This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
A Review of Literature on the Antecedents of Electric
Vehicles Promotion: Lessons for Value Chains in
Developing Countries
Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Shakeel Sadiq Jajja, and Cory Searcy
Abstract—Electric vehicles (EVs) are a part of the solution to the
growing challenges of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
The adoption of EV is more pronounced in developed countries
than in developing countries. Research on EV adoption is also
primarily focused on developed countries. Many of the antecedents
of EV promotion noted in the literature do not apply in devel-
oping countries because of weak market structures, infrastruc-
ture networks, and economies. Moreover, no one study provides
a comprehensive understanding of these antecedents. This article
identifies the antecedents of EV promotion and explores their utility
in developing countries. The literature is searched using the Web
of Science database; 198 relevant papers were reviewed using an
inductive–deductive approach. The inductive approach is meant
to explore the antecedents of EV adoption, while the deductive
approach focuses on unraveling how these antecedents unspool in
developed countries and can be employed in developing countries.
The recursive use of the inductive–deductive approach leads to the
development of a taxonomy that further categorizes the antecedents
as micro-, macro-, and meso-level antecedents. The taxonomy of
antecedents can be used to orchestrate structured and coherent
efforts toward promoting EV in developing countries. The article
also highlights the need for contextualizing antecedents to the
unique infrastructural-, economic-, and market-needs of develop-
ing countries. The article provides a foundational understanding
for future research focused on the empirical examination of the
antecedents of EV.
Index Terms—Developing countries, electric vehicles (EVs),
enablers and drivers, sustainability, taxonomy value chains.
I. INTRODUCTION
LECTRIC vehicles (EVs) are a part of the solution to
E limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and
harmful air pollutants [1]. The transition toward EV continues to
gain momentum, and many developed countries have taken strict
measures and set aggressive targets for theiradoption adoption.
Consider that automobile manufacturers in Europe will face
huge penalties if they fail to cut carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emis-
sions [2]. As one representative example, in 2018, Daimler had
Manuscript received March 1, 2021; revised April 27, 2021 and May 21, 2021;
accepted July 14, 2021. Review of this manuscript was arranged by Department
Editor D. Cetindamar. (Corresponding author: Cory Searcy.)
Muhammad Asif is with the Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11586, Saudi
Arabia (e-mail: masif@psu.edu.sa).
Muhammad Shakeel Sadiq Jajja is with the Lahore University of Management
Sciences, Lahore 54792, Pakistan (e-mail: ssj@lums.edu.pk).
Cory Searcy is with the Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
(e-mail: cory.searcy@ryerson.ca).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2021.3099070
0018-9391 © 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1
average fleet emissions of 130.4 g of CO2 per kilometer. If the
company fails to meet a target of 103.1 g per km by 2021, it will
face a penalty of 997 million euros (US$ 1.1 billion) [3]. Twenty
major cities around the world, including Paris, London, Milan,
and Copenhagen, have already announced a ban on gasoline and
diesel cars by 2030 or earlier.
Developing countries1 trail developed countries in the promo-
tion of EV, even though they often face far more severe pollution
problems, such as urban air quality. Outside of the notable
exception of China, there is a clear divide between developed
and developing countries in the use of EV, and this bifurcation
warrants the need for enhanced coordinated responses to global
environmental problems. While urban air quality, for example,
is largely a local issue, GHG emissions contribute to climate
change no matter where they are generated. Thus, there is a need
to engage developing countries in pollution reduction efforts,
including EV adoption. The foundational step to promote EV
in developing countries is to understand the antecedents of EV
adoption in those countries.
Several studies have explored the adoption of EV. These
studies, in general, address diverse issues, such as perceptions
of early adopters of EV [4], market entry strategies and business
models [5]–[7], features of EV that predict customer choices [8]–
[10], and explaining the success of EV market leaders, notably
Tesla [11]–[14]. These studies have two main limitations. First,
the research on EV mainly comes from developed countries
where adequate infrastructure for EV is being fast developed
by resourceful governments and EV-related entities. Although
some studies discuss the adoption of EV in developing countries,
such as India [15], Pakistan [16], [17], and Lebanon [18], in
general, research on the adoption of EV in developing countries
is scarce.
1 The World Bank classifies countries based on Gross National Income (GNI)
per capita. Low-income countries have a GNI of US$1035 or less. The term
middle-income countries encompasses two categories: lower middle-income
and upper middle-income countries having GNI of US$1036–US$4045 and
US$4046–US$12535, respectively. High-income countries have a GNI above
US$12535. Low-income countries and middle-income countries are often called
developing countries, and the same conceptualization follows in this article. The
adoption of EV in China, which is considered an upper-middle-income country,
is remarkably different from all other low- and middle-income countries as it
has the highest absolute number of EV in the world. Hence, this article focuses
on developing countries other than China for the purpose of the discussion and
analysis.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

Second, the current research is narrowly focused (e.g., desir-

able and undesirable features of EV) and fails to portray a bigger
picture, e.g., the development of an overarching framework dis-
cussing antecedents at different levels. The studies discussing the
adoption of EV often do so from the customer’s perspective [9].
The challenge of how to promote EV by engaging other players
such as manufacturers, industry, government, and regulators, as
well as how they collaborate, is rarely discussed. These studies
run short of providing an organized framework and a higher
level analysis of how different antecedents of EV adoption can
be classified into a taxonomy. A taxonomy is needed to identify,
define, classify, and organize antecedents of EV adoption and
develop meaningful schemas for their systematic implementa-
tion. Given that a number of studies have identified antecedents
of EV adoption in developed countries, a systematic review
of literature may help to identify those antecedents and seek
their potential applications in developing countries that trail
developed countries, not only in terms of adoption of EV but
also in the scholarly effort on the identification of drivers of EV
adoption. Hence, the main research objectives of this article are
to hold the following conditions:
1) Develop a taxonomy of antecedents of EV promotion in
the literature.
2) Contextualize the taxonomy of antecedents of EV promo-
tion for its relevance in developing countries.
A systematic literature review is used to develop an original
and contextualized taxonomy of antecedents of EV adoption.
Fig. 1. Research methodology approach.
The article surveys antecedents of EV promotion in the liter-
ature based in developed and developing countries and then
evaluates their relevance and potential application in developing can also help select relevant antecedents and determine the right
countries’ unique contexts. In general, developed countries are mix of antecedents for more targeted efforts to promote EV.
ahead of developing countries in technological knowledge and The taxonomy is especially useful to structure coherent EV
understanding of issues in adopting new technologies. Access promotion initiatives in developing countries.
to insights from the experiences in developed countries is con-
sidered important in developing and adopting technology, but
the application of these lessons in developing countries requires II. METHODOLOGY
contextualization and customization [19]. Thus, this article The research began with an exploratory literature review
leverages the strengths of a comprehensive literature review approach to identify the antecedents of EV adoption (Fig. 1).
and inductive–deductive reasoning to generate insights from The literature was searched using the Web of Science database
research on developed countries and assess the relevance of these with the keywords “EV” and “adopt∗.” These keywords are
insights for developing countries. The relevant antecedents are very general and furnished more search results. Further, the
then modeled into a taxonomy of antecedents of EV promotion keyword “EV” would automatically include different variants of
in developing countries. The identification, contextualization, EV such as battery-electric, plug-in electric, and plug-in hybrid.
taxonomization, and explanation of these antecedents for devel- Similarly, the keyword “adopt∗” includes different connotations
oping countries bear important consequences for various actors such as “adopt,” “adoption,” and “adopting,” and is meant to
and stakeholders in the EV value chains. understand factors that explain customers’ buy-in or purchasing
The key contribution of the article is two-fold. First, it explores behaviors. Keeping the keywords broad was necessary to elimi-
the potential antecedents of EV promotion. These antecedents nate a Type-II error, i.e., erroneously excluding relevant papers.
originate from different entities in EV value chain (e.g., orga- In order to find relevant papers, those focusing on technical
nizations, EV industry, policymakers, and collaborative bodies) aspects such as design and IT-related aspects were excluded. The
and can be employed to trigger EV promotion in developing literature search focused on journals in the field of business,
countries. Second, this article develops a taxonomy of those an- management, transportation, environmental sciences, environ-
tecedents. The development of the taxonomy has both theoretical mental studies, economics, and psychology. The economics and
and practical applications. Notably, the taxonomy classifies the psychology journals were included to glean insights into the
antecedents and sheds light on how they relate and differ and public’s attitudes toward EV, customer buying behaviors, how
how they can be grouped. The taxonomy provides an organized people weigh economic factors in EV decision-making, and
framework of the antecedents of EV promotion. The taxonomy cognitive decision-making models for adopting EV. The search

Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ASIF et al.: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THE ANTECEDENTS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES PROMOTION
was limited to the period encompassing 2010–2020, as most of
the literature on EV adoption emerged during that period.
The search yielded 461 papers, including journal articles,
proceeding papers, reviews, and editorial material. All of these
types of publications were included to eliminate Type-II error.
