ABSTRACT. The purpose of this study is to address whether firms should collaborate with heterogeneous or proximate partners to implement successful collaboration. Due to a trade-off between a heterogeneity effect and a proximity effect on performance, an inverted U-shaped relationship between proximity (or heterogeneity) levels across firms and project performance is assumed in this study. According to the results of a series of analyses we conducted, an inverted U-shaped relationship was observed between proximity and performance, and it was demonstrated that there is an optimal combination between specific levels of proximity and specific forms of collaboration.The purpose of this study is to address whether firms should collaborate with heterogeneous or proximate partners to implement successful collaboration. Due to a trade-off between a heterogeneity effect and a proximity effect on performance, an inverted U-shaped relationship between proximity (or heterogeneity) levels across firms and project performance is assumed in this study. According to the results of a series of analyses we conducted, an inverted U-shaped relationship was observed between proximity and performance, and it was demonstrated that there is an optimal combination between specific levels of proximity and specific forms of collaboration.

ABSTRACT. The green transition reshapes not only technologies and value chains but also the financial networks that enable projects to reach financial close. Drawing on the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) tradition and the concept of relationship turbulence, this paper examines how a single recurring financial relationship — that between Ørsted and Danske Bank — has been structurally reconfigured during Ørsted's transformation from a fossil-based utility into a global leader in offshore wind. Combining process tracing of Ørsted's financing trajectory with an actor-role Social Network Analysis (SNA) of the bank's evolving fossil-fuel and transition-finance frameworks, the study identifies three mechanisms of reconfiguration: a revised intermediation logic privileging auditable transition plans; a risk-sharing logic in which the bank operates alongside public financiers; and a power-dependence shift toward actors capable of certifying and de-risking sustainability performance. The paper extends IMP theory by integrating relationship banks as core network participants, reinterpreting relationship turbulence in financing terms, and positioning policy instruments as network-shaping forces.

ABSTRACT. Digital service innovation is increasingly reshaping indirect procurement, as suppliers develop data-driven solutions such as predictive maintenance, remote monitoring and digital platforms. Despite this growing technological potential, the emergence and scaling of digital service innovation in indirect procurement remain uneven. This study argues that such variability cannot be fully explained by supplier-side capabilities alone, but depends critically on the governance conditions enacted by buying firms. In particular, procurement governance structures (through decisions on contracts, data access, coordination mechanisms and risk allocation) shape suppliers’ incentives and opportunities to engage in innovation processes. Addressing this gap, the study investigates the research question: under which governance conditions does digital service innovation emerge and create value in indirect procurement relationships? To answer this question, we adopt a qualitative multiple-case study design involving firms operating in highly regulated and technologically intensive industries, including aerospace, semiconductors, electronics and healthcare technologies. We develop a contingency framework that explains variation in digital service innovation outcomes. We identify two key dimensions shaping such outcomes: (1) the degree of procurement relational governance and (2) the digital service potential of the purchased category. Their interaction generates four distinct procurement logics: cost–compliance, process–control, risk–exposure and value co-creation. Each configuration is associated with specific governance mechanisms, data-sharing practices and innovation outcomes. Our findings show that digital service innovation does not depend on a single optimal governance approach, but on the alignment between governance arrangements and category characteristics. When categories with high digital service potential are governed through transactional, low-relational mechanisms, innovation remains fragmented and difficult to scale, as suppliers face high uncertainty and limited incentives to invest. Conversely, relational and partnership-oriented governance arrangements – characterized by long-term orientation, structured collaboration and extensive data sharing – enable the emergence of advanced digital service innovation, including predictive analytics, integrated platforms and outcome-based solutions. The study further identifies three mechanisms through which procurement governance affects innovation outcomes: (1)risk sharing, (2) data access, (3) internal alignment across organizational units. These mechanisms are particularly salient in indirect procurement contexts, which are characterized by fragmented demand, distributed decision-making and heterogeneous category structures. This research contributes to the literature in three main ways. First, it shifts the focus of digital servitization research from a predominantly supplier-centric perspective to a relational and governance-based view, highlighting the active role of buyers in enabling or constraining innovation. Second, it advances a contingency perspective on procurement governance by demonstrating how different governance configurations shape innovation outcomes across categories. Third, it introduces a category-level, configurational approach to procurement governance, offering a more nuanced understanding of how digital service innovation emerges and scales in complex organizational settings.

ABSTRACT. Introduction Servitization increasingly unfolds in industrial networks rather than within the boundaries of individual firms . While prior research (Baines et al., 2024; Baines & Lightfoot, 2014) has highlighted the strategic relevance of product–service systems and ecosystems, limited attention has been paid to how industrial networks can deliberately develop long-term, end-user-oriented servitization strategies. Addressing this gap, this paper examines The Long Now (TLN) as a strategic design process for network-level servitization. The study is guided by the following research question: How does The Long Now process enable the reconfiguration of actor roles, resource combinations, and strategic activities in industrial networks undergoing overarching servitization? Building on earlier work presented at the IMP Conference in Oulu (Bluemink et al., 2024) which introduced the TLN process for inclusive strategy formulation, this study evaluates the execution, outcomes, and validation of TLN through action research conducted in an industrial context. Theoretical Background The study is grounded in the IMP tradition, particularly the Actors–Resources–Activities (ARA) framework (Håkansson & Snehota, 1997), which conceptualises industrial markets as networks of interdependent and evolving relationships. From this perspective, servitization is understood as an ongoing process in which configurations of actors, resources, and activities develop over time. However, much ARA-based research remains retrospective, offering limited insight into how evolving configurations can be intentionally explored and influenced. This paper positions TLN as a design-driven process that supports forward-looking engagement with actor–resource–activity (ARA) configurations by extending temporal horizons, integrating end-user value, and enabling scenario-driven exploration. The findings show that this process functions as a form of design roadmapping in line with Simonse’s (2018) theory, in which roadmaps act as generative frameworks for strategic sensemaking rather than linear planning tools. Methodology The research follows an action research approach in line with Coghlan (2019), emphasising collaborative inquiry, iterative cycles of action and reflection, and the dual aim of practical relevance and theoretical contribution. The empirical study was conducted within a technology-driven manufacturer of capital goods and focused on four business units of the focal firm. TLN was executed through six strategic design interventions structured according to the Overarching Servitization Strategy Process. Data collection included 14 semi-structured interviews with TLN participants and a survey among 50 participants involved in or exposed to the process. This mixed-methods approach supported both process evaluation and outcome validation. Findings The findings show that TLN operates as a design-driven roadmapping process that enables actors to collectively explore future actor–resource–activity (ARA) configurations under conditions of servitization-related uncertainty. Consistent with the design roadmapping theory of Simonse (2018), the process functions as a generative device for strategic sensemaking rather than a linear planning instrument. Empirically, TLN facilitates the articulation of alternative role distributions, resource combinations, and strategic activities by integrating long-term temporal horizons with end-user–oriented scenarios. This allows network actors to reflect on potential trajectories of ARA reconfiguration before committing to irreversible organisational or technological investments. Implications The implications suggest that design roadmapping can be conceptualised as a relational and networked practice within the IMP tradition, supporting coordinated ARA change over time. Instead of locking actors into fixed ARA configurations, TLN supports the deliberate postponement of strategic commitments, enabling ongoing exploration of alternative futures while sustaining alignment around tentative and evolving directions. For IMP research, this highlights the value of design roadmapping as a methodological and conceptual approach for studying longitudinal network change. For managers, it implies that engaging in design-driven roadmapping can support servitization by linking long-term strategic intent to intermediate design decisions and near-term actions, while accommodating heterogeneous actor interests and temporalities. References Baines, T., & Lightfoot, H. W. (2014). Servitization of the manufacturing firm: Exploring the operations practices and technologies that deliver advanced services. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 34(1), 2–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2012-0086 Baines, T., Ziaee, A., & Kapoor, B. K. (2024). SERVITIZATION STRATEGY Delivering Customer-Centric Outcomes Through Business Model Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45426-4 Bluemink, B., Santema, S., & Simonse, L. (2024). Are you being served? In P. Ulkuniemi (Ed.), IMP Conference Proceedings. Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization. Sage. Håkansson, H., & Snehota, Ivan. (1997). Developing relationships in business networks. International Thomson Business Press. Simonse, L. W. L. (2018). Design Roadmapping: Guidebook for Future Foresight Techniques. In L. W. L. Simonse (Ed.), BIS Publishers. BIS Publishers.

ABSTRACT. Background/Introduction

Within the construction sector, public clients are widely recognized as crucial actors in driving innovation (Havenvid et al., 2016; Iadanza et al., 2015; Obwegeser & Müller, 2018; Vennström & Eriksson, 2010). Construction clients can set the direction of a project through requirements and specifications (Havenvid et al., 2016). This study looks specifically at energy innovation in the hospital facility setting. In this context, the public property owners operate alongside external actors, such as consultants, contractors, suppliers, energy companies etc. Therefore, to be able to initiate and drive innovation processes, public property owners are dependent on mobilizing these external actors and their resources to achieve innovation (Havenvid et al., 2016). However, formulating requirements to promote innovation to be carried out by others is challenging and relies on the innovative capacity of the client (Nam & Tatum, 1997).

One proposed prerequisite for clients to be able to successfully drive innovation is having a strategy. Winkler et al. (2025) argue that for public clients to take a central role in driving innovation, they need to have a clear internal innovation and sustainability strategy. However, strategy formation is often not explicitly stated or fully intentional (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). Instead, from an interactive perspective, strategies often emerge through and are shaped by ongoing interaction in the wider actor network (Håkansson & Snehota, 1989). In the context of energy innovation, public clients operate under economic constraints, regulatory demands and technical interdependencies that further complicate how strategy and interaction unfold. This calls for closer investigation of how strategies unfold in public clients’ pursuit of energy innovation in practice.

Using Mintzberg’s (1987) view on strategy and the resource interaction approach (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002), the purpose of this study is to explore how strategic actions of public property owners unfold over time and how they interplay with the mobilization of internal and external resources for achieving energy innovation in hospital facilities. The paper draws on an ongoing case study which focuses on a strategy process for energy innovation in a public property owner and follows an initiative for renewing the energy system at a hospital.

Theoretical background

Strategy can be understood as a pattern of choices and actions (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). In complex project environments, like construction, strategy rarely unfolds as a fully predetermined course of action. While they can take the form of intentional plans they can also appear as realized patterns that emerge from day-to-day practice. Mintzberg and Waters (1985) differentiate between deliberate, deliberately emergent, and emergent strategies. A deliberate strategy is an intentional plan that has been realized as intended. In contrast, emergent strategies arise when consistent patterns develop without prior intention. Strategies are rarely fully deliberate or emergent, but these two forms rather represent the endpoints of a continuum (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). A middle-ground are deliberately emergent strategies. These are situations where organizational leadership “creates the conditions under which strategies can emerge” (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985, p. 263).

From an industrial network perspective, innovation emerges through interactions among actors involved in developing, producing, and using a new solution (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2007). Innovation is seen as combinations of existing and/or new resources, with value determined by their use and interactions. Resource development depends on interactions and the interdependencies formed over time, requiring new solutions to align with existing resource structures to create value (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002).

From this perspective, firms cannot fully plan their strategy because interactions with others and interdependencies continually reshape their possibilities for action (Baraldi et al., 2007; Gadde et al., 2003). When innovation is understood as the mobilization and recombination of resources in interaction, strategy formation and innovation become closely intertwined processes rather than separate domains. Strategic actions influence which resources are mobilized, combined, or prioritized, while emerging resource interdependencies simultaneously shape what strategic actions become possible or meaningful. Furthermore, public clients operate under shifting policy agendas, budget cycles, sustainability targets, and stakeholder pressures.

The IMP perspective offers empirical evidence of how strategy emerges. Baraldi et al. (2007) argue that this makes it capable of adding unique empirical insights into the strategy process, especially into how strategies evolve between firms or organizations rather than internally.

Method and case

The study uses an abductive approach (Dubois & Gadde, 2002) and relies on a single case study. The case study is of a hospital in Sweden and focuses on the regional property owner’s efforts towards making the hospital more robust and energy efficient. The case study is in an early stage of pilot interviews, and five semi-structured interviews have so far been conducted. Data will be further collected through semi-structured interviews, observations, site-visits, and project documents. The respondents will represent the public property owner, consultants, contractors, and a local energy company. The interview guides will be based on an interactive resource perspective, tracing important actors and resources across the formulation and unfolding of the public property owners’ energy strategy and the related innovation process of a new energy system solution. The data collection will include the hospital property owner’s energy strategy formation process both retrospectively and in real time as a major investment decision has recently been undertaken of a geothermal layer. This entails examining how strategic actions can be identified retrospectively as part of a broader strategic pattern leading to energy innovation, while also following ongoing initiatives in real time to understand how such strategy formation processes shape current projects and investments. Tracing the strategy formation over a period of time enables an understanding of the inter-organizational context where the strategy is formed and how it changes (Baraldi et al., 2007).

Tentative discussion

By moving beyond individual projects, this study focuses on how long-term patterns of strategic actions emerge and evolve over time, preceding, running parallel and being shaped by project-based activities. Drawing on an interactive and emergent view of strategy, the study responds to calls for empirical research that unravels how strategies - however defined - take shape over time through interaction in network contexts (Baraldi et al., 2007), and what this implies for the strategic role of public clients in driving innovation in construction (Havenvid et al., 2016).

References

Baraldi, E., Brennan, R., Harrison, D., Tunisini, A., & Zolkiewski, J. (2007). Strategic thinking and the IMP approach: A comparative analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(7), 879–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.05.015

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8

Gadde, L.-E., Huemer, L., & Håkansson, H. (2003). Strategizing in industrial networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(5), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(03)00009-9

Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1989). No business is an island: The network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 5(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-5221(89)90026-2

Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2002). Managing Technological Development: IKEA, the environment and technology. Routledge.

Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (Eds). (2007). Knowledge and innovation in business and industry: The importance of using others. Routledge.

Havenvid, M. I., Hulthén, K., Linné, Å., & Sundquist, V. (2016). Renewal in construction projects: Tracing effects of client requirements. Construction Management and Economics, 34(11), 790–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2016.1208364

Iadanza, E., Turillazzi, B., Terzaghi, F., Marzi, L., Giuntini, A., & Sebastian, R. (2015). The STREAMER European Project. Case Study: Careggi Hospital in Florence. In 6th European Conference of the International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering (Vol. 45, pp. 649–652). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11128-5_162

Mintzberg, H. (1987). The Strategy Concept I: Five Ps for Strategy. California Management Review, 30(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165263

Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272.

Nam, C. H., & Tatum, C. B. (1997). Leaders and champions for construction innovation. Construction Management and Economics, 15(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461997372999

Obwegeser, N., & Müller, S. D. (2018). Innovation and public procurement: Terminology, concepts, and applications. Technovation, 74–75, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.015

Vennström, A., & Eriksson, P.-E. (2010). Client perceived barriers to change of the construction process. Construction Innovation, 10(2), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714171011037156

Winkler, C., Bosch-Sijtsema, P., & Vico, E. P. (2025). Bridging knowledge, innovation and business ecosystems: A case of client’s orchestration of energy innovation. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-11-2024-0466

ABSTRACT. With the increased attention to the digitalization of business, the role of new digital start-ups has been pointed out as critical (Mosch et al. 2022). Yet these new digital start-ups face substantial challenges in establishing network positions and identities within established networks, whose resource structures and interaction patterns are shaped by long-term established business relationships (Havenvid & Linné, 2025). Such conditions reflect the well-known “liability of newness” faced by new entrants (Baraldi et al. 2019).

This paper examines how new digital start-ups develop a network position and a network identity within already established business network. It departs from the Industrial Network Approach (INA), which emphasize that new firms must relate to an existing network of actors (Håkansson et al. 2009). By connecting to established actors and attempting to integrate into existing resource structures, firms try to establish a position in the network. A firms’ network position is therefore dependent on relationships to others and the network position can be seen as the emergent pattern of its’ ties, resource interfaces vis‑à‑vis other actors (Aaboen et al., 2016; Baraldi et al. 2019). This implies that any new actor, such as a digital start-up firm, need to be considered as valuable and accepted by incumbent network actors. Closely tied to a firms’ network position is the network identity the firm develops through its attempts to connect to others. Network identity captures how the firm and its counterparts perceive “who the firm is” within the network (LaRocca et al. 2013; Laari-Salmela et al. 2019). Through ongoing interaction, the firm gradually develops a network identity over time. In that sense, identity and position are mutually constitutive: identities that counterparts find useful facilitate access to relationships and resources, while obtained positions feed-back into identity development and stabilization through network exchanges.

Empirically the study is situated in the Swedish construction and real estate sectors, sectors that traditionally are seen as lagging behind in terms of digitalization (Jacobsson & Linderoth, 2017; Whyte, 2019). A qualitative case study of the digital transformation of the Swedish construction and real estate sector was performed between 2023 and 2025, drawing on 53 in-depth interviews and two workshops involving sector representatives such as contractor firms, technical consultants, digital start-ups, real estate firms and other relevant actors.

The findings indicate that the digital start-ups are facing challenges in establishing positions within networks. Despite a multitude of digital initiatives introduced by both start-ups and incumbent actors, these initiatives are not permanently embedded and established in the sectors. The start-ups tend to hold peripheral positions in the networks and their network identity are not seen as sufficiently valuable or prioritized by the established actors. In many cases, the more innovative and digital business models pushed by the start-ups stand in contrast to the traditional business models of incumbent actors. As a result, in order to establish a viable position, the start-ups are forced to adapt their business models those of established actors. This finding contrasts with Mosch et al. (2022), who argue that digital start-up actors can occupy more central positions and have a clear influence on the business networks.

