The case study as a research method

The closeness of a case study to the context of “real-life” allow for the research to focus on a phenomenon within its context, which is useful when the research is concerned with a complex social phenomenon such as car sharing (Yin, 1994) and the advantage of a single case study is its ability to provide depth to the context-dependent phenomena, whereas larger samples and a multiple case study are valuable in terms of the breadth they can add to research (Flyvbjerg, 2006).

Three conditions have created ground for the choice of the case study as a research strategy as opposed to applying a different research strategy, namely the type of research question, the requirement of control over behavioral events by the researcher and whether the research is focused on contemporary or historical events (Yin, 2003). Research questions that attend to “how” favor the use of a case study, as these questions are concerned with operational links, which align with the research question. The interest lies in uncovering

“how” an initiative of car sharing influences a corporate brand in terms of CSR and legitimacy (Ibid.). In the case of DriveNow’s influence on the BMW brand, the interest lies in a contemporary event over which the researcher has little control, which further calls for the use of a case study, as the advantage of a case study, is its ability to deal with evidence and data within an environment the researcher has no control over (Ibid.).

Additionally, case studies in general, and in particular this case study, provides insights into an area, which previously has obtained little attention ´(Ibid.). The un-researched area lies in the combination of the research field, namely the combination of the sharing economy, CSR and branding.

A typical critique that meets the case study method is that the method provides no foundation for scientific generalizations (Ibid.). The emphasis of the case study is on providing a nuanced understanding of the specific circumstances within the research area (Flyvbjerg, 2006) and use the comprehensive understanding to create theoretical propositions (Yin, 1994). As a consequence, the importance of producing generalizable findings is

reduced, because the case is not supposed to be representative of a population (Ibid.). Generalizability is a predominant legitimate method of scientific investigation, but it has been argued that case studies that do not attempt to generalize can be valuable in the process of generating knowledge and making way for new scientific understandings (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Furthermore, it has been argued that “the force of example is underestimated” (Ibid.: 228) and even though “knowledge cannot be formally generalized (it) does not mean that it cannot enter into the collective process of knowledge accumulation in a given field or in a society”

(Ibid.: 227). The case of DriveNow’s influence on consumers’ perception of BMW in terms of CSR and legitimacy provides a nuanced understanding of the phenomenon of car sharing in relation to a company’s brand and CSR as perceived by the consumers.

3.5.1 Case selection strategy

When selecting a case for the purpose of research, Robert Stake (1995) describe how one can either approach the selection process intrinsically or instrumentally. When the case itself is of a particular interest to the researcher, an intrinsic case study approach has been applied (Stake, 1995). If the selection of a case is based on its ability to provide insights that can create a more general understanding of a phenomenon, the case study is of an instrumental nature. Instrumental case studies allow the researcher to use the case as a tool for generating an understanding of something greater than the specific case (Ibid.).

An instrumental case selection strategy has been employed as the selection of the specific case of DriveNow and BMW has been guided by a general interest in the phenomenon of car sharing and the influence of such initiatives on already established brands within the car manufacturing sector and as such the case has been selected due to its ability to provide context specific insights into a more general phenomenon of car sharing initiatives by traditional companies.

In addition to the instrumental case selection strategy, an information-oriented selection strategy has been applied in the selection of BMW and DriveNow as a case. In an information-oriented selection strategy, the selection is based on the expectations to the content of information within the selected case. This strategy is used in order to maximize the information output from the case sampled, as a random selection strategy may not be able to provide the same comprehensiveness in terms of information (Bryman, 2012; Flyvbjerg, 2006). Within the information-oriented selection strategy, cases can be selected based on various criteria and be considered extreme/deviant, critical and paradigmatic (Flyvbjerg, 2006). A critical case is selected on the grounds that it can help in the development of a thorough understanding of certain circumstances (Bryman, 2012). The case selected is a so-called “best case”. A “best case” is a critical case in its negative form. Through the use of a critical case, it is possible to obtain information that allow one to make logical

deductions i.e. if it is not valid in this particular case, then it is not valid in any (or very few) cases (Flyvbjerg, 2006). A critical case in its negative form are thus considered a “best case”.

DriveNow in Denmark represents a “best case”, because it is the biggest car sharing initiative in Denmark and only operates electrical cars. When looking at the mobility sector in relation to CSR and the sharing economy, DriveNow as a “best case” offers the opportunity of investigating the issue in the most positive circumstances. As the research project is concerned with what influence a sharing initiative has on consumers’ perception of the corporate brand, DriveNow’s presence on the Danish market have been a primary reason behind the selection of DriveNow as a case.

3.5 Classifying companies in relationship to global corporate citizenship

In order to strengthen the argument for the categorization of the selected case as being critical, a categorization of the case’s relationship to global corporate citizenship have been conducted.

Thompson (2012) suggests that in order to determine whether a company act as a good global corporate citizen, companies can be categorized along two dimensions in respect to their approach towards global corporate citizenship. The first dimension distinguishes between those companies that believe CSR is central to their business and have integrated CSR values into their activities, and those whom believe CSR is irrelevant for their business (Thompson, 2012). The second dimension is related to the company’s believed business- and financial rewards of CSR activities. Either a company considers its activities related to CSR as a financial strength that strongly enhances their financial position because of a reward from the market or it only considers a commitment to CSR activities as being weakly related to their financial performance (Ibid.).

Table 1 - Global Corporate Citizenship (Thompson, 2012)

Companies that recognizes the importance of strong social-, environmental-, and ethical values to their business’ financial success, but in reality finds them irrelevant are labeled “cynics” and placed in the top left cell. The objective of “cynics” is often, that they wish to display an appropriate public image in order to avoid public campaigns against their business practices or as a response to such a campaign (Locke, 2003). “Ethical producers” believe a strong commitment to society is essential, but the financial rewards from such activities are weak, either because their commitment and the importance of their activities have not been recognized

by customers and the market in general or because “ethical producers” often are small with less professionally management, than big multinational companies (Thompson, 2012). For companies labelled as

“bottom feeders”, CSR activities is considered irrelevant and the rewards related to business activities and the bottom line is believed to be insignificant. “Enthusiasts” on the other hand, consider their commitments to CSR activities essential to their business and strongly believe it enhances their financial performance (Ibid.).

This heuristic approach of categorizing companies in relation to their attitude towards global corporate citizenship and CSR have been used to further categorize BMW as an “enthusiast”, which further supports the categorization of DriveNow and BMW as “best case”, i.e. a critical case in its negative form as BMW consider its commitments to CSR activities as essential to its business activities and believe it strongly enhances its financial performance (BMW Group, 2016b).