In the rapidly evolving new energy vehicle (NEV) industry, core enterprises face significant challenges in achieving ecological field legitimacy, which is essential for widespread acceptance and growth. This paper explores the process mechanism through which NEV core enterprises, specifically Tesla vs BYD, trigger institutional entrepreneurship, catalyze collective action construction, and ultimately achieve legitimacy emergence in their ecological fields. Drawing on a longitudinal dual-case study, I analyze how Tesla vs BYD navigate different innovation contexts to overcome legitimacy thresholds and establish global ecological brands. The framework of “core enterprise institutional entrepreneurship triggering – ecological field collective action construction catalyzing – ecological field legitimacy emergence fusion” serves as the analytical lens to unpack this complex process. By comparing Tesla vs BYD, I identify two distinct path paradigms: the “high-position following to high-position leading” path exemplified by BYD, and the “high-position leading to high-position跨越” path demonstrated by Tesla. This research contributes to understanding how collective institutional entrepreneurship drives legitimacy emergence, offering theoretical insights and practical implications for NEV core enterprises worldwide.
The NEV industry, as a strategic emerging sector, disrupts traditional automotive business models and institutional norms, creating legitimacy deficits at the ecological field level. Core enterprises like Tesla vs BYD must address these challenges to cross legitimacy thresholds and achieve sustainable growth. Institutional entrepreneurship, collective action, and legitimacy emergence theories provide a foundation for analyzing this process. In this paper, I examine how Tesla vs BYD, as core enterprises, initiate institutional changes, mobilize collective actions, and foster legitimacy fusion, leading to the transformation from regional to global ecological brands. The comparative analysis of Tesla vs BYD reveals how different innovation contexts influence the strategies and outcomes of legitimacy emergence.
Theoretical Background and Research Framework
Institutional entrepreneurship refers to the activities of actors who leverage resources to create, transform, or disrupt institutions. In the NEV context, core enterprises like Tesla vs BYD act as institutional entrepreneurs by establishing new technical standards, market norms, and policy engagements. Collective action involves coordinated efforts among diverse stakeholders, including suppliers, partners, and consumers, to build behavioral, relational, and identity-based collaborations. Legitimacy emergence denotes the point at which an ecological field’s practices gain widespread acceptance, crossing multiple legitimacy thresholds through network effects. The integration of these concepts forms the research framework: triggering by core enterprise institutional entrepreneurship, catalyzing by ecological field collective action construction, and fusion by ecological field legitimacy emergence.
For Tesla vs BYD, this framework explains how they navigate institutional voids and collective action challenges. The process can be modeled mathematically as follows: Let $L_e$ represent ecological field legitimacy emergence, which is a function of institutional entrepreneurship ($IE$), collective action construction ($CA$), and external factors ($E$). Thus, $$ L_e = f(IE, CA, E) $$ where $IE$ includes technical, market, and policy institutional changes, $CA$ encompasses behavioral, relational, and identity actions, and $E$ accounts for environmental dynamics. In the case of Tesla vs BYD, $IE$ and $CA$ interact multiplicatively, leading to a nonlinear increase in $L_e$ when thresholds are crossed.
| Aspect | Tesla | BYD |
|---|---|---|
| Institutional Entrepreneurship Trigger | Software-defined vehicles, energy ecosystem expansion | Phosphate iron lithium technology, open supply chain |
| Collective Action Catalysis | Global alliances, user identity binding | Vertical integration, multi-brand matrix |
| Legitimacy Emergence Fusion | Regulatory standards in autonomy, brand excellence | International technical standards, national pride |
| Path Paradigm | High-position leading to high-position跨越 | High-position following to high-position leading |
The above table summarizes key differences and similarities in the Tesla vs BYD approaches. Both companies leverage institutional entrepreneurship to trigger changes, but Tesla vs BYD differ in their initial positioning and strategic emphasis. For instance, Tesla vs BYD highlight how core enterprises can reshape industry norms through collective actions.
Case Analysis: Tesla vs BYD
In this section, I delve into the longitudinal case studies of Tesla vs BYD, examining their journeys through regional and global ecological brand stages. The analysis is structured around the triggering, catalyzing, and fusion phases, with a focus on how Tesla vs BYD achieve legitimacy emergence.
Tesla’s Path: High-Position Leading to High-Position跨越
Tesla, as a pioneer in the NEV industry, initiated its institutional entrepreneurship by defining software-centric vehicles and expanding into renewable energy ecosystems. In the regional ecological brand stage (2003-2017), Tesla triggered changes through disruptive innovations like the Model S, which integrated advanced battery management and autonomous driving systems. Mathematically, Tesla’s institutional entrepreneurship ($IE_T$) can be expressed as $$ IE_T = \alpha_1 T_t + \alpha_2 M_t + \alpha_3 P_t $$ where $T_t$ represents technical institutions (e.g., FSD development), $M_t$ market institutions (e.g., direct sales models), and $P_t$ policy institutions (e.g., U.S. tax credits). The coefficients $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3$ reflect Tesla’s emphasis on technology-led changes.
Catalyzed by collective action construction, Tesla built global alliances with suppliers like Panasonic and LG, and engaged users through identity-binding strategies. For example, Tesla’s Bug Bounty program and open patent strategy fostered collaborative innovation. The collective action ($CA_T$) is given by $$ CA_T = \beta_1 B_t + \beta_2 R_t + \beta_3 I_t $$ where $B_t$ denotes behavioral actions (e.g., supply chain integration), $R_t$ relational actions (e.g., social media engagement), and $I_t$ identity actions (e.g., brand community building). The interaction $IE_T \times CA_T$ amplified Tesla’s legitimacy emergence, leading to fusion in the global stage (2018-present) with regulatory approvals for FSD and supercharger networks.
| Stage | Institutional Entrepreneurship | Collective Action | Legitimacy Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regional (2003-2017) | Model S launch, tax incentives | Supply chain partnerships, user forums | NHTSA 5-star ratings, brand recognition |
| Global (2018-present) | FSD iterations, Gigafactory expansion | Global R&D centers, open innovation | Data security standards, ecosystem closure |
Tesla’s path exemplifies a “high-position leading to high-position跨越” paradigm, where initial leadership in premium segments transitions into跨越ing new frontiers like autonomous driving and energy services. The comparison with BYD in the Tesla vs BYD dynamic shows how Tesla’s early mover advantage enabled faster legitimacy fusion.
BYD’s Path: High-Position Following to High-Position Leading
BYD, as a later entrant, adopted a following strategy initially, focusing on public transportation and gradual technological advancements. In the regional stage (2003-2020), BYD triggered institutional entrepreneurship through phosphate iron lithium battery technology and participation in Chinese policy-making, such as the NEV development plans. The institutional entrepreneurship ($IE_B$) for BYD is $$ IE_B = \gamma_1 T_b + \gamma_2 M_b + \gamma_3 P_b $$ where $T_b$ includes blade battery innovations, $M_b$ open market reforms, and $P_b$ government collaborations. Unlike Tesla vs BYD, BYD’s $IE_B$ emphasized cost-effectiveness and local adaptation.
Collective action catalysis involved vertical integration and multi-brand strategies, enabling BYD to build relational networks with international partners like Bosch and Shell. The collective action ($CA_B$) is modeled as $$ CA_B = \delta_1 B_b + \delta_2 R_b + \delta_3 I_b $$ with $B_b$ for behavioral actions (e.g., joint ventures), $R_b$ for relational actions (e.g., investor communications), and $I_b$ for identity actions (e.g., dynasty-themed branding). This catalyzed BYD’s transition to the global stage (2021-present), where legitimacy emergence fused through international standard-setting and brand recognition in over 70 countries.
| Stage | Institutional Entrepreneurship | Collective Action | Legitimacy Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regional (2003-2020) | Blade battery, policy involvement | Vertical integration, dynasty branding | Domestic standards, national pride |
| Global (2021-present) | DM-i technology, global sales networks | International partnerships, high-end models | Global rankings, technical leadership |
BYD’s path of “high-position following to high-position leading” demonstrates how latecomers can leverage collective actions to achieve legitimacy emergence. In the Tesla vs BYD comparison, BYD’s focus on identity construction and relational networks contrasts with Tesla’s technology-driven approach.
Cross-Case Comparison: Tesla vs BYD
The Tesla vs BYD analysis reveals both commonalities and distinctions in their legitimacy emergence processes. Both core enterprises trigger institutional entrepreneurship through technical, market, and policy innovations, and catalyze collective actions to form collective institutional entrepreneurship. However, Tesla vs BYD differ in their strategic emphases: Tesla prioritizes disruptive technology and global scalability, while BYD emphasizes incremental innovation and local integration.
Mathematically, the legitimacy emergence $L_e$ for Tesla vs BYD can be compared using a differential equation: $$ \frac{dL_e}{dt} = k \cdot IE \cdot CA – \lambda L_e $$ where $k$ is a growth constant, and $\lambda$ represents decay due to external shocks. For Tesla, $IE$ and $CA$ are high initially, leading to rapid $L_e$ growth, whereas for BYD, $IE$ and $CA$ build over time, resulting in steady accumulation. The Tesla vs BYD paths show that collective action construction is critical for crossing legitimacy thresholds, with Tesla relying on investment behaviors and BYD on identity actions.
| Feature | Commonality | Tesla Distinctive | BYD Distinctive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Institutional Trigger | Policy engagement, tech innovation | Software-defined ecosystems | Battery technology focus |
| Collective Catalysis | Stakeholder collaboration | Global supply chain alliances | Vertical integration networks |
| Legitimacy Fusion | Regulatory and normative acceptance | Autonomy standards | International brand influence |
This Tesla vs BYD comparison underscores the importance of context in shaping legitimacy emergence. Tesla’s “high-position leading to high-position跨越” path allows for faster global expansion, while BYD’s “high-position following to high-position leading” path ensures resilience through localized adaptations.
Path Paradigms and Mathematical Modeling
Based on the Tesla vs BYD cases, I derive two path paradigms for ecological field legitimacy emergence. Let $P$ represent the path, which can be modeled as a function of initial position $IP$ and strategic shift $SS$. For Tesla, $$ P_T = IP_T + \int SS_T \, dt $$ where $IP_T$ is high-position leading, and $SS_T$ is the跨越 to new domains. For BYD, $$ P_B = IP_B + \int SS_B \, dt $$ with $IP_B$ as high-position following, and $SS_B$ as the transition to leading.
The legitimacy emergence $L_e$ for each path can be expressed using a logistic growth model: $$ L_e = \frac{L_{max}}{1 + e^{-r(t – t_0)}} $$ where $L_{max}$ is the maximum legitimacy, $r$ is the growth rate, and $t_0$ is the inflection point. For Tesla vs BYD, $r$ is higher for Tesla due to early triggers, but $L_{max}$ is similar as both achieve global legitimacy. The Tesla vs BYD paradigms highlight that core enterprises must align institutional entrepreneurship with collective actions to optimize $L_e$.
| Parameter | Tesla | BYD |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Position ($IP$) | High (premium segment) | Low (public transport) |
| Strategic Shift ($SS$) | 跨越 to autonomy/energy | Transition to global brands |
| Growth Rate ($r$) | 0.8 (fast) | 0.5 (steady) |
| Inflection Point ($t_0$) | 2015 | 2020 |
These models illustrate how Tesla vs BYD navigate their paths, with Tesla vs BYD serving as benchmarks for other NEV enterprises. The mathematical formulations provide a basis for predicting legitimacy emergence in different contexts.
Conclusion and Implications
In conclusion, the Tesla vs BYD case study demonstrates that ecological field legitimacy emergence is driven by core enterprise institutional entrepreneurship triggering, collective action construction catalyzing, and legitimacy fusion. The Tesla vs BYD comparison reveals two effective path paradigms: Tesla’s “high-position leading to high-position跨越” and BYD’s “high-position following to high-position leading.” These paths emphasize the role of collective institutional entrepreneurship in overcoming legitimacy thresholds.
For managers, Tesla vs BYD offer lessons in leveraging institutional changes and collective networks. Enterprises should act as triggers for institutional entrepreneurship, foster collective actions through behavioral, relational, and identity constructions, and select path paradigms based on their innovation contexts. The Tesla vs BYD examples show that long-term vision and strategic inflection points are crucial for legitimacy emergence.
Research Outlook
Future research could expand the Tesla vs BYD analysis to include other actors like governments, universities, and complementors, examining their roles in legitimacy emergence. Additionally, quantitative studies could validate the mathematical models proposed in this Tesla vs BYD study. Exploring dynamic interactions in Tesla vs BYD ecosystems would further enrich understanding of collective institutional entrepreneurship.
Overall, the Tesla vs BYD focus in this paper underscores the importance of comparative case analysis in unraveling the complexities of ecological field legitimacy emergence. As the NEV industry evolves, insights from Tesla vs BYD will guide core enterprises in navigating legitimacy challenges and achieving sustainable growth.