References Aaboen, L., La Rocca, A., Lind, F. Perna, A., & Shih, T. (2016) Starting Up in Business Networks – Why Relationships Matter in Entrepreneurship, Palgrave Publishing. Baraldi, E., Havenvid, M.I., Linné, Å., Öberg, C. (2019) Start-ups and networks: interactive perspectives and a research agenda, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 80, 58–67. Havenvid, M.I. och Linné, Å. (2025) Organisera för digital transformation – ett ekosystemperspektiv, Rapport: S-2023-3, Smart Built Environment. Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A. (2009). Business in Networks. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Jacobsson, M., Linderoth, H. C. J., & Rowlinson, S. (2017). The role of industry: an analytical framework to understand ICT transformation within the AEC industry. Construction Management and Economics, 35(10), 611–626. La Rocca, A., Ford, D., & Snehota, I. (2013). Initial relationship development in new business ventures. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(7), 1025–1032. Mosch, P., Winkler, C., Eggert, C.-G., Schumann, J. H., Obermaier, R., & Ulaga, W. (2022). Driving or driven by others? A dynamic perspective on how data-driven start-ups strategize across different network roles in digitalized business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 381–402. Laari-Salmela, S., Mainela, T., & Puhakka, V. (2019). Resolving the start-up identity crisis: Strategizing in a network context. Industrial Marketing Management, 80, 201–213. Whyte, J., (2019). How digital information transforms project delivery models. Project management journal, 50 (2), 177–194.

ABSTRACT. This study aims at understanding how the practices of actors (orchestrator and others) of project ecosystems affect the network resilience. Strategizing in networks may entail a variety of practices taken by several actors influencing the structure and functioning of the network. However, practices of hub actors’ firms aiming to steer and manage portions of the network – deliberate networks – are also present. We argue that project ecosystems founded by public funds, such as Recovery and Resilience Plans, entail a bundle of characteristics – new regulation, temporality, uncertainty, role assignment, and planned formality – which affect the network dynamics and resilience. Thus, project ecosystems can be seen as a disruption influencing the actors’ practices and network robustness in both deliberate and emergent networks.

ABSTRACT. Many peripheral industrial regions remain highly innovative yet struggle to retain the people needed to sustain and renew local industrial activity. In B2B settings, innovation is often embedded in ongoing interaction among firms and other connected counterparts and is therefore difficult to recognise and approach for students and young graduates who remain outside established business relationships. Building on the IMP tradition, the paper examines how university-industry interaction can contribute to the resilience of business networks in peripheral industrial regions by making ongoing B2B innovation accessible to prospective entrants. Empirically, the study draws on a longitudinal qualitative case study of SITUM, an inter-university initiative developed in Central Italy. Findings show that the central territorial problem is not the absence of innovation, but limited access to the interaction processes through which innovation is enacted and reproduced. SITUM created repeated occasions through which students could encounter real business problems and experience local firms as sites of ongoing innovation rather than as marginal employers. The paper contributes by showing that weak innovation visibility reflects a broader problem of relational accessibility, by interpreting resilience as continuity secured through the renewal of the human resources on which local industrial interaction depends, and by showing how university-industry interaction can support territorial continuity by enabling prospective entrants to approach and gradually enter local industrial processes.

ABSTRACT. Purpose of the paper: Despite growing interest in organizational resilience, existing research offers limited insight into how resilience is constructed in business-to-business (B2B) small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), where firms operate under resource constraints and strong network interdependencies. Prior studies have identified individual-, organizational-, or network-level aspects of resilience in isolation, leaving unclear how these elements jointly contribute to building resilience. This study addresses this gap by exploring how resilience emerges in B2B SMEs and exploring the configurations of elements of varying levels contributing to it.

Design/methodology/approach: The study adopts a qualitative multiple-case study design based on semi-structured interviews with founders of three purposefully selected SMEs. The cases were chosen to reflect variation in firms’ reliance on external relationships and resource configurations. Data were analyzed using the Gioia methodology, enabling the identification of empirically grounded themes and their aggregation into higher-order dimensions.

Findings: Resilience in B2B SMEs emerges through the interaction of three interrelated levels: individual, organizational, and network. First, individual-level entrepreneurial actions stabilize firms under pressure by redistributing constraints and enabling continuity. Second, digitally enabled organizational capabilities enhance adaptability by extending market reach and improving efficiency despite limited resources. Third, network relationships provide stability and access to critical resources through ongoing interaction with partners. These elements of different levels form a dynamic configuration through which resilience is constructed.

Originality/value: This study advances research on B2B networks and organizational resilience by reconceptualizing resilience in B2B SMEs as a relational and multi-level phenomenon that emerges from the interaction of complementary elements. By integrating insights from resilience and the IMP network perspective, the study contributes a more nuanced understanding of how SMEs navigate turbulence through interconnected entrepreneurial, technological, and relational practices.

ABSTRACT. Public government procurement is identified as one of four major economic activities of government and as an important business operation of government (Trammell et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2019; Tai, 2001). Public spending can represent almost 50% of government expenditure and up to 20% of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and contributes immensely to a state’s economy (Patrucco et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2019). OECD countries spend on average 12% of the country’s GDP purchasing goods and services (OECD, 2023 ). U.S. governments spend approximately 10% of the country’s GDP purchasing goods and services, and EU countries spend around 14% of GDP on the purchase of services, works and supplies, in total around two trillion euro per year (Stritch et al., 2020; ec.europa.eu2023 ). Through public spend, governments have the possibility to affect and shape markets into becoming more innovative and sustainable (Abutabenheh et al., 2023; Patrucco et al., 2021; Stritch et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2019; Edler and Georghiou, 2007). This through using public spend as a tool to achieve policy goals such as mitigating environmental degradation and spurring private sector innovation, and social equity (Abutabenheh et al., 2023). Hence, public sector spend plays a significant role in the economy (Knutsson and Thomasson, 2014) and it is important to manage public spend in the best way possible, contributing to innovativeness and sustainability. Despite the unquestionable importance of public procurement spend for countries’ economies, studies on public procurement and its influence are however limited (Trammell et al., 2020). More knowledge is needed about the role of public procurement in increasing societal value, and in the shaping of markets to become more innovative and sustainable.

Looking at market shaping, several studies have investigated market shaping from different perspectives and having different underlying assumptions (Storbacka and Nenonen, 2011; Mele et al., 2015; Kjellberg and Helgesson, 2007). In this study we understand markets as dynamic systems rather than fixed entities and view markets as ongoing processes that actors can influence and shape, this through activities (Nenonen et al., 2019; Kjellberg et al., 2015; Kjellberg and Helgesson, 2007). The actors are viewed as co-creators of markets (Kjellberg et al., 2015). We thus view it as important to get insight into actors’ activities and interactions to understand market shaping processes (Nenonen et al., 2019; Ulkuniemi et al., 2015).

The role of purchasing or procurement in market shaping processes has been brought up and discussed by previous studies (Mattsson and Junker, 2023; Ulkuniemi et al., 2015). Ulkuniemi et al. (2015) uses a case study to examine how a single buying company can attempt to shape an emerging market through its purchasing practices, resulting in identifying five types of market-shaping actions; supply shaping, demand shaping, need shaping, exchange object shaping and exchange mechanism shaping. In the study by Mattsson and Junker (2023) they investigate how government institutional work in Sweden can make public procurement contribute to innovations related to market practices. Studies on public procurement and market shaping however are few and there are limited studies if any, that focus on public government procurement and market shaping.

The aim of this study is to contribute to theoretical and practical knowledge on the shaping of markets through public government procurement. This through investigate the market shaping process and investigate tensions arising that influence this process.

The study examines how the Nordic transportation agencies as large clients can stimulate the Nordic consulting and contracting market towards greater climate emission reductions through procurement. The study is part of the NordCLIMPACT (‘Reducing the impact on climate through joint action in the Nordic NRA’s’) which is a joint Nordic program with focus on public procurement. In this study a qualitative approach was adopted, collecting empirical data through semi-structured interviews. In total 22 interviews have been conducted, of which 12 with representatives from the five Nordic NRAs involved in the NordCLIMPACT cooperation, 11 with suppliers to the NRAs and one interview with a representative for an industry association. The interviews were conducted during the period October 2024 to June 2025. In parallel with empirical data collection the researchers have used secondary sourcessuch as reports and documentation which have been provided by the NRAs engaged in the NordCLIMPACT project. A literature review has also been conducted.

As a result of the interviews and the associated research and literature study, many similarities were found to be relevant across the Nordic countries. These findings have been summed up under seven key themes, each with examples from the interview study and from current research connected to the themes. Each of the following seven themes are discussed and problematized:Understanding the Different National Contexts, NRA-Supplier Cooperation, Innovation and New Solutions, Financing Issues and Alternatives, CO2 and Cost Calculation Challenges, Control and Assessment Issues, and Contract Issues.These discussions lay the foundation for elaborating on a theretical discussion on market shaping and on three sets of implications: for NRAs, Suppliers, and Politicians/Government.

ABSTRACT. Transitions towards circularity rely on inter-organizational collaboration, often facilitated by intermediary organizations that coordinate resources, knowledge, and relationships. While prior research highlights the enabling role of collaboration in advancing circularity, limited attention has been given to the layered relational tensions that may undermine these efforts. Addressing this gap, this study examines how tensions within charity retail networks weaken circular intentions. Drawing on an Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) perspective, this research adopts an exploratory qualitative single case study of a charity retail association and its member organizations operating in the pre-loved fashion sector. Data were collected through 17 semi-structured interviews with intermediary representatives and member organizations, including charities, social enterprises, vintage retailers, and online marketplaces, complemented by website analysis. Two interrelated categories of tension:vertical tensions between the intermediary and its members, and horizontal tensions among member organizations were revealed. Vertical tensions stem from communication overload,reluctance to share data, administrative burdens, and misalignment between intermediary services and member needs. Horizontal tensions arise from competition for donations, customers, and retail space, constraining collaboration. These dynamics illuminate the “dark side” of intermediary-coordinated networks, highlighting the complex realities of multi-actor collaboration for circularity.

ABSTRACT. By integrating the IMP perspective on network capability with the knowledge-based dynamic capabilities literature, this study examines how knowledge acquisition, generation, and combination interplay in the development of network capability and enable social impact creation in issue-based networks. Drawing on an exploratory single-case study of an issue-based network with the key actor of a non-profit social purpose organisation, the paper addresses the following research question: How do knowledge-based dynamic capabilities foster network capability to enable social impact creation in issue-based networks from the perspective of a social purpose organisation? Empirically, the study focuses on a single case of an issue-based network comprising a non-profit social purpose organisation, public institutions, community actors, and business partners whose activities and resources must be aligned to achieve a shared social purpose of ensuring that children from rural areas have access to leisure opportunities. The analysis centres on interaction episodes in which actors exchange, interpret, and recombine knowledge, and adapt their activities in relation to one another. The findings show that knowledge-based dynamic capabilities, specifically knowledge acquisition, generation, and combination, are enacted through continuous interaction with diverse network actors. These interaction-embedded knowledge processes enable the focal non-profit SPO to initiate, mobilise, coordinate, and reconfigure relationships, demonstrating that network capability is an emergent, relational accomplishment rather than an internally embedded attribute. Furthermore, social impact is shown to arise as an issue-based network-level outcome of these coordinated, multi-actor processes. This study contributes to IMP research by explicating the knowledge foundations of network capability and by showing how interaction-embedded knowledge processes enable coordinated action in issue-based networks. It also extends the KBDCs literature by demonstrating that these capabilities are not confined within organisations but are enacted across networks of heterogeneous actors.

ABSTRACT. The necessity to integrate digital technologies and innovation with environmental initiatives is emphasized in terms of potential sustainability advancement. This is particularly relevant for the construction industry, which globally produces the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. and client requirements and new legislation enforce environmental sustainability data (ESD) reporting. The paper investigates a construction contractor’s change efforts in digital innovation to develop a data infrastructure and new, standardized work processes for handling environmental sustainability data, that requires mobilizing supplier relationships. Data has been collected in a single longitudinal case by fourteen semi-structured interviews with representatives from the main contractor organization, suppliers, the public client, and an industry association, and by secondary data in the form of innovation process documentation. Drawing on the Industrial Network Approach (INA), specifically, the 4R model, this study shows that the value of environmental sustainability data (ESD) depends on how it is embedded across interconnected technical, organizational, and relational contexts, where standardization both enables and constrains data integration. It demonstrates that ESD-driven digitalization triggers ongoing adaptations of resource interfaces and configurations within and across projects and organizations. Furthermore, the study conceptualizes digital innovation with ESD as a relational process, highlighting the role of suppliers and clients in shaping data practices, and advances understanding of how sustainability and digital pressures transform resource constellations and business relationships

ABSTRACT. Sustainability transitions increasingly depend on the development and scaling of new sustainability-oriented resources. Yet such resources rarely function as direct substitutes for existing ones. In business networks, resources are embedded in previously developed constellations of technologies, infrastructures, activities, and inter-organisational relationships, where value creation depends on how resources are combined, adapted, and mobilised through interaction (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995; Ford et al., 2003; Håkansson et al., 2010). This implies that sustainability transitions are fundamentally path dependent, as prior investments shape which new resources can be introduced, as well as the costs, frictions, and coordination requirements involved in making them functional in practice (Turnbull et al., 1996; Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002). Consequently, transitions unfold as processes of resource interaction in which new and existing resources must be connected and made mutually functional across multiple organisational and network settings (Baraldi et al., 2012; Harrison et al., 2023). However, despite growing IMP interest in sustainability transitions, we still have limited understanding of how the embedding of a new critical sustainability-oriented resource unfolds across interconnected settings of development, production, and use, where actors operate under different temporal horizons, economic logics, and investment patterns (Baraldi et al., 2011; Waluszewski et al., 2017). Prior research shows that transition efforts often stall because critical resource interfaces, where technical, organisational, and relational resources must connect, are difficult to adapt and coordinate across business networks (Tura et al., 2019; Keränen et al., 2023). Moreover, the heaviness of established resource structures can simultaneously stabilise existing configurations and shape the limited pathways through which new resource combinations become possible, suggesting that embedding processes are uneven, and spread across the network (Wagrell et al., 2022). Against this background, this paper examines the process of how a new critical sustainability-oriented resource becomes embedded in a business network during a sustainability transition. Specifically, we address the following research question: How is a new critical sustainability-oriented resource embedded through resource interaction across development, production, and use settings in the business network? Empirically, the study draws on a longitudinal case study of the introduction of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) within the aviation sector in Sweden. SAF is widely regarded as a critical resource for reducing aviation’s climate impact and enabling the sector’s sustainability transition, and it is already being used in commercial aviation. The case captures how the process of embedding this central resource in the business network develops over time through interactions among actors in (1) development, including technology developers and project initiators; (2) production, including feedstock suppliers, refiners, fuel producers, and distributors; and (3) use, including airlines and airports. Hence, integrating IMP research on resource interaction and sustainability transitions, we build a process view of how a new critical sustainability-oriented resource becomes embedded through resource interaction across development, production, and use settings in a business network. Rather than treating SAF as a direct substitute for conventional jet fuel, this perspective conceptualizes embedding as a dispersed and path dependent process in which SAF must be connected to, and made mutually functional within, an established and tightly interdependent resource constellation influenced by infrastructures, standards, logistics systems, and long-term relationship investments. Our research makes three potential contributions to IMP research on resource interaction for sustainability in business networks. First, we conceptualise resource embedding as a multi-setting process, where a new critical sustainability-oriented resource becomes functional only through connected resource interactions across development, production, and use. Building on resource interaction research (Baraldi et al., 2012) and sustainability transition perspectives in business networks (Harrison et al., 2023), we show that SAF is embedded through stepwise reconfiguration of heterogeneous resources and activities such as technology development and credibility building in the development setting, feedstock and refinery configurations in production, and procurement and operational compatibility in use. This extends work on sustainability transitions in business networks by specifying embedding as a process characterised by different time horizons and investment logics (Baraldi et al., 2011; Waluszewski et al., 2017). Second, we theorise structural resource deficiency as a mechanism that redirects embedding routes across the business network, rather than only constraining scale-up. Drawing on research on resource deficiencies in business networks (Tunisini et al., 2023), we demonstrate how uncertainty regarding long-term feedstock availability becomes a structural condition that shapes development and production decisions before scarcity fully materialises. Producers’ responses (e.g., exploring eSAF), illustrate how embedding is driven by network actors’ attempts to reconfigure resource combinations under anticipated constraints, thereby connecting sustainability transitions to processes of resource search, re-combination, and strategic redirection across settings. Third, we show why SAF embedding stays slow and unstable by highlighting two challenges, (1) heavy existing investments and (2) poor alignment between development, production, and use. We show that alternative pathways require the adaptation of deep resource interfaces with energy systems and carbon capture infrastructures, which increases coordination requirements and friction due to heavy prior investments and path dependence (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002; Wagrell et al., 2022). Simultaneously, production side needs for long-term offtake agreements collide with airlines’ limited ability to commit in the use setting, reinforcing partial and unstable resource combinations rather than coherent system reconfiguration (Baraldi et al., 2012; Harrison et al., 2023). This highlights how sustainability-oriented resources may remain difficult to scale as embedding requires continuous interface adaptation of technical, financial, and relational resources across development, production, and use settings (Tura et al., 2019; Keränen et al., 2023).

Baraldi, E., Gregori, E., Perna, A. (2011). Network evolution and the embedding of complex technical solutions: The case of the Leaf House network. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 838–852. Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison, D. (2012). Resource interaction in inter-organizational networks: Foundations, comparison, and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 266-276. Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2003). Managing business relationships (2nd ed.). Wiley. Harrison, D., Prenkert, F., Hasche, N., & Carlborg, P. (2023). Business networks and sustainability: Past, present and future. Industrial Marketing Management, 111, A10–A17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.03.011 Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A. (2010). Business in networks. John Wiley. Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2002). Managing Technological Development: IKEA, the Environment and Technology. Routledge. Keränen, O., Lehtimäki, T., Komulainen, H., & Ulkuniemi, P. (2023). Changing the market for a sustainable innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 108, 108-121. Tunisini, A., Harrison, D., & Bocconcelli, R. (2023). Handling resource deficiencies through resource interaction in business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 109, 154-163. Tura, N., Keränen, J., & Patala, S. (2019). The darker side of sustainability: Tensions from sustainable business practices in business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 77, 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.09.002 Turnbull, P., Ford, D. & Cunningham, M. (1996). Interaction, Relationships and Networks in Business Markets: An Evolving Perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 11, 44–62. Wagrell, S., Havenvid, M. I., Linné, Å., & Sundquist, V. (2022). Building sustainable hospitals: A resource interaction perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 106, 420-431 Waluszewski, A., Baraldi, E. and Perna, A. (2017), “The role of policy in innovation the challenging distribution of social, material and monetary benefits”, IMP Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 51-71.

ABSTRACT. Abstract: IMP 2026 – Special Track: Resource interaction for sustainability in business networks

Sustainability transitions in business markets are increasingly conceptualized as network-level phenomena that unfold through interaction among interdependent actors rather than through isolated firm strategies or technological substitution. Within the IMP tradition, research has emphasized that sustainability emerges, or stalls, through the reconfiguration of activity patterns, resource interfaces, and actor roles in business networks (Baraldi et al., 2012; Harrison et al., 2023). In the context of the circular economy, prior studies have shown that collaboration across supply chains is essential for developing circular business models, yet such collaboration remains difficult to stabilize in practice (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2022; Keränen et al., 2021).

This study examines these challenges empirically in the context of circular plastic packaging, a domain characterized by strong sustainability ambitions, increasing regulatory pressure, and widespread experimentation. Despite these enabling conditions, circular packaging solutions often fail to move beyond pilots and niche initiatives. Building on IMP research on resource interaction, path dependence, and network change (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002; Baraldi et al., 2012), we argue that this persistent gap between ambition and realization cannot be explained solely by technological limitations or insufficient incentives. Instead, it reflects interactional paradoxes that arise as actors attempt to reconfigure entrenched resource constellations while remaining embedded in existing linear systems. Responding directly to the Special Track’s focus on resource interaction for sustainability in business networks, this paper develops a processual explanation of how sustainability transitions are shaped through ongoing interaction. Drawing on a longitudinal qualitative study of emerging circular plastic packaging initiatives, the paper introduces the concept of paradox navigation to explain how actors collectively engage with conflicting demands that cannot be resolved through optimization or unilateral action.

The empirical data consists of 41 semi-structured interviews conducted over multiple phases with brand owners, packaging converters, material producers, recyclers, retailers, industry associations, and regulatory actors, complemented by observations from industry workshops and collaborative development forums. The empirical setting captures a period of intensified interaction, where actors actively seek to restructure value networks (Keränen et al., 2023) while remaining constrained by established infrastructures, standards, and evaluation regimes. The analysis identifies three interrelated paradoxes that structure resource interaction in the transition toward circular plastic packaging. First, a performing paradox emerges between circular sustainability ambitions and established performance benchmarks. While actors broadly endorse circularity, interaction repeatedly returns to linear cost, quality, and scalability criteria that are embedded in existing resource interfaces. Consistent with IMP insights on path dependence, these interfaces restrict how new resources can be evaluated and combined, even when actors recognize their misalignment with sustainability goals (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002). As a result, circular materials are continuously assessed through linear logics, reinforcing incremental rather than transformative change. Second, an organizing paradox arises between collective interdependence and fragmented responsibility. Circular packaging systems require coordinated investments across multiple actors, yet responsibility for reconfiguring infrastructures and absorbing risks remains dispersed. This mirrors prior findings on the difficulties of handling resource deficiencies and interdependencies through interaction alone (Tunisini et al., 2023). While actors depend on each other to enable circular solutions, no single actor is positioned to orchestrate the transition, leading to coordination deadlocks rather than alignment.

Third, a learning paradox manifests between experimentation and stabilization. Pilot projects and trials generate valuable localized learning, yet this learning rarely accumulates into shared standards or stabilized resource configurations at the network level. Similar to observations in other sustainability contexts (Wagrell et al., 2022), experimentation becomes an ongoing mode of interaction without convergence, producing repeated adaptation rather than systemic transformation.

Together, these paradoxes illustrate how sustainability transitions unfold as interactional processes marked by persistent tensions rather than linear progress. Importantly, the paradoxes identified are not temporary obstacles to be eliminated, but enduring conditions of network change. Attempts to address one side of a paradox, such as improving cost competitiveness or clarifying responsibilities, often intensify tensions elsewhere in the network. This helps explain why sustainability initiatives frequently reproduce weak sustainability trajectories despite strong intentions, echoing broader observations of tensions and contradictions in sustainable business practices (Tura et al., 2019).

The study contributes to IMP research in three ways. First, it advances understanding of sustainability transitions by conceptualizing paradox navigation as a network-level interaction mechanism, extending prior work on tensions in business networks toward a more processual explanation. Second, it enriches the resource interaction perspective by showing how established resource interfaces and evaluation logics actively shape which forms of circularity become viable in practice (Baraldi et al., 2012; Baraldi & Wagrell, 2022). Third, it responds to recent calls to strengthen the integration of sustainability and business network research by offering an empirically grounded account of how interaction dynamics contribute to both change and inertia (Harrison et al., 2023).

For the Special Track on resource interaction for sustainability in business networks, the paper provides a realistic account of how circularity is enacted through everyday interaction among interdependent actors. Rather than portraying sustainability transitions as the outcome of decisive orchestration or policy intervention, the study highlights the paradoxical and incremental nature of network change. By doing so, it contributes to ongoing IMP discussions on how sustainability emerges through interaction when existing resource structures simultaneously enable and constrain transformation.

References:

Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Chiaroni, D., Kaipainen, J., & Urbinati, A. (2022). Companies' circular business models enabled by supply chain collaborations: An empirical-based framework, synthesis, and research agenda. Industrial Marketing Management, 105, 322-339.

Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison, D. (2012). Resource interaction in inter-organizational networks: Foundations, comparison, and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 266-276.

Baraldi, E., & Wagrell, S. (2022). Applying the resource interaction approach to policy analysis– insights from the antibiotic resistance challenge. Industrial Marketing Management, 106, 376-391.

Harrison, D., Prenkert, F., Hasche, N., & Carlborg, P. (2023). Business networks and sustainability: Past, present and future. Industrial Marketing Management, 111, A10-A17. Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2002). Path dependence: restricting or facilitating technical development?. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 561-570.

Keränen, O., Komulainen, H., Lehtimäki, T., & Ulkuniemi, P. (2021). Restructuring existing value networks to diffuse sustainable innovations in food packaging. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 509-519.

Keränen, O., Lehtimäki, T., Komulainen, H., & Ulkuniemi, P. (2023). Changing the market for a sustainable innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 108, 108-121.

Tunisini, A., Harrison, D., & Bocconcelli, R. (2023). Handling resource deficiencies through resource interaction in business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 109, 154-163.

Tura, N., Keränen, J., & Patala, S. (2019). The darker side of sustainability: Tensions from sustainable business practices in business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 77, 221-231.

Wagrell, S., Havenvid, M. I., Linné, Å., & Sundquist, V. (2022). Building sustainable hospitals: A resource interaction perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 106, 420-431.

ABSTRACT. Introduction Firms in business-to-business (B2B) markets face increasing pressure to contribute to environmental and social sustainability (Huang et al., 2022). Yet, in public and private buying contexts alike, buyers often continue to rely on evaluation criteria that emphasize short-term cost considerations and other established standards of comparison, such as quality and delivery time, making it difficult to justify the higher initial costs associated with sustainable solutions (Ghadini et al., 2016; Johnsen et al., 2017). This tension is particularly visible in procurement-heavy contexts, where evaluation routines are designed to ensure comparability and auditability and, as a result, can reproduce incumbent definitions of value even when sustainability is rhetorically prioritized. Purpose This conceptual paper looks at the B2B sales function as dual selling and institutional work that shapes how sustainability is interpreted, negotiated, and embedded into buying practices across business networks (Harrison et al., 2023). The sales function is boundary-spanning and influences what information travels across the network, which metrics become credible, and how evaluation criteria stabilize through recurring interactions among suppliers, buyers, and intermediaries (Dax, Tyssen & Schmitz, 2019; Harrison et al., 2023; Klein & Rai, 2009; Storbacka et al., 2009). In sustainability, and under conditions of “institutional incompleteness”, where norms and rules are still forming and sustainability is encouraged but not enforced, sales interactions may be pivotal to whether sustainability offerings are adopted and scaled across ecosystems. RQ: How does the B2B sales function, through interaction with buyers and intermediaries, enable 1) the commercialization of sustainability offerings, and 2) the integration of sustainability into the operating frameworks and relevant procurement criteria in business networks? Theoretical background This study builds on value-based selling (VBS), extending it into the institutional environment. Foundational VBS work conceptualizes selling as understanding the customer’s business model, crafting the value proposition (VP), and communicating value in ways that support adoption decisions (Terho et al., 2012). Subsequent VBS work emphasizes capabilities for discovering and quantifying value drivers, verifying performance claims, and organizing cross-functional processes to support value realization over time (Raja et al., 2020). VP scholarship also treat value propositions as iterative and systemic, linking promise making to delivery and learning (cf. value delivery system - Lanning & Michaels, 2000; VP implementation cycle - Payne et al., 2020). At the same time, recent work suggests that VBS has under-theorized the institutional environment that shapes what buyers recognize as legitimate and what can be formalized into evaluation criteria (Johnsen et al., 2017; Keränen et al., 2023). Here, institutional theory helps explain why sustainability offerings can face acceptance barriers despite tangible benefits: e.g., institutional pressure, evaluative norms, and system characteristics such as complexity and verification burden (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Kropp & Totzek, 2020). An institutional lens further explains how innovations stabilize through institutionalization processes that create, translate, and embed shared rules and meanings across actor constellations (Reinecke & Lawrence, 2023; Vargo et al., 2015). These dynamics are enacted through recurring interactions and artifacts that become taken-for-granted and stablizied in procurement and interaction patterns. Lastly, sustainability selling demands both compliance and experimentation with new evidence-making and category construction. Firms need to succeed under current procurement conditions while simultaneously reshaping these. Therefore, we integrate servitization and customer-success research conceptualizing structural ambidexterity—organizing exploration and exploitation through differentiated structures while maintaining integration via governance and shared processes—thus addressing both value realization and diffusion of new logics in complex settings (Hochstein et al., 2021; Kowalkowski et al., 2025). Conceptual model With these foundations, we develop an Institutional Value-Based Selling (IVBS) framework for sustainability in B2B ecosystems (Figure 1). The model unfolds in linked stages. First, Ecosystem Sensing and Alignment maps key actors, intermediaries, evaluation routines, and legitimacy gaps that shape what can be proposed and accepted (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Second, Sustainable VP Design then operationalizes impacts into buyer-relevant indicators and value narratives, connecting promise making to the value delivery system and VP implementation cycle (Lanning & Michaels, 2000; Payne et al., 2020). This stage retains the VBS emphasis on relationship and the customer’s business model and decision logic while broadening the unit of analysis to include institutional reference points that influence acceptance (Terho et al., 2012; Patala et al., 2016). Third, a central Quantify–Verify–Codify (Q–V–C) mechanism makes sustainability relevant and credible. Quantification translates impacts into multi-metric value drivers (economic, environmental, risk-related). Verification strengthens credibility through third-party instruments and performance evidence (e.g., EPDs, audits, pilots). Codification embeds this evidence into procurement and interaction patterns so that the benefits of sustainability VPs “count” at evaluation and can be repeated across tenders (Patala et al., 2016; Keränen et al., 2023). Fourth, Institutional Selling then involves coordination with intermediaries and buying organizations to translate this “Q-V-C evidence” into procurement language, strengthening legitimacy and deepening acceptance (Reinecke & Lawrence, 2023). Fifth, Delivery and Outcome Harvesting measures value-in-use and feeds results into reference cases, pricing libraries, and playbooks, thereby strengthening subsequent propositions and accelerating diffusion across the network (Raja et al., 2020; Payne et al., 2020). Lastly, structural ambidexterity is positioned as a transversal mechanism enabling IVBS to be effective across the dual demands of (1) selling under existing conditions and (2) shaping conditions so sustainability offerings can further develop (exploitation vs exploration - Hochstein et al., 2021; Kowalkowski et al., 2025). The overall model is contingent on institutional pressure and system characteristics: too little pressure can under-prioritize sustainability, whereas excessive complexity can suppress adoption even with concrete sustainability benefits (Kropp & Totzek, 2020). Contribution The IVBS framework advances VBS (Terho et al., 2012; Raja et al., 2020) and VP implementation perspectives (Lanning & Michaels, 2000; Payne et al., 2020), while addressing the institutional gap highlighted by Keränen et al. (2023). It reframes VBS as ambidextrous institutional work under institutional incompleteness, specifying how the sales function can stretch to mobilize evidence-generation and learning artifacts along with intermediaries across B2B ecosystems (Patala et al., 2016;), simultaneously addressing near-term commercialization and longer-term standards shaping. This is important to move sustainability offerings from “inspirational” narratives to concrete, decisionable, and ecosystem-accepted procurement criteria.

ABSTRACT. The role of salespeople in buyer-seller relationship initiation in turbulent business networks: evidence from an automotive dealer-car brand case

Automotive dealers have traditionally operated as franchise-based intermediaries, tied to car brands through exclusive brand-name and territorial agreements and tasked with selling, financing, and servicing branded vehicles (Biondi et al., 2013; Kovalova & Vartiak, 2024). Nowadays, European car dealers are facing a turbulent automotive business network which is compounded by several challenges, including consolidation among retail groups, the entry of new car brand competitors, the diffusion of flexible ownership models, policy-driven electrification, the rise of sustainability concerns, and consumers’ affordability squeeze and lifestyle changes, which are putting their survival and way of operating to the test (Euronews, 2025; Illés et al., 2021; Pizzichini et al., 2025). At the same time, established car brands have shifted their stance toward dealers, increasingly pursuing agency and direct-to-consumer arrangements that reallocate customer ownership and data to brands, compressing dealer margins and making their survival odds even more complicated (Pizzichini et al., 2025). As a result, the model that saw automotive dealers as the last outpost of car brands is now under severe strain in Europe. In such turbulent business network conditions, where dealers cannot rely on consolidated car brand partnerships anymore, their survival increasingly depends on their ability to swiftly secure new business relationships with car brands as a relational hedging and revenue-diversifying strategy (Zafari et al., 2023).

Despite the rising centrality of business relationship initiation to improve dealers' survival chances, how dealer–car brand relationships begin under turbulent business network conditions remains overlooked (Bondeli & Havenvid, 2022; Zafari et al., 2020, 2023). Understanding the initiation of dealer-car brand relationships is increasingly relevant because turbulence amplifies perceptions of uncertainty, vulnerability, and urgency, prompting both dealers and car brands to reassess their relational exposure and pursue new ties as resilience mechanisms (Obal & Gao, 2020; Zafari et al., 2023). Yet car dealers are often poorly positioned to hedge: long-standing exclusivity and dependence on dominant brands have historically constrained parallel negotiations and the development of “alternative” business relationships. Under these circumstances, salespeople—as boundary spanners—become pivotal. Positioned at the interface where interaction episodes unfold, they could be able to shape what becomes visible as a feasible partner, how opportunities are framed, and how quickly initiation progresses (Poblete & Bengtson, 2020).

Hence, guided by the IMP industrial network approach (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995), the study aims to uncover the roles played by salespeople in turbulent business networks during the dealer-car brand Buyer–Seller Relationship Initiation (BSRI), the process through which previously unknown counterparts move through interaction episodes toward a business agreement (Aaboen & Aarikka-Stenroos, 2017; Dwyer et al., 1987; La Rocca et al., 2013; Wilson, 1995). Accordingly, the study aims to explore:

RQ: What roles do salespeople assume during BSRI between car dealers and car brands in turbulent business networks?

In attempting to address this question, the study foregrounds salespeople’s sensemaking and interaction work as the microfoundations for observing the new dynamics of dealer–brand business relationship initiation under turbulence.

Empirically, the study draws on an in-depth case study of a family-owned Italian dealer, Alpha (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2018). Alpha abruptly lost its more-than-50-year relationship with Beta car brand following new commercial policies introduced after Beta’s merger with another major European brand. The termination removed Alpha’s distribution rights and triggered a sharp revenue decline, creating for Alpha an urgent pressure to initiate a new business relationship with a car brand in an already challenging turbulent scenario. In the meantime, Beta merger operations led to the sudden firing of several managerial positions in the sales distribution structure due to organizational redundancies after the merger. At the same time, many of these managers become appealing to new and emerging car brands from the Far East. These managers’ pre-existing relationships with European car dealers facilitated the initiation of new business relationships. This was very beneficial for Alpha, which was struggling to find a new car brand to deal with after Beta broke up. As a result, Alpha developed a new business relationship with an emerging car brand.

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with Alpha’s key actors and with key actors from the counterpart organisation involved in the initiation process (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018). Data has been analysed abductively, iterating between prior BSRI insights and emerging empirical patterns to refine the salespeople’s roles during BSRI under turbulence (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Tavory & Timmermans, 2014; Thompson, 2022).

Preliminary findings show that salespeople perform four interrelated roles. First, salespeople act as memory carriers: their network memory—recollections of prior resource combinations and adaptations—guides which counterparts are recognised as viable and how “fit” is assessed early in the process (Poblete & Bengtson, 2020; Soda et al., 2004). This memory enables what the study conceptualises as resource combination magnetism, the attractive pull of resources that have previously been adapted together (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002; Wadell & Bengtson, 2024). Without this role, potentially complementary resources remain effectively invisible during early mutual recognition between the dealer and the emerging car brand (Dwyer et al., 1987). Second, salespeople act as reframers of path dependence: by mobilising historically established resource interfaces, they convert what could appear as lock-in into a basis for attraction and resilience during turbulence (Wadell & Bengtson, 2024; Zhang & Gao, 2022). Third, salespeople act as alignment accelerators: under turbulence, rapid resource alignment functions as a trigger that propels initiation forward through interaction episodes rather than as an outcome that follows agreement (Mandják et al., 2015). Fourth, salespeople act as temporal brokers and commitment signallers: they work to establish temporal fit—alignment in urgency and decision windows—alongside mutual goals (Edvardsson et al., 2008), and they front-load relational investments that typically follow initiation, using them as early signals of commitment that speed up BSRI (Dwyer et al., 1987; Wilson, 1995; Wadell & Bengtson, 2024).

These insights contribute to IMP research in two ways. Theoretically, they extend BSRI under turbulent business networks by specifying salespeople’s boundary-spanning roles as mechanisms that shape visibility, attraction, sequencing, and speed in initiation, highlighting how turbulence reorganises triggers and the timing of commitment. Managerially, they suggest that car dealers navigating distribution system reconfiguration should treat salespeople’s network memory and interaction capabilities as strategic assets: mobilising them deliberately can help identify “magnetic” partner fits, create temporal alignment, and credibly signal commitment when uncertainty is high and time is scarce.

References Aaboen, L., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2017), Start-ups initiating business relationships: process and asymmetry, IMP Journal, 11(2), 230-250. Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Aaboen, L., Cova, B., & Rolfsen, A. (2018), Building B2B relationships via initiation contributors: Three cases from the Norwegian-South Korean international project busi-ness, Industrial Marketing Management, 68, 74-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.09.027 Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Halinen, A. (2007), The promoting role of third actors in initiating busi-ness relationships, Proceedings of 23rd IMP Conference, Manchester, Great Britain, Biondi, S., Calabrese, A., Capece, G., Costa, R., & Di Pillo, F. (2013), A new approach for as-sessing dealership performance: An application for the automotive industry, International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 5, 18. Bondeli, J. V., & Havenvid, M. I. (2022), Bouncing back in turbulent business environments: Ex-ploring resilience in business networks, Industrial Marketing Management, 107, 383-395. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018), Doing interviews, Sage Publications Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002), Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case re-search, Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8 Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987), Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of marketing, 51(2), 11-27, https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298705100202 Edvardsson, B., Holmlund, M., & Strandvik, T. (2008), Initiation of business relationships in ser-vice-dominant settings, Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 339-350, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.07.009 Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007), Theory building from cases: Opportunities and chal-lenges, Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 Euronews (2025, September 8), Car industry seeks EU life support from near-death experience. Retrieved from: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/09/08/car-industry-seeks-eu-life-support-from-near-death-experience Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995), Developing relationships in business networks, Lon-don: Routledge. Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2002), Path dependence: restricting or facilitating technical development? Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 561-570. Hassel, J.-E. (2024), Third actor introductions to interaction episodes aiming at fast-forwarding new firm relationship development, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 39(13), 200-215. Illés, C. B., Turzai-Horányi, B., & Dunay, A. (2021), Post-Crisis Management in the Hungarian Automobile Dealership Sector, Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research (JEE-CAR), 8(3), 362-373. Kovalova, E., & Vartiak, L. (2024), Promoting Sustainability in the Automotive Industry: Eco-nomic Comparison of Dealer Sales Model and Agency Sales Model of Electric Vehicles in Slo-vakia, European Journal of Sustainable Development, 13(3), 551-551. La Rocca, A., Ford, D., & Snehota, I. (2013), Initial relationship development in new business ventures, Industrial Marketing Management, 42(7), 1025-1032. Mandják, T., Szalkai, Z., Neumann-Bódi, E., Magyar, M., & Simon, J. (2015), Emerging relation-ships: how are they born? Industrial Marketing Management, 49, 32-41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.05.031 Obal, M., & Gao, T. T. (2020). Managing business relationships during a pandemic: Conducting a relationship audit and developing a path forward, Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 247-254. Poblete, L. A., & Bengtson, A. (2020), “I want you back”: On the strategic roles of boundary span-ners in supplier switching-back processes, Industrial Marketing Management, 91, 234-245. Soda, G., Usai, A., & Zaheer, A. (2004), Network memory: The influence of past and current net-works on performance, Academy of management journal, 47(6), 893-906. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014), Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research, Uni-versity of Chicago Press. Thompson, J. (2022), A guide to abductive thematic analysis, The qualitative report, 27(5), 1410-1421. Wadell, O., & Bengtson, A. (2024), On the starting situation for business relationship initiation in turbulent business networks, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 39(13), 1-14. Wilson, D. T. (1995), An integrated model of buyer-seller relationships. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 23(4), 335-345, https://doi.org/10.1177/009207039502300414 Yin, R. K. (2018), Case study research and applications (Vol. 6), Sage Thousand Oaks, CA. Zafari, K., Biggemann, S., & Garry, T. (2020), Mindful management of relationships during peri-ods of crises: A model of trust, doubt and relational adjustments, Industrial Marketing Manage-ment, 88, 278-286. Zafari, K., Biggemann, S., & Garry, T. (2023), Development of business-to-business relationships in turbulent environments, Industrial Marketing Management, 111, 1-18. Zhang, C., & Gao, H. (2022), Managing business-to-business disruptions: Surviving and thriving in the face of challenges, Industrial Marketing Management, 105, 72-78.

ABSTRACT. This working paper explores the use of AI-enabled interaction simulators for examining how actors anticipate and construct future business relationships in networked settings. Building on the IMP perspective, the study focuses on how value is created by suppliers, perceived and captured by customers, and shaped through interaction. Using a design science research (DSR) approach, the paper presents the development of a case-based simulator in which participants interact with AI personas representing customers. Through these interactions, participants develop and test proposals for new business models and relationship configurations. The study will explore how such simulations can provide insights into how actors reason about value and relationships in future-oriented contexts, and discusses the potential of AI-enabled simulators as a tool for studying interaction in business networks.

ABSTRACT. The adoption of marketing automation systems represents today one of the main trends in the evolution of marketing practices, with profound implications not only at the technological and operational level, but also on the relational dynamics between organizations (Guercini, 2023). While the literature has extensively documented the benefits of automation in terms of efficiency and personalization of customer communications, less attention has been devoted to the process through which such systems are actually adopted, implemented and integrated into organizational practices, with particular reference to the inter-organizational relationships that this process generates and transforms. The IMP (Industrial Marketing and Purchasing) perspective offers a theoretical framework particularly suited to understand how the adoption of complex technologies is configured not as a unilateral process of acquisition, but rather as a path of interaction, mutual learning and co-development between buyer and supplier (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995; Ford et al., 2008). In this perspective, relationships represent key resources through which actors access knowledge, competencies and capabilities that they do not possess internally (Gadde et al., 2012). This contribution aims to answer the following research question: How do buyer-supplier relationships develop in the process of marketing automation adoption, and what role does mutual learning assume in overcoming implementation criticalities?

ABSTRACT. The rapid growth of AI is transforming marketing, but an organizational gap remains: while AI systems advance exponentially, workforce readiness develops at a much slower pace. This paper proposes a framework that links HR capabilities to marketing work management, drawing on Teece’s (1997) and Apascaritei and Elvira’s (2022) models. Successful AI integration requires reconfiguring human capital across three areas: knowledge building, social integration, and reconfiguration. Using a Systematic Literature Review supported by Guided LDA and NLP applied to 419 articles, we find a fragmented literature that focuses more on AI outcomes than on the human capabilities required. We present a model of HR capabilities for AI‑ready marketing and identify key tensions between automation and augmentation, scalability and fit, and productivity and job deconstruction. The study shifts the focus from AI benefits to the development of human capabilities needed to manage marketing work in an AI environment.

ABSTRACT. Business-to-business (B2B) exchange unfolds through interaction, relationships and networks, which constitute the central units of analysis in industrial marketing and purchasing (IMP) research (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995; Ford et al., 2011). Within this tradition, case study research has been the predominant methodological approach for examining interaction processes as they develop in contextually embedded settings. Through a strong process orientation, this literature has generated rich conceptualisations of interdependence, mutual adaptation and relational dynamics across connected actors over time. The dynamic and embedded nature of interaction in business relationships and networks highlights the need for research approaches capable of engaging with complexity, context and change as they unfold (Medlin, 2004). However, despite the centrality of case studies, there has been comparatively limited methodological articulation of how researcher engagement and intervention within cases can be systematically incorporated while continuing to support theory development. This paper develops the argument that action research (AR) can address this gap when positioned within established IMP case research. Rather than treating action research as a standalone methodological alternative, the paper proposes AR as an in-case study methodology that extends established IMP case research. In this framing, action research shapes both the researcher’s engagement with interaction processes and the generation of empirical material through intervention within ongoing case studies. To develop this argument, we draw on an integrative review of empirical studies employing AR within B2B and industrial contexts published between 2000 and 2025. The review approach is particularly suited to synthesising fragmented and emerging methodological literatures (Torraco, 2005; 2016). The review synthesises how AR has been mobilised within case-based research across intra-organisational, inter-organisational and wider network settings, reflecting the multi-level and interconnected nature of interaction processes in business-to-business contexts. While AR has been widely discussed within management and marketing (Reason and Bradbury, 2008; Perry and Gummesson, 2004) as a practice-oriented approach to inquiry (Coghlan, 2019), its application within industrial marketing and network research remains unevenly consolidated. Studies tend to prioritise local practice outcomes or managerial problem-solving, often without fully clarifying how interaction processes generated through intervention become part of the case material through which relationships and networks are analysed over time. Recent IMP-related studies employing action research demonstrate its potential to support longitudinal, processual case research by enabling sustained engagement with actors and practices as they evolve (McGrath et al., 2018; McGrath and O’Toole, 2016; Abrahamsen et al., 2016). From an IMP perspective, action research is particularly well aligned with the study of case-based change processes, characterised by interdependence, negotiated coordination and ongoing adaptation. Interventions enacted through AR are rarely confined to single actors; instead, they unfold across connected relationships, shaping activity patterns, resource combinations and actor bonds over time. This resonates with both established IMP conceptualisations of networks as evolving systems shaped through interaction rather than as stable structures that can be observed at a distance (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995; Ford et al., 2011), as well as recent assessments of industrial network research that highlight the relative underdevelopment of explicit practice-oriented approaches, despite their potential to illuminate ongoing organising and interaction in networks (Ojansivu et al., 2020). The paper proposes a practice-based model that clarifies how action research operates as an in-case study methodology within IMP research (Kemmis et al., 2014). The model links (1) researcher engagement and intervention within cases, (2) interaction processes unfolding during action research cycles, and (3) the development of case-based theoretical insights into relationship and network dynamics. Central to the model is the argument that action research does not replace the case study method, but extends it by making engagement, intervention and reflexivity explicit and analytically tractable as part of the case research process. The paper concludes by outlining implications for industrial marketing and purchasing researchers. Positioning action research as an in-case study methodology offers a way of strengthening IMP case research by aligning closely with its interactional ontology while enhancing methodological transparency around engagement and intervention. In doing so, the paper contributes to methodological debates within the IMP community and offers guidance for scholars seeking to conduct engaged, processual and theory-generative case research in complex business-to-business networks.

REFERENCES Abrahamsen, M. H., Henneberg, S. C., Huemer, L. and Naudé, P. (2016) 'Network picturing: An action research study of strategizing in business networks', Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 59, pp. 107-119.

Coghlan, D. (2019) Doing action research in your own organization, Thousands Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (2011) Managing Business Relationships, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995) Developing relationships in business networks, London: Routledge.

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. and Nixon, R. (2014) The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research, New York: Springer.

McGrath, H. and O’Toole, T. (2016) 'Using action research and action learning for entrepreneurial network capability development', Action Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 118-138.

McGrath, H., O’Toole, T., Marino, L. and Sutton-Brady, C. (2018) 'A relational lifecycle model of the emergence of network capability in new ventures', International Small Business Journal, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 521-545.

Medlin, C. J. (2004) 'Interaction in business relationships: A time perspective', Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, pp. 185-193.

Ojansivu, I., Hermes, J. and Laari-Salmela, S. (2020) 'Business relationships in the industrial network literature: Three approaches and their underlying assumptions', Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 87, pp. 181-195.

Perry, C. and Gummesson, E. (2004) 'Action research in marketing', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, No. 3/4, pp. 310-320.

Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008) The Sage Handbook of Action Research, 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Torraco, R. J. (2005) 'Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples', Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 356-367.

Torraco, R. J. (2016) 'Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future', Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 404-428.

ABSTRACT. Abstract Business marketing research is increasing. This includes both the mainstream North American tradition (NAM) and the industrial marketing and purchasing tradition (IMP). Both streams have been argued to have stagnated. To help untangle this problem, I examine how business marketing research can be understood through sociological paradigms. From past research, we know that business marketing research is grounded in social exchange theory. However, this social exchange theory is seldom classified as a sociological paradigm or as connected to other sociological paradigms. To answer the question Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) classical model for analysis of social theory is used as a methodological approach. The main contribution of the paper is to point out that marketing research belongs to a functional sociological paradigm grounded in an objectivist philosophy of science and a sociology of regulation. This is far from the interpretive paradigm, which many scholars commonly associate with the IMP tradition.

1. Introduction Business marketing research is increasing. This includes both the mainstream North American tradition (NAM) and the industrial marketing and purchasing tradition (IMP). Despite this, there is a scholarly debate regarding the stagnation of its two major traditions. In historical overviews of B2B research, scholars have identified an important turning point (Hadjikhani & LaPlaca, 2013; Cortez & Johnston, 2017; Möller & Halinen, 2022, p. 284). During the 1980s and the early 1990s, a shift occurred from discrete transactions to interactions, relationships and networks (Håkansson 1982; Dwyer et al., 1987; Grönroos, 1994). With this shift in focus, behavioural theories, particularly sociological tools, are used to investigate interactions and business relationships in markets. The sociology that became the foundation for the new focus on interactions and relationships was the American social exchange theory of scholars such as Homans (1959; 1961), Blau (1964), Cook and Emerson (1978). This theory was important because it enabled the emphasis on concepts such as trust, commitment, attraction, power, dependency, expectations, and cooperation (Möller & Halinen, 2022, p. 285). However, in this paper, the social exchange tradition is further contextualised within sociological paradigms. A sociological paradigm is a body of scholars' work that shares an underlying unity in its basic, often “taken for granted” assumptions. According to Burrell and Morgan (1979), there exist four such sociological paradigms: Functionalist, Interpretive, Radical structuralist, and Radical Humanist. Today, it seems important to contextualise the sociological paradigm on which business marketing research is built (Wadell, 2022; Wadell. 2026). This is because it will make the underlying sociological assumptions of marketing research more explicit. Making the underlying sociological assumptions clear will likely help us to break free from the invisible paradigmatic cage and field stagnation that Möller and Halinen (2022) argue we are captured in. Making these assumptions clear will give us the counters of the cage that are necessary for breaking free. Based on the reasoning above, the purpose is to answer the question: How can business marketing research be understood through sociological paradigms? To answer the question, Burrell & Morgan’s (1979) classical model for analysis of social theory is used as a methodological approach. The main contribution of the paper is to point out that marketing research belongs to a functional sociological paradigm grounded in an objectivist philosophy of science and a sociology of regulation. This finding is particularly at odds with past research's view of the IMP tradition (e.g., Möller & Halinen, 2022), which is seen as more interpretivist and social 1 constructivist. This might have considerable implications for opening avenues for future research and paradigm shifts. The paper is structured as follows: In the next section, Business marketing research and its sociological foundation are introduced. Their article follows an introduction to Burrell and Morgan’s model of sociological paradigms. This includes a presentation of their model, the four sociological paradigms, and their view of American social exchange. The fourth section includes the use of Burrell & Morgan’s (1979) model for the analysis of how business marketing research can be understood in terms of sociological paradigms. The paper concludes with a discussion and contributions, followed by avenues for future research. 2. Business Marketing Research: On American Social Exchange Theory In this paper, I follow Möller and Halinen’s (2022) division of business marketing research into two main research streams. These are the North American tradition (NAM) and the IMP- driven research approach. As the NAM started to develop during the 1970s, it “paved the way” for the entire scholarship of business marketing (Möller & Halinen, 2022, p. 283; Hadjikhani & LaPlaca, 2013). According to Möller & Halinen (2022, p. 283-284), NAM can then be divided in terms of a “marketing management orientation” and “behavioural theory-building orientation” (behavioural orientation). The marketing management orientation (Kotler, 1967, 1971; Webster, 2005) is then, according to Möller & Halinen (2022), more economically oriented and has not as in the behavioural orientation (Dwyer et al., 1987; Grönroos, 1994; Morgan & Hunt, 1994) further integrated social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959; Homans, 1961; Balu, 1964) to a further extent. As this paper focuses on how business marketing research can be understood through sociological paradigms, it will accordingly focus on the behavioural orientation. The behavioural orientation of NAM then started to develop in the late 1980s. This development implied that behavioural theories, such as social exchange theory, became popular as a theoretical basis alongside economics. As pointed out by Möller & Halinen (2022), the emergence of the behavioural orientation was driven by a shift in researchers' focus from single, discrete transactions to repeated transactions and buyer-seller relationships. Within the behavioural theory, this shift then implied the emergence of two research streams, in which social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959; Homans, 1961; Balu, 1964) came to play a role. These two streams are then referred to as “the channel research stream” (Stern & Reve, 1980) and “the relationship marketing stream” (Dwyer et al., 1987). The channel research stream then operates at both the system and relationship levels. ( Möller & Halinen, 2022) At the system level, the goal is to explain how channel structures evolve and how they influence channel relationships (e.g., Stern & Reve, 1980). At the relationship level, the primary goal is to understand how the channel context influences relationships among channel members and to identify governance structures (e.g., Heide, 1994). To achieve its goals, Chanel research commonly draws on social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959; Homans, 1961; Balu, 1964), employing concepts such as dependency, trust, cooperation and commitment (Heide, 1994). Turning to the relationship marketing stream, their interest lay in understanding relational exchange and particularly customer-supplier relationships, their characteristics, their development over time, and the factors influencing them (Möller & Halinen, 2022, p. 285). Also within this research stream, social exchange theory has been of considerable importance, and concepts such as attraction, trust, and shared values have been incorporated. For example, the social exchange theory is central to the seminal work of Dwyer et al. (1987) on how relationships develop through five clear phases. From initiation to dissolution. Dwyer 2

et al. (1987, p. 12) state that: “utilising the work of Scanzoni (1979), Thibaut and Kelley (1959), and other exchange theorists, we emphasise hypothesised transitions and key distinctions between phases”. Finally, social exchange theory has also been very influential in the development of the second main business marketing research stream, the IMP. The IMP, developed during the 1970s, was primarily composed of junior scholars from five European universities who started a research project on business relationships (Möller & Halinen, 2022). As in North America, observations indicate that companies engage in repeated transactions with one another. This was at odds with the neoclassical economics-dominated literature, which focused on discrete transactions (Johanson & Vahlne, 2011). The IMP group developed an interaction model (1982) that focuses on how interaction episodes in day-to-day exchanges build up business realtionships. This thinking was also expanded to a view of markets as business networks (Hägg & Johanson, 1982). In the IMP interaction model (Håkansson, 1982; Håkansson et al., 2009), which is at the heart of the research traditions’ shared beliefs (Wadell, 2022), social exchange theory plays a prominent role. To explain that realtionships characterised by trust developed between actors, it was not enough to rely solely on neoclassical models and economic exchanges. To explain the development of trust between actors, social exchange theory became central. As pointed out by Johanson & Mattson (1987, p. 37) the development of a realtionship is much like a social exchange porcess: "Social exchange relations evolve in a slow process, starting with minor transactions in which little trust is required because little risk is involved and in which both partners can prove their trust- worthiness, enabling them to expand their relation and engage in major transactions" (Blau, 1964p 454). The same quote is also used by Håkansson & Snehota (1995, p. 198), which further emphasises that “From all our studies of business relationships we believe that this description of social exchange gives a picture of the exchange as it takes place in business relationships”. After that, the IMP group began investigating relationships. They made a somewhat unexpected finding: interdependencies existed among relationships (Johanson & Mattsson, 2011). For example, a business with one particular customer required that the supplier have a relationship with a specific supplier. Based on these empirical observations and social exchange theory (Cook and Emerson’s 1978), the concept of business networks was defined as sets of connected exchange relationships. As shown above, social exchange theory has, in general, been important to develop business marketing research. In the literature, however, this social exchange is seldom contrasted with other sociological research. To do this, we, in the next section, turn to the work of Burrell and Morgan (1979).

ABSTRACT. Over the years a growing attention has been recognized to the entrepreneurial networks mainly focusing on the perspective of resource dependency theory and its potentialities for SMEs (Abu-Rumman 2018). In this regard, the Entrepreneurial network has been considered positively related to SMEs performance (Pulka et al. 2021) sustaining the development of their activities. However, the literature on entrepreneurial networks is diversified and the identification of their role requires to be clarified (Abu-Rumman 2018). In a general perspective, closed entrepreneurial networks, have been investigated focusing on the social interaction within the firm’s network (Zaheer et al. 2019), mainly related to SMEs. In a closed network every member is connected to others, providing tacit knowledge, creative ideas, and new opportunities (Li et al. 2015). Collaborative relationships allow SMEs to access resources (Centeno, 2014) as well as to enhance competences to acquire and use them (Das and Goswami, 2019). Firms belonging to the network search for new business opportunities and for innovating their products and processes (Wincent et al., 2014). In addition, network-level risk-taking promotes networked firms’ experiments in which the outcomes are undetermined (Ripolles and Blesa, 2021). However, closed network contains restrictions in identifying and accessing new ideas due to myopia that can cause effects on firm performance (Håkansson and Ford 2002). Moving from social to business relationships, the industrial perspective (Hakansson and Snehota, 1989) characterizes a more dynamic systemic approach, focusing on how networks change (Brown et al., 2019). From this perspective, firms develop interconnected relationships that outline a business network (Hakansson et al, 1995). Business networks consist of actors that, through interaction in long-term relationships, share resources and develop activities (Hakansson et al., 2009). In the process of new business development, the joint use and combination of resources involve mutual adaptation and joint learning (Håkansson, 1993). In a wider perspective, Entrepreneurial Network involves the key actors that support the startups life cycle in the entrepreneurship industry. In the Entrepreneurial Network, a key role has been undertaken by Science and Technology Parks and Incubators. The Science and Technology Parks support the creation and growth of innovation-based firms through incubation and spin-off processes and provide value-added services (IASP, 2002). Science and Technology Parks create an environment that promotes technology transfer and innovation (Hansson et al. 2005), mainly related to the development of new ventures based on physical space. The increasing focus on more intangible and high-value services also outlined a new incubating business model (Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005). According to Hackett and Dilts (2004, p. 57), a business incubation center is defined as “a shared office space facility that seeks to provide its incubatees (the tenants) with a strategic, value-adding intervention system of monitoring and business assistance… with the objective of facilitating the successful new venturing development while simultaneously containing the cost of their potential failure…It is a network of individuals and organizations”. Furthermore, new actors have been identified in venture builder. For example, in 2023, Italian venture builders received funding of € 41,022 million to focus primarily on managerial support, product and service design and development, marketing and sales strategies, and initial capital for starting the company (Social Innovation Monitor, 2025). In this context, the aim of the resarch is to investigate the key role undertaken by the new actor and the reconfiguration of the entrepreneurial network. Particularly, the venture builder is a new type of actor that operates as a venture factory (Baumann et al., 2018; Hassel et al., 2025). Venture builders initiate, scale, and sell startups. This study tries to address the following research question: What is the role of venture builders in the reconfiguration of the entrepreneurial network? We adopted a qualitative methodology to answer our research question (Yin, 1994). This paper investigates the key role of venture builders, based on a comparative case study founded on the analysis of two organizations: Cariplo Factory and WDA. Cariplo Factory is an innovation hub that provides experiential training courses, entrepreneurial support programme and venture building projects. WDA is based on the concept of founder as a service, supporting startups from the early stage to the scale up. The analysis is based on semi-structured interviews with key informants of two organizations.

References Abu-Rumman A. (2018). Gaining competitive advantage through intellectual capital and knowledge management: an exploration of inhibitors and enablers in Jordanian Universities. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(3), 259- 268 Das, M., & Goswami, N. (2019). Effect of Entrepreneurial Networks on Small Firm Performance in Kamrup, a District of Assam. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9, 1-14. Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L. E., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A. (2009). Business in networks. Wiley: Chichester Hassel, J. E., Clausen, T. H., Rasmussen, E., & Öberg, C. (2025). Venture builders: new venture production in the entrepreneurship industry: Venture builders: new venture production in the entrepreneurship industry. Small Business Economics, 1-18 Pulka, B., Ramli, A., Mohamad, A.(2021). Entrepreneurial competencies, entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial network, government business support and SMEs performance. The moderating role of the external environment. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development Ripollés M., Blesa A. (2021). International new ventures’ international performance: a matter of network entrepreneurial orientation and network management activities, Management Research Review, 45(1), pp.65-85 Social Innovation Monitor (2025). Startup Studio e Venture Builder. Report Italia 2025. Available at the following link:https://socialinnovationmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/09/UFFICIALE-Report-pubblico-Startup-Studio-e-Venture-Builder-in-Italia-2025-2.pdf (Accessed 5 December 2025) Zaheer H., Breyer Y., Dumay J. (2019). Digital entrepreneurship: An interdisciplinary structured literature review and research agenda, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,148, 119735

ABSTRACT. This study examines the creation and development of university spin-offs (USOs), defined as research-based start-ups emerging from academic institutions (Clarysse et al., 2011). Prior research has explored their network embeddedness, the role of intermediaries and incubation, and interactions with customers and suppliers, while highlighting the challenges posed by liabilities of newness and smallness, particularly for technology-based firms. Within the IMP tradition, USO development has often been analyzed through the three-settings framework, typically focusing on academically rooted founders with limited business experience. In contrast, this study investigates a spin-off involving an industry-experienced founder, offering a novel perspective on how individual trajectories and contextual embeddedness shape development processes. Drawing on an in-depth case study of U-Sense, an academic spin-off from the Polytechnic University of Marche, the study explores how the interplay between founder agency and inter-organizational dynamics influences spin-off creation and evolution, contributing to research on entrepreneurship within the IMP framework.

ABSTRACT. Healthcare innovation increasingly unfolds within collaborative networks that unite public institutions, hospitals, universities, policymakers, and private companies (Ritvala and Salmi, 2010; Wagrell et al., 2022). While such diversity fosters creativity and learning through knowledge exchange, it also introduces significant challenges in coordinating efforts, sustaining collaboration, and managing knowledge flows across organizational boundaries (Corsaro et al., 2012; Picaud-Bello et al., 2022). These complexities highlight the need to better understand the dynamic and multifaceted interactions through which innovation networks operate (Aarikka Stenroos et al., 2017).

The innovation network we study brings together a diverse set of actors united by the common goal of supporting health technology companies in developing solutions that respond to public healthcare needs. Yet health technology companies in particular face difficulties entering and navigating such publicly led healthcare networks (e.g., Alalääkkölä et al., 2025). This raises questions about how the perspectives and priorities of companies are included in network-level interactions, and how these perspectives are interpreted, negotiated, and incorporated into network-level interactions among partners.

A central difficulty lies in the nature of knowledge within these networks. There is no commonly shared, diffused knowledge base; rather, customer specific knowledge tends to be fragmented, tacit, and individually held by distinct partners (Nätti et al., 2006). As a result, insights about companies remain dispersed rather than forming a shared resource that can guide collaboration. Most studies in healthcare contexts have focused on exchanges among health professionals within or across organizations (Petland et al., 2011). In contrast, comparatively fewer studies have explored how knowledge flows across broader, multi actor innovation networks in healthcare (Madanaguli et al., 2022; Huynh, 2025). In such context, it is increasingly relevant to understand how individually held customer knowledge becomes integrated into collective, network level practices. By applying a customer knowledge lens, the study aims to uncover the mechanisms through which individual insights are transformed into shared knowledge sharing practices, offering a temporal understanding of how such integration unfolds within innovation networks.

This study examines episodic interaction within the focal Nordic healthcare innovation network. While most existing research focuses on higher level interactions, fewer studies analyse these interactions through smaller, short term components such as episodic exchanges (Holmlund, 2004; Sarmento et al., 2015; Schurr, 2007). Addressing this gap, the study adopts an episode based approach and draws on a longitudinal qualitative case comprising over two years of biweekly online meeting observations (June 2023–November 2025), complemented by ethnographic fieldnotes from in person partner events, workshops, and webinars. The analysis is further supported by secondary materials from 2015–2025, including meeting notes, partner meeting files, workshop documentation, and webinar materials used to introduce the network to companies. Together, these sources provide a comprehensive account of the network’s activities and knowledge sharing practices.

Our analysis shows how network actors share and leverage customer knowledge through episodic exchanges, and how these short-term interactions contribute to collective learning, adaptive coordination, and the ongoing evolution of the network over time. We develop a typology linking episodic dynamics, relationship types, and network outcomes. This typology, structured along the dimensions of temporality (short- vs. long-term) and knowledge orientation (from vs. for customer), reveals four distinct relationship patterns through which customer knowledge circulates and is transformed within the network. By focusing on episodic interactions, this research provides novel empirical insights into the micro-dynamics of knowledge sharing in healthcare innovation networks, highlighting mechanisms through which innovation is facilitated in complex, multi-actor environments.

References Aarikka-Steenroos, L., Jaakkola, E., Harrison, D., & Mäkitalo-Keinonen, T. (2017). How to manage innovation processes in extensive networks: A longitudinal study. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 88-105. Alalääkkölä, T., Torvinen, H., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Mainela, T. (2025). From value creation to value capture practices in healthcare innovation collaborations. Innovation, 27(1), 21–42. Corsaro, D., Cantù, C., & Tunisini, A. (2012). Actors' heterogeneity in innovation networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(5), 780-789. Holmlund, M. (2004). Analyzing business relationships and distinguishing different interaction levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 33, 279-287. Huynh T. (2025). “Collaborative research in healthcare: uncovering the impact of industry collaboration on the service innovativeness of university hospitals”. The Journal of Technology transfer, 50, 1–28. Madanaguli, A. T., Dhir, A, Talwar, S., Singh, G. & Escobar, O. (2022). “Business to business (B2B) alliances in the healthcare industry: a review of research trends and pertinent issues.” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37 (8), 1688–1705. Nätti, S., Halinen, A., & Hanttu, N. (2006). Customer knowledge transfer and key account management in professional service organizations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(2), 185–201. Picaud-Bello, K., Stevens, E., Cloutier, L. M., & Renard, L. (2022). Coordinating service ecosystems for innovation: The case of tourism destination innovation projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 106, 444-460. Ritvala, T., & Salmi, A. (2010). Value-based network mobilization: A case study of modern environmental networkers. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, (6), 898-907. Sarmento, M.D., Simões, C., & Farhangmehr, M. (2015). Applying a relationship marketing perspective to B2B trade fairs: The role of socialization episodes. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 131-141. Schurr, P.H. (2007). Buyer‐seller relationship development episodes: theories and methods. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22, 161-170. Wagrell, S., Havenvid, M.I., Linné, Å. & Sundquist, V. (2022). Building sustainable hospitals: A resource interaction perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 106, 420-431.

ABSTRACT. Reshoring has gained increasing attention in industrial marketing, international business and supply chain research as firms respond to rising labour costs, supply chain disruptions, geopolitical uncertainty, and sustainability pressures (Fratocchi et al., 2016; Barbieri et al., 2018; Pedroletti & Ciabuschi, 2023). Despite this growing body of work, reshoring is predominantly conceptualised as a single firm’s issue or at best as a dyadic phenomenon, focusing either on the relationship between the reshoring firm and the offshore supplier in the host country or on the relationship between the reshoring firm and the domestic supplier in the home country (Gray et al., 2013). The latter approaches implicitly assume that these relationships can be analysed independently, overlooking the fact that reshoring typically unfolds across multiple, interconnected relationships (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). In this paper we focus on reshoring for outsoucing, i.e., the relocation of activities from a foreign supplier to a home country supplier, which is indeed the variant of reshoring that manifests most clearly the relevance of business relationships and networks for reshoring (e.g., Baraldi et al, 2018; Pedroletti, 2025). Specifically, we argue that reshoring for outsourcing cannot be fully understood through a dyadic lense as reshoring unfolds within a set of connected relationships, where changes in one relationship directly and indirectly affect others (Mattsson & Johanson, 2006: 264). Drawing on the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) research tradition, the paper conceptualises reshoring for outsourcing as a triadic process, where the reshoring firm is embedded between two (or more) suppliers and acts as a mediating actor within a business triad (Vedel et al., 2016; Nätti et al., 2014) with a primary goal of brokering knowledge between suppliers. The IMP tradition views markets as networks of long-term, interconnected business relationships characterised by interaction, adaptation, and mutual dependence (Mattsson & Johansson, 2006; Ford et al., 1990). Within this perspective, triads are considered the minimal unit of network embeddedness (see Gadde & Snehota, 2019: 189) , as they allow researchers to capture indirect effects, mediation, and interdependence that cannot be observed in dyads alone (Laage-Hellman, 1989; Smith and Laage-Hellman, 1992). IMP research has demonstrated how triads shape coordination (Dubois, 1998), power and dependence (Havila, 1996), relationship evolution (Havila and Wilkinson, 2002), innovation (Araujo et al., 2003), and value creation (Walter et al., 2001). However, the role of triads in reshoring processesremains largely unexplored.

Method The paper draws on an in-depth qualitative case study of a manufacturing firm relocating a part of its production from China to Italy. The case was selected for its rich empirical access to a reshoring-for-outsourcing situation involving two suppliers in distinct institutional and geographical contexts. Empirical material was collected through 32 semi-structured interviews with key managers in the reshoring firm and both foreign and local suppliers. Consistent with the IMP research tradition, the study adopts an abductive approach, iteratively confronting empirical observations with theoretical concepts (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Dubois & Gadde, 2014). Analytically, we first examine the two dyadic relationships – the reshoring firm-host country supplier and the reshoring firm-home country supplier – individually, in line with IMP studies emphasising relationship-specific interaction and adaptation (Håkansson, 1982; Easton, 1995). We then analyse these dyads in connection, focusing on how adaptations and knowledge developed in one relationship influence the other through indirect interaction (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995; Havila, 1996). Expanding the analytical lens from dyads to triads enables a relational and processual understanding of reshoring and reveals the mediating role of the reshoring firm in brokering knowledge between suppliers.

Findings Our findings show that the reshoring firm initially aims to establish a closed triad, where the host-country and home-country suppliers could interact to enable knowledge transfer, coordination of production activities, and alignment of technical standards. Such closed triadic configurations have been highlighted in IMP research as facilitating richer interaction, mutual learning, and joint problem-solving (Laage-Hellman, 1989; Havila and Wilkinson, 2002). However, in practice, several obstacles impede the formation of direct supplier–supplier relationships. These include motivational misalignment, geographical and cultural distance, lack of prior cooperation, and differences in technological and organisational capabilities – factors also recognised in the reshoring literature as key barriers to successful relocations (Foerstl et al., 2016; Wiesmann et al., 2017). As a result, the triad often remains open, with the reshoring firm occupying a central mediating role. In this configuration, the reshoring firm becomes responsible for transferring knowledge, coordinating activities, and managing expectations of the suppliers. Consistent with IMP research, this mediation is not based on formal authority or contractual control, but on accumulated experience, competence, and network position (Baraldi & Ratajczak-Mrozek, 2019; Johanson and Mattsson, 1987; Ritter, 2000). The reshoring firm thus shifts its role from core actor, initiator of the reshoring process, to act as a third party enabling indirect interaction between suppliers who cannot interact directly (Havila, 1996; Dubois, 1998). Our case study highlights how the mediating role of the reshoring firm manifests in knowledge brokering, performed by the reshoring firm by identifying capability gaps that need to be addressed, managing interdependencies between parties to refine the knowledge base of domestic suppliers. However, such a role proves to be demanding, as the reshoring firm has to engage in intensive coordination, manage misunderstandings, cope with conflicting expectations and adapt to missing or alternative capabilities from the home supplier side. At last, interestingly, we find that the mediating role does not disappear once production is reshored; rather, it often persists as an ongoing mechanism for stabilising the triad and supporting further adaptation, especially in the case of partial reshoring.

Contributions The paper makes two main contributions. First, it contributes to IMP research by extending triadic analysis into the reshoring context and by conceptualising mediation through connected relationships as a central mechanism in reshoring for outsourcing. By doing so, it advances IMP discussions on triads and indirect interaction, showing how firms can intentionally shape, but not control, triadic configurations. Second, the paper contributes to the reshoring literature by moving beyond dominant single-firm decision-oriented and dyadicperspectives. It shows that reshoring for outsourcing is not simply a matter of switching suppliers, but a relational and networked process in which outcomes depend on how firms navigate and mediate connected relationships over time. By unpacking the mediating role of the reshoring firm, the paper identifies the core process of knowledge brokerage and highlights relational and organisational challenges that are largely overlooked in existing research. Overall, the paper argues that reshoring for outsourcing should be understood not as a dyadic supplier replacement, but as a triadic, mediated process embedded in business networks. This perspective opens new avenues for research on triads as well as network reconfiguration in reshoring.

References Araujo, L., Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (2003). The multiple boundaries of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1255–1277. Barbieri, P., Elia, S., Fratocchi, L. and Golini, R. (2018). Relocation of manufacturing activities abroad and back: Empirical evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 24(2), 108–120. Baraldi, E., & Ratajczak-Mrozek, M. (2019). From supplier to center of excellence and beyond: The network position development of a business unit within “IKEA Industry”. Journal of Business Research, 100, 1-15. Baraldi, E., Ciabuschi, F., Lindahl, O., & Fratocchi, L., 2018, A network perspective on the reshoring process: The relevance of the home- and the host-country contexts, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 70, pp. 156-166. Dubois, A. (1998). Organising industrial activities across firm boundaries. Routledge. Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (2014). “Systematic combining” – A decade later. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1277–1284. Easton, G. (1995). Methodology and industrial networks. In: Möller, K. and Wilson, D. (eds.) Business Marketing: An Interaction and Network Perspective. Boston: Kluwer, pp. 411–492. Foerstl, K., Kirchoff, J. F., & Bals, L. (2016). Reshoring and insourcing: drivers and future research directions. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(5), 492-515. Ford, D., Håkansson, H. and Johanson, J. (1990). How do companies interact? In: Ford, D. (ed.) Understanding Business Markets. London: Academic Press, pp. 285–299. Fratocchi, L., Ancarani, A., Barbieri, P., Di Mauro, C., Nassimbeni, G., Sartor, M. and Zanoni, A. (2016). Motivations of manufacturing reshoring: An interpretative framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(2), 98–127. Gadde, L. E., & Snehota, I. (2019). What does it take to make the most of supplier relationships?. Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 185-193. Gray, J.V., Skowronski, K., Esenduran, G. and Rungtusanatham, M.J. (2013). The reshoring phenomenon: What supply chain academics ought to know and should do. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(2), 27–33. Håkansson, H. (1982). International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods. Chichester: Wiley. Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995). Developing Relationships in Business Networks. London: Routledge. Havila, V. (1996). International business-relationship triads: A study of the changing role of the intermediating actor. Doctoral Dissertation Företagsekonomiska institutionen, Uppsala universitet. Havila, V. and Wilkinson, I. (2002). The principle of the conservation of business relationship energy: Or many kinds of new beginnings. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(3), 191–203. Holmen, E. and Pedersen, A.-C. (2003). Strategizing through analyzing and influencing the network horizon. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(5), 409–418. Johanson, J. and Mattsson, L.-G. (1987). Interorganizational relations in industrial systems: A network approach compared with the transaction-cost approach. International Studies of Management & Organization, 17(1), 34–48. Laage-Hellman, J. (1989). Technological development in industrial networks. Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University. Mattsson, L. G., & Johanson, J. (2006). Discovering market networks. European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 259-274. Munksgaard, K.B. (2010). Managing network relationships: The role of the intermediary. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(4), 539–550. Nätti, S., Pekkarinen, S., Hartikka, A., & Holappa, T. (2014). The intermediator role in value co-creation within a triadic business service relationship. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(6), 977-984. Pedroletti, D. (2025). Network effects of partial reshoring in the internationalization process. International Business Review, 34(3), 102401. Pedroletti, D., & Ciabuschi, F. (2023). Reshoring: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 164, 114005. Ritter, T. (2000). A framework for analyzing interconnectedness of relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(4), 317–326. Smith, P. and Laage-Hellman, J. (1992). Small group analysis in industrial networks. In: Axelsson, B. and Easton, G. (eds.) Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality. London: Routledge, pp. 37–61. Vedel, M., Holma, A. M., & Havila, V. (2016). Conceptualizing inter-organizational triads. Industrial marketing management, 57, 139-147. Walter, A., Ritter, T., & Gemünden, H. G. (2001). Value creation in buyer–seller relationships: Theoretical considerations and empirical results from a supplier's perspective. Industrial marketing management, 30(4), 365-377. Wiesmann, B., Snoei, J. R., Hilletofth, P., & Eriksson, D. (2017). Drivers and barriers to reshoring: a literature review on offshoring in reverse. European Business Review, 29(1), 15-42.

ABSTRACT. The contemporary business environment is undergoing substantial shifts in terms of technologies, markets and geopolitical tensions, putting a strong pressure on firms in terms of innovation for adaptation (McKinsey, 2025). These patterns highlight the need to focus on resource upgrading in a more proactive approach leading to developing resilience capabilities (Bondeli & Havenvid, 2022; Simarasl et al., 2024). The development of resources within companies is undertaken in various settings - digitalization, quality, sustainability, supply chain, marketing and sales - and involves both intra- and inter-organizational processes (Galvani et al., 2025; Tunisini et al., 2023). Recent analyses and contributions place emphasis on the introduction of more advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, with the goal of increasing automation for pursuing market and efficiency performances (Zhang & Peng, 2025). Other studies instead highlight the role of human competences and skills in creativity and innovation processes, where such new and advanced technologies are implemented (WEF, 2025). Within this second stream of studies recent work has focussed on the role of entrepreneurs, managers and middle managers involved in new roles and projects implemented by companies. Less attention has been placed on the introduction of young hires in roles and positions related to innovative activities and initiatives, despite the growing interest on inter-generational issues in the organisational evolution of firms (Ropes, 2013). This paper aims to provide a preliminary and explorative analysis of the introduction of new young hires as resources in innovative activities and projects contributing to foster company resilience in markets. Therefore it aims to answer the following research question: which is the role of new young hires in the development of innovative activities and projects in companies? Our point of departure is the 4R model within the Resource Interaction approach (Baraldi et al., 2012; Prenkert et al., 2022). The central inquiry of this stream of studies is how to further conceptualize knowledge, capabilities, and routines through the lens of Resource Interaction in IMP. To contribute to this dialogue, the paper examines how individual-level capabilities and routines are mobilized within organizational units. The study is built on the premise that businesses can significantly enhance their overall capabilities by effectively combining their limited internal resources with the resources of external counterparts. Notably, this paper investigates the introduction of new young hires as individual resources which are combined with other company resources and thus have an impact on existing and new organisational processes related to innovation. The 4Rs model is deemed as an effective framework as it allows to explore innovation processes through the analysis of resource interaction processes concerning the key resources “organisational units”, “business relationships”, “products” and “process facilities”. The resource “organizational unit” can refer to parts of an organization, such as a division, section, department, or informal group, or even an individual. Individual actors play their role/position within “organisational units” or can be considered as an organizational unit per se. In both cases, individuals embody key intangible resources, such as knowledge, reputation and identity. With regard to the research methodology, this paper adopts a qualitative approach based on processual multiple case study, in the light of the explorative research question (Aaboen et al., 2012). To provide empirical depth, the study utilizes three illustrative examples from Italian companies active different industrial sectors and involving young hires in different business processes: • Federico, working in Sustainability projects within the furniture sector at Berloni Bagno. • Claudia, active in Quality management within the machinery sector at Valmex. • Saba, having a role in Trade Marketing within the food sector at Trevalli Cooperlat. In each illustrative example the focus is placed on the selection, onboarding and professional path in specific roles by new young hires, which have been involved in activities characterized by renewal and/or innovation, resulting in new complex combinations of existing and new resources. The processes of mobilization of individuals as resources is therefore the main focus, along both the intra- and inter-organisational perspectives, as these activities/projects often imply networking with other actors such as partners, suppliers and customers. The contribution of this research is twofold. Firstly, it aims to offer insights over the change and renewal process of firms while facing the current challenges in turbulent markets. The degree of resilience and notably the “readiness” of companies to unexpected shocks and changes in the market is related to the resource upgrading processes, where human and technological factors play a key role. Within these dynamics various studies highlight the inter-generational dimension of learning, change and innovation (Ropes, 2013) and the research focus on new young hires aims to gain useful insights on this emerging theme. Secondly, it contributes to the emerging debate within IMP scholars over individual actors and individuals as resources. The specific role of individuals in interaction processes has remained largely under-investigated, with only a few isolated exceptions (Gonçalves et al., 2019). This gap exists because the Business Network approach historically prioritizes the business relationship and organizational actors as the primary units of analysis. Recently, in IMP-related literature, individual actors have received some attention: the emphasis has been placed on how “individual actors”, such as entrepreneurs, mobilize his/her ‘social capital’ to mobilize resources and strategizing in the network (McGrath et al., 2024; Baraldi et al., 2020), especially in the context of small firms and startup processes (Pagano et al., 2018), also with some insights over the role of young new hires in innovating marketing and sales activities (Bocconcelli et al., 2017). Less attention has been addressed on how the "organization" perceives and mobilizes individuals as specific resources in the inter-organizational interaction process. The ultimate objective of this study is to provide a more sophisticated conceptualization of how individuals—and their specific knowledge and routines—function as resources within the broader Resource Interaction framework. By shifting the focus to the individual level, the research aims to clarify how organizations can better navigate network interactions by strategically mobilizing the unique capabilities of their members.

REFERENCES Aaboen, L., Dubois, A., & Lind, F. (2012). Capturing processes in longitudinal multiple case studies. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(2), 235-246. Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison, D. (2012). Resource interaction in inter-organizational networks: Foundations, comparison, and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 266-276. Baraldi, E., La Rocca, A., Perna, A., & Snehota, I. (2020). Connecting IMP and entrepreneurship research: directions for future research. Industrial Marketing Management, 91, 495-509. Bondeli, J. V., & Havenvid, M. I. (2022). Bouncing back in turbulent business environments: Exploring resilience in business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 107, 383-395. Bocconcelli, R., Cioppi, M., & Pagano, A. (2017). Social media as a resource in SMEs’ sales process. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(5), 693-709. Galvani, S., Carloni, E., Bocconcelli, R., & Pagano, A. (2025). When digitalization meets sustainability: exploring interactions within a manufacturing firm. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 40(13), 30-46. Gonçalves, S. M., da Silva, R. V., & Teixeira, N. (2019). Individual actors and embeddedness in business-to-business interactions. Industrial Marketing Management, 76, 181-191. McKinsey (2025), Navigating tariffs with a geopolitical nerve center, April. Mcgrath, H., O'Toole, T., & Canning, L. (2024). Strategizing in business networks: The ambivalent entrepreneur. Industrial Marketing Management, 123, 76-87. Pagano, A., Petrucci, F., & Bocconcelli, R. (2018). A business network perspective on unconventional entrepreneurship: A case from the cultural sector. Journal of Business Research, 92, 455-464. Prenkert, F., Hedvall, K., Hasche, N., Frick, J.E., Abrahamsen, M.H., Aramo-Immonen, H., Baraldi, E., Bocconcelli, R., Harrison, D., Huang, L., Huemer, L., Kask, J., Landqvist, M., Pagano, A., Perna, A., Poblete, L., Ratajczak-Mrozek, M., & Wagrell, S. (2022), Resource interaction: key concepts, relations and representations, Industrial Marketing Management, 105, 48-59. Ropes, D. (2013). Intergenerational learning in organizations. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(8), 713-727. Simarasl, N., Tabesh, P., & Jessri, M. (2024). Navigating hardships: Resilience-building coping strategies and actionable techniques for entrepreneurs. Business Horizons. Tunisini, A., Harrison, D., & Bocconcelli, R. (2023). Handling resource deficiencies through resource interaction in business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 109, 154-163. World Economic Forum (WEF, 2025), New Economy Skills: Building AI, Data and Digital Capabilities for Growth, White Paper. Zhang, B., & Peng, B. (2025). The role of leading companies in artificial intelligence applications. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 50(5), 1919-1946.

ABSTRACT. Business networks are increasingly expected not only to “bounce back” from disruptions but also to adapt, transform, and improve because of them. While the organizational resilience literature has matured around principles such as adaptability, preparedness, and learning (“ISO 22316,” 2017) (Bell, 2019) (Zapłata, 2024), antifragility research emphasizes systems that benefit from volatility, gaining from stressors rather than merely enduring them (Munoz et al., 2022) (Ramezani & Camarinha-Matos, 2020) (Taleb, 2012). However, these debates are still largely framed at the level of individual organizations. Less is known about how resilience and antifragility are enacted (and sometimes claimed without substance) across interconnected actors in business networks, where compromises, coopetition, and hidden “dark side” practices may coexist with genuine efforts to build long-term robustness and adaptability. IMP research has long highlighted that “no business is an island”: firms are embedded in webs of interdependent activities, resources, and actors (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995) (Gadde et al., 2003). The business landscape is better understood as overlapping networks rather than discrete dyads, with interaction and interdependencies shaping both vulnerability and strength. Recent systematic work on business networks reinforces the importance of network-level phenomena and calls for more research on resilience, dynamics and paradoxes at this level (Guercini et al., 2024) (Möller & Halinen, 2022). At the same time, business networks face mounting pressures to be “resilient” and “antifragile” in ways that can be co-opted rhetorically: resilience labels may be attached to practices that offload risk onto weaker partners, normalize questionable conduct, or privilege short-term continuity over long-term ethical robustness. Emerging work on coopetition and network paradoxes offers a powerful lens on these tensions. Coopetitive constellations and multi-actor networks are rife with competing logics, where collaboration and competition intersect in ways that can foster innovation but also create opacity and power asymmetries (Cristofaro et al., 2024) (Czakon & Czernek-Marszałek, 2025). Recent Industrial Marketing Management and Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing studies show how compromises and orchestrated coordination are central to managing such tensions: compromises in large science facilities (Bengtson & Åberg, 2025), orchestrators acting as stewards of shared norms (Dessaigne & Pardo, 2020), and coopetition used explicitly to develop organizational resilience (Czakon & Czernek-Marszałek, 2025) (Bimmermann et al., 2024). Yet these same network arrangements can harbour the “dark side”: corruption networks and morally disengaged practices that undermine broader societal resilience, even when framed as efficiency or continuity initiatives (Jancsics & Costa, 2024) (Pressey et al., 2014). In parallel, the organizational resilience literature has started to differentiate resilience from robustness and antifragility and to examine how organizations move along a continuum from fragile to antifragile states (Bartuseviciene et al., 2023) (Munoz et al., 2022). Antifragility is increasingly conceptualized as a distinct capability set involving learning from shocks, experimentation, and creative recombination of resources under stress (Adobor & Kudonoo, 2025) (Ramezani & Camarinha-Matos, 2020). Beyond focusing on the “bright side” of resilience and antifragility, recent contributions also stress the need for critical reflection on methods and empirical claims in contexts marked by uncertainty, fragility, and crisis (Rashid, 2025) (Zapłata, 2024). Against this backdrop, we argue that business networks provide a particularly revealing context to investigate whether proclaimed resilience and antifragility reflect genuine capability development or tacit fast-tracking through problematic compromises, opaque governance arrangements, or normalized unethical behaviour. This extended abstract outlines a mixed-method research programme addressing the following overarching research question: What characterizes genuinely resilient and antifragile business networks – versus networks that only appear so because problematic compromises, dark-side practices, and moral disengagement enable a tacit fast-track to stability? To address this question, we conceptually integrate resilience–antifragility thinking with the Activity–Resource–Actor model and the input–mediator–output framework (Gadde et al., 2003) (Han et al., 2023) (McGrath, 1964). We treat network-level resilience and antifragility as emergent outcomes of constellations of (a) network structures and governance arrangements (actors and resource configurations), (b) processes of coordination, compromise, and coopetition (activities and mediators), and (c) ethical and behavioural patterns (e.g., moral disengagement, corruption, silence) that may either support or erode sustainable adaptation (Fida et al., 2025) (Jancsics & Costa, 2024) (Pressey et al., 2014). Rather than assuming that resilience or antifragility are unambiguously “good”, we theorize them as potentially ambivalent: capabilities that can be developed through both bright-side learning and dark-side normalization of harmful practices. Methodologically, the study proceeds in two main stages. First, we conduct a multivocal literature review on resilience and antifragility in business-to-business networks. Building on recent guidance for rigorous literature reviews and bibliometric analyses (Donthu et al., 2021) (Paul & Criado, 2020), we systematically integrate academic journal articles, conceptual and empirical IMP contributions, as well as selected practitioner and policy documents (e.g., ISO 22316). The review maps how resilience and antifragility are conceptualized and measured at different levels (firm, dyad, network), how the bright and dark sides of networks are treated (e.g., coopetition for sustainability, corruption networks, orchestrated compromises), and where existing work implicitly or explicitly conflates genuine capability building with more problematic routes to stability. Second, we develop and empirically test a network-oriented model of resilience and antifragility using a cross-sectional survey administered via Prolific. Following up-to-date recommendations on online panels and data-quality controls (Peer et al., 2022), we recruit respondents working in B2B settings who can report on a focal business network (e.g., supply, innovation, or project networks) and their own organization’s position in it. The survey instrument captures: (1) perceived network-level shocks and turbulence; (2) structural and relational network features relevant to the ARA model (e.g., interdependencies, centralization, orchestrator roles); (3) coopetition and compromise patterns; (4) indicators of resilience and antifragility at both firm and perceived network levels; and (5) dark-side variables such as moral disengagement, tolerance of grey practices, and perceived corruption pressures (Fida et al., 2025) (Jancsics & Costa, 2024). The study is expected to make three main contributions. Conceptually, it extends the resilience–antifragility debate to the business-network level, integrating IMP insights on interaction and interdependencies with organizational resilience and antifragility frameworks. By explicitly embedding dark-side constructs (moral disengagement, corruption networks, opportunistic compromises) into models of network adaptation, we nuance the prevailing assumption that resilience and antifragility are inherently positive. Methodologically, we demonstrate how a multivocal review combined with PLS-SEM and fsQCA can be used to unpack complex network phenomena in ways that respect both configuration and causality, aligning with recent calls in JBIM and IMM for multi-method, theory-sensitive empirical work on business networks (Guercini et al., 2024) (Möller & Halinen, 2022) (Donthu et al., 2021). Managerially, the study will provide diagnostic tools and configuration-based guidelines that help network orchestrators, boundary-spanning managers, and policy makers differentiate between genuine and pseudo-resilience/antifragility. This includes identifying combinations of practices (e.g., transparent compromises, inclusive orchestration, ethical safeguards) that support long-term network viability, as opposed to short-term stability achieved through hidden risk transfers or morally problematic coping strategies.

References Adobor, H., & Kudonoo, E. C. (2025). Antifragility and organizations: an organizational design perspective. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2024-0185 Bartuseviciene, I., Rakauskiene, O. G., & Valackiene, A. (2023). Assessing the resilience of organizations in the context of uncertainty. Measuring Business Excellence, 27(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2022-0066 Bell, S. (2019). Organisational resilience: a matter of organisational life and death. Continuity & Resilience Review, 1(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/crr-01-2019-0002 Bengtson, A., & Åberg, S. (2025). Compromising in business networks: a case of creating a big science facility. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 40(13), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2024-0775 Bimmermann, C., Greven, A., Fischer-Kreer, D., & Brettel, M. (2024). Exploring the dark side of inter-firm coopetition: The harmful effect on customer satisfaction. Industrial Marketing Management, 122(August), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.07.009 Cristofaro, M., Abatecola, G., & Kask, J. (2024). Business network paradoxes: A literature review and co-evolutionary perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 120(February), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.05.011 Czakon, W., & Czernek-Marszałek, K. (2025). In times of fear turn to your competitor: Developing organizational resilience through coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 125(December 2024), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2025.01.015 Dessaigne, E., & Pardo, C. (2020). The network orchestrator as steward: Strengthening norms as an orchestration practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 91(June), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.09.007 Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133(April), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 Fida, R., Skovgaard-Smith, I., Barbaranelli, C., Paciello, M., Searle, R., Marzocchi, I., & Ronchetti, M. (2025). The suspension of morality in organisations: Conceptualising organisational moral disengagement and testing its role in relation to unethical behaviours and silence. Human Relations, 78(8), 959–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241300866 Gadde, L.-E., Huemer, L., & Håkansson, H. (2003). Strategizing in industrial networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(5), 357–364. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(03)00009-9 Guercini, S., La Rocca, A., & Perna, A. (2024). The IMP research on business networks: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Italian Journal of Marketing, 2024(2), 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-024-00096-5 Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing Relationships in Business Network. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003340263-11 Han, H., Ma, F., & Liu, X. (2023). Transformational leadership and project success: the serial meditating roles of team flexibility and team agility. Frontiers in Built Environment, 9(January), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1334413 ISO 22316. (2017). In Security and resilience - Organizational resilience - Principles and attributes, International Organization for Standardization. Jancsics, D., & Costa, J. (2024). Organizational forms of corruption networks: the Odebrecht-Toledo case. International Public Management Journal, 27(4), 559–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2023.2260368 McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology : a brief introduction . Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Möller, K., & Halinen, A. (2022). Clearing the paradigmatic fog — how to move forward in business marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management, 102(July 2021), 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.01.021 Munoz, A., Billsberry, J., & Ambrosini, V. (2022). Resilience, robustness, and antifragility: Towards an appreciation of distinct organizational responses to adversity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(2), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12289 Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review : What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(June). Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., & Damer, E. (2022). Erratum to Peer et al. (2021) Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54(5), 2618–2620. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01909-1 Pressey, A. D., Vanharanta, M., & Gilchrist, A. J. P. (2014). Towards a typology of collusive industrial networks: Dark and shadow networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1435–1450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.08.001 Ramezani, J., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2020). Approaches for resilience and antifragility in collaborative business ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151(October 2019), 119846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119846 Rashid, L. (2025). Research methods for a fragile world: A personal reflection and actionable recommendations. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 26(2), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/14657503221128013 Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile. Things that gain from disorder. Random House. Zapłata, S. (2024). Tying Up Loose Ends in Organizational Resilience – Current Status and Future Directions. European Research Studies Journal, XXVII(4), 714–734.

ABSTRACT. Circular economy (CE) is a significant approach to contribute to sustainable development (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017) by seeking the reduction, reuse, recycling, and recovery of materials throughout the lifecycle of products (Kirchherr et al., 2017). CE has created intensified expectations for business networks to deliver not just efficiency and innovation but societal results. We argue that this challenges B2B networks to take a more holistic and socially embedded role in shaping circular futures, as depicted by emerging work on the circular society (e.g., Calisto Friant et al., 2024; Leipold et al., 2021). Indeed, the transitioning toward a CE is largely dependent on the collaboration of a variety of actors in the society, including businesses, NGOs, regulators, policymakers, researchers, and consumers (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2023).

Existing research within the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) research has depicted the role of multi-actor and cross-sector collaboration to explain network change in CE transitions (Hasche et al., 2025). We thus suggest that the transition to circularity reframes societal actors (e.g., municipalities, NGOs, communities), societal resources (e.g., legitimacy, natural capital, standards), and societal activities (e.g., regulation, campaigning, certification, public procurement) as active counterparts in business networks. IMP research, nonetheless, has rarely theorized society as a constitutive part of network dynamics and the links between business networks and society remain conceptually underdeveloped. In the ARA model, for example, society is not a direct structural element; it appears implicitly as the wider context in which actors, resources, and activities are embedded.

Foundational texts of IMP nonetheless hint at this connection: “interaction between the two parties does not take place in vacuum” and thus the environmental factors influence it (Håkansson, 1982); developments “among third parties, or in society generally” may trigger relationship change and adaptations (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995); firm–environment boundaries are “blurred,” with counterparts directly influencing activities and resources (Håkansson and Ingemansson, 2013); and business actors may become entangled in the “politics of the marketplace,” where public actors take positions in networks (Halinen and Törnroos, 1998). Additionally, Håkansson et al. (2009) discuss policy-makers as actors, role of government and policy-makers in the business landscape, and their mutual effects.

Therefore, we propose a shift from viewing society as the context (or abstract matrix) to develop the society–network nexus within IMP in the context of circularity by advancing the understanding of how the connections between society and business relationships and networks in the context of circularity have been addressed in the industrial marketing literature.

This study is a literature review, examining articles published in Industrial Marketing Management (IMM). The literature search was made in October 2025 through the journal web page and by using the keyword circular economy. The search resulted in 137 articles and editorials, and it was further checked via Scopus, focusing on Industrial Marketing Management and searching “circular economy” or “circularity” or “circular” in article title, abstract or keywords. This resulted in one additional article. This set of articles was screened to assess their relevance and alignment with the study’s purpose. This screening was made by first identifying if and how circular economy and circularity are defined in the articles. Second, we determined the level of analysis by reviewing the approach to data collection (including the sample and methods), and by assessing whether the keywords “relationship” or “network” were employed. Third, to identify the link to society, we screened the articles for societal level considerations by using keywords “social”, “societal”, “society”, and “macro”. Inclusion or exclusion for the more detailed analysis was based on whether the identified articles define and apply the central concepts of the research question in a relevant manner. This resulted in 30 articles, which were then analysed based on the connections between society and business relationships and networks in the context of circularity.

Based on this analysis, we identified that nearly half of the articles examined defined the concept of circular economy or circularity, while the rest used it more implicitly. While explicit attempts to incorporate societal perspectives into discussions of circularity within industrial marketing are relatively scarce, these articles present a range of perspectives on how society is an active counterpart to business networks. For example, some include concrete analyses of collaboration with macro-level actors (e.g., partnerships supporting sustainable innovation), while others discuss the tensions between markets and society, exploring the trade-offs that arise between business actors and societal goals. Further examples include sustainable business models that emphasize social responsibility, as well as case studies of social enterprises focusing on social innovations and consequent social sustainability. Additionally, some of the articles examined regulatory developments driving or hindering circularity, alongside specific cases illustrating regional aspects of circular economy systems.

This literature review suggests that a comprehensive and, at the same time, in-depth discussion of the multiple dimensions of circularity in industrial marketing is not yet available, with less than 30 articles published in IMM discussing the importance of society for business networks. However, based on the preliminary findings of this study, society seems to be an active counterpart to business networks, not just context, that promotes and hinders the networks’ transition towards CE. We consider such a discussion essential for a better understanding of business networks’ systemic change required for CE transitions, thus including societal actors, resources and activities, and their specific challenges. Ideally, such research will provide a framework that structures the relationships between business relationships and networks and society in the context of circularity in a more concrete way than extant frameworks.

Certain limitations of this abstract need to be addressed to further develop this framework. The current literature review is restricted in scope and should be expanded to include additional relevant academic B2B journals. Furthermore, the scope of the analysis could be widened to include insights from adjacent fields, including sociology or sustainability research. Addressing these limitations will provide a stronger foundation for developing the framework and advancing subsequent stages of the literature review.

References

Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J., & Salomone, R. (2024). Transition to a sustainable circular society: More than just resource efficiency. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 4(1), 23-42.

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy–A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-768.

Håkansson, H. (1982). International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L. E., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A. (2009). Business in Networks. Wiley.

Håkansson, H., & Ingemansson, M. (2013). Industrial renewal within the construction network. Construction Management and Economics, 31(1), 40-61.

Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing Relationships in Business Networks. Routledge.

Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J. Å. (1998). The role of embeddedness in the evolution of business networks. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14(3), 187-205.

Hasche, N., Keränen, O., Ojansivu, I., Ulkuniemi, P., & Vellesalu, A. (2025). Network change in circular economy transitions: Examining interconnectedness, embeddedness and adaptations as key constructs. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 38(5), 1023-1039.

Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse-Truijens, A., & Hekkert, M. (2018). Barriers to the circular economy: Evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecological Economics, 150, 264-272.

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232.

Kirchherr, J., Yang, N. H. N., Schulze-Spüntrup, F., Heerink, M. J., & Hartley, K. (2023). Conceptualizing the circular economy (revisited): An analysis of 221 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 194, 107001.

Leipold, S., Weldner, K., & Hohl, M. (2021). Do we need a ‘circular society’? Competing narratives of the circular economy in the French food sector. Ecological Economics, 187, 107086.

ABSTRACT. The environmental impact of industrial supply networks’ activities has sparked polarized debates among consumer groups, environmental non-governmental organizations, and policymakers. This has created a derived demand for suppliers to produce and communicate sustainability claims about product qualities, such as ethical manufacturing commitments, point of origin, or traceability (Mattsson, 2016). These qualities cannot be directly observed; instead, they must be established through standardized calculations and claims in transactions among business actors in practice (Callon et al., 2002). Research on industrial marketing and purchasing (IMP) has investigated interaction practices (Ford et al., 2011; Håkansson & Ford, 2002) and resource combination processes for value creation in business relationships and networks (Bengtson & Håkansson, 2008; Prenkert et al., 2022), but has paid limited attention to the role of standards in producing product qualities. The sociology of standards (Timmermans & Epstein, 2010), as a complementary perspective, shows how product qualities are enacted not only through metrological practices but also through standards (Loconto & Busch, 2010), which often become taken for granted (Busch, 2011). In this text, I will bridge these two perspectives by empirically examining how sustainability‑related claims are produced in supply networks and how the evolution of calculation standards interacts with established exchange practices over time. Empirically, the paper builds a longitudinal case study (1992–2025) of the development of traceability certification in the Swedish forest raw material supply network, focusing on the introduction and evolution of the FSC and PEFC credit methods as calculation standards producing product qualities. The credit method enables the transfer of sustainability claims without physically segregating certified and non‑certified raw materials. Claims are generated in exchanges through calculations of input and output proportions, credit balances, aggregated product certification categories, and business agreements. The evolutionary case study shows that these calculation methods emerged, on the one hand, to satisfy demands for credibility among auditors and non-governmental organizations; and on the other hand, to avoid conflicts with efficiencies developed in industrial exchange routines of raw material mixing, transportation, and long-term business deal structures. As a result, the credit method incorporates a continuously unfolding interplay between existing network processes and external expectations of sustainability. The paper presents three key findings. First, sustainability‑related product qualities are produced through interactive claim production in supply networks. This is understood as a networked process in which actors negotiate proportions of sustainability claims in business agreements and attach claims to the deliveries of physical products, based on calculation standards rather than direct observation. Second, the calculation standard itself acts as an interaction device (cf. Arnold, 2014), redistributing tasks and responsibilities across the supply network and requiring new forms of interactional activities, such as credit documentation routines and auditing practices. This has the potential to reshape business relationships in local supply networks by forcing suppliers to adopt routines to satisfy the needs of their buyers or buyers’ buyers, i.e., buyers and sellers on global markets or by those who interact directly with consumer markets. Third, the flexibility embedded in the credit method expands the volume of sustainability claims that can be more easily exchanged among suppliers in the network, further enabling the scaling of sustainability claims. The paper contributes to IMP research by conceptualizing sustainability standards as network processes generated through calculation-based interaction rather than as inherent features of raw materials or communicative claims. It also contributes to the standards at work literature by empirically describing how calculation standards co-evolve with established supply networks. The findings have policy implications; regulatory initiatives pertaining to exchange practices in industrial networks must be designed with an understanding of how standards will be enacted within business relationships. Misalignment between how policymakers envision local business networks to function (cf. Akrich, 1992) and actual operational industrial exchange routines severely constrains the practical effectiveness of sustainability initiatives.

ABSTRACT. Growing environmental issues such as climate change, pollution and resource depletion caused by industrial activities linked to fossil fuels, shaped global interest in transitioning from conventional linear “take-make-dispose” economic models to a circular and regenerative approach. The circular economy (CE) is an economic approach that seeks to minimise waste, reuse materials and optimise resource use, offering a potential pathway towards more sustainable industrial practices (EllenMacArthurFoundation, 2025). However, transitioning to CE cannot be achieved by a single firm alone; it relies on collaboration, coordination and long-term interactions between organisations that exchange resources, knowledge and technologies (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995; Möller and Halinen, 2017). Therefore, industrial networks are crucial to support the implementation of CE practices. Despite this importance, the role of industrial networks in enabling CE transitions remains under-researched, particularly in the context of resource dependent and low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). This paper examines the role of industrial networks in enabling the implementation of CE using the Nigerian oil and gas sector as a case study. Nigeria offers an important example as it is one of Africa’s largest oil producers and is heavily dependent on the sector for national revenue. At the same time, the sector is associated with several environmental issues such as gas flaring, oil spills and inefficient use of resources (Ogolo, Anih and Onyekonwu, 2022). Addressing these challenges requires coordinated action among regulators, operators, service companies and other industrial actors, making the sector highly dependent on interorganisational relationships. Circular initiatives currently emerging in the sector such as gas flare recovery, repurposing of decommissioned rigs and reuse of drilling material require the support of relational processes and therefore provide opportunity to explore how industrial networks can enable CE transitions. To understand these interactions, this paper uses two complementary theoretical perspectives. The industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) approach offers a relational view of how firms interact through long-term relationships, resource exchange and coordinated activities (Möller and Halinen, 2017). This helps explain how collaboration, trust and knowledge sharing might support CE practices within industrial networks. In parallel, the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) framework on socio technical transitions illustrates how niche innovations, established regimes and wider landscape pressures interact to shape transitions (Geels, 2002). Drawing on these two frameworks provides a way to conceptualise CE transitions not only as technological or policy shifts, but also as processes shaped by ongoing interactions within and across networks. This paper argues that CE transitions should be understood not only through technological innovation or policy reforms but also through relationships and interactions that connect actors within industrial networks. These network dynamics can either enable or constrain the development of CE practices, particularly in complex and resource dependent sectors such as the oil and gas sector. The contribution of this paper, therefore, is to offer a view of the role industrial networks may play in enabling CE implementation in developing and resource-dependent contexts.

References EllenMacArthurFoundation (2025) What is a circular economy? Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview (Accessed: 23 May 2025). Geels, F. W. (2002) 'Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study', Research policy, 31(8-9), pp. 1257–1274. Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995) Developing relationships in business networks. London: routledge. Möller, K. and Halinen, A. (2017) 'Managing business and innovation networks—From strategic nets to business fields and ecosystems', Industrial Marketing Management, 67, pp. 5–22. Ogolo, N., Anih, O. and Onyekonwu, M. (2022) 'Sources and effects of environmental pollution from oil and gas industrial operations', Arabian Journal of Chemical and Environmental Research, 9(01), pp. 98–121.

ABSTRACT. This study examines the role of sales in sustainability transition processes within business-to-business (B2B) markets, addressing a notable gap in the marketing and IMP/business network literature. While sustainability has become a central concern in management and marketing research, prior studies have largely focused on business-to-consumer contexts, with limited attention to the intersection between professional sales and sustainability. Given the boundary-spanning role of sales in B2B relationships, sales actors may be well positioned to contribute to sustainability-driven change, yet their involvement remains insufficiently understood and potentially constrained by organizational structures, incentives, and prevailing role interpretations.

Adopting an exploratory qualitative approach, the ongoing study draws on in-depth interviews with sales managers, sales professionals, and top management across multiple companies. The data are analyzed through thematic analysis to develop conceptually grounded insights into how sustainability strategies are interpreted and operationalized within organizations, and how sales functions are involved in—or excluded from—these processes. Particular attention is paid to the alignment between sustainability strategies and sales practices, as well as to the role of customer-related insights in shaping sustainability initiatives.

