Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Qualitative study identifies and ranks challenges to vehicle-sharing in humanitarian organizations, suggesting need for policy changes.
Purpose Humanitarian organizations (HOs) continue to lag in adopting the benefits of vehicle-sharing during disaster relief operations. Therefore, the primary objective of this study's investigation is to scrutinize and rank the important challenges that hinder vehicle-sharing initiatives among HOs. Design/methodology/approach This study employs a multi-method approach, incorporating both interviews and surveys. Initially, interviews are conducted with officials from HOs to explore the challenges associated with vehicle-sharing. Next, surveys are administered to officials of HOs to rank these identified challenges. This study is framed through the perspective or lens of innovative resistance theory. Findings The absence of government support and incentives emerges as the most critical challenge. This is followed by the unwillingness of top management and severe inter-organizational competition, which are the next most significant challenges. Subsequent challenges, in order of importance, include lack of trust, corruption and unethical behavior, lack of internal coordination, absence of a neutral third party, unawareness of potential benefits, varying characteristics of vehicles and compliance standards. Research limitations/implications By ranking these important challenges, the study offers a framework for prioritizing efforts and resources for interorganizational collaboration. The findings emphasize the need for policy interventions and strategic initiatives to address challenges to vehicle-sharing among HOs. Practical implications Key obstacles like the lack of government support, management unwillingness and inter-organizational competition highlight the importance of fostering collaboration. Originality/value The findings provide the first insights into vehicle-sharing challenges among HOs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Islam et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: