonesian ICE component manufacturers amidst the evolving automotive landscape. The research fills a knowledge gap regarding how a country addresses the automotive industry’s transition to xEVs production. It is beneficial for all stakeholders in the automotive industry to formulate steps to accelerate the transition.
The results show that Indonesia is transforming its automotive industry towards eMobility due to environmental concerns and rising oil prices. The Indonesian government aims to become a global xEV manufacturing hub and published a roadmap and regulations to accelerate the transition while protecting the national automotive industry. The TKDN policy requires 80% of xEV components to be domestically sourced, which is crucial in Indonesia’s xEV manufacturing initiatives. However, the transition requires significant investment in new machinery, R&D, quality control measures, production procedures, product development, and human resources development programs.
Indonesian ICE component manufacturers use various strategies to capitalize on xEV market opportunities or to survive in this changing landscape. Some companies adopt product development and market development strategies, while others focus on market penetration and introduce new products to enter other industries. Indonesian automotive companies should continue exploiting the existing ICE market while exploring the possibility of producing xEV components.
This research suggests two policies to encourage xEV adoption and manufacturing in Indonesia. The first is to implement a gradual transition from hybrid vehicles to BEVs according to the Roadmap for the Indonesian Automotive Industry. The government should provide equal treatment for all xEV technology types, as this aligns with research indicating a preference for HEVs in Indonesia. The second policy is to provide more support to the automotive industry in transitioning to xEVs. The Indonesian government can enact policies requiring foreign automotive companies to share knowledge with local companies and allocate substantial funds for R&D in xEV technology. The Indonesian government can also integrate xEV technologies into college curricula and establish quality testing centers, dedicated xEV assembly facilities, mobility solutions, and prototype centers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H., R.N., A.M. and K.N.; methodology, M.H., R.N. and A.M.; software, M.H. and R.N.; validation, M.H., R.N., A.M. and K.N.; formal analysis, M.H., R.N., A.M. and K.N.; investigation, M.H. and R.N.; resources, M.H. and R.N.; data curation, M.H. and R.N.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H. and R.N.; writing—review and editing, M.H., R.N., A.M. and K.N.; visualization, M.H.; supervision, R.N., A.M. and K.N.; project administration, M.H. and R.N.; funding acquisition, R.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by Directorate of Research and Development, Universitas Indonesia under Hibah PUTI 2023, grant No. NKB-538/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2023.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders has no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Guzek, M.; Jackowski, J.; Jurecki, R.S.; Szumska, E.M.; Zdanowicz, P.; Zmuda, M. Electric Vehicles—An Overview of Current Issues—Part 1—Environmental Impact, Source of Energy, Recycling, and Second Life of Battery. Energies 2024, 17, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Euronews. EU 2035 Petrol and Diesel Car Ban: Germany Reaches Deal on Synthetic Fuels. 2023. Available online: https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/22/eu-to-ban-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2035-heres-why-some-countries-are-pushing-back (accessed on 30 May 2024).
  3. Kito, M.; Nakamoto, Y.; Kagawa, S.; Hienuki, S.; Hubacek, K. Environmental consequences of Japan’s ban on sale of new fossil fuel-powered passenger vehicles from 2035. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 437, 140658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wu, Z.; Shao, Q.; Su, Y.; Zhang, D. A socio-technical transition path for new energy vehicles in China: A multi-level perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 172, 121007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Asghar, R.; Rehman, F.; Ullah, Z.; Qamar, A.; Ullah, K.; Iqbal, K.; Aman, A.; Nawaz, A.A. Electric vehicles and key adaptation challenges and prospects in Pakistan: A comprehensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Un-Noor, F.; Padmanaban, S.; Mihet-Popa, L.; Mollah, M.N.; Hossain, E. A Comprehensive Study of Key Electric Vehicle (EV) Components, Technologies, Challenges, Impacts, and Future Direction of Development. Energies 2017, 10, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chaturvedi, B.K.; Nautiyal, A.; Kandpal, T.C.; Yaqoot, M. Projected transition to electric vehicles in India and its impact on stakeholders. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2022, 66, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Altenburg, T. From Combustion Engines to Electric Vehicles: A Study of Technological Path Creation and Disruption in Germany; Report No. 3889856543; IDOS: Bonn, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  9. Link, A.; O’Connor, A.; Scott, T. Battery Technology for Electric Vehicles: Public Science and Private Innovation, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Patyal, V.S.; Kumar, R.; Kushwah, S. Modeling barriers to the adoption of electric vehicles: An Indian perspective. Energy 2021, 237, 121554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mule, L.; Belingheri, P.; Bonaccorsi, A. Strategic Alliances in the Electromobility Sector. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 238, 07001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nurcahyo, R.; Nurhadi, H.; Habiburrahman, M. Strategies for automotive filter component manufacturers towards electric vehicles era in Indonesia. Commun. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2021, 1, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Natsuda, K. The Drive for Electric Vehicles in Asia. East Asian Forum (9 Feburary 2021). 2021. Available online: https://eastasiaforum.org/2021/02/09/the-drive-for-electric-vehicles-in-asia/ (accessed on 30 May 2024).
  14. Schwabe, J. Risk and counter-strategies: The impact of electric mobility on German automotive suppliers. Geoforum 2020, 110, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Autonews. ICE vs. EV. 2021. Available online: https://www.autonews.com/ice-vs-ev (accessed on 30 May 2024).
  16. Maghfiroh, M.F.N.; Pandyaswargo, A.H.; Onoda, H. Current Readiness Status of Electric Vehicles in Indonesia: Multistakeholder Perceptions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sasongko, T.W.; Ciptomulyono, U.; Wirjodirdjo, B.; Prastawa, A. Identification of electric vehicle adoption and production factors based on an ecosystem perspective in Indonesia. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2024, 11, 2332497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mubarok, M.W.S.; Kartini, E. Bolstering Indonesia electric vehicles ecosystem through human resources development. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing: Woodbury, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  19. Indonesia Ministry of Industry. Dampak Pandemi Covid-19 Terhadap Industri Otomotif; Indonesia Ministry of Industry: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2021.
  20. Indonesia Ministry of Industry. Upaya Pemerintah pada Pertumbuhan Industri Kendaraan Listrik; Indonesia Ministry of Industry: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2021.
  21. Gaikindo. Gaikindo Wholesales Data Jan-Dec 2023; Gaikindo: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  22. Yuniza, M.E.; Pratama, I.W.B.E.; Ramadhaniati, R.C. Indonesia’s Incentive Policies on Electric Vehicles: The Questionable Effort from the Government. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2021, 11, 434–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nurrohman, H.F.; Arionmaro Asi, S.; Rohmatul, S.R.; Hakam, D.F.; Kevin Gausultan Hadith, M. Investigating the Impact of Key Factors on Electric/Electric-Vehicle Charging Station Adoption in Indonesia. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2023, 13, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Febransyah, A. Predicting Purchase Intention towards Battery Electric Vehicles: A Case of Indonesian Market. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gunawan, I.; Anak Agung Ngurah Perwira, R.; Ahmad Arif, S.; Meilinda Fitriani Nur, M.; Andante Hadi, P.; Kurniawan, A.C. Determinants of Customer Intentions to Use Electric Vehicle in Indonesia: An Integrated Model Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Utami, M.W.D.; Yuniaristanto, Y.; Sutopo, W. Adoption Intention Model of Electric Vehicle in Indonesia. J. Optimasi Sist. Ind. 2020, 19, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schröder, M.; Iwasaki, F. From nickel to Electric cars? Indonesia’s resource cum automotive industry policy. J. Asia Pac. Econ. 2023, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Konewka, T.; Bednarz, J.; Czuba, T. Building a Competitive Advantage for Indonesia in the Development of the Regional EV Battery Chain. Energies 2021, 14, 7332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Negara, S.; Hidayat, A. Indonesia’s Automotive Industry: Recent Trend and Challenges. J. Southeast Asian Econ. (JSEAE) 2022, 38, 166–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Veza, I.; Abas, M.A.; Djamari, D.W.; Tamaldin, N.; Endrasari, F.; Budiman, B.A.; Idris, M.; Opia, A.C.; Juangsa, F.B.; Aziz, M. Electric Vehicles in Malaysia and Indonesia: Opportunities and Challenges. Energies 2022, 15, 2564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pirmana, V.; Alisjahbana, A.S.; Yusuf, A.A.; Hoekstra, R.; Tukker, A. Economic and environmental impact of electric vehicles production in Indonesia. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2023, 25, 1871–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, J.C.-E.; Chao, C.-W. Equal rights for gasoline and electricity? The dismantling of fossil fuel vehicle phase-out policy in Taiwan. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 89, 102571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mohamad, M.; Songthaveephol, V. Clash of titans: The challenges of socio-technical transitions in the electrical vehicle technologies—The case study of Thai automotive industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 153, 119772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Krätzig, O.; Franzkowiak, V.; Sick, N. Multi-Level Perspective to Facilitate Sustainable Transitions—A Pathway for German OEMs Towards Electric Vehicles. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2019, 23, 1940006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vagnoni, E.; Moradi, A. Local government’s contribution to low carbon mobility transitions. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 486–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Corradi, C.; Sica, E.; Morone, P. What drives electric vehicle adoption? Insights from a systematic review on European transport actors and behaviours. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2023, 95, 102908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rip, A.; Kemp, R. Technological change. In Human Choice and Climate Change: Vol. II, Resources and Technology; Battelle Press: Columbus, OH, USA, 1998; pp. 327–399. [Google Scholar]
