This research aims to identify the institutional strategies of incumbent firms with regard to sustainable energy innovations that threaten their interests. This exploratory study contributes to the multi-level perspective by providing new insights into niche-regime interaction. The focus on actor behavior in transitions is informed by literature from institutional theory and strategic management. Based on semi-structured interviews with actors and on documents related to LED lighting and biofuels in the Netherlands, this study identified a preliminary set of empirical strategies: providing information and arguments to policy makers and the general public, as well as strategically setting technical standards. Incumbents are in a position to significantly influence the innovation's development by employing these strategies; thus temporarily keeping sustainable innovation on a leash. 1Within the spectrum of light that is visible to the human eye, mesopic light has a shorter wavelength than traditional light sources.

The promotion of renewable energy production requires the cooperation of previously unrelated actors. In the Netherlands, a government subsidy pushes biomethane producers into a relationship with operators of the gas network. However, this cooperation proved to be very difficult. This research analyzes the problematic interaction between producers and network operators in the case of biomethane injection in the Dutch natural gas grid. We draw on the concept of 'institutional logics' to improve our understanding of this interaction and to identify divergent practices and belief systems. This research contributes to the multilevel perspective on socio-technical transitions, in particular to insights into the interaction between the biomethane niche and gas regime. Based on interviews and secondary data sources we find diverging logics for biomethane producers and network operators. The differences regarding the goals pursued, decision making style, and the scale of operations hamper productive cooperation. We also observe that 'boundary spanning' individuals step in to increase mutual understanding and to forge productive working relationships. However, the existing logics leave very little room for maneuvering, given the embeddedness and stability of logics in thinking, acting, and physical infrastructure. Mismatching institutional logics forma serious hurdle for successful biomethane injection, and thus hinder the transition towards more renewable energy production.

This article examines the main public interests at stake with the rise of online platforms in the sharing economy and the gig economy. We do so by analyzing platforms in five sectors in the Netherlands: domestic cleaning (Helpling), taxi rides (UberPop), home restaurants (AirDnD), home sharing (Airbnb), and car sharing (SnappCar). The most salient public interests are a level playing field between platforms and industry incumbents, tax compliance, consumer protection, labor protection, and privacy protection. We develop four policy options (enforce, new regulation, deregulation, and toleration), and discuss the rationales for each option in safeguarding each public interest. We further stress that arguments supporting a particular policy option should take into account the sectoral context. We finally highlight the tension between the subsidiarity principle, which would call for local regulations as platforms mostly concern local transactions and innovation policies that aim to support innovation and a single digital market.

No abstract

Public interests in the sharing and gig economy The success of Airbnb and Uber has given rise to a public debate about the pros and cons of online sharing and gig platforms. This article reports on five case studies of platforms operating in car sharing (SnappCar), home sharing (Airbnb), home restaurants (Airdnd), ride hailing (UberPop) and cleaning (Helpling). The article then puts the sharing and gig economy into a historical perspective to highlight that the platforms build on pre-existing social practices. and presents a policy framework based on four basic policy options: enforce existing regulations, enact new regulations, deregulate, or tolerate.