The abstracts of all 461 papers were reviewed to assess their
relevance to the research question. The review showed many ir-
relevant papers focused solely on the science of technical aspects
such as chemistry of batteries and technologies underpinning the
physical interface between EV and smart chargers. These types
of papers were excluded as they did not relate to the research
questions. However, those papers that discussed the business
application of these technologies were retained, e.g., articles
addressing business models based on technological differenti-
ation, entrepreneurial applications of modern technologies in
EV, and customer perceptions about batteries. This resulted in
a final collection of 198 papers tightly focused on the research
objectives of this article. In order to glean rich and up-to-date
insights, many nonacademic resources were also consulted,
e.g., the Bloomberg business database, BloombergNEF, Statista
Business Data Platform, Norwegian Energy Policy [20], Renew-
able Energy World [21], and CleanTechnica website.2
The selected papers were reviewed using an inductive–
deductive approach [22]. This approach is particularly suitable
for this research as it allows seeking new information and refin-
ing information in light of existing knowledge and theories. The
inductive approach was meant to identify potential antecedents
of EV promotion. All selected papers were reviewed to identify
the antecedents, i.e., anything that can trigger, invoke, or act
as a precursor of the EV at any stage in the value chain, be it
manufacturing, selling, upstream or downstream processes, or
infrastructure. For instance, the inductive approach identified
that a robust supply chain is essential to manufacturing EV and
supplying the market, and that many companies failed because
they could not manage this critical aspect. In particular, batteries’
supply emerged as a key determinant, as any failure on this
frontier can disrupt the whole supply chain. Similarly, the role
of incentives, penalties, and appropriate business models also
emerged as antecedents during this stage.
The identified antecedents were evaluated for their relevance
and suitability in developing countries’ contexts. Building on
the deductive approach, the antecedents were evaluated in light
of the economic, customer characteristics, technological capa-
bilities, and infrastructural perspectives of developing countries.
The application of the deductive approach was a recursive pro-
cess that started with two items at a time, i.e., the antecedents
vs. the abovementioned characteristics of developing countries.
For instance, “battery technology vs. economic context” and
“battery technology vs. technological capabilities.” The review
process focused on determining how these antecedents would
unspool in the unique context of developing countries. For
example, “business models” is a key antecedent of EV promo-
tion. However, out of the four EV business models, only two
(i.e., economy-specific and economy-multipurpose models) are
appropriate for developing countries, as they align well with
2 [Online]. Available: https://cleantechnica.com/
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3
the economic needs of customers in developing countries (i.e.,
high cost-conscious and risk aversion). Inductive and deductive
approaches were applied recursively and supported each other
to develop a taxonomy of antecedents and their translation
to developing countries’ context. In developing the taxonomy,
the inductive approach helped conceptualize the taxonomy cat-
egories, while the deductive approach helped to understand
which antecedents fall into each of these categories and their
implications for developing countries.
III. OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature overview is discussed in two sections. The first
section discusses EV adoption from the customers’ perspective,
i.e., what drives people to buy EV. The second section discusses
the promotion of EV by highlighting initiatives that can be taken
by different entities in the EV value chain.
A. What Makes People Buy EV?
Scholars have used various theoretical lenses to understand
the adoption of EV. The studies have explored the adoption of EV
from the perspective of the theory of planned behaviors (TPB),
social identity theory, features of EV, and characteristics of cus-
tomers who prefer EVs. Classical economics theory describes
decision-making as a rational process (Homo economicus) [7].
However, research on the EV adoption decision shows that
economic factors are considered along with many others. The
TPB states that the adoption of EV is a function of attitude,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [23]. The
attitudinal component concerns evaluation (positive or negative)
of EV. Subjective norms are defined as an individual’s perception
of the opinions of important people, i.e., when people perceive
that their significant referents hold positive opinions about EV,
they are more likely to buy EV. Perceived behavioral control is
about perceptions of external and internal constraints, resource
availability, and skills required for EV [24]. The theory suggests
that people’s positive attitudes and beliefs about EV, perceptions
of other’s opinions about EV, and the extent of perceived control
of resources and constraints, determine the adoption of EV.
Social identity theory also provides a valuable lens to un-
derstand customers’ behaviors towards EV [25]. This theory
implies that people who are environmentally conscious and
value eco-friendly choices are more likely to adopt EV. Similarly,
“pro-technology” self-identification explains that people who
identify themselves as protechnologist will make choices that
incorporate advanced technologies, such as EV [26]. Studies
have also discussed EV characteristics that make them more
or less attractive in the eyes of buyers [11]. Low drive range
of EV, high upfront price, inadequate charging infrastructure,
reliability-related features, and charging time are reported as
negative attributes of EV, whereas low operating cost (economic
benefit) and environmentally friendly characteristics are the
positive attributes of EV [4], [8], [9], [27].
Some studies have also discussed the characteristics of cus-
tomers who are early adopters of EV. For instance, studies
show that early adopters of EV are highly educated, affluent
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
incomewise, and have positive attitudes toward new technolo-
gies [4]. Similarly, people with stronger attitudes in favor of
energy security and environmental protection prefer EV. Further,
customers who are attracted to the novelty, are status-conscious,
and seek differentiation, are also among the first to adopt EV
[8]. Finally, the perceived risk associated with EV may also
determine the pace of uptake of EV. When people perceive
a product as risky in financial or performance aspects, they
are less likely to adopt it [28]. The risks associated with EV
can be categorized as primary and secondary. Primary risks
arise from failures in technology, e.g., battery, motor, power
train, and problems in other components [9]. Secondary risk
encompasses failures that arise from use. For instance, EV are
noiseless and may not catch pedestrians’ and cyclists’ attention,
leading to higher accident risk unless an acoustic warning feature
is introduced [29].
B. EV’s Promotion
The role of different players in promoting EV is discussed
in the literature in terms of highlighting the economic and en-
vironmentally friendly features of EV, nudges by governments,
and the provision of charging infrastructure [7]. Initiatives to
promote EV can be categorized as normative and saliency-based
interventions [10]. A normative appeal urges people to adopt
EV as it is the right thing to do and, in this process, contributes
to environmental preservation [27]. Salience-based appeal for
EV [26] highlights that EV are economical in the long run, and
with the advances in battery technology, their mileage improves,
and this makes a stronger case for their adoption [6]. Nudges
in the form of incentives, subsidies, and favorable policies are
proven to have worked in China, Norway, the USA, and other
countries [7], [14], [30], [31]. Finally, the development of ap-
propriate business models lies at the heart of promoting EV [5].
Traditionally, EV has been viewed as a niche product, targeting
the affluent and status-conscious segment of customers who
seek some sort of social identification (pro-environmentalist or
pro-technology adopter) [11]. Developing a business model for
customers interested in economic models can pave the way to
contextualize EV in the markets of developing countries [6],
[32].
IV. ANTECEDENTS OF PROMOTING EV IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES
The literature on the antecedents of EV adoption in devel-
oping countries is scarce and insufficient to generate valuable
insights. Therefore, for this article, all the selected papers,
irrespective of their focus on developing or developed coun-
tries, were used to glean insights into EV adoption patterns.
The study first identified antecedents of EV adoption and then
sought their application dynamics and potential to trigger EV
adoption in developing countries, taking into consideration the
unique contingencies of developing countries (e.g., low buying
power, inefficient value chains, and lack of technological ca-
pabilities). The antecedents identified in this article may also
have universal appeal, but the article discusses their application
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
from the unique perspective of developing countries, includ-
ing the economic, customer-characteristics, technological capa-
bilities, and infrastructural perspectives. For instance, as dis-
cussed further below, in business models, “economy-specific,”
“economy-multipurpose,” “transportation-as-a-service (TaaS),”
“battery leasing,” and “battery swapping” models are partic-
ularly suitable for developing countries where the purchasing
power of people is relatively low, and customer hesitation is
high [15], [16].
The identified antecedents are categorized into three levels:
micro-, macro-, and meso-level antecedents (Fig. 2). Micro-
level antecedents include “streamlining value chain,” “business
models,” and “entrepreneurial initiatives” [7], [33]. The or-
chestration, systematic organization, and management of these
antecedents are carried out primarily at the firm and supply
chain levels (cf. policy-level or by engaging multiple entities),
and, hence, are called micro-level antecedents. The scope of
antecedents in this category is limited to the EV value chain,
and the extent of engagement of different entities is low, i.e.,
only supply chain players. The taxonomy at the micro-level is
further explained by the examples of “battery leasing model” and
“battery swapping models,” which are a subset of the “business
models” category. A business model is a plan for operations,
identifying sources of revenue, the intended customer base,
product details, and the motivation behind the firm’s intention to
offer its product. In the case of selling EV, if a firm recognizes
that the battery is a critical consideration in the sale of EV, it will
tend to servitize and offer or align with companies providing
battery leasing or swapping services. This will be achieved by
developing the firm’s internal operations or collaborations to
provide battery-related services reliably and generating revenue
from these processes, thereby founding a business model on bat-
tery leasing and battery swapping services. The micro-level an-
tecedents can also be conceptualized as “private” as antecedents
in this domain pertain mainly to the firm’s discretion without
much influence of public entities.
The macro-level antecedents pertain to the broader policy
developed by governments or regulatory bodies [30]. These
antecedents are broader in scope as they impact both the industry
and the public and are more potent in their effect [31]. Examples
of macro-level antecedents include policies for EV, quotas for
EV and ICE cars, subsidies, penalties, and incentives [13],
[14]. This category can also be conceptualized as “public” as it
includes antecedents mainly in the public policy domain. Finally,
the meso-level antecedents are those that lie at the interface of
the micro- and macro-level. They are developed through a co-
ordinated effort of the industry (micro-level) and policymakers
(macro-level) [34]. The development of meso-level antecedents
requires engaging different stakeholders: industry, environmen-
tal protection agencies, regulatory bodies, research institutions,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and customer-interest
protection groups [10]. For instance, developing a country-
wide infrastructure for EV charging, public–private partnership
rules and structures, and standardization of chargers, batteries,
warranty, and maintenance services, are possible through a
collaborative effort of the industry, policymakers, and other
stakeholders [35]. This category can also be conceptualized
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ASIF et al.: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THE ANTECEDENTS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES PROMOTION
Fig. 2. Taxonomy of the antecedents of EV promotion.
as “public–private” as antecedents in this category build upon
public–private collaboration. Table I provides a brief summary
of the antecedents and specific actions needed to promote EV
adoption in developing countries.
A. Micro Antecedents
1) Streamlining EV Supply Chain: Supply chain manage-
ment, in general, and lithium-ion batteries supply, in particular,
have been the core issues for the EV industry. The diffusion
of EV will depend significantly on how EV manufacturers
streamline battery acquisition and supply chains.
a) Battery technology: The battery is the most vital com-
ponent of EV as it determines the vehicle range and frequency of
charging and is the costliest component, up to 40% by value, in
EV [8]. The range, which means the average distance traveled on
a single battery charge, influences buyers’ decision-making [8].
The battery is also the heaviest and most space-occupying part of
EV, and the size and composition of the chemicals in the battery
determine its power and energy density [13]. Two main aspects
of battery technology are “advances in battery technology” and
having a “sustainable supply of batteries.”
The advances in battery technology—in terms of power, price,
energy density, range, battery life, thermal stability, and environ-
mentally friendly composition—shape customers’ perceptions
and buy-in of EV [27]. Firms that innovate in battery technology
and successfully transform these innovations into a greener
design (e.g., reduction in cobalt content) and improved efficiency
will stimulate the buy-in of EV. Tesla represents a prominent
example of building a competitive advantage on battery tech-
nology [11], [36]. The superior performance of Tesla, compared
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5
to its competitors, is partly attributed to its advanced battery
technology [13]. Tesla’s first model was a simplistic retrofitted
mini petrol engine car using simple batteries. Afterward, Tesla
improved its battery technology through changes in the battery’s
chemical composition and developing software to make batteries
long-lasting and efficient [11]. The latest battery innovation is
the “million-mile” battery that will last more than a million
miles, which is more than double the current mileage (300 000
to 500 000 miles) in a vehicle’s average life. Developments in
battery technology are also happening at the software frontiers.
Intelligent transportation systems which build on Industry 4.0
and IoT [37] enable battery charging and service optimization. In
sum, advances in battery technology that improve battery power,
energy density, range, thermal stability, greener composition,
and the overall life will enhance buyers’ confidence in EV and
promote EV buy-in [27].
The second main aspect of battery technology is establishing
a sustainable supply of batteries. With a few exceptions, all EV
manufacturers procure batteries from suppliers, and the battery
supply is constrained. The two biggest producers of EV, Tesla
and BYD, have built their competitive advantage, in large part,
by securing a sustainable supply of batteries [14]. Tesla initially
procured batteries from Panasonic and later developed a partner-
ship with the company, which has metamorphosed into the devel-
opment of the Gigafactory 1 in Nevada, USA that manufactures
lithium batteries for Tesla [11]. In order to secure the supply of
batteries, Tesla also developed a partnership with Contemporary
Amperex Technology Company, Ltd. (CATL) to supply batteries
[38]. Ensuring a sustainable supply of world-class batteries is
the cornerstone of Tesla’s strategy [36]. Similarly, BYD, one
of the biggest EV manufacturers, has its core competencies in
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

TABLE I
SUMMARY OF THE ANTECEDENTS TO PROMOTE EV ADOPTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

battery manufacturing [14]. It started with the battery business
and later expanded into EV manufacturing. Both Tesla and BYD
have streamlined their EV production capabilities by securing a
sustainable supply of batteries [14], [36].
On the other hand, rival companies have suffered from not
being able to develop battery technology or securing a sus-
tainable supply of batteries from suppliers. The production of
Jaguar’s I-PACE, for example, was halted because the battery
supplier, LGChem, could not provide an adequate supply of
batteries. Similarly, Mercedes-Benz EQC, Hyundai, and Audi
production have suffered from a constrained battery supply [39].
Overall, the order fulfillment capability of EV manufacturers
hinges, to a large extent, on batteries’ availability. A sustainable
supply of batteries is essential to the viability of the value chain.
It brings customers confidence that the company will not run
out of the most critical EV component (i.e., battery) and will
continue providing consistent after-sales service. Conversely,
an inefficient supply chain and inconsistent supply of batteries
would make order-fulfillment difficult and sow distrust between
buyers and sellers. This, in turn, may entice buyers to switch to
traditional ICE vehicles whose supply chains and order fulfill-
ment capabilities are much more mature.
Developing countries continue to struggle to get large-scale
access to high-density batteries for EV. Many developing coun-
tries are currently using Lead-Acid Batteries (LABs) to power
two- and three-wheel vehicles. A study about the readiness of the
automobile sector for battery-powered EV in India and Pakistan
shows that their automobile sectors are not yet ready for more
advanced lithium-ion batteries [17]. LABs are cheaper, manu-
factured locally, and easily available. Therefore, for the initial
adoption of EV in developing countries, LABs based EV will
have the advantage of price and ease of availability. However,
LABs yield less power, have a low energy density, perform
poorly in extreme temperatures, and have a shorter life cycle.
The lack of large-scale availability of high-density lithium-ion
batteries impedes EV adoption in developing countries; EV

Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ASIF et al.: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THE ANTECEDENTS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES PROMOTION
uptake will not pick up unless a sustainable supply chain of
batteries exists or alternative power sources are developed. Firms
in developing countries that excel on the battery frontier will
stimulate the uptake of EV. Conversely, a failure on this frontier
will further aggravate concerns, such as range anxiety, battery
life, affordability, and maintenance, and will inversely affect the
transition toward EV.
b) Vertical integration capabilities: Vertical integration is
the extent to which a firm outsources its products or services from
vendors or intends to perform these activities in-house. The sup-
ply chains of traditional automobile companies are global and
rely extensively on outsourcing. Automobile companies have
long abandoned vertical integration by enhancing outsourcing
as much as they can, including even the assembly in some cases
[40]. The upstream supply chain of EV is currently fraught with
upheavals and has been unable to come up to the demand of
the downstream supply chain [39]. The lack of synchronization
of the upstream with the downstream supply chain has affected
the market supply of EV [41]. Tesla and BYD were the first
major EV producers to realize the need for increased vertical
integration [13].
Tesla’s vertical integration strategy is iconoclastic as it makes
its own battery cells, battery packs, motors, chargers, and even
seats [13]. The in-house battery manufacturing allows Tesla to
exercise greater control over the quality and efficiency of the
power supply [36]. Tesla also makes its own motors and seats
at its Fremont factory. Vertical integration brings Tesla greater
control over more details of its process and enables it to respond
much faster to the required improvements at a lower cost [11].
To further enhance vertical integration, Tesla acquired a German
factory-automation firm in 2016. Overall, Tesla has differenti-
ated itself from traditional automobile manufacturers through
vertical integration, a strategy that automobile companies had
long forgotten in the pursuit of specialization [27].
BYD has also enhanced its vertical integration. BYD makes
its own batteries, powertrain, lights, and other components to
be self-reliant and minimize supply chain risk. While Tesla and
BYD have benefitted from their vertical integration capabilities,
many others have suffered from not being able to do so. As
noted earlier, Jaguar, Hyundai, Audi, and Mercedes-Benz EQC
have all suffered because of their lack of battery supplies.
For example, Mercedes-Benz EQC halved its production target
from 60000 to just 30000 units because of the unavailability of
batteries from LGChem (Reuters, 2020).
Overall, vertical integration allows EV manufacturers to en-
gage less in conflict management and negotiations with suppliers
and focus more on internal quality improvement. It allows firms
to exercise greater control over small details and provides a
springboard to streamline their value chains, reduce delivery
time, smooth operations, and improve after-sales service. In the
absence of vertical integration, EV manufacturers will be forced
to accept “off-the-shelf” specifications and solutions for their
key components. Vertical integration also enhances customers’
confidence as they believe the company has greater control
over its operations and, accordingly, expect smooth after-sales
services.