  38. Geels, F.W.; Schot, J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 399–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Geels, F.W. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 24, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Geels, F.W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1257–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Geels, F.W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2011, 1, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Berkeley, N.; Bailey, D.; Jones, A.; Jarvis, D. Assessing the transition towards Battery Electric Vehicles: A Multi-Level Perspective on drivers of, and barriers to, take up. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 106, 320–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Natsuda, K.; Thoburn, J. Automotive Industrialisation: Industrial Policy and Development in Southeast Asia, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  44. Indonesian Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs. Dorong Kinerja Sektor Industri Otomotif, Menko Airlangga Tegaskan Indonesia Siap Menjadi Produsen Electric Vehicle bagi Pasar Global; Indonesian Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs: Bekasi, Indonesia, 2023.
  45. Gaikindo. Wholesales, Retail Sales, Production and Export Import By Brand Jan-Dec 2023; Gaikindo: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  46. Natsuda, K.; Otsuka, K.; Thoburn, J. Dawn of Industrialisation? The Indonesian Automotive Industry. Bull. Indones. Econ. Stud. 2015, 51, 47–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Leavy, P. Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, Arts-Based, and Community-Based Participatory Research Approaches; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  48. Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  49. Guest, G.; Bunce, A.; Johnson, L. How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods 2006, 18, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Whittle, C.; Whitmarsh, L.; Haggar, P.; Morgan, P.; Parkhurst, G. User decision-making in transitions to electrified, autonomous, shared or reduced mobility. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 71, 302–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hidayat, R.; Cowie, J. A framework to explore policy to support the adoption of electric vehicles in developing nations: A case study of Indonesia. Proc. Transp. Res. Procedia 2023, 70, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jamaludin, N.F.; Hashim, H.; Ho, W.S.; Lim, L.K.; Binti Sulaiman, N.S.; Demoral, A.; Tirta, A.; Kresnawan, M.R.; Safrina, R.; Rosalia, S.A. Electric Vehicle Adoption in ASEAN; Prospect and Challenges. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2021, 89, 625–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Demoral, A.; Yurnaidi, Z.; Kresnawan, M.R.; Rosalia, S.A.; Safrina, R.; Abdullah, A.; Bilqis, A.; Tirta, A. Cross-sectoral analysis on the implication of ASEAN road transport electrification policies on energy security and climate. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1199, 012007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Paramita, W.; Rostiani, R.; Hidayat, R.; Nugroho, S.S.; Junarsin, E. For me, for you, or for the environment? Explaining young consumers’ motives for adopting electric cars based on the fundamental motive framework. Young Consum. 2024, 25, 226–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bohnsack, R.; Kolk, A.; Pinkse, J.; Bidmon, C.M. Driving the electric bandwagon: The dynamics of incumbents’ sustainable innovation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 727–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Intarakumnerd, P. Technological Upgrading and Challenges in the Thai Automotive Industry. J. Southeast Asian Econ. 2021, 38, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kalaitzi, D.; Matopoulos, A.; Clegg, B. Managing resource dependencies in electric vehicle supply chains: A multi-tier case study. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019, 24, 256–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sadiq Jajja, M.S.; Hassan, S.Z.; Asif, M.; Searcy, C. Manufacturing value chain for battery electric vehicles in Pakistan: An assessment of capabilities and transition pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 328, 129512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Earl, J.; Fell, M.J. Electric vehicle manufacturers’ perceptions of the market potential for demand-side flexibility using electric vehicles in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 2019, 129, 646–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chhikara, R.; Garg, R.; Chhabra, S.; Karnatak, U.; Agrawal, G. Factors affecting adoption of electric vehicles in India: An exploratory study. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 100, 103084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gumiel, J.Á.; Mabe, J.; Jiménez, J.; Barruetabeña, J. Introducing the Electronic Knowledge Framework into the Traditional Automotive Suppliers & Industry: From Mechanical Engineering to Mechatronics. Businesses 2022, 2, 273–289. [Google Scholar]
