Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Example of a German Free-Float Car-Sharing Company Expansion in East-Central Europe

Example of a German Free-Float Car-Sharing Company Expansion in East-Central Europe resources Article Example of a German Free-Float Car-Sharing Company Expansion in East-Central Europe Árpád Tóth and Cecília Szigeti * Kautz Gyula Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Széchenyi István University, Egyetem Square 1, 9026 Gyor ˝ , Hungary; totha@sze.hu * Correspondence: szigetic@sze.hu or szigetic@gmail.com Received: 15 October 2019; Accepted: 4 November 2019; Published: 8 November 2019 Abstract: This study examines the expansion of a German free-float car-sharing company in Hungary from financial and sustainability perspectives. BMW and Daimler recently created the joint ventures ShareNow, ChargeNow, ReachNow, FreeNow, and ParkNow, which are having a significant global impact, as their services are now available in 14 di erent countries. We also expect further market development, since ShareNow started to operate in Hungary in May 2019. The whole EU market is just one step away from being covered by the same professional service, and the future might bring a real globally available free-float car-sharing service provider. Our review used a combination of two methodologies: financial statement-based business analysis and sustainability analysis. On the basis of this study, we concluded that these companies are primarily operated for profit and not on a sustainable operation basis. Additionally, it was also found that the current statistical data collection method does not measure precisely these activities. Financial reporting and sustainability reporting are connected, but they cover di erent areas. As a subject of further research, we suggest examining whether it is possible to establish a clear connection between these methodologies in the foreseeable future. Keywords: Car2Go; DriveNow; GreenGo; MOL LIMO; sustainability; economies of scale; sharing economy 1. Theoretical Background The objective of this study was to examine the performances of free-float car-sharing entities in Hungary and compare them to those of their German counterparts from financial analysis and sustainability perspectives. On the basis of actual financial results in Hungary, they appear to be less profitable businesses compared to other rental service companies. Recently, Car2Go and DriveNow created joint ventures, which generated significant competition because they entered the Hungarian market in May 2019. In Hungary, free-float car-sharing companies might follow di erent business models, which can cause unusual results. We also reviewed the available sustainability reports to define a possible connection to financial statements. Additionally, we tried to evaluate these companies from the sustainability perspective. 1.1. Business Model Review The free-float car-sharing business model was categorized, defined, and described in a car-sharing business model review by Deloitte [1]. Since then, other studies reviewed the model and the markets itself, for example that of Munoz and Cohen [2]. Several studies raised sustainability-related questions regarding sharing economy models. Reitmann and Lieven [3] examined how policy measures succeeded in promoting electric mobility in 20 countries by measuring the influence of monetary incentives, regulations, and charging Resources 2019, 8, 172; doi:10.3390/resources8040172 www.mdpi.com/journal/resources Resources 2019, 8, 172 2 of 16 infrastructure. Hartl et al. [4] addressed the gap between business-to-consumer (B2C) and peer-to-peer (P2P) car-sharing services from the customer ’s perspective. Overall, these previous studies on free-float car-sharing businesses support the initial assumption that these entities are profit-oriented, and their operations can be questioned from a sustainability perspective. From the business model perspective, in Hungary, there is a unique situation for free-float car-sharing companies, considering the impact of the international lease regulation changes. A wide range of studies, such as those of Wheeler and Webb [5] and Barone et al. [6], have provided summaries on the expected impact of lease capitalization and its e ect on profitability and leverage ratios. Giner and Pardo [7] reviewed the value relevance of operating lease liabilities. 1.2. Sustainability Reviews Sustainable business model (SBM) types were introduced to describe groupings of mechanisms and solutions that may contribute to building a business model for sustainability. Examples are: Maximize material and energy eciency; Create value from ‘waste’; Substitute with renewables and natural processes; Deliver functionality rather than ownership; Adopt a stewardship role; Encourage suciency; Re-purpose the business for society/environment; and Develop scale-up solutions [8]. Geissinger et al. [9] described and classified the sustainability connotation of sharing-economy platforms for Sweden. Indeed, sharing economy can be considered as a path towards sustainability [10]. Bernardi and Diamantini [11] explored how sharing economy, adopted by an increasing number of cities, may be integrated into the urban agenda, fostering its positive aspects (like decreased carbon emissions [12]), while avoiding its negative externalities, and focused, as examples, on Milan and Seoul. Ma et al. [13] proposed an alternative governance model to improve the e ectiveness of a collaborative governance regime towards urban sustainability. Albinsson et al. [14] developed a two-dimensional sharing economy matrix for sustainability reviews, which focuses on collaborative consumption users vs. non-users in the US and Indian markets. Ma et al. [15] argued that the two-level transformations, triggered by the disruptive innovation of the sharing economy and led by urban change towards sustainability, mutually influence each other in the fast-changing urban context in Shanghai. 1.3. Sharing Economy Reviews The emergence and rapid spread of the ‘sharing’ or ‘collaborative’ economy is one of the most significant social-economic challenges of our time. The success of the concept can be traced back to the economic crisis. It focuses on usage and not on owning goods. The debate over the regulation of the sharing economy has become polarized between those who are radically opposed to any intervention and those who favor some form of regulation (Table 1). Table 1. Opinions on the regulation of the sharing economy. Point of View Authors Main Messages Excessive regulation eliminates consumer benefits All interventions are rejected [16–20] and eciency gains. Using platforms reduces market failures. Innovative and intelligent regulation that enforces consumer protection without disrupting innovation. Certain areas of the sharing economy are suitable for regulatory intervention, others for self-regulation. Co-regulation: responsibilities are shared between Some regulation required [21–28] government and industry. A new legal framework is needed to regulate the sharing economy, as according to the current legal framework many inadequate practices in the sharing economy do not require any regulation as they pertain to the private sphere. Resources 2019, 8, 172 3 of 16 Table 1. Cont. Point of View Authors Main Messages Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17 Taxation of sharing economy companies is possible by law, although questions about law application Taxation of sharing economy companies is possible by law, although may arise. Everyone involved should be submitted Strict regulation required [29] to regulations (for example, in the case of car-sharing Strict regulation questions about law application may arise. Everyone involved should be [29] services, licenses issued to drivers, and identification required submitted to regulations (for example, in the case of car-sharing services, of drivers). licenses issued to drivers, and identification of drivers). Sharing economy platforms can be represented in a two-dimension matrix. The first dimension of Sharing economy platforms can be represented in a two-dimension matrix. The first dimension the matrix classifies sharing platforms into for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) activities. The second of the matrix classifies sharing platforms into for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) activities. The dimension follows the B2C–P2P axis [30]. Car-sharing business models are for-profit, B2C sharing second dimension follows the B2C–P2P axis [30]. Car-sharing business models are for-profit, B2C economy platforms and therefore belong to group 4. (Figure 1). sharing economy platforms and therefore belong to group 4. (Figure 1). Figure 1. Two-dimensional sharing-economy matrix [31]. P2P: peer-to-peer, B2C: business-to- Figure 1. Two-dimensional sharing-economy matrix [31]. P2P: peer-to-peer, B2C: business-to-consumer, consumer, NFP: not-for-profit, FP: for-profit. NFP: not-for-profit, FP: for-profit. 2. 2. Materials Materials a and nd M Methods ethods Fr From t om the he available available f financial inancial and and legal legal in information, formation,the the fol following lowing e elements lementswer were r e reviewed: eviewed: • The list of entities in Hungary based on the principal operational activity code (TEÁOR) The list of entities in Hungary based on the principal operational activity code (TEÁOR) classification in the companies’ court register classification in the companies’ court register • Profitability review based on published financial statements Profitability review based on published financial statements • Certain aspects of the lease accounting regulation and comparison between the International Certain aspects of the lease accounting regulation and comparison between the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 16 Leases and the Hungarian Accounting Law Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 16 Leases and the Hungarian Accounting Law • Car-sharing companies’ fleet size, car-sharing costs, opinions of registered users in Hungary and Car-sharing companies’ fleet size, car-sharing costs, opinions of registered users in Hungary Germany. and Germany. Sustainability was reviewed on the basis of Penz et al. [32], exploring and explaining how, why, Sustainability was reviewed on the basis of Penz et al. [32], exploring and explaining how, and when a sustainable operation is adopted and participation in the sharing economy becomes key, why, and when a sustainable operation is adopted and participation in the sharing economy becomes as well as how sharing economy models and sustainability (sustainable sharing economy, SSE) key, as well as how sharing economy models and sustainability (sustainable sharing economy, SSE) correspond conceptually in the collected articles. Seven sustainability aspects were addressed, of correspond conceptually in the collected articles. Seven sustainability aspects were addressed, of which which four refer to car-sharing (Table 2). four refer to car-sharing (Table 2). Table 2. Sustainability aspects of car sharing. Producing Less “As cars stand idle 95% of the time, any sharing scheme that makes Idle Capacity and Under- cars accessible to non-owners would reduce the number of cars Utilized Physical Assets required for a given mileage level.” [33] Reduce Waste Resource Efficiency “Car sharing contributes to a more efficient and rational mobility (with through Using rather a lower number of vehicles per capita among members, lower demand than Owning Resources 2019, 8, 172 4 of 16 Table 2. Sustainability aspects of car sharing. Producing Less Idle Capacity and “As cars stand idle 95% of the time, any sharing scheme that makes cars accessible to Under-Utilized Physical Assets non-owners would reduce the number of cars required for a given mileage level.” [33] Reduce Waste “Car sharing contributes to a more ecient and rational mobility (with a lower Resource Eciency through number of vehicles per capita among members, lower demand for parking space, Using rather than Owning lower fixed costs, and a complement to public transport.” [34] Extended Use Pattern “Carbon dioxide emissions and copper usage decrease with the di usion of car- and Low Ecological Footprint/Low ride-sharing services.” [35]“With a lower consumption of physical and economic Carbon resources, car-sharing can also contribute to the reduction of energy and environmental impacts” Baptista et al. [34] Own Less, Interact More, Di erent studies document the high impact of car-sharing on car ownership. [36] Build Social Capital 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Free-Float Car-Sharing Business Models in Hungary and Germany Specific free-float service providers are defined as companies o ering the service of car-sharing, i.e., the use of vehicles that can be rented and parked freely throughout the entire business area without having to determine the start and the end of the rental period in advance. The beginning and end of the rent are established for all vehicles through a specific smartphone application. Payment is based on usage and according to a fixed minute rate. Comparing this market to the sharing economy review models, according to Codagnone and Martens [30] (Figure 1), free-float car-sharing entities are B2C entities focused on profitable operation, and this requires strict regulation (Table 1). This business model represents a di erent resource utilization with respect to P2P-based common sharing, which motivated us to perform a parallel profitability and sustainability review. To accurately identify all key free-float companies, the complete database of the firm registry was reviewed, considering the defined principal operational activity of each company. This classification (TEÁOR’08) is “identical and fully harmonized with the European one, NACE Rev.2. Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community, 2008 (Nomenclature des activités économiques dans les Communautés européennes) [37]. Based on Regulation 1893/2006/EC, with e ect from 1 January 2008, TEÁOR’08 is used to determine the principal activities of enterprises, in the calculation of economic and social indicators as well as for the publication of statistical data.” The car-sharing activities are classified under Section “N” as administrative and support service activities, in division 77, group 77.1, and class 77.11 “renting and leasing of cars and light motor vehicles”. From the registered Hungarian companies’ database, 362 companies were identified. This analysis covers all Hungarian operational entities. In order to include recently established objects, all companies above 10 sta headcounts were investigated, according to the EU commission-defined categories. On the basis of a detailed review, 28 companies were identified, as presented in Appendix A (Figure A1). According to the Hungarian Accounting Regulation Act C of 2000, in Hungary [38], companies need to file a financial statement by the end of the fifth month after the fiscal year. Consequently, the latest reports available were for 2017. From Appendix A, on the basis of their financial statements, as of April 2019, only 2 companies out of the total 28 entities, i.e., #11 GreenGo Car Europe Korlátolt Feleloss ˝ égu ˝ Társaság (hereinafter: GreenGo) and #20 MOL Limitless Mobility Korlátolt Feleloss ˝ égu ˝ Társaság (hereinafter: MOL LIMO), were real flee-float car-sharing companies, and both operate in Budapest. This list contained all free-float service providers but did not represent the total lease market, because financial lease activities are classified in a di erent statistical segment, in section K Financial and insurance activities, Resources 2019, 8, 172 5 of 16 divisions 64–66. It did, however, represent all non-micro-level free-float car-sharing companies. This is the consequence of the unclear current statistical data, which do not identify specific lease, rental, or free-float services. In the case of a larger population, it would be challenging to sort out such Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17 companies manually; sub-sections could be created to evaluate lease and rental services accurately in the statistical classification. In 2017 for Hungary, free-float car-sharing represented a 110.7 million the statistical classification. In 2017 for Hungary, free-float car-sharing represented a 110.7 million Hungarian forint (HUF) (¿358,300) market. Hungarian forint (HUF) (€358,300) market. In the analyzed group from the profitability perspective, it was visible that the free-float car-sharing In the analyzed group from the profitability perspective, it was visible that the free-float car- service providers delivered significantly worse results in Hungary compared to lease and rental service sharing service providers delivered significantly worse results in Hungary compared to lease and companies in 2017, as shown in Figure 2. rental service companies in 2017, as shown in Figure 2. Lease Free-float car share Car rental Car fleet provider -220.00% -180.00% -140.00% -100.00% -60.00% -20.00% 20.00% Free-float car Car fleet provider Car rental Lease share Average Profit before tax / revenue 3.32% 4.10% -205.65% 6.98% Figure 2. Changes in asset structure, GreenGo (2014–2017 in EUR) [39]. Figure 2. Changes in asset structure, GreenGo (2014–2017 in EUR) [39]. To gain a better understanding of the situation, each Hungarian free-float service was separately To gain a better understanding of the situation, each Hungarian free-float service was separately examined and later compared to German service providers. examined and later compared to German service providers. 3.1.1. Financial Statement Analysis and Review of the Financing Model 3.1.1. Financial Statement Analysis and Review of the Financing Model GreenGo was established in 2014 as the first free-float car-sharing service in the Hungarian market, GreenGo was established in 2014 as the first free-float car-sharing service in the Hungarian where it was the only market participant until 2017. The first day of real operation, when the company market, where it was the only market participant until 2017. The first day of real operation, when the started to provide services, was in November 2016, with 45 electric cars. company started to provide services, was in November 2016, with 45 electric cars. From the financial perspective, the assets and liabilities of the company looked as follows. Assets: From the financial perspective, the assets and liabilities of the company looked as follows. The long-term assets value continuously increased from HUF 69 M in 2019 to HUF 102 M on 2017, Assets: The long-term assets value continuously increased from HUF 69 M in 2019 to HUF 102 M on which consists of intangible assets of HUF 43 M, tangible assets of HUF 58 M, and other investments of 2017, which consists of intangible assets of HUF 43 M, tangible assets of HUF 58 M, and other HUF 1 M. This breakdown would give the reader important information if we included the published investments of HUF 1 M. This breakdown would give the reader important information if we data from January 2018 when GreenGo reported 168 vehicles, which in case of purchase, should be included the published data from January 2018 when GreenGo reported 168 vehicles, which in case recorded as property, plant, and equipment (PPE). It appears that HUF 58 M/168 vehicles = HUF 0.34 M of purchase, should be recorded as property, plant, and equipment (PPE). It appears that HUF 58 (approx. ¿1060) per car is a very unreasonable figure. The only reasonable explanation is if the company M/168 vehicles = HUF 0.34 M (approx. €1060) per car is a very unreasonable figure. The only applied operational leases, and these assets are o -balance-sheet financed items. Later in this review, reasonable explanation is if the company applied operational leases, and these assets are off-balance- this business model will be compared to that of the other Hungarian competitor. Below in Figure 3 is sheet financed items. Later in this review, this business model will be compared to that of the other a summary table related to the asset items for the period 2014–2017: Hungarian competitor. Below in Figure 3. is a summary table related to the asset items for the period 2014–2017: Resources 2019, 8, 172 6 of 16 Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17 Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17 900,000 € 900,000 € 811,250 € 800,000 € 811,250 € 800,000 € 700,000 € 700,000 € 600,000 € 600,000 € 500,000 € 500,000 € 400,000 € 400,000 € 268,999 € 300,000 € 186,455 € 268,999 € 186,455 € 300,000 € 200,000 € 95,958 € 200,000 € 30,049 € 100,000 € 95,958 € 30,049 € 15,358 € 100,000 € -€ 15,358 € -€ 2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 Property, plant and equipment Long term assets Total assets Property, plant and equipment Long term assets Total assets Figure 3. Changes in asset structure, GreenGo (2014–2017 in EUR) [39]. Figure 3. Changes in asset structure, GreenGo (2014–2017 in EUR) [39]. Figure 3. Changes in asset structure, GreenGo (2014–2017 in EUR) [39]. Liabilities, equity: The equity value remained relatively the same over 2016–2017, i.e., HUF 43 Liabilities, equity: The equity value remained relatively the same over 2016–2017, i.e., HUF Liabilities, equity: The equity value remained relatively the same over 2016–2017, i.e., HUF 43 M; however, the generated loss increased significantly from HUF 18 M (€59,000) to HUF 158 M 43 M; however, the generated loss increased significantly from HUF 18 M (¿59,000) to HUF 158 M M; however, the generated loss increased significantly from HUF 18 M (€59,000) to HUF 158 M (€512,600), which was compensated by the equity contribution from owners. The debt/equity ratio (¿512,600), which was compensated by the equity contribution from owners. The debt/equity ratio also (€512,600), which was compensated by the equity contribution from owners. The debt/equity ratio also significantly increased in relation to the liabilities increase by HUF 129.3 M, mainly as a result of significantly increased in relation to the liabilities increase by HUF 129.3 M, mainly as a result of the also significantly increased in relation to the liabilities increase by HUF 129.3 M, mainly as a result of the short-term shareholders’ loans of HUF 115 M and the long-term related parties’ credit of HUF 16 short-term shareholders’ loans of HUF 115 M and the long-term related parties’ credit of HUF 16 M. the short-term shareholders’ loans of HUF 115 M and the long-term related parties’ credit of HUF 16 M. Profit and loss statement: The realized revenue increased from the 2016 value of HUF 8 M Profit and loss statement: The realized revenue increased from the 2016 value of HUF 8 M (¿26,000) to M. Profit and loss statement: The realized revenue increased from the 2016 value of HUF 8 M (€26,000) to the 2017 value of HUF 111 M (€358,000), while the expenses increased from HUF 27 M to the 2017 value of HUF 111 M (¿358,000), while the expenses increased from HUF 27 M to HUF 275 M. (€26,000) to the 2017 value of HUF 111 M (€358,000), while the expenses increased from HUF 27 M to HUF 275 M. This was the principal reason for the generated loss as the company did not realize This was the principal reason for the generated loss as the company did not realize enough revenue to HUF 275 M. This was the principal reason for the generated loss as the company did not realize enough revenue to compensate for the increased material expenditures. Below in Figure 4 is a compensate for the increased material expenditures. Below in Figure 4 is a summary of the statement enough revenue to compensate for the increased material expenditures. Below in Figure 4 is a summary of the statement of profit and loss of GreenGo for the period of 2014–2017. of profit and loss of GreenGo for the period of 2014–2017. summary of the statement of profit and loss of GreenGo for the period of 2014–2017. 1,500 1,500 1,000 1,000 -500 -500 -1,000 -1,000 Long term Current assets Equity Profit after tax Long term Short-term Long term Current assets Equity Profit after tax Long term Short-term assets (profit + / loss- liabilities liabilities assets (profit + / loss- liabilities liabilities MOL GreenGo MOL GreenGo Figure 4. Comparison of assets and liabilities of MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39] Figure 4. Comparison of assets and liabilities of MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39] Figure 4. Comparison of assets and liabilities of MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39] In 2017, MOL Limo entered the market with secured funding from the listed Hungarian Oil- In 2017, MOL Limo entered the market with secured funding from the listed Hungarian Oil- In 2017, MOL Limo entered the market with secured funding from the listed Hungarian Oil-and-Gas and-Gas Company (whereas GreenGo owners are private investors). MOL Limo market presence did and-Gas Company (whereas GreenGo owners are private investors). MOL Limo market presence did Company (whereas GreenGo owners are private investors). MOL Limo market presence did not cause not cause the reported increasing loss of GreenGo, because, in 2017, it did not realize any revenue. In not cause the reported increasing loss of GreenGo, because, in 2017, it did not realize any revenue. In the reported increasing loss of GreenGo, because, in 2017, it did not realize any revenue. In Table 3, Table 3, a comparison between the profit and loss statements of these two entities is presented. Table 3, a comparison between the profit and loss statements of these two entities is presented. a comparison between the profit and loss statements of these two entities is presented. Table 3. Comparison of the profit and loss statement for MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39]. Table 3. Comparison of the profit and loss statement for MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39]. 2017 Statement of Profit and Loss and Other Comprehensive Income MOL GreenGo 2017 Statement of Profit and Loss and Other Comprehensive Income MOL (Data Translated to €) LiMo GreenGo (Data Translated to €) LiMo Revenue 0 374,391 Revenue 0 374,391 Results from operation (profit +/loss −) (EBIT) −215,512 −484,509 Results from operation (profit +/loss −) (EBIT) −215,512 −484,509 thousands of EUR thousands of EUR Resources 2019, 8, 172 7 of 16 Table 3. Comparison of the profit and loss statement for MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39]. Resources Resources 2019 2019 , 8 , , x FO 8, x FO R P R P EER EER RE RE VIEW VIEW 2017 Statement of Profit and Loss and Other 7 of 7 of 17 17 Resources Resources 2019 2019 , 8 , 8 , x FO , x FO R P R P EER EER RE RE VIEW VIEW 7 of 7 of 17 17 MOL LiMo GreenGo Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17 Comprehensive Income (Data Translated to ¿) Revenue 0 374,391 Res Res uu ltlt s sfrom fin from fin aa nci nci aa l lact act ivit ivit ies (prof ies (prof iti +/ t +/ los los s s− − ) ) −− 939 939 2 2 −− 27 27 ,40 ,40 88 Res Res uu ltlt ss from fin from fin aa nci nci aa l lact act ivit ivit ies (prof ies (prof iti +/ t +/ los los ss − − ) ) −− 939 939 2 2 −− 27 27 ,40 ,40 88 Results from financial activities (profit +/loss −) −9392 −27,408 Results from operation (profit +/loss) (EBIT) 215,512 484,509 Profit before tax (profit +/loss −) −224,904 −511,918 Profit before tax (profit +/loss −) −224,904 −511,918 Prof Prof itit before before t t aa x (pr x (pr oo fifti +/ t +/ lo lo ss ss −− ) ) −− 224 224 ,9 ,9 04 04 −− 511 511 ,9 ,9 18 18 Results from financial activities (profit +/loss) 9392 27,408 Profit before tax (profit +/loss −) −224,904 −511,918 Profit before tax (profit +/loss) 224,904 511,918 M M O O LL Li Li mo mo ge ge ne ne ra ra te te d a si d a si gni gni fica fica nn tly tly hi hi ghe ghe r l r l oo ss s scomp comp ared ared to Green to Green Go, but Go, but 2017 2017 was the y was the y ee ar ar of of M M O O LL Li Li mo mo ge ge ne ne ra ra te te d a si d a si gni gni fica fica nn tly tly hi hi ghe ghe r l r l oo ss ss comp comp ared ared to Green to Green Go, but Go, but 2017 2017 was the y was the y ee ar ar of of MOL Limo generated a significantly higher loss compared to GreenGo, but 2017 was the year of its establishment, with a large scale of operation and considerable fleet investment, as presented in its establishment, with a large scale of operation and considerable fleet investment, as presented in its estab its estab lishment, with a lishment, with a large sc large sc ale o ale o f o f o pp eration eration and consider and consider able fleet investment, able fleet investment, as as pre pre ss en en ted ted in in MOL Limo generated a significantly higher loss compared to GreenGo, but 2017 was the year its establishment, with a large scale of operation and considerable fleet investment, as presented in Table Table 3 3 . The . The dif dif ference ference in in ass ass ee t va t va lue lue i i s srel rel aa te te d t d t oo a a sp sp ecif ecif ic ic accou accou nn titng re ing re gu gu lat lat ion di ion di ffe ffe rence rence in l in l ee aa se se Table Table 3 3 . The . The dif dif ference ference in in ass ass ee t va t va lue lue i i ss rel rel aa te te d t d t oo a a ss pp ecif ecif ic ic accou accou nn titng re ing re gu gu lat lat ion di ion di ffe ffe rence rence in l in l ee aa ss ee of its establishment, with a large scale of operation and considerable fleet investment, as presented Table 3. The difference in asset value is related to a specific accounting regulation difference in lease accounting. MOL Limo prepared an IFRS-based financial statement, and GreenGo prepared a accounting. MOL Limo prepared an IFRS-based financial statement, and GreenGo prepared a account accountiningg. . MOL L MOL Lim imoo pprep repared ared an an IFR IFRSS-b-base asedd fin finaanci nciaal st l statatem ement ent, an , and d GGreenG reenGoo p prereppared ared a a in Table 3. The di erence in asset value is related to a specific accounting regulation di erence in accounting. MOL Limo prepared an IFRS-based financial statement, and GreenGo prepared a sisi mpli mpli fifi ed nati ed nati ona ona l a l a ccou ccou nn titi ng- ng- bb ased ased fifna ina ncia ncia l report. l report. si si mpli mpli fifi ed nati ed nati ona ona l a l a ccou ccou nn titi ng- ng- bb ased ased fifna ina ncia ncia l report. l report. lease accounting. MOL Limo prepared an IFRS-based financial statement, and GreenGo prepared simplified national accounting-based financial report. From the operation perspective, it is essential to mention that GreenGo only uses electric vehicles From the operation perspective, it is essential to mention that GreenGo only uses electric vehicles From t From t hh e operat e operat ion per ion per ss pe pe ct ct ive, it ive, it i i ss ess ess ee nt nt ial t ial t oo mention that GreenGo only uses mention that GreenGo only uses electric veh electric veh icles icles a simplified national accounting-based financial report. From the operation perspective, it is essential to mention that GreenGo only uses electric vehicles differently differently frfrom MOL om MOL Limo. The total n Limo. The total nuumber o mber of f 400 e 400 electric lectric vehic vehicles operated les operated by th by these two ese two differently differently frfrom MOL om MOL Limo. The total n Limo. The total nuumber o mber of f 400 e 400 electric lectric vehic vehicles operated les operated by th by these two ese two From the operation perspective, it is essential to mention that GreenGo only uses electric vehicles differently from MOL Limo. The total number of 400 electric vehicles operated by these two companies represents approx. 10% of the registered fully electric (excluding hybrids) cars in companies represents approx. 10% of the registered fully electric (excluding hybrids) cars in companies companies rerepresents presents approx. 10% of the register approx. 10% of the registered ed fu fulllly elec y electrtic (excl ric (excluudding hybrid ing hybrids) s) cars cars inin di erently from MOL Limo. The total number of 400 electric vehicles operated by these two companies companies represents approx. 10% of the registered fully electric (excluding hybrids) cars in Hung Hung ary ary , a , a s sp p resent resent ee d in d in Tab Tab le le 4. It 4. It sh sh ould ould al al so b so b ee highl highl ight ight ee d t d t hh at at hyb hyb rid v rid v ee hicle hicle s incre s incre aa se se d m d m oo re re Hung Hung ary ary , a , a ss p p resent resent ee d in d in Tab Tab le le 4. It 4. It sh sh ould ould al al so b so b ee highl highl ight ight ee d t d t hh at at hyb hyb rid v rid v ee hicle hicle ss incre incre aa ss ee d m d m oo re re represents approx. 10% of the registered fully electric (excluding hybrids) cars in Hungary, as presented Hungary, as presented in Table 4. It should also be highlighted that hybrid vehicles increased more significantly in Hungary compared to fully electric ones from 2017 to 2018. This trend seems to significantly in Hungary compared to fully electric ones from 2017 to 2018. This trend seems to sign significant ificant ly ly in Hun in Hunggar ary y compared to compared to fully e fully electric lectric ones f ones from 20 rom 2017 17 to 20 to 2018 18. . Thi Thiss trend seems to trend seems to in Table 4. It should also be highlighted that hybrid vehicles increased more significantly in Hungary significantly in Hungary compared to fully electric ones from 2017 to 2018. This trend seems to cont cont inue inue and and could could be be a s a s uu bject bject of f of f uu tu tu re re invest invest ig ig at at io io n. n. cont cont inue inue and and could could be be a s a s uu bject bject of f of f uu tu tu re re invest invest ig ig at at io io n. n. compared to fully electric ones from 2017 to 2018. This trend seems to continue and could be a subject continue and could be a subject of future investigation. of future investigation. Table 4. Table 4. Regi Regi st st ered ele ered ele ctric ve ctric ve hicles hicles in Hungary and comparison MOL in Hungary and comparison MOL LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39 LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39 ]. ]. Table 4. Table 4. Regi Regi st st ered ele ered ele cc tric ve tric ve hicles hicles in Hungary and comparison MOL in Hungary and comparison MOL LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39 LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39 ]. ]. Table 4. Registered electric vehicles in Hungary and comparison MOL LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39]. Table 4. Registered electric vehicles in Hungary and comparison MOL LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39]. Description 2017 2018 Description 2017 2018 Description 2017 2018 Description 2017 2018 Description 2017 2018 Registered number of vehicles in Hungary 3,471,997 3,641,823 Registered number of vehicles in Hungary 3,471,997 3,641,823 Reg Reg ist ist ered ered n n uu m m bb er of er of v v ee hh icle icle ss in in H H uu ng ng ary ary 3, 3, 47 47 1, 1, 99 99 77 3, 3, 64 64 1, 1, 88 22 33 Description 2017 2018 Registered number of vehicles in Hungary 3,471,997 3,641,823 Bud Bud aa pp ee st st t t oo ta ta l num l num bb er er of of r r ee gist gist ere ere dd v v ee hh icle icle s s 63 63 3, 3, 55 55 44 65 65 9, 9, 55 11 33 Bud Bud aa pp ee st st t t oo ta ta l num l num bb er er of of r r ee gist gist ere ere dd v v ee hh icle icle ss 63 63 3, 3, 55 55 44 65 65 9, 9, 55 11 33 Budapest total number of registered vehicles 633,554 659,513 Registered number of vehicles in Hungary 3,471,997 3,641,823 Registered “green plate” vehicles in Hungary 4543 8482 Registered “green plate” vehicles in Hungary 4543 8482 R R ee gi gi stered “green pla stered “green pla te” vehi te” vehi cl cl es es in in Hunga Hunga ry ry 44 543 543 88 482 482 Budapest total number of registered vehicles 633,554 659,513 Registered “green plate” vehicles in Hungary 4543 8482 RR ee gi gi stered hybri stered hybri dd vehi vehi cl cl es es in in Hunga Hunga ry ry 22 414 414 44 709 709 R R ee gi gi stered hybri stered hybri dd vehi vehi cl cl es es in in Hunga Hunga ry ry 22 414 414 44 709 709 Registered “green plate” vehicles in Hungary 4543 8482 Registered hybrid vehicles in Hungary 2414 4709 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 Registered hybrid vehicles in Hungary 2414 4709 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 GreenGo f GreenGo f leet leet 11 68 68 33 00 00 GreenGo f GreenGo f leet leet 11 68 68 33 00 00 GreenGo fleet 168 300 GreenGo fleet 168 300 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 GreenGo and GreenGo and MOL MOL fle fle ee t electric vehic t electric vehic le le s s 268 268 400 400 GreenGo and GreenGo and MOL MOL fle fle ee t electric vehic t electric vehic le le ss 268 268 400 400 GreenGo and MOL fleet electric vehicles 268 400 GreenGo and MOL fleet electric vehicles 268 400 Car-sharing % of electric vehicles in Hungary 12.59% 10.6% Car-sharing % of electric vehicles in Hungary 12.59% 10.6% Car-sharing % of electric vehicles in Hungary 12.59% 10.6% Car-sharing % of e Car-sharing lectric% ve of hicle electric s invehicles Hungar in y Hungary 12.512.59% 9% 1010.6% .6% Car-sharing % of electric vehicles in Hungary 12.59% 10.6% 3. 3. 1. 1. 2. Lea 2. Lea se A se A ccount ccount ing ing D D ififference ference s s 3. 3. 1. 1. 2. Lea 2. Lea ss e A e A ccount ccount ing ing D D ifif ference ference ss 3.1.2. Lease Accounting Di erences 3.1.2. Lease Accounting Differences Lea Lea se a se a ccounti ccounti ng i ng i s ssignif signif ica ica nn tltl y di y di ffff erent i erent i nn th th e C Act of e C Act of 20 20 00 00 compa compa red to IFR red to IFR SS . Accordi . Accordi nn g to g to Lease accounting is significantly different in the C Act of 2000 compared to IFRS. According to Lease accounting is significantly different in the C Act of 2000 compared to IFRS. According to Lease accounting is significantly di erent in the C Act of 2000 compared to IFRS. According to Lease accounting is significantly different in the C Act of 2000 compared to IFRS. According to Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) and IF and IFRS, th RS, the definition e definition of le of lease is ase is different, different, an and other d other Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) and IF and IFRS, th RS, the definition e definition of le of lease is ase is different, different, an and other d other Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) and IFRS, the definition of lease is di erent, and other fundamental Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) and IFRS, the definition of lease is different, and other fund fund ament ament aa l l account account in in gg di di ffer ffer ee nce reg nce reg aa rd rd , for ex , for ex ampl ampl e, operat e, operat ing lease ing lease s, wh s, wh ich ich are not re are not re quir quir ed by ed by fundamental accounting difference regard, for example, operating leases, which are not required by fundamental accounting difference regard, for example, operating leases, which are not required by accounting di erence regard, for example, operating leases, which are not required by HAL to be fundamental accounting difference regard, for example, operating leases, which are not required by HAL HAL to be to be re re corded corded in in the balance the balance sh sh ee ee t, as t, as shown shown in Ta in Ta ble ble 55 . Al . Al so, so, i i nn the disclosu the disclosu re req re req uu iriements, rements, HAL HAL to be to be re re corded corded in in the balance the balance sh sh ee ee t, as t, as shown shown in Ta in Ta ble ble 55 . Al . Al so, so, i i nn the disclosu the disclosu re req re req uu ir iements, rements, recorded in the balance sheet, as shown in Table 5. Also, in the disclosure requirements, as in the HAL to be recorded in the balance sheet, as shown in Table 5. Also, in the disclosure requirements, as as in t in t hh ee HA HA L-ba L-ba sed sed fin fin aa ncia ncia l st l st atat eme eme nn tst, oper s, oper atat ioio nal nal le le ase ase s on s on ly ly appea appea r in r in t hth e profit e profit an an d los d los s s as as in t in thhee HA HAL-ba L-based sed fin finaancia ncial st l statateme emenntsts, oper , operatatioional nal le lease asess on only ly appea appear in r in th the profit e profit an and los d losss HAL-based financial statements, operational leases only appear in the profit and loss statement. as in the HAL-based financial statements, operational leases only appear in the profit and loss statement. statement. statement. statement. statement. Table 5. Comparison of operational lease accounting between the Hungarian Accounting Law and Table 5 Table 5 . .Com Com pp arison o arison o f operational f operational lea lea se s ac e ac co co uu nn ting ting between the between the Hungarian Accountin Hungarian Accountin gg Law Law and and Table 5 Table 5 . .Com Com pp arison o arison o f operational f operational lea lea se se ac ac co co uu nn ting ting between the between the Hungarian Accountin Hungarian Accountin gg Law Law and and IFRS 16 from the lessee perspective. Table 5. Comparison of operational lease accounting between the Hungarian Accounting Law and IFRS 16 from t IFRS 16 from t hh e lessee e lessee persp persp ective ective . . IFRS 16 from t IFRS 16 from t hh e lessee e lessee persp persp ee ctive ctive . . IFRS 16 from the lessee perspective. Hungarian Accounting Law IFRS 16 Denomination Hungarian A Hungarian A ccounting ccounting Law Law IFRS 16 IFRS 16 Hungarian A Hungarian A ccounting ccounting Law Law IFRS 16 IFRS 16 Den Den oo min min aa tio tio nn Hungarian Accounting Law IFRS 16 Den Den oo min min aa tio tio nn Finance Leases Operating Leases All Leases Finance Leas Finance Leas es es Oper Oper at at ing ing Le Le ases ases All All Le Le as as es es Denomination Finance Leas Finance Leas es es Oper Oper at at ing ing Le Le ases ases All All Le Le as as es es Finance Leases Operating Leases All Leases Assets Assets Assets - — -- --- Assets Assets --- --- Assets --- Liab Liab ilil itit ies ies --- --- Liab Liab ilil itit ies ies Liabilities - — -- --- Liabilities --- Off-b Off-b al al ance ance s s hh eet eet right right s/ so /o bb lig lig at at ion ion s s --- --- --- --- O -balance sheet Off-b Off-b al al ance ance s s hh eet eet right right ss /o /o bb lig lig at at ion ion ss --- --- --- --- — — Off-balance sheet rights/obligations --- --- rights/obligations IFRS IFRS 16 ke 16 ke y o y o bb jective was t jective was t oo record record the o the o pp eratio eratio na na l l l l ee ase commi ase commi tted ri tted ri ghts ghts (r (irg ig hts of use, hts of use, RR O O U) U) IFRS IFRS 16 ke 16 ke y o y o bb jective was t jective was t oo record record the o the o pp eratio eratio na na l l l l ee ase commi ase commi tted ri tted ri ghts ghts (r (i rg ig hts of use, hts of use, R R O O U) U) IFRS 16 key objective was to record the operational lease committed rights (rights of use, ROU) aa s sa a ssets ssets aa nn d commi d commi tted l tted l iaia bb iliiltiiteie s to reduce the of s to reduce the of f-balance sh f-balance sh eet items. eet items. Fo Fo r the enti r the enti titi es rep es rep oo rti rti nn g g aa ss a a ss sets sets aa nn d commi d commi tted l tted l ia ia bb iliiltiite ie s to reduce the of s to reduce the of f-balance sh f-balance sh eet items. eet items. Fo Fo r the enti r the enti titi es rep es rep oo rti rti nn g g as assets and committed liabilities to reduce the off-balance sheet items. For the entities reporting uu nn der HAL regu der HAL regu la la titi on, on, this is not this is not a a re re qq uu irement irement , ,an an d in d in ca ca se o se o f fa a nn indepen indepen dd en en t fin t fin aa nci nci aa l l an an aly aly sissi or s or uu nn der HAL regu der HAL regu la la titi on, on, this is not this is not a a re re qq uu irement irement , ,an an d in d in ca ca se o se o f fa a nn indepen indepen dd en en t fin t fin aa nci nci aa l l an an aly aly ss is is or or under HAL regulation, this is not a requirement, and in case of an independent financial analysis or aa credi credi t strength testi t strength testi nn g, they ca g, they ca n be i n be i nn visi visi bl bl e. Th e. Th e rec e rec oo rded off-b rded off-b alance sh alance sh eet value c eet value c aa n be sig n be sig nn ificant ificant aa credi credi t strength testi t strength testi nn g, they ca g, they ca n be i n be i nn visi visi bl bl e. Th e. Th e rec e rec oo rded off-b rded off-b alance sh alance sh eet value c eet value c aa n be sig n be sig nn ificant ificant a credit strength testing, they can be invisible. The recorded off-balance sheet value can be significant from from a credit a credit or’s or or’s or fin fin aa nc nc ial an ial an alysis’ p alysis’ p oo int of int of view view . GreenGo . GreenGo rep rep oo rted rted und und ee r HAL reg r HAL reg uu lation, lation, where where from from a credit a credit or’s or or’s or fin fin aa nc nc ial an ial an alysis’ p alysis’ p oo int of int of view view . GreenGo . GreenGo rep rep oo rted rted und und ee r HAL reg r HAL reg u u lation, lation, where where from a creditor’s or financial analysis’ point of view. GreenGo reported under HAL regulation, where ththe op e operat eratioional nal l leeaases ses asas of off-b f-balalance ance sheet sheet ititem ems s mmight ight cre creaatete a a b buusine sinessss adv advaantntage age f from rom t thhe e ththe op e operat eratioional nal l leeaasseses asas of off-b f-balalance ance sheet sheet ititem ems s mmight ight cre creaatete a a b buusine sinessss adv advaantntage age f from rom t thhe e the operational leases as off-balance sheet items might create a business advantage from the Resources 2019, 8, 172 8 of 16 IFRS 16 key objective was to record the operational lease committed rights (rights of use, ROU) as assets and committed liabilities to reduce the off-balance sheet items. For the entities reporting under HAL regulation, this is not a requirement, and in case of an independent financial analysis or a credit strength testing, they can be invisible. The recorded off-balance sheet value can be significant from a creditor’s or financial analysis’ point of view. GreenGo reported under HAL regulation, where the operational leases as off-balance sheet items might create a business advantage from the presentation perspective because the leverage ratio does not show the total minimum of liabilities from the lease obligations. 3.1.3. Comparison to German Entities Germany has the most significant car-sharing market in Europe, with several service providers and over 30,000 registered users, as summarized below in Table 6 in comparison to Hungary. Table 6. Comparison of German and Hungarian entities’ published users, fleet size, and serviced cities. Service Available in the Provider’s Name Registered Users Fleet Size Number of Cities Free-float car share providers in Germany Share Now (car2go and DriveNow) 3,000,000+ 20,000+ out of 3200+ electric 31 Flinkster (DB) 315,000 4000 300 Cambio 77,000 1600 22 Stadtmobil 63,000 2600 100 Book N Drive 43,000 1015 14 teilAuto 35,000 1000 19 Free-float car share providers in Hungary GreenGo (HUN) 30–40,000 300 electric 1 MOL LIMO (HUN) 40,000 100 electric350 petrol 1 From this table, it can be concluded that German free-float car-sharing companies operate significantly larger fleets and have a substantially larger number of registered users in absolute terms. Hungarian companies operate only in one city, namely, Budapest, with a total of 750 vehicles for a 525 km city area, where the population is approx. 1.75 M. In contrast, only one company, ShareNow, operates approx. 4000 cars in Berlin for an 891 km city area with a 3.6 M population. For additional comparison, in the capital city in the region with the most similar population, Vienna, only ShareNow operates, with 2000+ vehicles for a 1.8 M population and a 415 km city area. The service fees can also be compared, because in April 2019, ShareNow announced to extend the operation in Budapest as well, with approx. 240 vehicles (of which, 40 electric BMW i3). Table 7 shows the fee and car type comparison. Table 7. Comparison of free-float service costs between ShareNow, MOL Limo, and GreenGo (2019) [39–41]. Provider’s Name Service Fee Car Type Additional Conditions ShareNow (BMW and Daimler) from 99 HUF/min (0.32 cent/min) Mini, BMW 38.7 ¿/h GreenGo from 65 HUF/min (0.21 cent/min) VW Up MOL LIMO from 66 HUF/min (0.21 cent/mind) VW Up, Mercedes A class ShareNow provides services across the EU and, in 2019, established the most significant European fleet; additionally, it published a plan to invest further ¿1 billion. With 20,000+ vehicles, joint companies operate in 24 countries globally. It is only a matter of time to utilize the economies-of-scale advantage and provide service in all European countries. A coverage map for Car2Go and DriveNow is shown in Figure 5. From the operation and financial analysis perspectives, an apparent market concentration is happening now in Europe, which is a successful business model. Without doubts, it supports sustainability; however, there is no core sustainability element in this business model. The more effective utilization of the resources has an impact on sustainability, but it is based on a usual corporate profit model. Resources 2019, 8, 172 9 of 16 Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17 Figure 5. Car2Go and DriveNow joint coverage. Figure 5. Car2Go and DriveNow joint coverage. From the operation and financial analysis perspectives, an apparent market concentration is 3.2. Sustainability happening now in Europe, which is a successful business model. Without doubts, it supports From the sustainability perspective (Table 2), three statements (out of a total of seven) appeared in sustainability; however, there is no core sustainability element in this business model. The more the ocial communications of the reviewed companies, presented in Table 8. effective utilization of the resources has an impact on sustainability, but it is based on a usual corporate profit model. Table 8. Sustainability-related aspects of car-sharing [32,39–41]. Sustainability-Related 3.2. Sustainability GreenGo MOL Limo BMW DriveNow Daimler Car2Go Aspects of Car-Sharing From the sustainability perspective (Table 2), three statements (out of a tota The slm of ar seven) t ForTwo c a an ppea fit red in almost any parking spot in the official communications of the reviewed companies, presented in Table 8. Resource eciency There is less of an emphasis on parking Digital parking and can maneuver around through using rather infrastructure and road expansion service Park Now even the most intense than owning downtown rush hour Table 8. Sustainability-related aspects of car-sharing [32,39–41]. traffic jams. The VW MOL Limo fleet Sustainability- 900 Electric is 450-strong (100 BMW Low ecological 300 electric * cars vehicles in Europe, Related Aspects of GreenGo MOL Limo Daimler Car2Go electrical and 350 footprint/low carbon 1300 in the USA DriveNow gas-powered vehicles) Car-Sharing Shared cars are smaller than those in the The smart ForTwo can fit average household. in almost any parking Own less, interact more, Over 50% of Car2Go Resource efficiency There is less of an emphasis on Digit Digital al p networking arking build social capital members do not own a car. spot and can maneuver through using parking infrastructure and service Park * Electric cars have two main advantages: unlike gasoline, electricity can be generated from various sources including around even the most rather tha renewable n owni ones, ng and electric vehicles road expansion can reduce urban air pollution from Now road transportation. “However, while intense downtown rush electric cars can reduce gasoline use, they increase electricity consumption. Depending on how the electricity is generated, emissions of particular air pollutants may reduce or increase” [42]. In Appendix B (Table A1), we list the hour traffic jams. vital sustainability-related statements from car2go and DriveNow sustainability reports; the reviewed sustainability The VW MOL reports are all related to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) orientation. Limo fleet is 900 Electric 450-strong 3.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process 300 electric * vehicles in (100 electrical cars Europe, 1300 in Low ecolo To resolve gic the al lack of reconciliation between financial and sustainability reporting, potential and 350 gas- decision-support models, such as the analytic hierarchy process the USA model, can be utilized to present the footprint/low powered connection carbon between the di erent reporting systems. It is crucial to determine the factors and to apply vehicles) proper weights for the specific items. To measure impacts, the method of the analytic hierarchy process Shared cars are smaller than (AHP) was used, where the weights of the factors were identified in order from the most to the least those in the average significant from the investor decision’s perspective. household. When constructing the decision-making environment, it is crucial to identify issues or attributes Own less, interact Over 50% of Car2Go that may be helpful [43,44], which brings the disharmony of traditional financial performance measuring Digital more, build social members do not own a networking capital car. Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17 * Electric cars have two main advantages: unlike gasoline, electricity can be generated from various sources including renewable ones, and electric vehicles can reduce urban air pollution from road transportation. “However, while electric cars can reduce gasoline use, they increase electricity consumption. Depending on how the electricity is generated, emissions of particular air pollutants may reduce or increase” [42]. In Appendix B (Table A1), we list the vital sustainability-related statements from car2go and DriveNow sustainability reports; the reviewed sustainability reports are all related to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) orientation. 3.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process To resolve the lack of reconciliation between financial and sustainability reporting, potential decision-support models, such as the analytic hierarchy process model, can be utilized to present the connection between the different reporting systems. It is crucial to determine the factors and to apply proper weights for the specific items. To measure impacts, the method of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used, where the weights of the factors were identified in order from the most to Resourthe l ces 2019 east si , 8, 172 gnificant from the investor decision’s perspective. 10 of 16 When constructing the decision-making environment, it is crucial to identify issues or attributes that may be helpful [43,44], which brings the disharmony of traditional financial performance attributes and sustainability aspects into perspective. The AHP theory aims to find the preferable measuring attributes and sustainability aspects into perspective. The AHP theory aims to find the alternative by weighing the priorities of the involved factors on a 1–9 scale (1: equal importance, preferable alternative by weighing the priorities of the involved factors on a 1–9 scale (1: equal 9: higher impoimportance rtance, 9: higher withim respect portance wit to another h resp component) ect to another com and carrying ponent) a out nd pairwise carrying out pa comparisons irwise and comparisons and standardization of the results to validate the overall ranking of factors [43,44]. standardization of the results to validate the overall ranking of factors [43,44]. Considering the findings Considering the findings of the current study, six elements were selected and weighed (w), as shown of the current study, six elements were selected and weighed (w), as shown in Figure 6. in Figure 6. Company valuation by investors Total assets Profitability Cash flows Sustainability Large company Medium/small company w: 5 w: 8 w: 6 w:1 w: 3 w: 3 Figure 6. Decision factors and assumed weights. Figure 6. Decision factors and assumed weights. In the analysis process, pairwise comparisons were developed for each criterion using linear In the analysis process, pairwise comparisons were developed for each criterion using linear integer scaling, summarized in a 6 × 6 matrix, which was then normalized using natural logarithms integer scaling, summarized in a 6 6 matrix, which was then normalized using natural logarithms (ln (𝐴 )) [45]. Using the AHP template and methodology of Goepel [46], the results were then averaged (ln(A)) [45]. Using the AHP template and methodology of Goepel [46], the results were then averaged by rows, and the impacts were measured by the Eigenvector method (EVM). The summary matrix is by rows, and the impacts were measured by the Eigenvector method (EVM). The summary matrix is presented in Figure 7. presented in Figure 7. Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17 Figure 7. Summary of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) matrix. Figure 7. Summary of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) matrix. Additionally, the Eigenvalue (or 𝜆 , consistency measure), the consistency index (CI), the mean Additionally, the Eigenvalue (or , consistency measure), the consistency index (CI), the mean relative error (MRE) of the weights, and the consistency ratio (CR) were calculated [47]. If the relative error (MRE) of the weights, and the consistency ratio (CR) were calculated [47]. If the Eigenvalue (the matrix product of normalized principal Eigenvectors) equals the sample size (6), Eigenvalue (the matrix product of normalized principal Eigenvectors) equals the sample size (6), perfect consistency can be identified (𝜆= 𝑛 ), which in our case corresponds to the value of 6.091. perfect consistency can be identified ( = n), which in our case corresponds to the value of 6.091. The priorities pi in the input matrix were transformed into a near-consistent model using the The priorities pi in the input matrix were transformed into a near-consistent model using the EVM. EVM. In the pairwise n × n comparison matrix 𝐴= 𝑎 , where 𝛺 ,𝛺 ,…, 𝛺 are comparable elements In the pairwise n n comparison matrix A = a , where W , W ,::: , W are comparable elements with i j 1 2 n with a positive numerical value, the transformation procedure is as follows: a positive numerical value, the transformation procedure is as follows: () () 𝑤 ,…, 𝑤 … ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ … (1) measurement () () 8 9 8 9 𝑤 ,…, 𝑤 (1) (n) > > > > > > W w ,::: , w procedure > 1 > > > 1 1 > > > > < = < = With the use of EVM, the measuring procedure can be adapted to pairwise comparisons: ::: ! ::: (1) > > > > > > > > > > > > ∑ : ; > > 𝑎 𝑤 =𝜆 𝑤 ,𝑖 = 1,…,𝑛 , where 𝜆 𝑤 are the princ (1) ipal Eigenvectors (n) [48]. : ; w ,::: , w n n The normalization process is as follows: 𝑝 =𝑟 /𝑟 (2) The CI was calculated by: (𝜆 − 𝑛) CI = = 0.18% (3) 𝑛− 1 Error calculation of the priority vector 𝑤 with the used EVM followed: 1 𝑛 𝛥𝑤 = ( 𝑎 𝑤 −𝑤 ) ,𝑖 = 1,…,𝑛 = 19.0% (4) 𝑛− 1 𝜆 In the CR, the Alonson/Lamata linear fit was used: CR = =1,4% [47]. ,, From the hierarchical structure and from the potential AHP model presented in Figure 7, profitability remains the most significant factor in an investor company valuation with a normalized principal Eigenvector of 41.3%, followed by the cash flows (22.3%) and total assets (18.2%). From the investor decision’s perspective, as long as sustainability reporting does not harmonize with financial reporting, the sustainability aspects tend to have a low impact factor (4.4%). In conclusion, the AHP statistical method is usable for the prioritization of factors, but it should be emphasized that the applied weights of the factors can be depend on subjective evaluations. 4. Conclusions Resources 2019, 8, 172 11 of 16 with the use of EVM, the measuring procedure can be adapted to pairwise comparisons: a w = ik k k=1 w , i = 1,::: , n, where  w are the principal Eigenvectors [48]. max max i i The normalization process is as follows: p = r / r (2) i 1 i i=1 The CI was calculated by: ( n) CI = = 0.18% (3) n 1 Error calculation of the priority vector w with the used EVM followed: 1 n Dw = ( a w w ) , i = 1,::: , n = 19.0% (4) i ik k i n 1 k=1 In the CR, the Alonson/Lamata linear fit was used: CR = = 1.4% [47]. 2,7699n4,3513n From the hierarchical structure and from the potential AHP model presented in Figure 7, profitability remains the most significant factor in an investor company valuation with a normalized principal Eigenvector of 41.3%, followed by the cash flows (22.3%) and total assets (18.2%). From the investor decision’s perspective, as long as sustainability reporting does not harmonize with financial reporting, the sustainability aspects tend to have a low impact factor (4.4%). In conclusion, the AHP statistical method is usable for the prioritization of factors, but it should be emphasized that the applied weights of the factors can be depend on subjective evaluations. 4. Conclusions From the financial and sustainability reports, the following conclusions can be made related to the Hungarian free-float car-sharing market: 1. The market competition is increasing, and Hungarian companies have so far generated only losses from the financial statement’s perspective and are not competitive with respect to their German counterparts. Market concentration seems to be increasing since the end of April 2019, when ShareNow started to provide services in Hungary. Additionally, we found that the reviewed companies follow a business model and not a sustainability model. Tóth et al. [49] defined truly responsible enterprises and developed a sustainability ranking model based on three key aspects i.e., local economic role, environmental impact, and social responsibility, which are measured on a five-point scale, ranging from destructive to sustaining operations. From the environmental impact and social responsibility perspectives, car-sharing entities may be considered even as sustaining or public-spirited entities, but with the international market concentration, their local economic role is reduced; solutions should be found to achieve a more sustainable operation. 2. From the statistical data collection’s perspective, on the EU level, a separate car-sharing sub-category should be created because, at the moment, rental and lease companies are not separated in statistical reports. 3. In the reviewed sustainability reports, four areas were compared for Car2go and DriveNow, as follows: (a) new business model; (b) geographic expansion; (c) public transport; (d) electric vehicles. The basic idea of sustainable mobility is simple: “We need to shape our city mobility in such a way that the ease and safety of our everyday movements now and in the future will not diminish but grow, and the quality of life will not suffer but improve for us and for the generations to come” [50]. For sustainability achievement, three key areas can be defined as the targeted goals for the reviewed entities: (a) Efficiency of resource utilization, (b) Low carbon footprint, and (c) Build of social capital. Resources 2019, 8, 172 12 of 16 Sustainability reports in the examined sample cannot be connected to the financial statements, whereas harmonization is essential and should be a subject of future studies. 4. This study provides additional information and evidence regarding financial and sustainability report harmonization, confirming the “importance of environmental accounting on financial performance” [51,52] and policy development in the car-sharing industry. 5. Future research studies can focus on harmonization development between the di erent reporting standards and the next harmonization steps planned by the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) in this area. 6. Considering the available information and the early stage of harmonization, this paper has certain limitations. We concluded that no clear connection exists between financial and sustainability reporting, but we could not precisely link those reporting standards; financial statements were only available until 2017. Author Contributions: A.T. and C.S. initiated the study and performed the conceptualization, A.T. prepared the literature review, designed the methodology and collected the data, C.S. validated the results, A.T. and C.S. wrote the paper. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: Data collection, analysis, and administrative support received from the “Research Center of Vehicle Industry” at Széchenyi István University (JKK). Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17 Figure A1. TEÁOR 77.11 main renting or lease activity of companies with at least 10 staff headcounts Figure A1. TEÁOR 77.11 main renting or lease activity of companies with at least 10 sta headcounts in Hungary [25]. in Hungary [25]. Appendix B Table A1. Aspects of the sustainable sharing economy (SSE) [40,41]. BMW Daimler “The focus will continue to be placed on the development, production, and sale of vehicles, “Transport infrastructure and transport systems New with a wide range of innovative frequently operate at their limits, especially in urban business mobility services on top.” (p. 11) areas. That is why Daimler has developed a range of model “Providing opportunities to test pioneering mobility concepts.” ([41], p. 55) the BMW i3 as part of our DriveNow car-sharing scheme.” ([40], p. 60) “DriveNow is currently “The 300 new vehicles are being used in Berlin, and available in 13 European cities. additional models will also be introduced to other cities in On 8 April 2016, the BMW the future.” “In 2016, car2go launched in the Chinese Geographic Group launched an advanced megacity of Chongqing with the brand suffix “JíXíng” expansion car-sharing program in the USA (roughly translated as: “drive off immediately”). “car2go under the name ReachNow.” is the first international company to implement the free- ([40], p. 73) floating car-sharing concept in China.” ([41], p. 55) “DriveNow in Copenhagen is operated by the city’s public transport company Arriva. With “From the car-sharing provider car2go and the mobility Public their “Rejsekort,” a card for platform Moovel to the taxi app Mytaxi, the coach transport almost all mobility services in company Flixbus, and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) the whole of Denmark, users system.” ([41], p. 55) also gain access to DriveNow. ([40], p. 74) Resources 2019, 8, 172 13 of 16 Appendix B Table A1. Aspects of the sustainable sharing economy (SSE) [40,41]. BMW Daimler “The focus will continue to be placed on “Transport infrastructure and the development, production, and sale of transport systems frequently operate vehicles, with a wide range of innovative at their limits, especially in urban New business model mobility services on top.” (p. 11) areas. That is why Daimler has “Providing opportunities to test the BMW developed a range of pioneering i3 as part of our DriveNow car-sharing mobility concepts.” ([41], p. 55) scheme.” ([40], p. 60) “The 300 new vehicles are being used in Berlin, and additional models will also be introduced to other cities in the “DriveNow is currently available in 13 future.” “In 2016, car2go launched in European cities. On 8 April 2016, the Chinese megacity of Chongqing Geographic expansion the BMW Group launched an advanced with the brand sux “JíXíng” car-sharing program in the USA under the (roughly translated as: “drive o name ReachNow.” ([40], p. 73) immediately”). “car2go is the first international company to implement the free-floating car-sharing concept in China.” ([41], p. 55) “DriveNow in Copenhagen is operated by “From the car-sharing provider car2go the city’s public transport company and the mobility platform Moovel to Arriva. With their “Rejsekort,” a card for Public transport the taxi app Mytaxi, the coach almost all mobility services in the whole company Flixbus, and the Bus Rapid of Denmark, users also gain access to Transit (BRT) system.” ([41], p. 55) DriveNow. ([40], p. 74) “The fleet for both programs currently comprises more than 6000 vehicles in “Car2go has added 20 smart ForTwo Europe, of which around 15% are purely electric vehicles to the local fleet. electric BMW i3 vehicles. A further 1300 This is the first step in evaluating the vehicles are available in the USA. feasibility of using electric vehicles in DriveNow is one of the strongest drivers our fleet by relying on Montréal’s Electric vehicles of electromobility in Germany”. (p. 71) existing charging infrastructure, as “Copenhagen is the only city in Europe in well as determining how the city’s which we have operated our car-sharing climate conditions impact vehicle service from the start with a fleet of purely range and availability.” https: electric BMW i3 cars. The good charging //www.car2go.com/NA/en/nextgen/ infrastructure in the city o ers ideal conditions for this.” ([40], p. 74) References 1. Deloitte, L.L.C. Car Sharing in Europe–Business Models, National Variations, and Upcoming Disruptions. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/manufacturing/articles/car-sharing-in-europe.html (accessed on 23 February 2019). 2. Muñoz, P.; Cohen, B. A Compass for Navigating Sharing Economy Business Models. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2018, 61, 114–147. [CrossRef] 3. Reitmann, N.; Lieven, T. How policy measures succeeded to promote electric mobility–worldwide review and outlook. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 66–75. [CrossRef] 4. Hartl, B.; Sabitzer, T.; Hofmann, E.; Penz, E. “Sustainability is a nice bonus” the role of sustainability in carsharing from a consumer perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 88–100. [CrossRef] 5. Wheeler, S.A.; Webb, T. Leases: A review of contemporary academic literature relating to lessees. Account. Horiz. 2015, 29, 997–1023. [CrossRef] 6. Barone, E.; Birt, J.; Moya, S. Lease accounting: A review of recent literature. Account. Eur. 2014, 11, 35–54. [CrossRef] Resources 2019, 8, 172 14 of 16 7. Giner, B.; Pardo, F. The value relevance of operating lease liabilities: Economic e ects of IFRS 16. Aust. Account. Rev. 2018, 28, 496–511. [CrossRef] 8. Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–65. [CrossRef] 9. Geisinger, A.; Laurell, C.; Oberg, C.; Sandstrom, C. How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 206, 419–429. [CrossRef] 10. Harangozo, G.; Csutora, M.; Kocsis, T. How big is big enough? Toward a sustainable future by examining alternatives to the conventional economic growth paradigm. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 172–181. [CrossRef] 11. Bernardi, M.; Diamantini, D. Shaping the sharing city: An exploratory study on Seoul and Milan. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 203, 30–42. [CrossRef] 12. Csutora, M.; Harangozo, G. Twenty years of carbon accounting and auditing–a review and outlook. Soc. Econ. 2017, 39, 459–480. [CrossRef] 13. Ma, Y.; Lan, J.; Thornton, T.; Mangalagiu, D.; Zhu, D. Challenges of collaborative governance in the sharing economy: The case of free-floating bike-sharing in Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 356–365. [CrossRef] 14. Albinsson, P.; Perera, Y.; Nafees, L.; Burman, B. Collaborative Consumption Usage in the US and India: An Exploratory Study. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2019, 27, 390–412. [CrossRef] 15. Ma, Y.; Rong, K.; Mangalagiu, D.; Thornton, T.; Zhu, D. Co-evolution between urban sustainability and business ecosystem innovation: Evidence from the sharing mobility sector in Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 942–953. [CrossRef] 16. Allen, D.; Berg, C. The Sharing Economy: How Over-Regulation Could Destroy an Economic Revolution; Institute of Public Affairs: Melbourne, Australia, 2014; Available online: https://collaborativeeconomy.com/wp/wp-content/ uploads/2015/04/Allen-D.-and-Berg-C.2014.The-Sharing-Economy.-Institute-of-Public-Affairs.-.pdf (accessed on 6 October 2019). 17. Cohen, M.; Sundararajan, A. Self-Regulation, and Innovation in the Peer-to-Peer Sharing Economy. Univ. Chic. Law Rev. Dialogue 2015, 82, 116–133. 18. Koopman, C.; Mitchell, M.; Thierer, A. The Sharing Economy and Consumer Protection Regulation: The Case for Policy Change; Mercatus Center, George Madison University: Arlington, VA, USA, 2014; Available online: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=jbel (accessed on 4 October 2019). 19. Koopman, C.; Mitchell, M.; Thierer, A. The Sharing Economy: Issues Facing Platforms, Participants, and Regulators. 2016. Available online: https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Koopman-Sharing-Economy- FTC-filing.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2019). 20. Sundararajan, A. Peer-to-peer Businesses and the Sharing (Collaborative) Economy: Overview, Economic E ects, and Regulatory Issues. Written Testimony for the Hearing Titled, The Power of Connection: Peer-To-Peer Businesses, Held by the Committee on Small Businesses of the U.S. House of Representatives, 15 September 2014. Available online: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg86266/html/ CHRG-113hhrg86266.htm (accessed on 8 October 2019). 21. Thierer, A.; Koopman, C.; Hobson, A.; Kuiper, C. How the Internet, the Sharing Economy, and Reputational Feedback Mechanisms Solve the ‘Lemons Problem’. 2016. Available online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2610255 (accessed on 4 October 2019). 22. Cannon, B.; Chung, H. A framework for designing co-regulation models well-adapted to technology- facilitated sharing economies. Santa Clara High Technol. Law J. 2015, 31, 23–97. 23. Malhotra, A.; Van Alstyne, M. The dark side of the sharing economy ::: and how to lighten it. Commun. ACM 2014, 57, 24–27. [CrossRef] 24. McLean, S. The rise of the sharing economy. Comput. Law Mag. SCL 2015, 26, 26–28. 25. Ranchordas, S. Does Sharing Mean Caring? Regulating Innovation in the Sharing Economy. Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 2015, 16, 413–475. 26. Rauch, D.; Schleicher, D. Like Uber, But for Local Government Policy: The Future of Local Regulation of the “Shared Economy”; Working Paper # 21; New York University, Marron Institute of Urban Management: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Available online: https://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/uploads/content/The_Future_of_Local_ Regulation_of_the_Shared_Economy.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2019). Resources 2019, 8, 172 15 of 16 27. Sunil, J.; Noah, Z. Policymaking for the Sharing Economy: Beyond Whack-A-Mole; Mowat Centre, University of Toronto: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2015; Available online: https://mowatcentre.ca/wpcontent/uploads/ publications/106_policymaking_for_the_sharing_economy.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2019). 28. Zrenner, A. The Ethics of Regulating the Sharing Economy; The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University: Durham, NC, USA, 2015; Available online: https://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ Sharing-Economy-2015.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2019). 29. Oei, S.; Ring, D. Can Sharing Be Taxed? Legal Studies Research Paper No. 352; Boston College Law School: Boston, MA, USA, 2015. 30. Codagnone, C.; Martens, B. Scoping the Sharing Economy: Origins, Definitions, Impact and Regulatory Issues; JRC Technical Reports, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Digital Economy Working Paper 1; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/ JRC100369.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2019). 31. Daus, M.; Russo, P. One Standard for All. Criminal Background Checks for Taxicab, For-Hire, and Transportation Network Company (Inc) Drivers; Jay College of Criminal Justice, of the City University of New York: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Available online: http://www.utrc2.org/sites/default/files/pubs/Background%20Check% 20Report.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2019). 32. Penz, E.; Hartl, B.; Hofmann, E. Collectively Building a Sustainable Sharing Economy Based on Trust and Regulation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 37–54. [CrossRef] 33. Frenken, K.; Schor, J. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 3–10. [CrossRef] 34. Baptista, P.; Meloa, S.; Rolima, C. Energy, environmental, and mobility impacts of car-sharing systems. Empirical results from Lisbon, Portugal. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 37, 28–37. [CrossRef] 35. Kawaguchi, T.; Murata, H.; Fukushige, S.; Kobayashi, H. Scenario analysis of car- and ride-sharing services based on life cycle simulation. Procedia Cirp 2019, 80, 328–333. [CrossRef] 36. Giesel, F.; Nobis, C. The Impact of Carsharing on Car Ownership in German Cities. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 19, 215–224. [CrossRef] 37. European Commission. NACE, Rev. 2. Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community; Eurostat Methodologies and Working papers; European Commission: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2008. 38. Hungarian Accounting Regulation Act of 2000. C. in Hungary. Available online: https://net.jogtar.hu/ jogszabaly?docid=A0000100.TV (accessed on 27 September 2019). 39. Electronic Reporting Portal of the Ministry of Justice in Hungary. Available online: https://e-beszamolo.im. gov.hu/oldal/kezdolap (accessed on 27 September 2019). 40. BMW Group Sustainable Value Report. Available online: https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/bmw- group-websites/bmwgroup_com/ir/downloads/en/2017/BMW-Group-SustainableValueReport-2017--EN. pdf (accessed on 10 January 2019). 41. Daimler Sustainability Report. Available online: https://www.daimler.com/documents/sustainability/other/ daimler-sustainability-report-2017.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2019). 42. Cai, H. Big Data for Urban Sustainability: Integrating Personal Mobility Dynamics in Environmental Assessments. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2015. Available online: https: //deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/113510/caih_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 27 September 2019). 43. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98. [CrossRef] 44. Saaty, T.L. What is the analytic hierarchy process. In Mathematical Models for Decision Support; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1988; pp. 109–121. 45. Bunruamkaew, K. How to do AHP Analysis in Excel. Division of Spatial Information Science Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Tsukuba, 2012, Lecture. Available online: http://giswin. geo.tsukuba.ac.jp/sis/gis_seminar/How%20to%20do%20AHP%20analysis%20in%20Excel.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2019). 46. Goepel, K.D. Implementing the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Standard Method for Multi-Criteria Decision Making In Corporate Enterprises–A New AHP Excel Template with Multiple Inputs. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 23–26 June 2013. [CrossRef] Resources 2019, 8, 172 16 of 16 47. Tomashevskii, I.L. Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 240, 774–780. [CrossRef] 48. Alonso, L. Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. -Based Syst. 2006, 14, 445–459. [CrossRef] 49. Tóth, G. The Truly Responsible Enterprise: About Unsustainable Development, the Tools of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and the Deeper, Strategic Approach, 2nd ed.; KÖVET–Hungarian Association for Sustainable Economies, 2009; Available online: http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526 (accessed on 7 November 2019). 50. Tkatchenko, R. Personal City Mobility in the Context of Sustainable Development. Ph.D. Thesis, Corvinus University, Budapest, Hungary, 2018. Available online: http://phd.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/990/2/Tkatchenko_ Rossen_ten.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2019). 51. Fogarassy, C.; Neubauer, É.; Mansur, H. The main transition management issues and the e ects of environmental accounting on financial performance-with focus on cement industry. Adm. Manag. Public 2018, 31, 52–66. [CrossRef] 52. Horvath, B.; Khazami, N.; Ymeri, P.; Fogarassy, C. Investigating the Current Business Model Innovation Trends in the Biotechnology Industry. JBEM 2019, 20, 63–85. [CrossRef] © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Resources Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Example of a German Free-Float Car-Sharing Company Expansion in East-Central Europe

Resources , Volume 8 (4) – Nov 8, 2019

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/example-of-a-german-free-float-car-sharing-company-expansion-in-east-yh42046VNj

References (41)

Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2019 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN
2079-9276
DOI
10.3390/resources8040172
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

resources Article Example of a German Free-Float Car-Sharing Company Expansion in East-Central Europe Árpád Tóth and Cecília Szigeti * Kautz Gyula Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Széchenyi István University, Egyetem Square 1, 9026 Gyor ˝ , Hungary; totha@sze.hu * Correspondence: szigetic@sze.hu or szigetic@gmail.com Received: 15 October 2019; Accepted: 4 November 2019; Published: 8 November 2019 Abstract: This study examines the expansion of a German free-float car-sharing company in Hungary from financial and sustainability perspectives. BMW and Daimler recently created the joint ventures ShareNow, ChargeNow, ReachNow, FreeNow, and ParkNow, which are having a significant global impact, as their services are now available in 14 di erent countries. We also expect further market development, since ShareNow started to operate in Hungary in May 2019. The whole EU market is just one step away from being covered by the same professional service, and the future might bring a real globally available free-float car-sharing service provider. Our review used a combination of two methodologies: financial statement-based business analysis and sustainability analysis. On the basis of this study, we concluded that these companies are primarily operated for profit and not on a sustainable operation basis. Additionally, it was also found that the current statistical data collection method does not measure precisely these activities. Financial reporting and sustainability reporting are connected, but they cover di erent areas. As a subject of further research, we suggest examining whether it is possible to establish a clear connection between these methodologies in the foreseeable future. Keywords: Car2Go; DriveNow; GreenGo; MOL LIMO; sustainability; economies of scale; sharing economy 1. Theoretical Background The objective of this study was to examine the performances of free-float car-sharing entities in Hungary and compare them to those of their German counterparts from financial analysis and sustainability perspectives. On the basis of actual financial results in Hungary, they appear to be less profitable businesses compared to other rental service companies. Recently, Car2Go and DriveNow created joint ventures, which generated significant competition because they entered the Hungarian market in May 2019. In Hungary, free-float car-sharing companies might follow di erent business models, which can cause unusual results. We also reviewed the available sustainability reports to define a possible connection to financial statements. Additionally, we tried to evaluate these companies from the sustainability perspective. 1.1. Business Model Review The free-float car-sharing business model was categorized, defined, and described in a car-sharing business model review by Deloitte [1]. Since then, other studies reviewed the model and the markets itself, for example that of Munoz and Cohen [2]. Several studies raised sustainability-related questions regarding sharing economy models. Reitmann and Lieven [3] examined how policy measures succeeded in promoting electric mobility in 20 countries by measuring the influence of monetary incentives, regulations, and charging Resources 2019, 8, 172; doi:10.3390/resources8040172 www.mdpi.com/journal/resources Resources 2019, 8, 172 2 of 16 infrastructure. Hartl et al. [4] addressed the gap between business-to-consumer (B2C) and peer-to-peer (P2P) car-sharing services from the customer ’s perspective. Overall, these previous studies on free-float car-sharing businesses support the initial assumption that these entities are profit-oriented, and their operations can be questioned from a sustainability perspective. From the business model perspective, in Hungary, there is a unique situation for free-float car-sharing companies, considering the impact of the international lease regulation changes. A wide range of studies, such as those of Wheeler and Webb [5] and Barone et al. [6], have provided summaries on the expected impact of lease capitalization and its e ect on profitability and leverage ratios. Giner and Pardo [7] reviewed the value relevance of operating lease liabilities. 1.2. Sustainability Reviews Sustainable business model (SBM) types were introduced to describe groupings of mechanisms and solutions that may contribute to building a business model for sustainability. Examples are: Maximize material and energy eciency; Create value from ‘waste’; Substitute with renewables and natural processes; Deliver functionality rather than ownership; Adopt a stewardship role; Encourage suciency; Re-purpose the business for society/environment; and Develop scale-up solutions [8]. Geissinger et al. [9] described and classified the sustainability connotation of sharing-economy platforms for Sweden. Indeed, sharing economy can be considered as a path towards sustainability [10]. Bernardi and Diamantini [11] explored how sharing economy, adopted by an increasing number of cities, may be integrated into the urban agenda, fostering its positive aspects (like decreased carbon emissions [12]), while avoiding its negative externalities, and focused, as examples, on Milan and Seoul. Ma et al. [13] proposed an alternative governance model to improve the e ectiveness of a collaborative governance regime towards urban sustainability. Albinsson et al. [14] developed a two-dimensional sharing economy matrix for sustainability reviews, which focuses on collaborative consumption users vs. non-users in the US and Indian markets. Ma et al. [15] argued that the two-level transformations, triggered by the disruptive innovation of the sharing economy and led by urban change towards sustainability, mutually influence each other in the fast-changing urban context in Shanghai. 1.3. Sharing Economy Reviews The emergence and rapid spread of the ‘sharing’ or ‘collaborative’ economy is one of the most significant social-economic challenges of our time. The success of the concept can be traced back to the economic crisis. It focuses on usage and not on owning goods. The debate over the regulation of the sharing economy has become polarized between those who are radically opposed to any intervention and those who favor some form of regulation (Table 1). Table 1. Opinions on the regulation of the sharing economy. Point of View Authors Main Messages Excessive regulation eliminates consumer benefits All interventions are rejected [16–20] and eciency gains. Using platforms reduces market failures. Innovative and intelligent regulation that enforces consumer protection without disrupting innovation. Certain areas of the sharing economy are suitable for regulatory intervention, others for self-regulation. Co-regulation: responsibilities are shared between Some regulation required [21–28] government and industry. A new legal framework is needed to regulate the sharing economy, as according to the current legal framework many inadequate practices in the sharing economy do not require any regulation as they pertain to the private sphere. Resources 2019, 8, 172 3 of 16 Table 1. Cont. Point of View Authors Main Messages Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17 Taxation of sharing economy companies is possible by law, although questions about law application Taxation of sharing economy companies is possible by law, although may arise. Everyone involved should be submitted Strict regulation required [29] to regulations (for example, in the case of car-sharing Strict regulation questions about law application may arise. Everyone involved should be [29] services, licenses issued to drivers, and identification required submitted to regulations (for example, in the case of car-sharing services, of drivers). licenses issued to drivers, and identification of drivers). Sharing economy platforms can be represented in a two-dimension matrix. The first dimension of Sharing economy platforms can be represented in a two-dimension matrix. The first dimension the matrix classifies sharing platforms into for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) activities. The second of the matrix classifies sharing platforms into for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) activities. The dimension follows the B2C–P2P axis [30]. Car-sharing business models are for-profit, B2C sharing second dimension follows the B2C–P2P axis [30]. Car-sharing business models are for-profit, B2C economy platforms and therefore belong to group 4. (Figure 1). sharing economy platforms and therefore belong to group 4. (Figure 1). Figure 1. Two-dimensional sharing-economy matrix [31]. P2P: peer-to-peer, B2C: business-to- Figure 1. Two-dimensional sharing-economy matrix [31]. P2P: peer-to-peer, B2C: business-to-consumer, consumer, NFP: not-for-profit, FP: for-profit. NFP: not-for-profit, FP: for-profit. 2. 2. Materials Materials a and nd M Methods ethods Fr From t om the he available available f financial inancial and and legal legal in information, formation,the the fol following lowing e elements lementswer were r e reviewed: eviewed: • The list of entities in Hungary based on the principal operational activity code (TEÁOR) The list of entities in Hungary based on the principal operational activity code (TEÁOR) classification in the companies’ court register classification in the companies’ court register • Profitability review based on published financial statements Profitability review based on published financial statements • Certain aspects of the lease accounting regulation and comparison between the International Certain aspects of the lease accounting regulation and comparison between the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 16 Leases and the Hungarian Accounting Law Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 16 Leases and the Hungarian Accounting Law • Car-sharing companies’ fleet size, car-sharing costs, opinions of registered users in Hungary and Car-sharing companies’ fleet size, car-sharing costs, opinions of registered users in Hungary Germany. and Germany. Sustainability was reviewed on the basis of Penz et al. [32], exploring and explaining how, why, Sustainability was reviewed on the basis of Penz et al. [32], exploring and explaining how, and when a sustainable operation is adopted and participation in the sharing economy becomes key, why, and when a sustainable operation is adopted and participation in the sharing economy becomes as well as how sharing economy models and sustainability (sustainable sharing economy, SSE) key, as well as how sharing economy models and sustainability (sustainable sharing economy, SSE) correspond conceptually in the collected articles. Seven sustainability aspects were addressed, of correspond conceptually in the collected articles. Seven sustainability aspects were addressed, of which which four refer to car-sharing (Table 2). four refer to car-sharing (Table 2). Table 2. Sustainability aspects of car sharing. Producing Less “As cars stand idle 95% of the time, any sharing scheme that makes Idle Capacity and Under- cars accessible to non-owners would reduce the number of cars Utilized Physical Assets required for a given mileage level.” [33] Reduce Waste Resource Efficiency “Car sharing contributes to a more efficient and rational mobility (with through Using rather a lower number of vehicles per capita among members, lower demand than Owning Resources 2019, 8, 172 4 of 16 Table 2. Sustainability aspects of car sharing. Producing Less Idle Capacity and “As cars stand idle 95% of the time, any sharing scheme that makes cars accessible to Under-Utilized Physical Assets non-owners would reduce the number of cars required for a given mileage level.” [33] Reduce Waste “Car sharing contributes to a more ecient and rational mobility (with a lower Resource Eciency through number of vehicles per capita among members, lower demand for parking space, Using rather than Owning lower fixed costs, and a complement to public transport.” [34] Extended Use Pattern “Carbon dioxide emissions and copper usage decrease with the di usion of car- and Low Ecological Footprint/Low ride-sharing services.” [35]“With a lower consumption of physical and economic Carbon resources, car-sharing can also contribute to the reduction of energy and environmental impacts” Baptista et al. [34] Own Less, Interact More, Di erent studies document the high impact of car-sharing on car ownership. [36] Build Social Capital 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Free-Float Car-Sharing Business Models in Hungary and Germany Specific free-float service providers are defined as companies o ering the service of car-sharing, i.e., the use of vehicles that can be rented and parked freely throughout the entire business area without having to determine the start and the end of the rental period in advance. The beginning and end of the rent are established for all vehicles through a specific smartphone application. Payment is based on usage and according to a fixed minute rate. Comparing this market to the sharing economy review models, according to Codagnone and Martens [30] (Figure 1), free-float car-sharing entities are B2C entities focused on profitable operation, and this requires strict regulation (Table 1). This business model represents a di erent resource utilization with respect to P2P-based common sharing, which motivated us to perform a parallel profitability and sustainability review. To accurately identify all key free-float companies, the complete database of the firm registry was reviewed, considering the defined principal operational activity of each company. This classification (TEÁOR’08) is “identical and fully harmonized with the European one, NACE Rev.2. Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community, 2008 (Nomenclature des activités économiques dans les Communautés européennes) [37]. Based on Regulation 1893/2006/EC, with e ect from 1 January 2008, TEÁOR’08 is used to determine the principal activities of enterprises, in the calculation of economic and social indicators as well as for the publication of statistical data.” The car-sharing activities are classified under Section “N” as administrative and support service activities, in division 77, group 77.1, and class 77.11 “renting and leasing of cars and light motor vehicles”. From the registered Hungarian companies’ database, 362 companies were identified. This analysis covers all Hungarian operational entities. In order to include recently established objects, all companies above 10 sta headcounts were investigated, according to the EU commission-defined categories. On the basis of a detailed review, 28 companies were identified, as presented in Appendix A (Figure A1). According to the Hungarian Accounting Regulation Act C of 2000, in Hungary [38], companies need to file a financial statement by the end of the fifth month after the fiscal year. Consequently, the latest reports available were for 2017. From Appendix A, on the basis of their financial statements, as of April 2019, only 2 companies out of the total 28 entities, i.e., #11 GreenGo Car Europe Korlátolt Feleloss ˝ égu ˝ Társaság (hereinafter: GreenGo) and #20 MOL Limitless Mobility Korlátolt Feleloss ˝ égu ˝ Társaság (hereinafter: MOL LIMO), were real flee-float car-sharing companies, and both operate in Budapest. This list contained all free-float service providers but did not represent the total lease market, because financial lease activities are classified in a di erent statistical segment, in section K Financial and insurance activities, Resources 2019, 8, 172 5 of 16 divisions 64–66. It did, however, represent all non-micro-level free-float car-sharing companies. This is the consequence of the unclear current statistical data, which do not identify specific lease, rental, or free-float services. In the case of a larger population, it would be challenging to sort out such Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17 companies manually; sub-sections could be created to evaluate lease and rental services accurately in the statistical classification. In 2017 for Hungary, free-float car-sharing represented a 110.7 million the statistical classification. In 2017 for Hungary, free-float car-sharing represented a 110.7 million Hungarian forint (HUF) (¿358,300) market. Hungarian forint (HUF) (€358,300) market. In the analyzed group from the profitability perspective, it was visible that the free-float car-sharing In the analyzed group from the profitability perspective, it was visible that the free-float car- service providers delivered significantly worse results in Hungary compared to lease and rental service sharing service providers delivered significantly worse results in Hungary compared to lease and companies in 2017, as shown in Figure 2. rental service companies in 2017, as shown in Figure 2. Lease Free-float car share Car rental Car fleet provider -220.00% -180.00% -140.00% -100.00% -60.00% -20.00% 20.00% Free-float car Car fleet provider Car rental Lease share Average Profit before tax / revenue 3.32% 4.10% -205.65% 6.98% Figure 2. Changes in asset structure, GreenGo (2014–2017 in EUR) [39]. Figure 2. Changes in asset structure, GreenGo (2014–2017 in EUR) [39]. To gain a better understanding of the situation, each Hungarian free-float service was separately To gain a better understanding of the situation, each Hungarian free-float service was separately examined and later compared to German service providers. examined and later compared to German service providers. 3.1.1. Financial Statement Analysis and Review of the Financing Model 3.1.1. Financial Statement Analysis and Review of the Financing Model GreenGo was established in 2014 as the first free-float car-sharing service in the Hungarian market, GreenGo was established in 2014 as the first free-float car-sharing service in the Hungarian where it was the only market participant until 2017. The first day of real operation, when the company market, where it was the only market participant until 2017. The first day of real operation, when the started to provide services, was in November 2016, with 45 electric cars. company started to provide services, was in November 2016, with 45 electric cars. From the financial perspective, the assets and liabilities of the company looked as follows. Assets: From the financial perspective, the assets and liabilities of the company looked as follows. The long-term assets value continuously increased from HUF 69 M in 2019 to HUF 102 M on 2017, Assets: The long-term assets value continuously increased from HUF 69 M in 2019 to HUF 102 M on which consists of intangible assets of HUF 43 M, tangible assets of HUF 58 M, and other investments of 2017, which consists of intangible assets of HUF 43 M, tangible assets of HUF 58 M, and other HUF 1 M. This breakdown would give the reader important information if we included the published investments of HUF 1 M. This breakdown would give the reader important information if we data from January 2018 when GreenGo reported 168 vehicles, which in case of purchase, should be included the published data from January 2018 when GreenGo reported 168 vehicles, which in case recorded as property, plant, and equipment (PPE). It appears that HUF 58 M/168 vehicles = HUF 0.34 M of purchase, should be recorded as property, plant, and equipment (PPE). It appears that HUF 58 (approx. ¿1060) per car is a very unreasonable figure. The only reasonable explanation is if the company M/168 vehicles = HUF 0.34 M (approx. €1060) per car is a very unreasonable figure. The only applied operational leases, and these assets are o -balance-sheet financed items. Later in this review, reasonable explanation is if the company applied operational leases, and these assets are off-balance- this business model will be compared to that of the other Hungarian competitor. Below in Figure 3 is sheet financed items. Later in this review, this business model will be compared to that of the other a summary table related to the asset items for the period 2014–2017: Hungarian competitor. Below in Figure 3. is a summary table related to the asset items for the period 2014–2017: Resources 2019, 8, 172 6 of 16 Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17 Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17 900,000 € 900,000 € 811,250 € 800,000 € 811,250 € 800,000 € 700,000 € 700,000 € 600,000 € 600,000 € 500,000 € 500,000 € 400,000 € 400,000 € 268,999 € 300,000 € 186,455 € 268,999 € 186,455 € 300,000 € 200,000 € 95,958 € 200,000 € 30,049 € 100,000 € 95,958 € 30,049 € 15,358 € 100,000 € -€ 15,358 € -€ 2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 Property, plant and equipment Long term assets Total assets Property, plant and equipment Long term assets Total assets Figure 3. Changes in asset structure, GreenGo (2014–2017 in EUR) [39]. Figure 3. Changes in asset structure, GreenGo (2014–2017 in EUR) [39]. Figure 3. Changes in asset structure, GreenGo (2014–2017 in EUR) [39]. Liabilities, equity: The equity value remained relatively the same over 2016–2017, i.e., HUF 43 Liabilities, equity: The equity value remained relatively the same over 2016–2017, i.e., HUF Liabilities, equity: The equity value remained relatively the same over 2016–2017, i.e., HUF 43 M; however, the generated loss increased significantly from HUF 18 M (€59,000) to HUF 158 M 43 M; however, the generated loss increased significantly from HUF 18 M (¿59,000) to HUF 158 M M; however, the generated loss increased significantly from HUF 18 M (€59,000) to HUF 158 M (€512,600), which was compensated by the equity contribution from owners. The debt/equity ratio (¿512,600), which was compensated by the equity contribution from owners. The debt/equity ratio also (€512,600), which was compensated by the equity contribution from owners. The debt/equity ratio also significantly increased in relation to the liabilities increase by HUF 129.3 M, mainly as a result of significantly increased in relation to the liabilities increase by HUF 129.3 M, mainly as a result of the also significantly increased in relation to the liabilities increase by HUF 129.3 M, mainly as a result of the short-term shareholders’ loans of HUF 115 M and the long-term related parties’ credit of HUF 16 short-term shareholders’ loans of HUF 115 M and the long-term related parties’ credit of HUF 16 M. the short-term shareholders’ loans of HUF 115 M and the long-term related parties’ credit of HUF 16 M. Profit and loss statement: The realized revenue increased from the 2016 value of HUF 8 M Profit and loss statement: The realized revenue increased from the 2016 value of HUF 8 M (¿26,000) to M. Profit and loss statement: The realized revenue increased from the 2016 value of HUF 8 M (€26,000) to the 2017 value of HUF 111 M (€358,000), while the expenses increased from HUF 27 M to the 2017 value of HUF 111 M (¿358,000), while the expenses increased from HUF 27 M to HUF 275 M. (€26,000) to the 2017 value of HUF 111 M (€358,000), while the expenses increased from HUF 27 M to HUF 275 M. This was the principal reason for the generated loss as the company did not realize This was the principal reason for the generated loss as the company did not realize enough revenue to HUF 275 M. This was the principal reason for the generated loss as the company did not realize enough revenue to compensate for the increased material expenditures. Below in Figure 4 is a compensate for the increased material expenditures. Below in Figure 4 is a summary of the statement enough revenue to compensate for the increased material expenditures. Below in Figure 4 is a summary of the statement of profit and loss of GreenGo for the period of 2014–2017. of profit and loss of GreenGo for the period of 2014–2017. summary of the statement of profit and loss of GreenGo for the period of 2014–2017. 1,500 1,500 1,000 1,000 -500 -500 -1,000 -1,000 Long term Current assets Equity Profit after tax Long term Short-term Long term Current assets Equity Profit after tax Long term Short-term assets (profit + / loss- liabilities liabilities assets (profit + / loss- liabilities liabilities MOL GreenGo MOL GreenGo Figure 4. Comparison of assets and liabilities of MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39] Figure 4. Comparison of assets and liabilities of MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39] Figure 4. Comparison of assets and liabilities of MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39] In 2017, MOL Limo entered the market with secured funding from the listed Hungarian Oil- In 2017, MOL Limo entered the market with secured funding from the listed Hungarian Oil- In 2017, MOL Limo entered the market with secured funding from the listed Hungarian Oil-and-Gas and-Gas Company (whereas GreenGo owners are private investors). MOL Limo market presence did and-Gas Company (whereas GreenGo owners are private investors). MOL Limo market presence did Company (whereas GreenGo owners are private investors). MOL Limo market presence did not cause not cause the reported increasing loss of GreenGo, because, in 2017, it did not realize any revenue. In not cause the reported increasing loss of GreenGo, because, in 2017, it did not realize any revenue. In the reported increasing loss of GreenGo, because, in 2017, it did not realize any revenue. In Table 3, Table 3, a comparison between the profit and loss statements of these two entities is presented. Table 3, a comparison between the profit and loss statements of these two entities is presented. a comparison between the profit and loss statements of these two entities is presented. Table 3. Comparison of the profit and loss statement for MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39]. Table 3. Comparison of the profit and loss statement for MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39]. 2017 Statement of Profit and Loss and Other Comprehensive Income MOL GreenGo 2017 Statement of Profit and Loss and Other Comprehensive Income MOL (Data Translated to €) LiMo GreenGo (Data Translated to €) LiMo Revenue 0 374,391 Revenue 0 374,391 Results from operation (profit +/loss −) (EBIT) −215,512 −484,509 Results from operation (profit +/loss −) (EBIT) −215,512 −484,509 thousands of EUR thousands of EUR Resources 2019, 8, 172 7 of 16 Table 3. Comparison of the profit and loss statement for MOL Limo and GreenGo (2017) [39]. Resources Resources 2019 2019 , 8 , , x FO 8, x FO R P R P EER EER RE RE VIEW VIEW 2017 Statement of Profit and Loss and Other 7 of 7 of 17 17 Resources Resources 2019 2019 , 8 , 8 , x FO , x FO R P R P EER EER RE RE VIEW VIEW 7 of 7 of 17 17 MOL LiMo GreenGo Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17 Comprehensive Income (Data Translated to ¿) Revenue 0 374,391 Res Res uu ltlt s sfrom fin from fin aa nci nci aa l lact act ivit ivit ies (prof ies (prof iti +/ t +/ los los s s− − ) ) −− 939 939 2 2 −− 27 27 ,40 ,40 88 Res Res uu ltlt ss from fin from fin aa nci nci aa l lact act ivit ivit ies (prof ies (prof iti +/ t +/ los los ss − − ) ) −− 939 939 2 2 −− 27 27 ,40 ,40 88 Results from financial activities (profit +/loss −) −9392 −27,408 Results from operation (profit +/loss) (EBIT) 215,512 484,509 Profit before tax (profit +/loss −) −224,904 −511,918 Profit before tax (profit +/loss −) −224,904 −511,918 Prof Prof itit before before t t aa x (pr x (pr oo fifti +/ t +/ lo lo ss ss −− ) ) −− 224 224 ,9 ,9 04 04 −− 511 511 ,9 ,9 18 18 Results from financial activities (profit +/loss) 9392 27,408 Profit before tax (profit +/loss −) −224,904 −511,918 Profit before tax (profit +/loss) 224,904 511,918 M M O O LL Li Li mo mo ge ge ne ne ra ra te te d a si d a si gni gni fica fica nn tly tly hi hi ghe ghe r l r l oo ss s scomp comp ared ared to Green to Green Go, but Go, but 2017 2017 was the y was the y ee ar ar of of M M O O LL Li Li mo mo ge ge ne ne ra ra te te d a si d a si gni gni fica fica nn tly tly hi hi ghe ghe r l r l oo ss ss comp comp ared ared to Green to Green Go, but Go, but 2017 2017 was the y was the y ee ar ar of of MOL Limo generated a significantly higher loss compared to GreenGo, but 2017 was the year of its establishment, with a large scale of operation and considerable fleet investment, as presented in its establishment, with a large scale of operation and considerable fleet investment, as presented in its estab its estab lishment, with a lishment, with a large sc large sc ale o ale o f o f o pp eration eration and consider and consider able fleet investment, able fleet investment, as as pre pre ss en en ted ted in in MOL Limo generated a significantly higher loss compared to GreenGo, but 2017 was the year its establishment, with a large scale of operation and considerable fleet investment, as presented in Table Table 3 3 . The . The dif dif ference ference in in ass ass ee t va t va lue lue i i s srel rel aa te te d t d t oo a a sp sp ecif ecif ic ic accou accou nn titng re ing re gu gu lat lat ion di ion di ffe ffe rence rence in l in l ee aa se se Table Table 3 3 . The . The dif dif ference ference in in ass ass ee t va t va lue lue i i ss rel rel aa te te d t d t oo a a ss pp ecif ecif ic ic accou accou nn titng re ing re gu gu lat lat ion di ion di ffe ffe rence rence in l in l ee aa ss ee of its establishment, with a large scale of operation and considerable fleet investment, as presented Table 3. The difference in asset value is related to a specific accounting regulation difference in lease accounting. MOL Limo prepared an IFRS-based financial statement, and GreenGo prepared a accounting. MOL Limo prepared an IFRS-based financial statement, and GreenGo prepared a account accountiningg. . MOL L MOL Lim imoo pprep repared ared an an IFR IFRSS-b-base asedd fin finaanci nciaal st l statatem ement ent, an , and d GGreenG reenGoo p prereppared ared a a in Table 3. The di erence in asset value is related to a specific accounting regulation di erence in accounting. MOL Limo prepared an IFRS-based financial statement, and GreenGo prepared a sisi mpli mpli fifi ed nati ed nati ona ona l a l a ccou ccou nn titi ng- ng- bb ased ased fifna ina ncia ncia l report. l report. si si mpli mpli fifi ed nati ed nati ona ona l a l a ccou ccou nn titi ng- ng- bb ased ased fifna ina ncia ncia l report. l report. lease accounting. MOL Limo prepared an IFRS-based financial statement, and GreenGo prepared simplified national accounting-based financial report. From the operation perspective, it is essential to mention that GreenGo only uses electric vehicles From the operation perspective, it is essential to mention that GreenGo only uses electric vehicles From t From t hh e operat e operat ion per ion per ss pe pe ct ct ive, it ive, it i i ss ess ess ee nt nt ial t ial t oo mention that GreenGo only uses mention that GreenGo only uses electric veh electric veh icles icles a simplified national accounting-based financial report. From the operation perspective, it is essential to mention that GreenGo only uses electric vehicles differently differently frfrom MOL om MOL Limo. The total n Limo. The total nuumber o mber of f 400 e 400 electric lectric vehic vehicles operated les operated by th by these two ese two differently differently frfrom MOL om MOL Limo. The total n Limo. The total nuumber o mber of f 400 e 400 electric lectric vehic vehicles operated les operated by th by these two ese two From the operation perspective, it is essential to mention that GreenGo only uses electric vehicles differently from MOL Limo. The total number of 400 electric vehicles operated by these two companies represents approx. 10% of the registered fully electric (excluding hybrids) cars in companies represents approx. 10% of the registered fully electric (excluding hybrids) cars in companies companies rerepresents presents approx. 10% of the register approx. 10% of the registered ed fu fulllly elec y electrtic (excl ric (excluudding hybrid ing hybrids) s) cars cars inin di erently from MOL Limo. The total number of 400 electric vehicles operated by these two companies companies represents approx. 10% of the registered fully electric (excluding hybrids) cars in Hung Hung ary ary , a , a s sp p resent resent ee d in d in Tab Tab le le 4. It 4. It sh sh ould ould al al so b so b ee highl highl ight ight ee d t d t hh at at hyb hyb rid v rid v ee hicle hicle s incre s incre aa se se d m d m oo re re Hung Hung ary ary , a , a ss p p resent resent ee d in d in Tab Tab le le 4. It 4. It sh sh ould ould al al so b so b ee highl highl ight ight ee d t d t hh at at hyb hyb rid v rid v ee hicle hicle ss incre incre aa ss ee d m d m oo re re represents approx. 10% of the registered fully electric (excluding hybrids) cars in Hungary, as presented Hungary, as presented in Table 4. It should also be highlighted that hybrid vehicles increased more significantly in Hungary compared to fully electric ones from 2017 to 2018. This trend seems to significantly in Hungary compared to fully electric ones from 2017 to 2018. This trend seems to sign significant ificant ly ly in Hun in Hunggar ary y compared to compared to fully e fully electric lectric ones f ones from 20 rom 2017 17 to 20 to 2018 18. . Thi Thiss trend seems to trend seems to in Table 4. It should also be highlighted that hybrid vehicles increased more significantly in Hungary significantly in Hungary compared to fully electric ones from 2017 to 2018. This trend seems to cont cont inue inue and and could could be be a s a s uu bject bject of f of f uu tu tu re re invest invest ig ig at at io io n. n. cont cont inue inue and and could could be be a s a s uu bject bject of f of f uu tu tu re re invest invest ig ig at at io io n. n. compared to fully electric ones from 2017 to 2018. This trend seems to continue and could be a subject continue and could be a subject of future investigation. of future investigation. Table 4. Table 4. Regi Regi st st ered ele ered ele ctric ve ctric ve hicles hicles in Hungary and comparison MOL in Hungary and comparison MOL LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39 LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39 ]. ]. Table 4. Table 4. Regi Regi st st ered ele ered ele cc tric ve tric ve hicles hicles in Hungary and comparison MOL in Hungary and comparison MOL LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39 LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39 ]. ]. Table 4. Registered electric vehicles in Hungary and comparison MOL LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39]. Table 4. Registered electric vehicles in Hungary and comparison MOL LIMO and GreenGo fleets [39]. Description 2017 2018 Description 2017 2018 Description 2017 2018 Description 2017 2018 Description 2017 2018 Registered number of vehicles in Hungary 3,471,997 3,641,823 Registered number of vehicles in Hungary 3,471,997 3,641,823 Reg Reg ist ist ered ered n n uu m m bb er of er of v v ee hh icle icle ss in in H H uu ng ng ary ary 3, 3, 47 47 1, 1, 99 99 77 3, 3, 64 64 1, 1, 88 22 33 Description 2017 2018 Registered number of vehicles in Hungary 3,471,997 3,641,823 Bud Bud aa pp ee st st t t oo ta ta l num l num bb er er of of r r ee gist gist ere ere dd v v ee hh icle icle s s 63 63 3, 3, 55 55 44 65 65 9, 9, 55 11 33 Bud Bud aa pp ee st st t t oo ta ta l num l num bb er er of of r r ee gist gist ere ere dd v v ee hh icle icle ss 63 63 3, 3, 55 55 44 65 65 9, 9, 55 11 33 Budapest total number of registered vehicles 633,554 659,513 Registered number of vehicles in Hungary 3,471,997 3,641,823 Registered “green plate” vehicles in Hungary 4543 8482 Registered “green plate” vehicles in Hungary 4543 8482 R R ee gi gi stered “green pla stered “green pla te” vehi te” vehi cl cl es es in in Hunga Hunga ry ry 44 543 543 88 482 482 Budapest total number of registered vehicles 633,554 659,513 Registered “green plate” vehicles in Hungary 4543 8482 RR ee gi gi stered hybri stered hybri dd vehi vehi cl cl es es in in Hunga Hunga ry ry 22 414 414 44 709 709 R R ee gi gi stered hybri stered hybri dd vehi vehi cl cl es es in in Hunga Hunga ry ry 22 414 414 44 709 709 Registered “green plate” vehicles in Hungary 4543 8482 Registered hybrid vehicles in Hungary 2414 4709 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 Registered hybrid vehicles in Hungary 2414 4709 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 Registered number of electric vehicles in Hungary (5E category) 2129 3773 GreenGo f GreenGo f leet leet 11 68 68 33 00 00 GreenGo f GreenGo f leet leet 11 68 68 33 00 00 GreenGo fleet 168 300 GreenGo fleet 168 300 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 MOL Limo electric fleet 100 100 GreenGo and GreenGo and MOL MOL fle fle ee t electric vehic t electric vehic le le s s 268 268 400 400 GreenGo and GreenGo and MOL MOL fle fle ee t electric vehic t electric vehic le le ss 268 268 400 400 GreenGo and MOL fleet electric vehicles 268 400 GreenGo and MOL fleet electric vehicles 268 400 Car-sharing % of electric vehicles in Hungary 12.59% 10.6% Car-sharing % of electric vehicles in Hungary 12.59% 10.6% Car-sharing % of electric vehicles in Hungary 12.59% 10.6% Car-sharing % of e Car-sharing lectric% ve of hicle electric s invehicles Hungar in y Hungary 12.512.59% 9% 1010.6% .6% Car-sharing % of electric vehicles in Hungary 12.59% 10.6% 3. 3. 1. 1. 2. Lea 2. Lea se A se A ccount ccount ing ing D D ififference ference s s 3. 3. 1. 1. 2. Lea 2. Lea ss e A e A ccount ccount ing ing D D ifif ference ference ss 3.1.2. Lease Accounting Di erences 3.1.2. Lease Accounting Differences Lea Lea se a se a ccounti ccounti ng i ng i s ssignif signif ica ica nn tltl y di y di ffff erent i erent i nn th th e C Act of e C Act of 20 20 00 00 compa compa red to IFR red to IFR SS . Accordi . Accordi nn g to g to Lease accounting is significantly different in the C Act of 2000 compared to IFRS. According to Lease accounting is significantly different in the C Act of 2000 compared to IFRS. According to Lease accounting is significantly di erent in the C Act of 2000 compared to IFRS. According to Lease accounting is significantly different in the C Act of 2000 compared to IFRS. According to Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) and IF and IFRS, th RS, the definition e definition of le of lease is ase is different, different, an and other d other Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) and IF and IFRS, th RS, the definition e definition of le of lease is ase is different, different, an and other d other Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) and IFRS, the definition of lease is di erent, and other fundamental Hungarian Accounting Law (HAL) and IFRS, the definition of lease is different, and other fund fund ament ament aa l l account account in in gg di di ffer ffer ee nce reg nce reg aa rd rd , for ex , for ex ampl ampl e, operat e, operat ing lease ing lease s, wh s, wh ich ich are not re are not re quir quir ed by ed by fundamental accounting difference regard, for example, operating leases, which are not required by fundamental accounting difference regard, for example, operating leases, which are not required by accounting di erence regard, for example, operating leases, which are not required by HAL to be fundamental accounting difference regard, for example, operating leases, which are not required by HAL HAL to be to be re re corded corded in in the balance the balance sh sh ee ee t, as t, as shown shown in Ta in Ta ble ble 55 . Al . Al so, so, i i nn the disclosu the disclosu re req re req uu iriements, rements, HAL HAL to be to be re re corded corded in in the balance the balance sh sh ee ee t, as t, as shown shown in Ta in Ta ble ble 55 . Al . Al so, so, i i nn the disclosu the disclosu re req re req uu ir iements, rements, recorded in the balance sheet, as shown in Table 5. Also, in the disclosure requirements, as in the HAL to be recorded in the balance sheet, as shown in Table 5. Also, in the disclosure requirements, as as in t in t hh ee HA HA L-ba L-ba sed sed fin fin aa ncia ncia l st l st atat eme eme nn tst, oper s, oper atat ioio nal nal le le ase ase s on s on ly ly appea appea r in r in t hth e profit e profit an an d los d los s s as as in t in thhee HA HAL-ba L-based sed fin finaancia ncial st l statateme emenntsts, oper , operatatioional nal le lease asess on only ly appea appear in r in th the profit e profit an and los d losss HAL-based financial statements, operational leases only appear in the profit and loss statement. as in the HAL-based financial statements, operational leases only appear in the profit and loss statement. statement. statement. statement. statement. Table 5. Comparison of operational lease accounting between the Hungarian Accounting Law and Table 5 Table 5 . .Com Com pp arison o arison o f operational f operational lea lea se s ac e ac co co uu nn ting ting between the between the Hungarian Accountin Hungarian Accountin gg Law Law and and Table 5 Table 5 . .Com Com pp arison o arison o f operational f operational lea lea se se ac ac co co uu nn ting ting between the between the Hungarian Accountin Hungarian Accountin gg Law Law and and IFRS 16 from the lessee perspective. Table 5. Comparison of operational lease accounting between the Hungarian Accounting Law and IFRS 16 from t IFRS 16 from t hh e lessee e lessee persp persp ective ective . . IFRS 16 from t IFRS 16 from t hh e lessee e lessee persp persp ee ctive ctive . . IFRS 16 from the lessee perspective. Hungarian Accounting Law IFRS 16 Denomination Hungarian A Hungarian A ccounting ccounting Law Law IFRS 16 IFRS 16 Hungarian A Hungarian A ccounting ccounting Law Law IFRS 16 IFRS 16 Den Den oo min min aa tio tio nn Hungarian Accounting Law IFRS 16 Den Den oo min min aa tio tio nn Finance Leases Operating Leases All Leases Finance Leas Finance Leas es es Oper Oper at at ing ing Le Le ases ases All All Le Le as as es es Denomination Finance Leas Finance Leas es es Oper Oper at at ing ing Le Le ases ases All All Le Le as as es es Finance Leases Operating Leases All Leases Assets Assets Assets - — -- --- Assets Assets --- --- Assets --- Liab Liab ilil itit ies ies --- --- Liab Liab ilil itit ies ies Liabilities - — -- --- Liabilities --- Off-b Off-b al al ance ance s s hh eet eet right right s/ so /o bb lig lig at at ion ion s s --- --- --- --- O -balance sheet Off-b Off-b al al ance ance s s hh eet eet right right ss /o /o bb lig lig at at ion ion ss --- --- --- --- — — Off-balance sheet rights/obligations --- --- rights/obligations IFRS IFRS 16 ke 16 ke y o y o bb jective was t jective was t oo record record the o the o pp eratio eratio na na l l l l ee ase commi ase commi tted ri tted ri ghts ghts (r (irg ig hts of use, hts of use, RR O O U) U) IFRS IFRS 16 ke 16 ke y o y o bb jective was t jective was t oo record record the o the o pp eratio eratio na na l l l l ee ase commi ase commi tted ri tted ri ghts ghts (r (i rg ig hts of use, hts of use, R R O O U) U) IFRS 16 key objective was to record the operational lease committed rights (rights of use, ROU) aa s sa a ssets ssets aa nn d commi d commi tted l tted l iaia bb iliiltiiteie s to reduce the of s to reduce the of f-balance sh f-balance sh eet items. eet items. Fo Fo r the enti r the enti titi es rep es rep oo rti rti nn g g aa ss a a ss sets sets aa nn d commi d commi tted l tted l ia ia bb iliiltiite ie s to reduce the of s to reduce the of f-balance sh f-balance sh eet items. eet items. Fo Fo r the enti r the enti titi es rep es rep oo rti rti nn g g as assets and committed liabilities to reduce the off-balance sheet items. For the entities reporting uu nn der HAL regu der HAL regu la la titi on, on, this is not this is not a a re re qq uu irement irement , ,an an d in d in ca ca se o se o f fa a nn indepen indepen dd en en t fin t fin aa nci nci aa l l an an aly aly sissi or s or uu nn der HAL regu der HAL regu la la titi on, on, this is not this is not a a re re qq uu irement irement , ,an an d in d in ca ca se o se o f fa a nn indepen indepen dd en en t fin t fin aa nci nci aa l l an an aly aly ss is is or or under HAL regulation, this is not a requirement, and in case of an independent financial analysis or aa credi credi t strength testi t strength testi nn g, they ca g, they ca n be i n be i nn visi visi bl bl e. Th e. Th e rec e rec oo rded off-b rded off-b alance sh alance sh eet value c eet value c aa n be sig n be sig nn ificant ificant aa credi credi t strength testi t strength testi nn g, they ca g, they ca n be i n be i nn visi visi bl bl e. Th e. Th e rec e rec oo rded off-b rded off-b alance sh alance sh eet value c eet value c aa n be sig n be sig nn ificant ificant a credit strength testing, they can be invisible. The recorded off-balance sheet value can be significant from from a credit a credit or’s or or’s or fin fin aa nc nc ial an ial an alysis’ p alysis’ p oo int of int of view view . GreenGo . GreenGo rep rep oo rted rted und und ee r HAL reg r HAL reg uu lation, lation, where where from from a credit a credit or’s or or’s or fin fin aa nc nc ial an ial an alysis’ p alysis’ p oo int of int of view view . GreenGo . GreenGo rep rep oo rted rted und und ee r HAL reg r HAL reg u u lation, lation, where where from a creditor’s or financial analysis’ point of view. GreenGo reported under HAL regulation, where ththe op e operat eratioional nal l leeaases ses asas of off-b f-balalance ance sheet sheet ititem ems s mmight ight cre creaatete a a b buusine sinessss adv advaantntage age f from rom t thhe e ththe op e operat eratioional nal l leeaasseses asas of off-b f-balalance ance sheet sheet ititem ems s mmight ight cre creaatete a a b buusine sinessss adv advaantntage age f from rom t thhe e the operational leases as off-balance sheet items might create a business advantage from the Resources 2019, 8, 172 8 of 16 IFRS 16 key objective was to record the operational lease committed rights (rights of use, ROU) as assets and committed liabilities to reduce the off-balance sheet items. For the entities reporting under HAL regulation, this is not a requirement, and in case of an independent financial analysis or a credit strength testing, they can be invisible. The recorded off-balance sheet value can be significant from a creditor’s or financial analysis’ point of view. GreenGo reported under HAL regulation, where the operational leases as off-balance sheet items might create a business advantage from the presentation perspective because the leverage ratio does not show the total minimum of liabilities from the lease obligations. 3.1.3. Comparison to German Entities Germany has the most significant car-sharing market in Europe, with several service providers and over 30,000 registered users, as summarized below in Table 6 in comparison to Hungary. Table 6. Comparison of German and Hungarian entities’ published users, fleet size, and serviced cities. Service Available in the Provider’s Name Registered Users Fleet Size Number of Cities Free-float car share providers in Germany Share Now (car2go and DriveNow) 3,000,000+ 20,000+ out of 3200+ electric 31 Flinkster (DB) 315,000 4000 300 Cambio 77,000 1600 22 Stadtmobil 63,000 2600 100 Book N Drive 43,000 1015 14 teilAuto 35,000 1000 19 Free-float car share providers in Hungary GreenGo (HUN) 30–40,000 300 electric 1 MOL LIMO (HUN) 40,000 100 electric350 petrol 1 From this table, it can be concluded that German free-float car-sharing companies operate significantly larger fleets and have a substantially larger number of registered users in absolute terms. Hungarian companies operate only in one city, namely, Budapest, with a total of 750 vehicles for a 525 km city area, where the population is approx. 1.75 M. In contrast, only one company, ShareNow, operates approx. 4000 cars in Berlin for an 891 km city area with a 3.6 M population. For additional comparison, in the capital city in the region with the most similar population, Vienna, only ShareNow operates, with 2000+ vehicles for a 1.8 M population and a 415 km city area. The service fees can also be compared, because in April 2019, ShareNow announced to extend the operation in Budapest as well, with approx. 240 vehicles (of which, 40 electric BMW i3). Table 7 shows the fee and car type comparison. Table 7. Comparison of free-float service costs between ShareNow, MOL Limo, and GreenGo (2019) [39–41]. Provider’s Name Service Fee Car Type Additional Conditions ShareNow (BMW and Daimler) from 99 HUF/min (0.32 cent/min) Mini, BMW 38.7 ¿/h GreenGo from 65 HUF/min (0.21 cent/min) VW Up MOL LIMO from 66 HUF/min (0.21 cent/mind) VW Up, Mercedes A class ShareNow provides services across the EU and, in 2019, established the most significant European fleet; additionally, it published a plan to invest further ¿1 billion. With 20,000+ vehicles, joint companies operate in 24 countries globally. It is only a matter of time to utilize the economies-of-scale advantage and provide service in all European countries. A coverage map for Car2Go and DriveNow is shown in Figure 5. From the operation and financial analysis perspectives, an apparent market concentration is happening now in Europe, which is a successful business model. Without doubts, it supports sustainability; however, there is no core sustainability element in this business model. The more effective utilization of the resources has an impact on sustainability, but it is based on a usual corporate profit model. Resources 2019, 8, 172 9 of 16 Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17 Figure 5. Car2Go and DriveNow joint coverage. Figure 5. Car2Go and DriveNow joint coverage. From the operation and financial analysis perspectives, an apparent market concentration is 3.2. Sustainability happening now in Europe, which is a successful business model. Without doubts, it supports From the sustainability perspective (Table 2), three statements (out of a total of seven) appeared in sustainability; however, there is no core sustainability element in this business model. The more the ocial communications of the reviewed companies, presented in Table 8. effective utilization of the resources has an impact on sustainability, but it is based on a usual corporate profit model. Table 8. Sustainability-related aspects of car-sharing [32,39–41]. Sustainability-Related 3.2. Sustainability GreenGo MOL Limo BMW DriveNow Daimler Car2Go Aspects of Car-Sharing From the sustainability perspective (Table 2), three statements (out of a tota The slm of ar seven) t ForTwo c a an ppea fit red in almost any parking spot in the official communications of the reviewed companies, presented in Table 8. Resource eciency There is less of an emphasis on parking Digital parking and can maneuver around through using rather infrastructure and road expansion service Park Now even the most intense than owning downtown rush hour Table 8. Sustainability-related aspects of car-sharing [32,39–41]. traffic jams. The VW MOL Limo fleet Sustainability- 900 Electric is 450-strong (100 BMW Low ecological 300 electric * cars vehicles in Europe, Related Aspects of GreenGo MOL Limo Daimler Car2Go electrical and 350 footprint/low carbon 1300 in the USA DriveNow gas-powered vehicles) Car-Sharing Shared cars are smaller than those in the The smart ForTwo can fit average household. in almost any parking Own less, interact more, Over 50% of Car2Go Resource efficiency There is less of an emphasis on Digit Digital al p networking arking build social capital members do not own a car. spot and can maneuver through using parking infrastructure and service Park * Electric cars have two main advantages: unlike gasoline, electricity can be generated from various sources including around even the most rather tha renewable n owni ones, ng and electric vehicles road expansion can reduce urban air pollution from Now road transportation. “However, while intense downtown rush electric cars can reduce gasoline use, they increase electricity consumption. Depending on how the electricity is generated, emissions of particular air pollutants may reduce or increase” [42]. In Appendix B (Table A1), we list the hour traffic jams. vital sustainability-related statements from car2go and DriveNow sustainability reports; the reviewed sustainability The VW MOL reports are all related to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) orientation. Limo fleet is 900 Electric 450-strong 3.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process 300 electric * vehicles in (100 electrical cars Europe, 1300 in Low ecolo To resolve gic the al lack of reconciliation between financial and sustainability reporting, potential and 350 gas- decision-support models, such as the analytic hierarchy process the USA model, can be utilized to present the footprint/low powered connection carbon between the di erent reporting systems. It is crucial to determine the factors and to apply vehicles) proper weights for the specific items. To measure impacts, the method of the analytic hierarchy process Shared cars are smaller than (AHP) was used, where the weights of the factors were identified in order from the most to the least those in the average significant from the investor decision’s perspective. household. When constructing the decision-making environment, it is crucial to identify issues or attributes Own less, interact Over 50% of Car2Go that may be helpful [43,44], which brings the disharmony of traditional financial performance measuring Digital more, build social members do not own a networking capital car. Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17 * Electric cars have two main advantages: unlike gasoline, electricity can be generated from various sources including renewable ones, and electric vehicles can reduce urban air pollution from road transportation. “However, while electric cars can reduce gasoline use, they increase electricity consumption. Depending on how the electricity is generated, emissions of particular air pollutants may reduce or increase” [42]. In Appendix B (Table A1), we list the vital sustainability-related statements from car2go and DriveNow sustainability reports; the reviewed sustainability reports are all related to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) orientation. 3.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process To resolve the lack of reconciliation between financial and sustainability reporting, potential decision-support models, such as the analytic hierarchy process model, can be utilized to present the connection between the different reporting systems. It is crucial to determine the factors and to apply proper weights for the specific items. To measure impacts, the method of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used, where the weights of the factors were identified in order from the most to Resourthe l ces 2019 east si , 8, 172 gnificant from the investor decision’s perspective. 10 of 16 When constructing the decision-making environment, it is crucial to identify issues or attributes that may be helpful [43,44], which brings the disharmony of traditional financial performance attributes and sustainability aspects into perspective. The AHP theory aims to find the preferable measuring attributes and sustainability aspects into perspective. The AHP theory aims to find the alternative by weighing the priorities of the involved factors on a 1–9 scale (1: equal importance, preferable alternative by weighing the priorities of the involved factors on a 1–9 scale (1: equal 9: higher impoimportance rtance, 9: higher withim respect portance wit to another h resp component) ect to another com and carrying ponent) a out nd pairwise carrying out pa comparisons irwise and comparisons and standardization of the results to validate the overall ranking of factors [43,44]. standardization of the results to validate the overall ranking of factors [43,44]. Considering the findings Considering the findings of the current study, six elements were selected and weighed (w), as shown of the current study, six elements were selected and weighed (w), as shown in Figure 6. in Figure 6. Company valuation by investors Total assets Profitability Cash flows Sustainability Large company Medium/small company w: 5 w: 8 w: 6 w:1 w: 3 w: 3 Figure 6. Decision factors and assumed weights. Figure 6. Decision factors and assumed weights. In the analysis process, pairwise comparisons were developed for each criterion using linear In the analysis process, pairwise comparisons were developed for each criterion using linear integer scaling, summarized in a 6 × 6 matrix, which was then normalized using natural logarithms integer scaling, summarized in a 6 6 matrix, which was then normalized using natural logarithms (ln (𝐴 )) [45]. Using the AHP template and methodology of Goepel [46], the results were then averaged (ln(A)) [45]. Using the AHP template and methodology of Goepel [46], the results were then averaged by rows, and the impacts were measured by the Eigenvector method (EVM). The summary matrix is by rows, and the impacts were measured by the Eigenvector method (EVM). The summary matrix is presented in Figure 7. presented in Figure 7. Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17 Figure 7. Summary of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) matrix. Figure 7. Summary of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) matrix. Additionally, the Eigenvalue (or 𝜆 , consistency measure), the consistency index (CI), the mean Additionally, the Eigenvalue (or , consistency measure), the consistency index (CI), the mean relative error (MRE) of the weights, and the consistency ratio (CR) were calculated [47]. If the relative error (MRE) of the weights, and the consistency ratio (CR) were calculated [47]. If the Eigenvalue (the matrix product of normalized principal Eigenvectors) equals the sample size (6), Eigenvalue (the matrix product of normalized principal Eigenvectors) equals the sample size (6), perfect consistency can be identified (𝜆= 𝑛 ), which in our case corresponds to the value of 6.091. perfect consistency can be identified ( = n), which in our case corresponds to the value of 6.091. The priorities pi in the input matrix were transformed into a near-consistent model using the The priorities pi in the input matrix were transformed into a near-consistent model using the EVM. EVM. In the pairwise n × n comparison matrix 𝐴= 𝑎 , where 𝛺 ,𝛺 ,…, 𝛺 are comparable elements In the pairwise n n comparison matrix A = a , where W , W ,::: , W are comparable elements with i j 1 2 n with a positive numerical value, the transformation procedure is as follows: a positive numerical value, the transformation procedure is as follows: () () 𝑤 ,…, 𝑤 … ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ … (1) measurement () () 8 9 8 9 𝑤 ,…, 𝑤 (1) (n) > > > > > > W w ,::: , w procedure > 1 > > > 1 1 > > > > < = < = With the use of EVM, the measuring procedure can be adapted to pairwise comparisons: ::: ! ::: (1) > > > > > > > > > > > > ∑ : ; > > 𝑎 𝑤 =𝜆 𝑤 ,𝑖 = 1,…,𝑛 , where 𝜆 𝑤 are the princ (1) ipal Eigenvectors (n) [48]. : ; w ,::: , w n n The normalization process is as follows: 𝑝 =𝑟 /𝑟 (2) The CI was calculated by: (𝜆 − 𝑛) CI = = 0.18% (3) 𝑛− 1 Error calculation of the priority vector 𝑤 with the used EVM followed: 1 𝑛 𝛥𝑤 = ( 𝑎 𝑤 −𝑤 ) ,𝑖 = 1,…,𝑛 = 19.0% (4) 𝑛− 1 𝜆 In the CR, the Alonson/Lamata linear fit was used: CR = =1,4% [47]. ,, From the hierarchical structure and from the potential AHP model presented in Figure 7, profitability remains the most significant factor in an investor company valuation with a normalized principal Eigenvector of 41.3%, followed by the cash flows (22.3%) and total assets (18.2%). From the investor decision’s perspective, as long as sustainability reporting does not harmonize with financial reporting, the sustainability aspects tend to have a low impact factor (4.4%). In conclusion, the AHP statistical method is usable for the prioritization of factors, but it should be emphasized that the applied weights of the factors can be depend on subjective evaluations. 4. Conclusions Resources 2019, 8, 172 11 of 16 with the use of EVM, the measuring procedure can be adapted to pairwise comparisons: a w = ik k k=1 w , i = 1,::: , n, where  w are the principal Eigenvectors [48]. max max i i The normalization process is as follows: p = r / r (2) i 1 i i=1 The CI was calculated by: ( n) CI = = 0.18% (3) n 1 Error calculation of the priority vector w with the used EVM followed: 1 n Dw = ( a w w ) , i = 1,::: , n = 19.0% (4) i ik k i n 1 k=1 In the CR, the Alonson/Lamata linear fit was used: CR = = 1.4% [47]. 2,7699n4,3513n From the hierarchical structure and from the potential AHP model presented in Figure 7, profitability remains the most significant factor in an investor company valuation with a normalized principal Eigenvector of 41.3%, followed by the cash flows (22.3%) and total assets (18.2%). From the investor decision’s perspective, as long as sustainability reporting does not harmonize with financial reporting, the sustainability aspects tend to have a low impact factor (4.4%). In conclusion, the AHP statistical method is usable for the prioritization of factors, but it should be emphasized that the applied weights of the factors can be depend on subjective evaluations. 4. Conclusions From the financial and sustainability reports, the following conclusions can be made related to the Hungarian free-float car-sharing market: 1. The market competition is increasing, and Hungarian companies have so far generated only losses from the financial statement’s perspective and are not competitive with respect to their German counterparts. Market concentration seems to be increasing since the end of April 2019, when ShareNow started to provide services in Hungary. Additionally, we found that the reviewed companies follow a business model and not a sustainability model. Tóth et al. [49] defined truly responsible enterprises and developed a sustainability ranking model based on three key aspects i.e., local economic role, environmental impact, and social responsibility, which are measured on a five-point scale, ranging from destructive to sustaining operations. From the environmental impact and social responsibility perspectives, car-sharing entities may be considered even as sustaining or public-spirited entities, but with the international market concentration, their local economic role is reduced; solutions should be found to achieve a more sustainable operation. 2. From the statistical data collection’s perspective, on the EU level, a separate car-sharing sub-category should be created because, at the moment, rental and lease companies are not separated in statistical reports. 3. In the reviewed sustainability reports, four areas were compared for Car2go and DriveNow, as follows: (a) new business model; (b) geographic expansion; (c) public transport; (d) electric vehicles. The basic idea of sustainable mobility is simple: “We need to shape our city mobility in such a way that the ease and safety of our everyday movements now and in the future will not diminish but grow, and the quality of life will not suffer but improve for us and for the generations to come” [50]. For sustainability achievement, three key areas can be defined as the targeted goals for the reviewed entities: (a) Efficiency of resource utilization, (b) Low carbon footprint, and (c) Build of social capital. Resources 2019, 8, 172 12 of 16 Sustainability reports in the examined sample cannot be connected to the financial statements, whereas harmonization is essential and should be a subject of future studies. 4. This study provides additional information and evidence regarding financial and sustainability report harmonization, confirming the “importance of environmental accounting on financial performance” [51,52] and policy development in the car-sharing industry. 5. Future research studies can focus on harmonization development between the di erent reporting standards and the next harmonization steps planned by the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) in this area. 6. Considering the available information and the early stage of harmonization, this paper has certain limitations. We concluded that no clear connection exists between financial and sustainability reporting, but we could not precisely link those reporting standards; financial statements were only available until 2017. Author Contributions: A.T. and C.S. initiated the study and performed the conceptualization, A.T. prepared the literature review, designed the methodology and collected the data, C.S. validated the results, A.T. and C.S. wrote the paper. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: Data collection, analysis, and administrative support received from the “Research Center of Vehicle Industry” at Széchenyi István University (JKK). Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A Resources 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17 Figure A1. TEÁOR 77.11 main renting or lease activity of companies with at least 10 staff headcounts Figure A1. TEÁOR 77.11 main renting or lease activity of companies with at least 10 sta headcounts in Hungary [25]. in Hungary [25]. Appendix B Table A1. Aspects of the sustainable sharing economy (SSE) [40,41]. BMW Daimler “The focus will continue to be placed on the development, production, and sale of vehicles, “Transport infrastructure and transport systems New with a wide range of innovative frequently operate at their limits, especially in urban business mobility services on top.” (p. 11) areas. That is why Daimler has developed a range of model “Providing opportunities to test pioneering mobility concepts.” ([41], p. 55) the BMW i3 as part of our DriveNow car-sharing scheme.” ([40], p. 60) “DriveNow is currently “The 300 new vehicles are being used in Berlin, and available in 13 European cities. additional models will also be introduced to other cities in On 8 April 2016, the BMW the future.” “In 2016, car2go launched in the Chinese Geographic Group launched an advanced megacity of Chongqing with the brand suffix “JíXíng” expansion car-sharing program in the USA (roughly translated as: “drive off immediately”). “car2go under the name ReachNow.” is the first international company to implement the free- ([40], p. 73) floating car-sharing concept in China.” ([41], p. 55) “DriveNow in Copenhagen is operated by the city’s public transport company Arriva. With “From the car-sharing provider car2go and the mobility Public their “Rejsekort,” a card for platform Moovel to the taxi app Mytaxi, the coach transport almost all mobility services in company Flixbus, and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) the whole of Denmark, users system.” ([41], p. 55) also gain access to DriveNow. ([40], p. 74) Resources 2019, 8, 172 13 of 16 Appendix B Table A1. Aspects of the sustainable sharing economy (SSE) [40,41]. BMW Daimler “The focus will continue to be placed on “Transport infrastructure and the development, production, and sale of transport systems frequently operate vehicles, with a wide range of innovative at their limits, especially in urban New business model mobility services on top.” (p. 11) areas. That is why Daimler has “Providing opportunities to test the BMW developed a range of pioneering i3 as part of our DriveNow car-sharing mobility concepts.” ([41], p. 55) scheme.” ([40], p. 60) “The 300 new vehicles are being used in Berlin, and additional models will also be introduced to other cities in the “DriveNow is currently available in 13 future.” “In 2016, car2go launched in European cities. On 8 April 2016, the Chinese megacity of Chongqing Geographic expansion the BMW Group launched an advanced with the brand sux “JíXíng” car-sharing program in the USA under the (roughly translated as: “drive o name ReachNow.” ([40], p. 73) immediately”). “car2go is the first international company to implement the free-floating car-sharing concept in China.” ([41], p. 55) “DriveNow in Copenhagen is operated by “From the car-sharing provider car2go the city’s public transport company and the mobility platform Moovel to Arriva. With their “Rejsekort,” a card for Public transport the taxi app Mytaxi, the coach almost all mobility services in the whole company Flixbus, and the Bus Rapid of Denmark, users also gain access to Transit (BRT) system.” ([41], p. 55) DriveNow. ([40], p. 74) “The fleet for both programs currently comprises more than 6000 vehicles in “Car2go has added 20 smart ForTwo Europe, of which around 15% are purely electric vehicles to the local fleet. electric BMW i3 vehicles. A further 1300 This is the first step in evaluating the vehicles are available in the USA. feasibility of using electric vehicles in DriveNow is one of the strongest drivers our fleet by relying on Montréal’s Electric vehicles of electromobility in Germany”. (p. 71) existing charging infrastructure, as “Copenhagen is the only city in Europe in well as determining how the city’s which we have operated our car-sharing climate conditions impact vehicle service from the start with a fleet of purely range and availability.” https: electric BMW i3 cars. The good charging //www.car2go.com/NA/en/nextgen/ infrastructure in the city o ers ideal conditions for this.” ([40], p. 74) References 1. Deloitte, L.L.C. Car Sharing in Europe–Business Models, National Variations, and Upcoming Disruptions. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/manufacturing/articles/car-sharing-in-europe.html (accessed on 23 February 2019). 2. Muñoz, P.; Cohen, B. A Compass for Navigating Sharing Economy Business Models. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2018, 61, 114–147. [CrossRef] 3. Reitmann, N.; Lieven, T. How policy measures succeeded to promote electric mobility–worldwide review and outlook. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 66–75. [CrossRef] 4. Hartl, B.; Sabitzer, T.; Hofmann, E.; Penz, E. “Sustainability is a nice bonus” the role of sustainability in carsharing from a consumer perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 88–100. [CrossRef] 5. Wheeler, S.A.; Webb, T. Leases: A review of contemporary academic literature relating to lessees. Account. Horiz. 2015, 29, 997–1023. [CrossRef] 6. Barone, E.; Birt, J.; Moya, S. Lease accounting: A review of recent literature. Account. Eur. 2014, 11, 35–54. [CrossRef] Resources 2019, 8, 172 14 of 16 7. Giner, B.; Pardo, F. The value relevance of operating lease liabilities: Economic e ects of IFRS 16. Aust. Account. Rev. 2018, 28, 496–511. [CrossRef] 8. Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–65. [CrossRef] 9. Geisinger, A.; Laurell, C.; Oberg, C.; Sandstrom, C. How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 206, 419–429. [CrossRef] 10. Harangozo, G.; Csutora, M.; Kocsis, T. How big is big enough? Toward a sustainable future by examining alternatives to the conventional economic growth paradigm. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 172–181. [CrossRef] 11. Bernardi, M.; Diamantini, D. Shaping the sharing city: An exploratory study on Seoul and Milan. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 203, 30–42. [CrossRef] 12. Csutora, M.; Harangozo, G. Twenty years of carbon accounting and auditing–a review and outlook. Soc. Econ. 2017, 39, 459–480. [CrossRef] 13. Ma, Y.; Lan, J.; Thornton, T.; Mangalagiu, D.; Zhu, D. Challenges of collaborative governance in the sharing economy: The case of free-floating bike-sharing in Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 356–365. [CrossRef] 14. Albinsson, P.; Perera, Y.; Nafees, L.; Burman, B. Collaborative Consumption Usage in the US and India: An Exploratory Study. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2019, 27, 390–412. [CrossRef] 15. Ma, Y.; Rong, K.; Mangalagiu, D.; Thornton, T.; Zhu, D. Co-evolution between urban sustainability and business ecosystem innovation: Evidence from the sharing mobility sector in Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 942–953. [CrossRef] 16. Allen, D.; Berg, C. The Sharing Economy: How Over-Regulation Could Destroy an Economic Revolution; Institute of Public Affairs: Melbourne, Australia, 2014; Available online: https://collaborativeeconomy.com/wp/wp-content/ uploads/2015/04/Allen-D.-and-Berg-C.2014.The-Sharing-Economy.-Institute-of-Public-Affairs.-.pdf (accessed on 6 October 2019). 17. Cohen, M.; Sundararajan, A. Self-Regulation, and Innovation in the Peer-to-Peer Sharing Economy. Univ. Chic. Law Rev. Dialogue 2015, 82, 116–133. 18. Koopman, C.; Mitchell, M.; Thierer, A. The Sharing Economy and Consumer Protection Regulation: The Case for Policy Change; Mercatus Center, George Madison University: Arlington, VA, USA, 2014; Available online: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=jbel (accessed on 4 October 2019). 19. Koopman, C.; Mitchell, M.; Thierer, A. The Sharing Economy: Issues Facing Platforms, Participants, and Regulators. 2016. Available online: https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Koopman-Sharing-Economy- FTC-filing.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2019). 20. Sundararajan, A. Peer-to-peer Businesses and the Sharing (Collaborative) Economy: Overview, Economic E ects, and Regulatory Issues. Written Testimony for the Hearing Titled, The Power of Connection: Peer-To-Peer Businesses, Held by the Committee on Small Businesses of the U.S. House of Representatives, 15 September 2014. Available online: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg86266/html/ CHRG-113hhrg86266.htm (accessed on 8 October 2019). 21. Thierer, A.; Koopman, C.; Hobson, A.; Kuiper, C. How the Internet, the Sharing Economy, and Reputational Feedback Mechanisms Solve the ‘Lemons Problem’. 2016. Available online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2610255 (accessed on 4 October 2019). 22. Cannon, B.; Chung, H. A framework for designing co-regulation models well-adapted to technology- facilitated sharing economies. Santa Clara High Technol. Law J. 2015, 31, 23–97. 23. Malhotra, A.; Van Alstyne, M. The dark side of the sharing economy ::: and how to lighten it. Commun. ACM 2014, 57, 24–27. [CrossRef] 24. McLean, S. The rise of the sharing economy. Comput. Law Mag. SCL 2015, 26, 26–28. 25. Ranchordas, S. Does Sharing Mean Caring? Regulating Innovation in the Sharing Economy. Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 2015, 16, 413–475. 26. Rauch, D.; Schleicher, D. Like Uber, But for Local Government Policy: The Future of Local Regulation of the “Shared Economy”; Working Paper # 21; New York University, Marron Institute of Urban Management: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Available online: https://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/uploads/content/The_Future_of_Local_ Regulation_of_the_Shared_Economy.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2019). Resources 2019, 8, 172 15 of 16 27. Sunil, J.; Noah, Z. Policymaking for the Sharing Economy: Beyond Whack-A-Mole; Mowat Centre, University of Toronto: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2015; Available online: https://mowatcentre.ca/wpcontent/uploads/ publications/106_policymaking_for_the_sharing_economy.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2019). 28. Zrenner, A. The Ethics of Regulating the Sharing Economy; The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University: Durham, NC, USA, 2015; Available online: https://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ Sharing-Economy-2015.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2019). 29. Oei, S.; Ring, D. Can Sharing Be Taxed? Legal Studies Research Paper No. 352; Boston College Law School: Boston, MA, USA, 2015. 30. Codagnone, C.; Martens, B. Scoping the Sharing Economy: Origins, Definitions, Impact and Regulatory Issues; JRC Technical Reports, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Digital Economy Working Paper 1; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/ JRC100369.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2019). 31. Daus, M.; Russo, P. One Standard for All. Criminal Background Checks for Taxicab, For-Hire, and Transportation Network Company (Inc) Drivers; Jay College of Criminal Justice, of the City University of New York: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Available online: http://www.utrc2.org/sites/default/files/pubs/Background%20Check% 20Report.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2019). 32. Penz, E.; Hartl, B.; Hofmann, E. Collectively Building a Sustainable Sharing Economy Based on Trust and Regulation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 37–54. [CrossRef] 33. Frenken, K.; Schor, J. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 3–10. [CrossRef] 34. Baptista, P.; Meloa, S.; Rolima, C. Energy, environmental, and mobility impacts of car-sharing systems. Empirical results from Lisbon, Portugal. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 37, 28–37. [CrossRef] 35. Kawaguchi, T.; Murata, H.; Fukushige, S.; Kobayashi, H. Scenario analysis of car- and ride-sharing services based on life cycle simulation. Procedia Cirp 2019, 80, 328–333. [CrossRef] 36. Giesel, F.; Nobis, C. The Impact of Carsharing on Car Ownership in German Cities. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 19, 215–224. [CrossRef] 37. European Commission. NACE, Rev. 2. Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community; Eurostat Methodologies and Working papers; European Commission: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2008. 38. Hungarian Accounting Regulation Act of 2000. C. in Hungary. Available online: https://net.jogtar.hu/ jogszabaly?docid=A0000100.TV (accessed on 27 September 2019). 39. Electronic Reporting Portal of the Ministry of Justice in Hungary. Available online: https://e-beszamolo.im. gov.hu/oldal/kezdolap (accessed on 27 September 2019). 40. BMW Group Sustainable Value Report. Available online: https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/bmw- group-websites/bmwgroup_com/ir/downloads/en/2017/BMW-Group-SustainableValueReport-2017--EN. pdf (accessed on 10 January 2019). 41. Daimler Sustainability Report. Available online: https://www.daimler.com/documents/sustainability/other/ daimler-sustainability-report-2017.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2019). 42. Cai, H. Big Data for Urban Sustainability: Integrating Personal Mobility Dynamics in Environmental Assessments. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2015. Available online: https: //deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/113510/caih_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 27 September 2019). 43. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98. [CrossRef] 44. Saaty, T.L. What is the analytic hierarchy process. In Mathematical Models for Decision Support; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1988; pp. 109–121. 45. Bunruamkaew, K. How to do AHP Analysis in Excel. Division of Spatial Information Science Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Tsukuba, 2012, Lecture. Available online: http://giswin. geo.tsukuba.ac.jp/sis/gis_seminar/How%20to%20do%20AHP%20analysis%20in%20Excel.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2019). 46. Goepel, K.D. Implementing the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Standard Method for Multi-Criteria Decision Making In Corporate Enterprises–A New AHP Excel Template with Multiple Inputs. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 23–26 June 2013. [CrossRef] Resources 2019, 8, 172 16 of 16 47. Tomashevskii, I.L. Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 240, 774–780. [CrossRef] 48. Alonso, L. Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. -Based Syst. 2006, 14, 445–459. [CrossRef] 49. Tóth, G. The Truly Responsible Enterprise: About Unsustainable Development, the Tools of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and the Deeper, Strategic Approach, 2nd ed.; KÖVET–Hungarian Association for Sustainable Economies, 2009; Available online: http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526 (accessed on 7 November 2019). 50. Tkatchenko, R. Personal City Mobility in the Context of Sustainable Development. Ph.D. Thesis, Corvinus University, Budapest, Hungary, 2018. Available online: http://phd.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/990/2/Tkatchenko_ Rossen_ten.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2019). 51. Fogarassy, C.; Neubauer, É.; Mansur, H. The main transition management issues and the e ects of environmental accounting on financial performance-with focus on cement industry. Adm. Manag. Public 2018, 31, 52–66. [CrossRef] 52. Horvath, B.; Khazami, N.; Ymeri, P.; Fogarassy, C. Investigating the Current Business Model Innovation Trends in the Biotechnology Industry. JBEM 2019, 20, 63–85. [CrossRef] © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Journal

ResourcesMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Nov 8, 2019

There are no references for this article.