Vertical integration in developing countries may start with
developing a network of local suppliers, local assembling of
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7
parts manufactured abroad, technology-transfer initiatives, or
partial vertical integration using available technologies (e.g.,
LABs and locally assembled motors). Although challenging to
do in developing countries because of their weak resource-base,
vertical integration can significantly reduce reliance on the im-
port of EV parts which increases import bills and put a consid-
erable burden on already weak economies. Vertical integration
capabilities are developed over time and may require a gradual
transition from complete built-up (i.e., importing EV produced
abroad) through semi-knocked down (i.e., local assembling of
EV that were stripped down by manufacturers abroad), complete
knocked down (i.e., local assembly of EV from parts produced
abroad), to local parts manufacturing.
2) EV Business Models: EV business models are also an im-
portant determinant of the uptake of EV [6]. Currently, four busi-
ness models are dominantly employed in EV: 1) luxury specific-
purpose, 2) luxury multipurpose, 3) economy specific-purpose,
and 4) the economy multipurpose [5]. Luxury specific-purpose
EV are meant to be high-performance, usually two-seaters, and
capable of delivering fast acceleration, e.g., Tesla Roadster, Audi
eTron, and Chrysler Dodge. Luxury multipurpose are meant to
be high performance, have more seating capacity, are capable
of delivering fast acceleration, and may be used as family cars
[5]. Luxury specific- and luxury multipurpose models are niche
models for affluent customers and are unsuitable for mass adop-
tion in developing countries where peoples’ purchasing power
is low [11].
Economy specific-purpose and economy multipurpose busi-
ness models are meant for price-sensitive customers and are
particularly relevant to developing countries [32], [42]. Econ-
omy models can pivot on battery leasing, battery swapping,
and TaaS [6]. Battery leasing allows the users to lease the
battery, which alleviates a key customer concern regarding high
upfront cost [35]. The battery swapping model allows quick
swapping of batteries at any service point and, thus, mitigates
customers’ concerns about battery life and associated costs. A
battery swapping/leasing model offers several benefits. First,
it can lower the upfront cost as users can purchase the car
and the battery separately or lease the battery [35]. Second,
battery swapping/leasing gives users more choices in battery
and car selection. Third, battery leasing brings users more con-
venience as it reduces uncertainties associated with battery life
by providing a guarantee for battery service [9]. Fourth, battery
leasing increases EV’s residual value because they have fewer
depreciable vital components except for the battery that can be
swappable/leasable [6]. The TaaS model allows customers to
rent an EV rather than owning it [13]. TaaS model promotes
“usership” rather than “ownership” whereby customers use
a car in exchange for service fees, and the service provider
takes responsibility for maintenance, relieving the customer
from maintenance-related burdens. This model shifts the battery
and maintenance-cost burden from the customer to the service
provider and is, therefore, particularly relevant to hesitant cus-
tomers in developing countries [13].
The economy-specific-purpose model is especially suitable
for urban commuters, such as urban transportation services (e.g.,
taxis), logistics companies (e.g., postal service and food deliv-
ery), and personally owned cars for traveling within cities over
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
a short distance [1], [5]. The transportation service providers,
such as Uber, Lyft, and Careem, offer possible examples that can
convert their fleets to EV and use the TaaS model. The economy
multipurpose model is also applicable to public transport (e.g.,
buses and monorail). Since governments have a greater role in
establishing public and mass transit projects, public transport is
an ideal candidate for the electrification of vehicles. Mass-transit
EV may help reduce both local pollution and traffic congestion
by curtailing car ownership/usage. In sum, economy models are
particularly suited to developing countries, and the introduction
of such models is more likely to stimulate EV diffusion.
3) Entrepreneurial Initiatives: The transition from ICE ve-
hicles toward EV is mainly driven by entrepreneurial initiatives
[7], [33]. The need for entrepreneurial initiatives in technology
and business models is even more urgent in developing countries
because of their idiosyncratic contexts, e.g., weak demand, lack
of incentives for manufacturers and buyers, lack of regulations,
and inefficient supply chains. Tesla has built its superior com-
petitive advantage based on its entrepreneurial capabilities in
battery technology developments, electric motors, and power-
trains, all of which have given Tesla a distinctive edge [11].
Tesla has used innovation in battery chemistry to make batteries
that are greener (e.g., reduced cobalt levels), have improved
thermal stability, and possess high energy density [36]. Tesla has
also used engineering innovations to upgrade from traditional
dc brush motors to induction motors that do not use magnets
and are more efficient in delivering high speed and acceleration.
Tesla’s popular “ludicrous mode” option, which enables high
acceleration, is attributed to its reinvented induction motors.
The entrepreneurial applications of innovations (e.g., battery,
motors, and powertrain) are the most conspicuous feature of
Tesla’s strategy [13].
Research from underdog EV producers also shows that
entrepreneurial initiatives can bring significant advantages to
under-resourced companies. Pohl and Elmquist [43] studied the
EV project undertaken by Volvo, which was developing EV at al-
most the same time as Toyota was developing its famous model,
Prius. Volvo had far fewer resources than Toyota; however, Volvo
relied on its entrepreneurial capabilities and exploited exist-
ing technologies and resources to produce radical innovations.
Volvo created rapid EV developments through focused project
objectives, tight collaboration with vendors of new technologies,
and entrepreneurial initiatives that reused the existing technolo-
gies in entirely different areas. This article shows that firms in
developing countries can leverage their creativity, innovation,
and entrepreneurial capabilities to overcome their low-resources
disadvantage [43].
Some researchers have attempted to explore the en-
trepreneurial initiatives readiness of “incumbents” vs. “new
entrants.” The “incumbents” have more resources while “new
entrants” have novel ideas and less “path-dependent behavior”
[5]. Incumbent firms usually have certain disadvantages com-
pared to entrepreneurs as they are cognitively constrained by
the existing technologies, competencies, and investments, so
they prefer to stay close to their current competencies that are
proven and have endowed the firm competitive advantage in
the past [44]. Further, the sunk cost fallacy lures incumbents
to reap maximum benefits from the existing investments, even
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
when their relevance to the changing environment is reduced [5].
New entrants, on the other hand, are free from path-dependency
constraints, which make them flexible in developing new com-
petencies and business models [32]. Such firms seek a radical
departure from the established models, bundle new services and
products in unique ways, engage nontraditional partners, and
target novel customers [45]. Entrepreneurial firms are, therefore,
well-equipped to develop and embrace new business models for
EV [44].
Four types of entrepreneurship models are particularly rele-
vant to promoting EV uptake in developing countries: techno-
logical , business-model , financial , and policy entrepreneurship.
Technological entrepreneurship can help to alleviate batteries-
and other technologies-related concerns, such as battery life, low
range, less power, and frequent charging [6]. Business-model
entrepreneurship is needed to develop new business models,
including EV sell, service, maintenance, and warranty models
that boost customers’ confidence [7]. Tesla is an example that
uses a unique business model by selling cars online rather
than through the dealership model, which helps to cut costs.
Financial-models entrepreneurship can aim at developing new
leasing schemes and soft loans for EV buyers. Finally, policy
entrepreneurs can help to put EV adoption on the political agenda
and persuade governments to develop appealing incentives and
EV-friendly policies.
B. Macro Antecedents (EV Policies)
The frontrunner countries that have taken the lead in success-
fully adopting EV (e.g., China, Norway, and the USA) employed
incentives and penalties for manufacturers and users. The most
common type of incentive is subsidies given to manufacturers
as well as buyers [31]. For instance, the Norwegian government
subsidizes EV by exempting them from various taxes. A Volk-
swagen Golf (gasoline car) in Norway has a total cost of 34
076€, while a Volkswagen e-golf (an EV) with a much higher
import price of 33 037€ costs the consumer 33 286€ [20]. This
is because the CO2 tax, NOX tax, weight tax, and 25% VAT are
all exempted for EV. In addition, the Norwegian government
gives EV users an exemption from import taxes and road taxes,
provides free municipality parking, and grants access to bus
lanes.
The Chinese government also gives enormous subsidies to EV
manufacturers and buyers [35]. The subsidies by the Chinese
government amounted to US$8.2 billion in 2015 and US$7.2
billion in 2016 [46]. By 2016, China had invested US$7.2 billion
in the development of EVs, US$3.12 billion of which was given
as subsidies to manufacturers [47]. New license plates are free
for EV, whereas the license plate of an ICE-based car costs
about US$14000 in Shanghai [46]. The Chinese government
has also developed a “cap and trade” system whereby OEMs are
encouraged to make EV and those making 30 000 or more cars
needed to earn enough credits to match 12% (in 2020) of their
output (a new EV can receive 2–6 credits depending upon its
range [48]). Companies failing to meet these quotas either face
penalties or can buy credits from those who have a surplus [14].
The crux of the Chinese policy is essentially to “make EV or go
home” [49].