  62. Szalavetz, A. Transition to electric vehicles in Hungary: A devastating crisis or business as usual? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 184, 122029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hoeft, F. Auto makers and radical innovation: Culture, capital and talent form road blocks. J. Bus. Strategy 2022, 43, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Singh, S.; Jindel, J.; Tikkiwal, V.A.; Verma, M.; Gupta, A.; Negi, A.; Jain, A. Electric vehicles for low-emission urban mobility: Current status and policy review for India. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2022, 41, 1323–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sarasini, S. Electrifying the automotive industry: The geography and governance of R&D collaboration. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2014, 13, 109–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Murmann, J.P.; Vogt, F. A Capabilities Framework for Dynamic Competition: Assessing the Relative Chances of Incumbents, Start-Ups, and Diversifying Entrants. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2023, 19, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Held, M.; Weidmann, D.; Kammerl, D.; Hollauer, C.; Mörtl, M.; Omer, M.; Lindemann, U. Current challenges for sustainable product development in the German automotive sector: A survey based status assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 869–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yang, H.; Fulton, L. Decoding US investments for future battery and electric vehicle production. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 118, 103693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Suherman, I.; Rochani, S.; Cahyaningtyas, D. Value-added analysis of the electric vehicle battery industry in Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 882, 012079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rossini, M.; Ciarapica, F.; Matt, D.; Russo Spena, P. A preliminary study on the changes in the Italian automotive supply chain for the introduction of electric vehicles. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2016, 9, 450–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jackson, J. (Re)coordinating the German Political Economy: E-mobility and the Verkehrswende. Ger. Politics 2023, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nuryakin, C.; Riyanto, R.; Riyadi, S.A.; Damayati, A.; Pratama, A.P.; Massie, N.W.G. Socioeconomic Impacts and Consumer Preferences Analysis of Electrified Vehicle in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 2019 6th International Conference on Electric Vehicular Technology (ICEVT), Bali, Indonesia, 18–21 November 2019; pp. 80–93. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sudibyo, H.; Susanti, V.; Subekti, R.A.; Devi, M.I.; Pikra, G.; Pramana, R.I.; Purwanto, A.J.; Syukri, A.F. Overview of domestic components level in the Indonesian electric vehicle industry’s opportunities. AIP Conf. Proc. 2023, 2517, 040001. [Google Scholar]
  74. Doi, N.; Purtanto, A.J.; Suehiro, S.; Okamura, T.; Takemura, K.; Iwai, M.; Matsumoto, A.; Katayama, K. Study on Policies and Infrastructure Development for the Wider Penetration of Electrified Vehicles in ASEAN Countries; ERIA Research Project Report 2022 No. 18; ERIA: Java, Indonesia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  75. Heinicke, M.; Wagenhaus, G. Sustainability in the car-based mobility: The case of the electric vehicle Editha. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 2015, 9, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Indonesian Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Investment. Indonesia Tandatangani Nota Kesepahaman (MoU) dengan Raksasa Mobil Listrik BYD untuk Menjajaki Potensi Investasi; Indonesian Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Investment: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2023.
  77. Gaikindo. Investasi Rp 9,3 Triliun, Pembangunan Pabrik Wuling di Indonesia Tuntas; Gaikindo: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  78. Özel, F.; Davies, H.; Ernst, C.-S.; Nieuwenhuis, P. How to strategically position European SMEs as part of an electric vehicle technology value chain. Int. J. Electr. Hybrid Veh. 2014, 6, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fojcik, T.M. Exploitation, exploration and the ambidextrous design choice in the transition to electric vehicles—An analysis of small and medium-sized automotive suppliers in Germany. Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag. 2013, 13, 354–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sukra, K.F.A.; Sukmono, A.; Shalahuddin, L.; Maswan, A.; Yubaidah, S.; Wibowo, D.T.; Yusuf, M.; Helios, M.P. Effects of Battery State of Charge on Fuel Economy of Hybrid Electric Vehicles: An Analysis Using the UN ECE R101 Method. Evergreen 2023, 10, 1770–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chandra, A.; Gulati, S.; Kandlikar, M. Green drivers or free riders? An analysis of tax rebates for hybrid vehicles. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2010, 60, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Clinton, B.C.; Steinberg, D.C. Providing the Spark: Impact of financial incentives on battery electric vehicle adoption. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2019, 98, 102255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mazur, C.; Contestabile, M.; Offer, G.J.; Brandon, N.P. Assessing and comparing German and UK transition policies for electric mobility. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015, 14, 84–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Guo, G.C.; Jiang, C.X.; Yang, Q. The Effect of Government Involvement on Chinese Firms’ Corporate Entrepreneurial Activities: The Case of Chinese Automobile Industry. N. Engl. J. Entrep. 2017, 20, 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Dunne, M.; Chen, W. China’s 40-Year Quest to Build a Car to Call its Own: Where is the Innovation? Asian Secur. 2023, 19, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 05855 g001
Figure 1. Indonesian Automotive Industry Performance (Source: Gaikindo Automotive Data 2020–2024).
