In: Operations Management
In many cases, individuals may hold MULTIPLE stakeholder roles at the same time and nonmarket stakeholders may be more powerful than market stakeholders. For example, government regulators also may be Uber customers (e.g. hold multiple ‘roles’).
Discuss a stakeholder that would likely support, or oppose, a requirement that Uber extend its insurance to cover the app-on gap. Is it a market or nonmarket stakeholder and is it powerful? Please do not discuss stakeholders others have already mentioned.
**others said
--The stakeholder that I would like to discuss is the 'other ride-hailing companies'. Like Uber, there are several other ride-hailing companies prevalent in the market today. These ride-hailing companies would be described as Uber's competitors and thus a non market stakeholder. These companies joined Uber in opposing the legislation requiring Uber to extend it;s insurance cover to the app-on gap period as well. If this legislation passed all these similar ride hailing companies would also be effected by the same. As far as power, the ride hailing companies have significant power because they are a group of companies with substantial market coverage and economic power. They would certainly be in a position to influence local government and other organizations.
.
---Stakeholders who would likely support a requirement that Uber extend its insurance to cover the app-on gap would be the so-called Uber "transportation entrepreneurs" themselves. These market stakeholders, being the "face" of Uber, are definitely powerful in that they have a position of influence with regard to policies that ensure Uber extends its insurance covering the app-on gap. I would think that as stakeholders, and Uber drivers, they would definitely want to have some sort of insurance protection in the event an unexpected accident occurs which can cause injury to themselves and/or their passenger(s). This is something I alluded to in my Stone's Limit of the Law post. It should be common knowledge that the future cannot be accurately predicted under all circumstances, but corporations should take it upon themselves to work with legislation, to discuss the varying scenarios, and how they should be handled, for the good of their corporation and their customers. With this in mind, I would think that Uber and its stakeholders, namely the drivers, would want to ensure they are not held accountable (without insurance) for any liabilities which may arise in the event of an unexpected accident. If Uber does not take this type of initiative, Uber drivers, as market stakeholders, definitely are powerful enough to influence Uber to take action.
The stakeholder that i will choose for this question is "Taxi companies". Mind that we are not taking about other ride hailing comanies which are imediate competitiors of UBer like Lyft. Taxi companies are also competitors of Uber and similar companies such that they provide substitute fo rthe service that Uber provides. These are not immediate competitors but are strong indirect competitors.
With the extension of insurance to app-on gap the liability of ubar and similar companies will increase which will decrease the competitive advantage over traditional taxi companies. Hence the competitiveness of traditional compnaies will rise with such extemsion. These taxi companies already pay for commercial liability insurance and would also support that it gets extended to ride hailing companies as well that will increase the competitiveness of tax i companies.
Hence taxi companies will favor it.
Taxi companies are non market stakeholders abut hold high power as they also have vocal in lobyying system which affect their industries.