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ASIF et al.: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THE ANTECEDENTS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES PROMOTION
Similarly, California, the most advanced state in EV adoption
in the USA, offers significant rebates and tax cuts to promote
EV [12], [14]. Big oil import bills and environmental urgency in
developing countries demand that these resources are channeled
to stimulate EV promotion. A comprehensive EV promotion
policy should address both consumer- and manufacturer-related
aspects. The macro-level incentives that are suitable at the
consumer-level include policies concerning soft loans by
banks, free license plates for EV, reduced car registration fees,
customer-friendly car leasing packages, free/dedicated parking
for EV, toll exemptions, highway lanes reserved for EV, carpool
lane access, insurance discount and protection, and unrestricted
(anytime) use of EV (cf. restricted use of ICE cars based on a
specific time-of-day or day-of-week) [50]. For manufacturers,
these policies may encompass CO2 and NOX taxes, provision
of charging facilities, and limited production quotas for ICE
cars. Production quotas for EV can be reinforced with a “cap
and trade” policy [48].
C. Meso Antecedents
1) Infrastructural Developments: Infrastructure for EV pro-
motion encompasses two key elements: charging facilities and
creating an appeal for EV.
a) Charging facilities: EV requires frequent charging, and
therefore, customers consider adequate charging facilities as
a critical determinant in EV purchasing decisions [4], [10].
Evidence from Norway, China, and the USA also shows that
charging infrastructures were developed aggressively in these
countries to promote EV [47]. In Norway, the transition to EV
was facilitated by stepping up charging facilities. By 2020, Nor-
way had more than 10 000 publicly available charging points that
allowed the fast charging of 1500 cars at the same time. This was
in addition to more than 90 000 home charging facilities [20].
According to Renewable Energy World [21], China installed
more than 1000 charging stations per day in 2019. In the USA,
California has outperformed all other states. By March 2020,
the USA had approximately 78 500 charging outlets and almost
25 000 charging stations, many of them were in California, with
6835 stations and 28 545 power outlets [51].
In developing countries, the provision of charging infras-
tructure and widespread diffusion of EV presents a catch-22
situation, i.e., EV manufacturers and governments can provide
charging infrastructure only if there is sufficient demand, but
the demand will not grow unless there is sufficient charging
infrastructure. Public–private partnerships can increase charging
infrastructure by transforming the responsibility from one party
(manufacturer or government) into a shared responsibility and
business opportunity [52]. By engaging the private sector’s pro-
fessional skills, management, and financial resources, a public–
private partnership brings cost savings, which is essential in
developing countries, reduces operational risk, enables smaller
investment, and optimizes utilization of government resources
[34]. From the customer-service perspective, it enables better
services through the transfer of new technologies, entrepreneur-
ship, innovation, greater cost competitiveness, and improved
service delivery [52], [53].
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
9
b) Development of common industry standards: EVs are
at the early stages of adoption in developing countries. The
heterogeneity in the batteries, vehicle technology, chargers, and
maintenance services can cause fragmentation in already skep-
tical and hesitant markets [16]. Hence, there is a need for some
degree of standardization in EV technology and business models
to make EV more user-friendly [35]. The battery, technology for
battery swapping, charging plugs, communication protocols to
connect chargers with batteries, and charging infrastructure are
the foremost candidates for standardization. Common standards
for chargers will allow customers to use the same charging facil-
ity for any type of EV. Similarly, standardization of batteries and
battery swapping services will allow battery change on-the-go,
attenuate users’ anxiety, and provide customers more options
to get the battery and other services from any service station
regardless of their vehicle type [35]. Battery swapping, enabled
through common battery standards, could also lower the upfront
price of EV as it would allow users to purchase the car and the
batteries separately or lease batteries [1]. Developing common
industry standards can also mitigate investment risks and in-
crease investors’ enthusiasm for developing EV technologies
[54]. However, the development of common industry standards
comes with challenges. Firms that build their competitive edge
on innovative technologies and are ahead of their competitors
may end up being marginalized by standardization, leading to
alienation and suppression of innovation. This phenomenon,
called “technological lock-ins,” means developing EV technolo-
gies in one way and precluding innovations in alternative ways
[54]. However, the benefits of standardization outweigh its limi-
tations. Standardization endeavors must engage all stakeholders
to ensure a smooth transition to EV.
2) Creating an Appeal for EV: Appeal to promote EV in
developing countries can be based on their environmental or
economical features.
a) Environment-friendly appeal: EV are environmentally
friendly as they are free of gaseous emissions and do not cause
pollution on roads, which is a major problem in developing
countries. Highlighting this feature can be appealing to environ-
mentally conscious customers [9]. Protecting the environment
can be part of a customer’s self-identity or intrinsic motivation to
contribute to any public good [55]. Targeting the environment-
conscious segment of customers can provide an impetus to the
promotion of EV. Studies show that customers who are more
interested in EV are usually highly educated, environmentally
conscious, and concerned about humanity’s reliance on fossil
fuels [56]. Pro-environmental buyers attribute greater value to
environmental conservation as long as EV reasonably meets
the minimum key technical and efficiency requirements. This
segment of customers is also willing to pay a premium price
for EV in developed countries [4] and might be willing to do
so in developing countries as well. In developing countries,
high pollution levels and poor urban air quality affect health
to a worrying extent [57]. Empirical evidence also shows that
people in developing countries prefer eco-friendly and green
technologies as long as they are economical and reliable [58].
Thus, targeting this segment of customers can set a positive tone
for EV adoption in the reluctant markets of developing countries
[59].
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
10
b) Economic appeal: EVs are economical in the long run
as they have fewer parts, lower energy costs, and lower main-
tenance costs [60]. With the advances in battery technology,
EV mileage also increases (i.e., “range”). Moreover, the devel-
opment of common industry standards for batteries will make
battery management and replacement much easier, and concerns
regarding battery life will be diminished [35]. Further, with
the development of battery leasing and swapping (on-the-go)
models, the economic appeal of EV will be even stronger [35].
Overall, the total ownership cost of EV is significantly lower than
ICE vehicles [60]. Highlighting economic features can boost the
adoption of EV [9].
Research from consumer marketing shows that buyers usually
tend to act myopically when making their purchases as they
overvalue the features that are immediately visible and closer
in time, e.g., the price of EV and undervalue the features that
are remote in time, e.g., future cost-saving [61]. Discounting
future returns at the expense of the short-term gains is referred
to as “temporal discounting” or “delay discounting” [62]. High-
lighting the short- and long-term economics of EV can be a
powerful antecedent of the promotion of EV [63]. Furthermore,
in order to create an economic appeal, framing of information
is also important. Information should be presented to address
individuals’ imperfect cognitive processing capacities [10] and
highlight the attractive financial features of EV, i.e., low running
cost, less maintenance cost, lower total ownership cost, and high
residual value.
V. CONTEXTUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE
FRAMEWORK
A. Contextualization of Antecedents for Developing Countries
Developing countries have unique contexts and contingen-
cies, which are different from developed ones in important
ways. In particular, factors like customer buying predispositions,
state of the national economy, local fuel prices, the extent of
infrastructural development, and efficacy of environmental and
economic appeal require EV antecedents to align with these
contingencies to facilitate a smooth transition to EV. Contextual-
ization is also needed to orchestrate systematic efforts to promote
EV and to reduce the risk of failures. Evidence from Norway and
China—the countries with the highest number of EV [56]—
shows that the contextualization of EV antecedents was carried
out using a combination of, and different degrees of emphasis,
on various antecedents. Norway, a relatively wealthy country
with high gross national income [64], emphasized macro-level
antecedents (i.e., a long-term policy supported with subsidies)
[20]. China emphasized micro- (e.g., strengthening local value
chains, lithium battery production, and local production of EV)
and macro-level antecedents (e.g., government subsidies, carbon
taxes, cap and trade policies, and production quotas for ICE
vehicles) [14], [35].
Contextualization in developing countries needs to accom-
modate their relatively weak economies, cost-conscious cus-
tomers, local production capabilities, buyer hesitation for EV,
poor charging and after-sales service infrastructure, and possible
needs for environmental reforms [65]. Based on Table I, an
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
illustrative list of antecedents for a developing country could
include the following. The micro-level category may include
antecedents such as 1) develop efficient EV supply chains, 2)
mitigate customers’ concerns about EV’s quality and reliability,
3) develop economy specific-purpose and economy multipur-
pose business models, 4) promote battery leasing and swapping
business models, and 5) promote EV as a service rather than the
ownership model. The macro-level category could emphasize 1)
incentives (subsidies, loans, leasing facilities, and tax relief), 2)
production quotas for ICE and EV, 3) charging infrastructures, 4)
dedicated facilities for EV (car parking and EV lanes on roads),
and 5) taxes on import of ICE vehicles and their parts. The meso-
level category may encompass antecedents such as 1) public–
private partnership for charging infrastructure, 2 standardization
of batteries and chargers, 3) highlight environmental benefits of
EV, 4) create economic appeal for EV, and 5) customer-friendly
maintenance models. Note that the antecedents can be employed
individually or in combination and will vary depending on the
unique circumstances in which they are applied.
B. Framework Assessment
In order to assess the value of the taxonomic framework,
articles on EV in developing countries were reviewed for a
comparative assessment. Although literature in this domain is
scarce, a few studies carried out in India [15], [66]–[70], Pakistan
[71], [72], Lebanon [18], and other developing countries [65]
provided valuable insights. These studies discussed the adop-
tion of EV or barriers in promoting EV (cf. antecedents). The
taxonomic framework can be used as a lens to understand the
barriers to EV adoption reported in these studies. For instance,
studies in India have found that high ownership cost, lack of
appropriate business models, inadequate local manufacturing
capabilities, and weak technical expertise impede the adoption
of EV [69], [70]; all these barriers map on to the micro-level
antecedents. Some barriers reported in these studies, like lack of
“incentives” and “government policies” [67], [69] commensu-
rate with the macro-level antecedents. “Poor consumer aware-
ness” and “unavailability of charging infrastructure” [15], [70]
can be viewed as corresponding to the meso-level antecedents.
Studies in Pakistan [72], [73] and Lebanon [18] also converge
on the need for expertise in local manufacturing and battery
technology, technical skills, reliability, and variety [73] (cor-
responding to micro-level antecedents); favorable EV policies,
such as government subsidies and regulatory structures (corre-
sponding to macro-level antecedents) [72]; and infrastructural
development through public–private partnership (corresponding
to meso-level antecedents) [18], [71], [72]. Finally, a literature
review on EV promotion in developing countries [65] called for
the need for appropriate EV business models (corresponding
to micro-level antecedents). When the findings of these stud-
ies are combined, their mapping to the taxonomic framework
becomes apparent, though the framework provides both addi-
tional antecedents and a clear and coherent structure for their
consideration. Hence, the framework can be used as an optic to
structure thinking, discussion, and decision-making, as well as
to help explain EV promotion in developing countries.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

ASIF et al.: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THE ANTECEDENTS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES PROMOTION 11

TABLE II barriers to macro-level antecedents; and “financial” barriers to

MAPPING OF THE BARRIERS AND MODELS OF EV PROMOTION IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES TO THE TAXONOMIC FRAMEWORK
the meso-level antecedents (Table II). In sum, the taxonomic
framework provides a valuable lens to understand the barriers
to EV promotion in developing countries.

VI. THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The article makes several novel contributions. To the best of
our knowledge, a taxonomy of antecedents of EV promotion,
their categorization into micro-, macro-, and meso-levels, and
a discussion of lessons for EV value chains in developing
countries is not provided in earlier studies. The need for the
taxonomy stems from the fact that EV antecedents originate from
different disciplines, such as social sciences (e.g., psychology
of EV promotion), business and management (e.g., business
models, value chains, and innovation management), technology
(e.g., battery and components technologies), and policymaking
(e.g., EV infrastructure development). The taxonomy is needed
to identify, define, classify, and organize antecedents of EV
promotion and develop meaningful schemas for their systematic
implementation. The taxonomy facilitates organizing otherwise
disordered antecedents and developing meaningful relationships
among them. In the absence of a taxonomy, the knowledge of
EV promotion remains fragmented. The taxonomy structures the
knowledge of antecedents and provides the necessary first step
toward a better understanding of antecedents of EV promotion,
their relationships, and orchestrates systematic efforts toward
EV promotion. This is the first article to advance the discussion
in this direction.
Previous studies on EV adoption present only a partial picture
by providing a list of EV antecedents [4], [8], [10]. This article
extends the current knowledge by providing an overarching
Similarly, models of barriers in EV adoption in developing
framework yielding a more holistic view of the antecedents of
countries also resonate with the taxonomic framework. For
EV promotion. The taxonomy furnishes a structured map of
instance, a study in India [69] categorized the barriers to the
the antecedents and enables a higher level and organized under-
adoption of EV into four factors, namely: 1) market barriers
standing of the antecedents, which is more informative than a
(e.g., vehicle servicing, testing and certification, consumer per-
list of antecedents [66]. Second, while previous studies imply
ceptions, and raw material for batteries), 2) technical barriers
that antecedents of EV promotion are universally applicable
(battery efficiency, range, safety, charging time, and environ-
[8], this article shows that contextualization of antecedents is
mental impact), 3) policy barriers (taxation, subsidies, and tariff
needed to make them effective in developing countries. Third,
policies), and 4) infrastructural barriers (charging infrastructure,
the taxonomy also highlights the need for a systemic approach
battery recycling, and dedicated lanes for EV). Several barriers in
to EV promotion [66]. Although micro-, macro-, and meso-level
the technical (e.g., battery efficiency, charging time, safety, and
antecedents can be employed independently, many of these
environmental impact) and market category (e.g., raw material
antecedents interact. For instance, micro-level antecedents (ver-
for batteries, vehicle servicing, capital cost and financing, and
tical integration, a sustainable supply of batteries, and relevant
testing) map on to micro-level antecedents. Policy-related barri-
business model) are likely to have a weak effect in the absence of
ers can be considered a counterpart of macro-level antecedents
conducive government policies (macro-level) and charging in-
and infrastructural barriers analogous to meso-level antecedents
frastructure (meso-level). Further, business models should align
[47], [52], [71]. The mapping is summarized in Table II. Along
well with meso-level policies [7]. For instance, the economy
similar lines, a study in Pakistan [72] categorized the barriers to
multipurpose model is more deserving of incentives than the lux-
EV promotion into technical (lack of EV expertise and charg-
ury specific-purpose model [5]. Hence, only a systemic approach
ing system incompatibility), public acceptability (high-cost and
can explain the potential antagonisms and complementarities
business models), administrative (governance and marketing),
among the antecedents. Previous studies mainly take a piece-
regulatory structures (lack of policies), and financial (e.g., lack
meal approach to the antecedents without providing a holistic
of subsidies and charging infrastructure development) issues.
framework [10], [74]; the systemic approach that provides a
Again, all these barriers can be mapped to the taxonomic
foundation for the framework developed in this article is an
framework: the “technical” and “public acceptability” barriers to
important contribution of this article.
the micro-level antecedents; “administrative” and “regulatory”

Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
12
The article also has practical implications. The antecedents
identified in this article provide a comprehensive framework
to promote EV adoption in developing countries. The frame-
work provides the inventory of antecedents from which dif-
ferent stakeholders can choose the relevant ones. Managers,
policymakers, entrepreneurs, and NGOs interested in promot-
ing EV adoption in developing countries will find a list of
antecedents to start with. Further, the framework provides a
map of the things to do, which entities and stakeholders to
engage, and who is primarily responsible for a particular initia-
tive. For instance, EV manufacturers and industry should focus
on streamlining value chains, secure the sustainable supply of
batteries, and develop appropriate business models. Indeed, one
of the most urgent tasks for EV manufacturers and industry
is to develop business models that will fit the unique context
of developing countries. Choosing the right “business model”
is the foremost responsibility of EV manufacturers and the
industry. Similarly, the primary responsibility of governments
and regulatory bodies is to make policies that will balance the
needs of EV producers, customers, and environmental groups.
These policies may address the types and extent of subsidies,
the rules of public–private partnerships, and a set of regulations
for EV and ICE vehicle manufacturers.
The framework can help to choose the right mix of an-
tecedents. For instance, creating an “environmental” and “eco-
nomic” appeal needs to be supported by providing adequate
“charging infrastructure” and “incentives” [10]. These an-
tecedents can be complementary when applied together, and the
overall effect can be synergistic [14]. For instance, when con-
sumers notice that EV is incentivized (macro-level), warranties
are provided (micro-level), and adequate charging infrastruc-
ture (meso-level) is available, it creates a stronger appeal for
EV. Similarly, the framework shows that choosing the wrong
“business model” (such as luxury specific-purpose or luxury
multipurpose) will be least aligned with “incentives” offered by
the government [5].
The framework also helps to prioritize what is most impor-
tant. For instance, developments in battery technology and an
adequate supply of batteries are the most critical antecedent at
the micro-level [74]. All other antecedents can be most effective
when this antecedent (i.e., batteries) is adequately managed [33].
If the importance of this antecedent is discounted, then other
antecedents may turn meaningless. Similarly, the provision of
adequate charging infrastructure is also an essential determinant
of EV promotion [21]. The framework provides a practical tool
to start with the most relevant antecedents and follow a structured
approach [6].
The antecedents can also be used as a compass to track the
performance of EV manufacturers, industry, entrepreneurs, and
regulators. The diffusion of EV builds on coordinated efforts
between EV producers, suppliers, policymakers, and other stake-
holders [31], [46]. Government subsidies to EV manufacturers
and entrepreneurs can be linked with their performance in these
antecedents [4]. For instance, governments may decide to give
subsidies to only those who opt for standardization of the
key components, thus, creating convenience for customers [1],
[54]; or giving subsidies only to those who launch economy
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
multipurpose models which have the highest contribution to
greening efforts [5].
Although a review paper, the application of the taxonomy is
generalizable to developing countries with varying socioenvi-
ronmental and economic contexts. The taxonomy encompasses
antecedents whose coverage ranges from micro-antecedents,
applicable mainly at the firm level, to macro- and meso-
antecedents, having broader policy applications. The spectrum
of antecedents and related initiatives is broad, and countries with
varying levels of EV infrastructures will find them at differ-
ent points on the spectrum. Developing countries can choose
and prioritize antecedents based on their existing capabilities
and infrastructure. If supportive EV policies are in place, then
an augmented focus on micro-antecedents (e.g., streamlining
value chains and relevant business models) will be warranted to
achieve excellence in EV value chains. Similarly, isolated tech-
nological advances in micro-antecedents need to be supported
with policy frameworks. The broader spectrum of antecedents
permits choosing context-appropriate antecedents and travers-
ing on the spectrum from any point to a more advanced level once
significant developments are achieved. Thus, the framework is
dynamic in furnishing choices of antecedents and serving the di-
verse needs of EV players. Therefore, the taxonomic framework
is generalizable to accommodate varying socioenvironmental
and economic contexts of developing countries.
VII. CONCLUSION
The antecedents of EV in developing countries can be cat-
egorized as micro-, macro-, and meso-level antecedents. The
micro-level antecedents include streamlining the value chain
(i.e., battery technology and vertical integration), business mod-
els (economy specific, economic-multipurpose, TaaS, battery
leasing, and battery swapping), and entrepreneurial initiatives
in EV technologies and business models. The macro-level an-
tecedents focus on EV policies, such as incentives and penalties.
The meso-level antecedents include infrastructural support and
making the features of EV salient, usually by engaging different
stakeholders.
This article has some limitations that provide an opportunity
for future research. The antecedents identified in this article
can be described as “potential” antecedents that need empirical
testing to extend their generalizability. Future research may
explore if and how these antecedents trigger EV promotion in
developing countries. Cross-sectional studies, such as surveys,
may explore if the relationships between antecedents and EV
promotion hold true in developing countries with different eco-
nomic and socioenvironmental contexts. Longitudinal studies,
such as case studies, may explore how these antecedents unfold
in resource-constrained settings of developing countries. There
are also significant variations among the countries within the de-
veloping economies category. Upper middle-income economies
(e.g., Brazil, Malaysia, Mexico, and Turkey) have higher GNI,
more national wealth, and are likely to have more advanced
EV infrastructure than countries in the lower middle-income
category. An investigation of how EV adoption and promotion
behaviors of the former vary from the latter could refine the
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ASIF et al.: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THE ANTECEDENTS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES PROMOTION
findings of the current study. Further, the list of antecedents
and the levels at which they exist, as presented in this article,
is not exhaustive. Other antecedents and taxonomic levels may
also exist. There is also considerable scope for future empirical
research on adopting EV in developing countries. First, case
studies at national or regional levels can furnish rich insights
into the patterns of EV adoption in developing countries. Second,
future research should determine the relative importance of var-
ious antecedents proposed in this article. The list of antecedents
developed in this article needs to be refined in light of future em-
pirical studies. Third, linked to the previous point, the taxonomy
implies that all antecedents are equally important. However, in
reality, some antecedents are always more significant and urgent
than others. Future research needs to develop models for prior-
itizing antecedents. For instance, multicriteria decision-making
models can be employed to establish the priority of antecedents.
Finally, future research needs to study associations between the
antecedents and the extent of EV adoption.
REFERENCES
[1] “Electric transport revolution set to spread rapidly into light and medium
commercial vehicle market,” BloombergNEF. Accessed: May 12, 2020.
[Online]. Available: https://about.bnef.com
[2] “Reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars—Before 2020,” European
Union Commission Regulations. Accessed: May 17, 2020. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en
[3] “CO2 emissions are increasing,” PA Consulting. Accessed: May 7,
2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.paconsulting.com/insights/2019/
co2-emissions-are-increasing/
[4] R. M. Berliner, S. Hardman, and G. Tal, “Uncovering early adopter’s
perceptions and purchase intentions of automated vehicles: Insights from
early adopters of electric vehicles in california,” Transp. Res. Part F-Traffic
Psychol. Behav., vol. 60, pp. 712–722, Jan. 2019.
[5] R. Bohnsack, J. Pinkse, and A. Kolk, “Business models for sustainable
technologies: Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric
vehicles,” Res. Policy, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 284–300, 2014.
[6] F. Liao, E. Molin, H. Timmermans, and B. van Wee, “The impact of
business models on electric vehicle adoption: A latent transition analysis
approach,” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract., vol. 116, pp. 531–546, 2018.
[7] P. Nieuwenhuis, “Alternative business models and entrepreneurship: The
case of electric vehicles,” Int. J. Entrepreneurship Innov., vol. 19, no. 1,
pp. 33–45, Feb. 2018.
[8] G. L. Brase, “What would it take to get you into an electric car? Consumer
perceptions and decision making about electric vehicles,” J. Psychol.,
vol. 153, no. 2, pp. 214–236, 2019.
[9] Ö. Simsekoglu and A. Nayum, “Predictors of intention to buy a battery
electric vehicle among conventional car drivers,” Transp. Res. Part F:
Traffic Psychol. Behav., vol. 60, pp. 1–10, 2019.
[10] N. DellaValle and A. Zubaryeva, “Can we hope for a collective shift in
electric vehicle adoption? Testing salience and norm-based interventions
in South Tyrol, Italy,” Energy Res. Social Sci., vol. 55, pp. 46–61, 2019.
[11] J. P. MacDuffie, “Response to perkins and murmann: Pay attention to
what is and isn’t unique about Tesla,” Manage. Org. Rev., vol. 14, no. 3,
pp. 481–489, Sep. 2018.
[12] G. Perkins and J. P. Murmann, “What does the success of tesla mean for
the future dynamics in the global automobile sector?,” Manage. Org. Rev.,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 471–480, 2018.
[13] D. J. Teece, “Tesla and the reshaping of the auto industry,” Manage. Org.
Rev., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 501–512, Sep. 2018.
[14] D. J. Teece, “China and the reshaping of the auto industry: A dynamic
capabilities perspective,” Manage. Org. Rev., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 177–199,
2019.
[15] S. Dhar, M. Pathak, and P. R. Shukla, “Electric vehicles and India’s
low carbon passenger transport: A long-term co-benefits assessment,” J.
Cleaner Prod., vol. 146, pp. 139–148, 2017.
[16] F. Khan, Y. Ali, and A. U. Khan, “Sustainable hybrid electric vehicle
selection in the context of a developing country,” Air Qual., Atmos. Health,
vol. 13, pp. 489–499, 2020.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
13
[17] S. Z. Hassan, S. S. Jajja, and H. Saranga, Assessment of Industry Readiness
for Manufacturing of Battery Electric Vehicles. Lahore: Lahore Univ.
Management Sciences, 2020.
[18] C. J. Mansour and M. G. Haddad, “Well-to-wheel assessment for informing
transition strategies to low-carbon fuel-vehicles in developing countries
dependent on fuel imports: A case-study of road transport in Lebanon,”
Energy Policy, vol. 107, pp. 167–181, 2017.
[19] M. S. S. Jajja and S. Z. Hassan, “Millat tractors limited: Has the time come
to say goodbye to massey ferguson?,” Asian J. Manage. Cases, vol. 13,
no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2016.
[20] “Norwegian Energy Policy.” Accessed: April 28, 2020. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/
[21] “China installed more than 1000 EV charging stations per day in 2019,” Re-
newable Energy World. Accessed: May 2, 2020. [Online]. Available: https:
//www.renewableenergyworld.com
[22] M. Asif, “Supplier socioenvironmental compliance: A survey of the an-
tecedents of standards decoupling,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 246, 2020,
Art. no. 118956.
[23] I. Ajzen, The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Reactions and Reflections.
New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis, 2011.
[24] J. Baker, “The technology–organization–environment framework,” in
Information Systems Theory. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2012,
pp. 231–245.
[25] H. Tajfel, “Social identity and intergroup behaviour,” Social Sci. Inf.,
vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 65–93, 1974.
[26] N. King, M. Burgess, and M. Harris, “Electric vehicle drivers use better
strategies to counter stereotype threat linked to pro-technology than to
pro-environmental identities,” Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav.,
vol. 60, pp. 440–452, 2019.
[27] B. K. Sovacool, J. Kester, L. Noel, and G. Z. de Rubens, “Are electric
vehicles masculinized? Gender, identity, and environmental values in
nordic transport practices and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) preferences,” Transp.
Res. Part D, vol. 72, pp. 187–202, 2019.
[28] P. Aggarwal, T. Cha, and D. Wilemon, “Barriers to the adoption of really-
new products and the role of surrogate buyers,” J. Consum. Marketing,
vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 358–371, 1998.
[29] P. Cocron and J. F. Krems, “Driver perceptions of the safety implications of
quiet electric vehicles,” Accident Anal. Prevention, vol. 58, pp. 122–131,
2013.
[30] K. S. Gallagher and E. Muehlegger, “Giving green to get green? Incentives
and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology,” J. Environ. Econ.
Manage., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2011.
[31] G. Raz and A. Ovchinnikov, “Coordinating pricing and supply of public
interest goods using government rebates and subsidies,” IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manage., vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 65–79, Feb. 2015.
[32] M. Sosna, R. N. Trevinyo-Rodríguez, and S. R. Velamuri, “Business model
innovation through trial-and-error learning: The naturhouse case,” Long
Range Planning, vol. 43, no. 2–3, pp. 383–407, 2010.
[33] T. B. Christensen, P. Wells, and L. Cipcigan, “Can innovative business
models overcome resistance to electric vehicles? Better place and bat-
tery electric cars in Denmark,” Energy Policy, vol. 48, pp. 498–505,
2012.
[34] T. Yang, R. Long, W. Li, and S. U. Rehman, “Innovative applica-
tion of the public–private partnership model to the electric vehicle
charging infrastructure in China,” Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 8, 2016,
Art. no. 738.
[35] “China embraces battery-swapping system for electric vehicles,”
Bloomberg. Accessed: May 11, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.
bloomberg.com
[36] “Tesla’s secret batteries aim to rework the math for electric cars and the
grid,” Reuters. Accessed: May 15, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.
reuters.com
[37] D. Adebanjo, T. Laosirihongthong, P. Samaranayake, and P.-L. Teh,
“Key enablers of industry 4.0 development at firm level: Findings from
an emerging economy,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., to be published,
doi: 10.1109/TEM.2020.3046764.
[38] “Tesla signs battery supply agreement with China’s CATL,” NASDAQ.
Accessed: April 28, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.nasdaq.com
[39] “Jaguar will pause I-Pace production because of battery shortage,”
The Verge. Accessed: April 28, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.
theverge.com
[40] A. Amin and I. Smith, “Vertical integration or disintegration? The case
of the U.K. car parts industry,” in Restructuring the Global Automobile
Industry, Evanston, IL, USA: Routledge, 2017, pp. 169–199.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
14
[41] “Manufacturers are struggling to supply electric vehicles with batteries,”
Forbes. Accessed: May 19, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.
com
[42] R. Miao et al., “Profit optimization for mileage-based pricing of
electric vehicle lease,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., to be published,
doi: 10.1109/TEM.2020.2966649.
[43] H. Pohl and M. Elmquist, “Radical innovation in a small firm: A hybrid
electric vehicle development project at volvo cars,” R&D Manage., vol. 40,
no. 4, pp. 372–382, 2010.
[44] H. Chesbrough and R. S. Rosenbloom, “The role of the business model
in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from xerox corporation’s
technology spin-off companies,” Ind. Corporate Change, vol. 11, no. 3,
pp. 529–555, 2002.
[45] R. Amit and C. Zott, “Value creation in e-business,” Strategic Manage. J.,
vol. 22, no. 6–7, pp. 493–520, 2001.
[46] Y. Wang, D. Sperling, G. Tal, and H. Fang, “China’s electric car surge,”
Energy Policy, vol. 102, pp. 486–490, 2017.
[47] F. An, “China’s NEV policies and market development,” in Proc. Ind.
Upgrading Econ. Growth China Conf., 2016, pp. 1–22.
[48] S. Ou, Z. Lin, L. Qi, J. Li, X. He, and S. Przesmitzki, “The dual-credit
policy: Quantifying the policy impact on plug-in electric vehicle sales and
industry profits in China,” Energy Policy, vol. 121, pp. 597–610, 2018.
[49] “China flexes its muscle—Go BEV or go home,” CleanTechnica. Ac-
cessed: Apr. 30, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://cleantechnica.com
[50] R. Zhang, J. Guo, and J. Wang, “A time-dependent electric vehicle routing
problem with congestion tolls,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., to be pub-
lished, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2019.2959701.
[51] “Number of public electric vehicle charging stations and charging outlets
in the U.S. as of March 3, 2020,” Statista. Accessed: May 2, 2020. [Online].
Available: https://www.statista.com
[52] Y. Fang, W. Wei, S. Mei, L. Chen, X. Zhang, and S. Huang, “Promoting
electric vehicle charging infrastructure considering policy incentives and
user preferences: An evolutionary game model in a small-world network,”
J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 258, 2020, Art. no. 120753.
[53] K. Brzozowska, Advantages and Threats of Public-Private Partnerships
in Larger Infrastructure Projects. Warsaw, Poland: CeDeWu. PL, 2006.
[54] Y. Li, C. Zhan, M. de Jong, and Z. Lukszo, “Business innovation and
government regulation for the promotion of electric vehicle use: Lessons
from Shenzhen, China,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 134, pp. 371–383, 2016.
[55] L. Whitmarsh and S. O’Neill, “Green identity, green living? The role
of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across di-
verse pro-environmental behaviours,” J. Environ. Psychol., vol. 30, no. 3,
pp. 305–314, 2010.
[56] A. Orlov and S. Kallbekken, “The impact of consumer attitudes towards
energy efficiency on car choice: Survey results from Norway,” J. Cleaner
Prod., vol. 214, pp. 816–822, 2019.
[57] “Outlook on the global agenda—2015,” World Economic Forum.
[Online]. Available: https://widgets.weforum.org/outlook15/06.html,
Accessed: May 21, 2020.
[58] S. Hanger, N. Komendantova, B. Schinke, D. Zejli, A. Ihlal, and A.
Patt, “Community acceptance of large-scale solar energy installations in
developing countries: Evidence from Morocco,” Energy Res. Social Sci.,
vol. 14, pp. 80–89, 2016.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kunming Univ of Science and Tech. Downloaded on September 02,2021 at 22:47:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
[59] C. Morton, J. Anable, and J. D. Nelson, “Consumer structure in the
emerging market for electric vehicles: Identifying market segments using
cluster analysis,” Int. J. Sustain. Transp., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 443–459, 2017.
[60] J. Hagman, S. Ritzén, J. J. Stier, and Y. Susilo, “Total cost of ownership
and its potential implications for battery electric vehicle diffusion,” Res.
Transp. Bus. Manage., vol. 18, pp. 11–17, 2016.
[61] G. Loewenstein and D. Prelec, “Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evi-
dence and an interpretation,” Quart. J. Econ., vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 573–597,
1992.
[62] S. Frederick, G. Loewenstein, and T. O’donoghue, “Time discounting and
time preference: A critical review,” J. Econ. Literature, vol. 40, no. 2,
pp. 351–401, 2002.
[63] C. Codagnone et al., “Labels as nudges? An experimental study of car
eco-labels,” Economia Politica, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 403–432, 2016.
[64] “The World Bank in middle income countries,” World Bank. Ac-
cessed: Apr. 23, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.worldbank.org/
en/country/mic/overview
[65] S. Z. Rajper and J. Albrecht, “Prospects of electric vehicles in the devel-
oping countries: A literature review,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 5, 2020,
Art. no. 1906.
[66] A. S. Chauhan, B. Nepal, G. Soni, and A. P. S. Rathore, “Taxonomy
of new product development process risks: An empirical study of In-
dian automotive industry,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., to be published,
doi: 10.1109/TEM.2020.2994025.
[67] A. Khurana, V. R. Kumar, and M. Sidhpuria, “A study on the adoption of
electric vehicles in India: The mediating role of attitude,” Vision, vol. 24,
no. 1, pp. 23–34, 2020.
[68] A. Shankar and P. Kunnari, “Exploring the enablers and inhibitors of elec-
tric vehicle adoption intention from sellers’ perspective in india: A view
of the dual-factor model,” Int. J. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Marketing,
vol. 24, no. 4, Nov. 2019, Art. no. e1662.
[69] P. Shukla, S. Dhar, M. Pathak, and K. Bhaskar, “Electric vehicles scenarios
and a roadmap for India,” in UNEP DTU Partnership. New Delhi, India:
Magnum Custom Publishing, 2014.
[70] P. K. Tarei, P. Chand, and H. Gupta, “Barriers to the adoption of elec-
tric vehicles: Evidence from India,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 291, 2021,
Art. no. 125847.
[71] N. Arshad, N. Ullah, B. T. Khan, M. A. Javed, M. M. Arslan, and M. H.
Qureshi, Electric Vehicles in Pakistan: Policy Recommendations Volume
I Cars. Lahore, Pakistan: Lahore Univ. of Management Sciences, 2019.
[72] R. Asghar et al., “Electric vehicles and key adaptation challenges and
prospects in Pakistan: A comprehensive review,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 278,
2021, Art. no. 123375.
[73] A. H. K. Babar and Y. Ali, “Enhancement of electric vehicles’ market
competitiveness using fuzzy quality function deployment,” Technol. Fore-
casting Social Change, vol. 167, 2021, Art. no. 120738.
[74] Z. Long, J. Axsen, I. Miller, and C. Kormos, “What does tesla mean
to car buyers? Exploring the role of automotive brand in perceptions of
battery electric vehicles,” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract., vol. 129,
pp. 185–204, 2019.