Figure 1. Indonesian Automotive Industry Performance (Source: Gaikindo Automotive Data 2020–2024).
Sustainability 16 05855 g001
Sustainability 16 05855 g002
Figure 2. xEV Sales 2019–2023 (Source: Gaikindo Automotive Data 2020–2024).
Figure 2. xEV Sales 2019–2023 (Source: Gaikindo Automotive Data 2020–2024).
Sustainability 16 05855 g002
Table 1. List of Interviewees.
Table 1. List of Interviewees.
No.CodeAffiliationPositionDescription
1G1Government RepresentativesAssistant DeputyMinistry governing investments by global automakers
2G2Government RepresentativesAssistant DeputyMinistry governing the automotive industry
3A1Association of Component Manufacturers Secretary-GeneralAssociation understanding the conditions, perceptions, and capabilities of automotive component manufacturers
4A2Association of Automakers Head of EV DepartmentAssociation understanding the conditions and perceptions of automakers regarding the automotive transition
5S1Rubber Parts ManufacturerDirectorICE Component manufacturers affected by the transition to eMobility
6S2Engine Valve ManufacturerManagerICE Component manufacturers affected by the transition to eMobility
7S3Engine Transmission ManufacturerManagerICE Component manufacturers affected by the transition to eMobility
8S4Filters ManufacturerAssistant ManagerICE Component manufacturers affected by the transition to eMobility
9S5Plastic Parts ManufacturerAssistant ManagerICE Component manufacturers affected by the transition to eMobility
10E1BEV Conversion Services StartupChief Operating OfficerNiche startup companies driving the transition to BEV
11U1Vehicle Research CenterHeadAcademician research on the development of xEVs
12M1Car ManufacturerManagerAutomaker with the largest market share in Indonesia
Table 2. Comparison of Tax Imposition In Each BEV Importation Scheme.
Table 2. Comparison of Tax Imposition In Each BEV Importation Scheme.
No.SchemeImport
Duty		Luxury
Tax		Value
Added Tax		Cumulative
Tax Amount		Requirements
1CBU BEV—Normal50%15%11%76%-
2CBU BEV—With Investment Commitment0%0%11%11%
  • Bank guarantee
  • Production commitment 1:1
3CKD BEV—Normal10%15%11%36%-
4CKD BEV—TKDN Below Roadmap Requirements0%0%11%11%
  • Bank guarantee
  • Production commitment complies with the roadmap
5CKD/IKD BEV—Comply with TKDN Requirements (40% in 2026, 60% in 2030, 80% after 2030)0%0%1%1%
  • Join the LCEV program
  • Participate in the VAT program borne by the government
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Habiburrahman, M.; Nurcahyo, R.; Ma’aram, A.; Natsuda, K. Driving the Transport Electrification: Exploring Stakeholders’ Perceptions and Actions in the Indonesian Automotive Industry Transition to Electric Mobility. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145855

AMA Style

Habiburrahman M, Nurcahyo R, Ma’aram A, Natsuda K. Driving the Transport Electrification: Exploring Stakeholders’ Perceptions and Actions in the Indonesian Automotive Industry Transition to Electric Mobility. Sustainability. 2024; 16(14):5855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145855

Chicago/Turabian Style

Habiburrahman, Muhammad, Rahmat Nurcahyo, Azanizawati Ma’aram, and Kaoru Natsuda. 2024. "Driving the Transport Electrification: Exploring Stakeholders’ Perceptions and Actions in the Indonesian Automotive Industry Transition to Electric Mobility" Sustainability 16, no. 14: 5855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145855

APA Style

Habiburrahman, M., Nurcahyo, R., Ma’aram, A., & Natsuda, K. (2024). Driving the Transport Electrification: Exploring Stakeholders’ Perceptions and Actions in the Indonesian Automotive Industry Transition to Electric Mobility. Sustainability, 16(14), 5855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145855

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop