| dc.description.abstract | A fundamental transition in the mobility industry has still failed to materialize as sustainable technologies face difficulties that are related to the institutional setting or the lack of this setting. Institutional entrepreneurs use standardization as one of their tactics to achieve institutional change for hydrogen-based technologies. While standardization improves the innovation development process, it can also shift competitive advantage of actors when they either fail to perceive the new way of competing or are unable to respond to the new developments. The following research questions are answered: “How do actors in the hydrogen mobility industry of the Netherlands operate in the standardization process of the hydrogen and fuel cell technology and how does this influence the hydrogen technology innovation development process?” This research used the Dutch hydrogen mobility industry as case study, because actors of this industry are actively engaged with the standardization of safety regulations of a hydrogen filling station, namely PGS 35. Furthermore, this research applies a case study research design to inductively identify the relevant actors’ motivations, strategies, reasoning and interpretations in the standardization process of PGS 35. Based on data retrieved from twelve semi-structured interviews, a system process analysis is employed to determine indicators. This research demonstrated that entrepreneurs participated for various reasons and three main identified concepts were found: knowledge diffusion, compatibility and proprietary technology. In the first two concepts both private and public participants had mainly corresponding actions and goals regarding improving the innovation development process and gaining competitive advantage. However, a contradiction is found in the concept of proprietary technology as private actors strive for flexibility in technological solutions and public actors aim for a variety reduction to simplify licensing applications for hydrogen filling stations. The conflicting motivations were solved as performance-based requirements were established to ensure flexibility and design-based technical solutions have been written down as examples to advice licensing authorities. Policy makers should “measure” the interests of the participant on the basis of the desired functionality by these participants. Doing so, conflicting motivations and goals can be identified and solved during the standardization process. This will likely reduce the lead time of the standard process. Future research could focus on the effect of the five other tactics on the standardization process as activities were identified which relate to these tactics. | |