The findings highlight that the integration of sales into sustainability efforts is neither automatic nor uniform, but shaped by organizational dynamics, interpretative frames, and contextual conditions. By shedding light on the underexplored interface between sales and sustainability in B2B contexts, the study contributes to emerging research on sustainable B2B marketing and business networks, while offering practical implications for more effectively embedding sales within firms’ sustainability strategies and transition processes.

ABSTRACT. Digital transformation has profoundly redefined B2B relationships, multiplying the number of touchpoints through which sellers and buyers interact (Becker and Jaakkola 2020; Lundin and Kindström 2024). Unlike in the past, when interactions between buyers and sellers were limited, mostly happening through telephone calls and in-person meetings, today’s digital environment offers additional channels for engaging (emails, social media, IM apps, video conferencing tools) resulting in a fragmented customer journey (Bartoloni et al., 2025; Purmonen et al. 2023). This fragmentation has triggered the literature to develop conceptual models to describe the stages of the journey and classify touchpoints in relation to their contribution to the customer experience (Becker and Jaakkola 2020; Durmusoglu et al. 2022). Since touchpoints are crucial and integral to customer journeys, it is essential for a supplier to effectively handle these channels (Convery-Pelletier 2024; Durmusoglu et al. 2022;) avoiding excessive resource consumption and negative customer experiences (Lundin and Kindström 2024; Toman et al. 2017). Against this background, scholars and practitioners call for deeper insights into B2B customer journeys and the role of digital touchpoints (De Keyser et al. 2020; Jaakkola and Alexander 2024; Rusthollkarhu et al. 2022). However, related literature is still highly focused on conceptually defining B2B customer journey and B2B customer experience (e.g. Durmusoglu et al. 2022; Purmonen et al. 2023; Steward et al. 2019), whereas empirical evidence has so far shed light on the firm’s organizational capabilities to manage digital touchpoints (e.g. Homburg and Tischer, 2023; Lundin and Kindström 2023). In doing so, most studies adopt a customer-centric lens and consider touchpoints as relatively stable (e.g.; Purmonen et al. 2023; Toman et al. 2017; Terpoorten et al. 2024). This perspective neglects the orchestration work that salespeople perform to transform a heterogeneous set of tools into a coherent and coordinated process. Recent studies highlight the lack of comprehensive integration linking customer journey, selling actors, digitization, and value co-creation (Kowalkowski et al. 2025). This limitation becomes particularly significant in the contemporary context, characterized by a multitude of actors, non-linear information cycles, and activities distributed across multiple digital and physical tools (Durmusoglu et al. 2022). Even when the role of salespeople is recognized and emerging evidence suggests that such a role is much more active and proactive, extant framework clarifies what sellers must do at each stage of the journey but does not explain how they orchestrate digital vs. physical channels (Kowalkowski et al. 2025). It remains unclear how salespeople select and sequence digital and physical touchpoints, how they adapt their use based on the complexity of the decision-making process and how they integrate multi-actor contributions. Therefore, understanding the orchestration of the customer journey from the salespeople’s perspective means filling a significant gap and, at the same time, providing a more realistic and operational lens through which to interpret the complexity of B2B. This leads to the following research question (RQ): How do B2B salespeople orchestrate digital and physical touchpoints across the customer journey? To address this RQ, we conducted an explorative study comprising 11 in-depth interviews with salespeople. This article contributes to the literature by showing that customer journey does not just appear as a mere progression of stages (Terpoorten et al. 2024), but rather as an emerging system shaped by the strategies through which salespeople sequence, coordinate, and modulate touchpoints.

ABSTRACT. One responsibility of marketing, sales and procurement researchers and practitioners is managing business relationships in networks that foster both economic and sustainability strategies. They have the role of helping firms to engage network partners for sustainable[SS1.1][SS1.2] development (Sharma et al., 2025), which is defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) as the development “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (Hallin et al., 2021, p. 1948). This concept integrates multiple aspects of the current society, including ecological, social, and economic concerns. As an illustration of the relevance of the network to address ecological concerns, Scope 3 emissions typically represent about 90 percent of total emissions (McKinsey, 2024). Scope 3 emissions are those that occur in a company’s value chain—both upstream and downstream. This means that companies need to engage with their customers and suppliers to formulate and implement appropriate decarbonization strategies. At the same time, under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) companies need to disclose information on the risks and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues, and information on the impact of their activities on people and the environment (European Union, 2023). Thus, knowing what can help firms engage network partners for sustainable development is critical for both practice and research. According to prior research, suppliers and customers are the two most important network partners which highlights the criticality of engaging them (Lintukangas et al., 2023). Especially in B2B, ‘sales’ has a boundary function, referring to a set of roles and activities in direct interaction with customers (La Rocca et al., 2016). That gives the sales function an opportunity to build and enhance B2B relationships and thus contribute to sustainable development in the network[SS2.1][AD2.2]. A recent systematic literature review identified that only 24 studies (out of 1250) examined the salesperson–customer interaction in a sustainability context (Gabler et al., 2023). With the present study, we aim to contribute to filling this gap. The research question guiding our exploratory study is: How does the B2B sales function contribute to a corporate strategy towards sustainable development in business networks? To answer this question, we conduct a multi-case study while following an abductive approach, going back and forth between practice and theory to pair practitioner viewpoints with theoretical understanding (Hurley et al., 2021). It is a particularly useful approach for exploratory research or in fields where phenomena are not fully understood (Hollenbeck & Wright, 2016). The IMP scientific paradigm, with “relationships”, “networks” and “interactions” as conceptual lenses to examine businesses (Munksgaard et al., 2017) is helpful to study a subject that per se consists of the relationships, networks and interactions that form a company’s value network. With this study, we make four contributions to the sales and sustainability research field. First, building on the ARA [SS3.1]framework, we provide a theoretical foundation to examine the contributions of the sales function to a corporate strategy towards sustainable development. Second, we identify the potential factors that drive or impede sales function’s contribution towards sustainability development in business networks. Third, we advance research on customer–supplier relationships by applying ethnographical methods (e.g. shadowing, observations and analytical interviewing), following recommendations by Blocker et al. (2012) and La Rocca et al. (2017). [SS4.1][AD4.2]Fourth, we investigate both the interorganizational and the intraorganizational factors. This gives a full picture of the boundary-spanning role of the sales function with respect to sustainable development in business networks. We aim to support practitioners to execute a corporate strategy towards sustainable development by demonstrating how to align the sales function accordingly. We give insight into the drivers of the behavior of the sales function with respect to sustainable development. We also indicate how to organize the intraorganizational collaboration between functions. ARA framework One of the frameworks for exploring how sales functions contribute to corporate sustainability strategies is the Actors-Resources-Activities (ARA) framework (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). In this setting, the ARA model serves as an effective instrument for describing the holistic process of sustainability development, clarifying how resources flow internally and externally, and connecting diverse elements within a unified framework. Sustainability and sustainable development Although these terms are often used interchangeably (Ruggerio, 2021), the two concepts are distinct (Ozili, 2022). Sustainability encompasses a philosophy, approach, or practice that emphasizes efficient resource utilization to ensure that current needs are met without compromising the ability of future generations to fulfill their own needs (Grant, 2010; Greenland, 1997). Sustainable development represents the attainment of development objectives when sustainability is prioritized throughout the developmental pathway. Sales and strategy As we aim to examine the contribution of the B2B sales function to a corporate strategy towards sustainable development in business networks, we build on the work by Zoltners et al. (2008). Their work connects the corporate strategy (company business goals and objectives) and the marketing and sales strategy (market segmentation, value proposition, go-to-market strategy) with the sales function (implementation of the marketing and sales strategy to enable the company to achieve its goals and objectives). Three companies were selected through convenience sampling. The inclusion criteria were based on their demonstrable leadership in sustainability, innovative practices, and influence within their sectors, and their alignment with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

ABSTRACT. Sustainability transitions in business networks require fundamental transformation of how resources are combined, developed, and utilized across interconnected actors. Existing resource patterns, often optimized for economic and operational efficiency, generate significant sustainability challenges, including resource losses, environmental impacts, and social implications, showing a misalignment between current practices and sustainability objectives (Keränen et al., 2021; Vellesalu et al., 2025). Resource inefficiencies manifest across various industries and network contexts, illustrating fundamental problems in how resources interact across actors throughout value chains - with far-reaching environmental, economic, and social implications (Närvänen et al., 2022; Gibbert et al., 2023). In this context, digital technologies - ranging from basic tools such as digital communication platforms, spreadsheets, and databases to more advanced solutions including big data analytics, internet of things, blockchain technology, and cloud computing - are increasingly being adopted to support sustainability initiatives improving efficiency, transparency, accuracy, and response time within value chains (Annosi et al., 2021; Galvani et al., 2025). Yet, beyond their technical capabilities, these technologies introduce new digital resources that need to be embedded into existing resource constellations across business networks. Addressing sustainability through digitalization is therefore not merely a technological question, but a resource network reconfiguration challenge, as it requires reshaping how new material products, organizational capabilities, physical facilities, and inter-organizational relationships interact and become connected. Despite the growing number of digital solutions across industries, ranging from traceability tools to redistribution platforms, our understanding of how digitalization actually reshapes the interaction among these resources remains limited.

To grasp this, our conceptual foundation draws on two closely related IMP concepts: the resource interaction approach and connectedness. Together, these concepts help explain how the integration of new technological resources is linked to sustainability in business networks. Prior research emphasizes that achieving sustainability in networks of actors requires not only coordination, collaboration, and cooperation (Castañer and Oliveira, 2020), but also a sufficient degree of connectedness among actors and resources (Harrison et al., 2023). Connectedness refers to the extent to which relationships are interlinked, such that a given relationship affects, or is affected by, what is going on in other relationships (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995, pp. 17–18). Since resource ties are a core component of business relationships, we argue that when new technologies are introduced, sustainability outcomes depend on whether and how new digital resources become connected with existing resources. This is where the resource interaction approach is particularly useful. Developed within IMP, it conceptualizes resources as heterogeneous, interdependent, and shaped through interaction rather than individual ownership (Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2002; Baraldi et al., 2012). This perspective emphasizes that change and innovation occur when resource interfaces, linkages between products, facilities, organizations, and relationships, are reconfigured. While the role of resources in sustainability transitions has gained attention (Keränen et al., 2021; Vellesalu et al., 2025), less is known about how digital tools reshape resource interactions for sustainability. Digital tools, such as platforms, monitoring systems, or coordination technologies, introduce new ways of developing, mobilizing, and combining resources, but may also create new interdependencies or constraints in how resources interact. Building on this view, we focus on how the introduction of digital resources contributes to the reconfiguration of “connected” resource constellations in business networks, thereby enabling or constraining collective responses to sustainability challenges. This study aims to explore if and how digital tools reshape resource interaction processes in business networks, addressing sustainability challenges. In particular, two central questions are addressed: RQ1: How do newly introduced digital resources interact with existing resources in business relationships? RQ2: How do these resource interactions reconfigure network connectedness? The study adopts a qualitative, multiple-case research design based on case studies of digital innovations and their embedding in value chain networks, focusing on how innovation providers and their partners develop and recombine resources to address sustainability challenges such as food waste, circular material flows, and supply chain transparency. Data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with innovation providers and their network partners to capture the interactive nature of resource transformation, project documentation, and observation of pilot activities (when available). Each case is analyzed using the 4R model (resources as products, facilities, organizations, and relationships) as an analytical lens to examine how digital resources become connected to, and reshape, existing resource constellations. From a theoretical perspective, the study is expected to contribute to the growing IMP line of inquiry dealing with sustainability by illustrating how digital tools may act both as an enabling and constraining factor in sustainability transition through their effects on resource interaction and network connectedness. Empirically, it may offer an in-depth comparative analysis of how digital solutions function within distinct phases of value chains and sectoral contexts, highlighting differences in resource interaction processes.

ABSTRACT. Research grounded in the resource interaction approach (RIA) has fundamentally reshaped how scholars understand value creation and resource use. Rather than treating resources as self-contained assets, this stream emphasizes that value emerges through interaction, as heterogeneous resources are combined, adapted, and stabilized through use (e.g., Baraldi et al., 2012; Bocconcelli et al., 2020; Cantù et al., 2012; Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002). Central to this perspective is the notion of resource interfaces; the tangible and intangible points where resources meet and where interaction is enabled, constrained, or redirected. Interfaces have been widely used to explain how resources match or mismatch and how coordination across technical, organizational, and relational domains is achieved. Building on this foundation, Huemer and Wang (2021) and Huemer and Flygansvær (2025) link interfaces to the notion of cogency (Black & Boal, 1994) to capture how interacting resources may mutually enhance, suppress, or leave unchanged one another’s functioning. Taken together, these concepts offer a way to move beyond describing resource combinations toward explaining their effects. At the same time, configurational research has emphasized that organizational outcomes are driven by combinations of interdependent elements rather than by isolated factors. This literature highlights conjunctural causation, equifinality, and internal–external fit (e.g. Furnari et al., 2021; Siggelkow, 2001). Yet recent work points to a persistent limitation: while configurations are known to matter, there is limited understanding of how underlying interaction mechanisms combine and how elements jointly produce outcomes (Park et al., 2020). Complementarities are often treated as abstract properties of configurations rather than as emergent effects of interaction. As a result, how complementarities are produced, stabilized, inverted, or degraded over time, and how such dynamics shape the capacity of business networks to address sustainability-related challenges remain under-theorized (cf. Tunisini et al., 2023; Harrison et al., 2023). This paper addresses this gap by advancing an interaction-based analytical approach that explicitly distinguishes between resource interfaces and cogency effects. Interfaces explain the conditions under which resources can interact and whether they match or mismatch, while cogency explains what interaction does to resources by altering their potential through enhancing, suppressing, or neutral effects. A central argument is that the quality of resource interfaces conditions how effectively cogency effects propagate between resources: well-matched interfaces allow interaction effects to travel and accumulate, whereas poorly matched interfaces distort, dampen, or destabilize these effects. This distinction enables analysis of not only why resources are combined and what they are intended to accomplish, but also how interaction reshapes resources themselves and influences subsequent value creation possibilities (cf. Runfola & Monteverde, 2023). The study draws on an abductive research design (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Sætre & Van de Ven, 2021) and two longitudinal, in-depth cases. Ampersand is an electric mobility firm operating in Rwanda and Kenya that integrates motorcycles, batteries, swap infrastructure, riders, and energy systems to enable commercial transport under conditions of energy transition and infrastructure constraint. Parqio is a Norwegian prop-tech firm that reconfigures garage infrastructure by combining digital access technologies, physical gate systems, governance arrangements, and user practices to support more sustainable use of existing urban resources. Despite operating in different contexts, both cases rely on tightly coupled socio-technical interactions in which small interface misalignments can have disproportionate effects on system performance, reliability, and coordination. The abductive analysis iterates between empirical material and conceptual development. Resource interactions are examined at multiple levels of aggregation, revealing recurring patterns in how interfaces are designed, adjusted, and constrained. Two sets of insights emerge. First, interfaces perform distinct but interrelated functions; enabling connection, regulating access, coordinating timing and sequencing, and protecting resources from harmful interaction. These functions shape not only whether resources interact, but also how interaction patterns stabilize or destabilize over time, with direct implications for resource efficiency and substitution (cf. Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2022). Second, cogency effects are unpacked into interaction mechanisms. Structural cogency captures how material and technical features influence one another; behavioral cogency highlights how configurations shape use and practice; and flow-based cogency explains how interaction redistributes loads, energy, or information across resources. By jointly analyzing resource interfaces and cogency effects, the paper contributes to RIA and configurational theorizing by grounding conjunctural causation in observable interaction processes. It clarifies how complementarities arise from concrete patterns of interaction rather than from abstract alignment alone, and explains why configurations that initially appear coherent may later unravel or generate unintended consequences. More broadly, the study shows how an interaction-based understanding of resources can inform analyses of sustainability transitions by revealing how resource reconfiguration succeeds, stalls, or degrades through everyday interaction. References Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Chiaroni, D., Kaipainen, J., & Urbinati, A. (2022). Companies' circular business models enabled by supply chain collaborations: An empirical-based framework, synthesis, and research agenda. Industrial Marketing Management, 105, 322-339. Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison, D. (2012). Resource interaction in inter-organizational networks: Foundations, comparison, and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 266–276. Black, J. A., & Boal, K. B. (1994). Strategic resources: Traits, configurations, and paths to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 131–148. Bocconcelli, R., Carlborg, P., Harrison, D., Hasche, N., Hedvall, K., & Huang, L. (2020). Resource interaction and resource integration: Similarities, differences, Reflections. Industrial Marketing Management, 91, 385-396. Cantù, C., Corsaro, D., & Snehota, I. (2012). Roles of actors in combining resources into complex solutions. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 139-150. Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. Furnari, S., Crilly, D., Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2021). Capturing causal complexity: Heuristics for configurational theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 778–799. Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2002). Managing technological development: IKEA, the environment and technology. London: Routledge. Harrison, D., Prenkert, F., Hasche, N., & Carlborg, P. (2023). Business networks and sustainability: Past, present and future. Industrial Marketing Management, 111, A10-A17 Huemer, L., & Wang, X. (2021). Resource bundles and value creation: An analytical framework. Journal of Business Research, 134, 720–728. Huemer, L., & Flygansvær, B. (2025). Increasing circularity: The importance of resource interactions when adapting from waste management to resource management. Industrial Marketing Management; 125: 118-130. Park, Y., Fiss, P. C., & El Sawy, O. A. (2020). Theorizing the multiplicity of digital phenomena: The ecology of configurations, causal recipes, and guidelines for applying QCA. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), 1493–1520. Runfola, A., Monteverde, G., & Guercini, S. (2025). Sustainable innovations in business-to-business at the crossroad: emerging paradoxes in the fashion industry. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 40(13), 87-102. Sætre, A. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2021). Generating theory by abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 684–701. Siggelkow, N. (2001). Change in the presence of fit: The rise, the fall, and the renaissance of Liz Claiborne. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 838–857. Tunisini, A., Harrison, D., & Bocconcelli, R. (2023). Handling resource deficiencies through resource interaction in business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 109, 154-163.

ABSTRACT. The transition towards CE is only possible through interfirm interactions, including effective collaboration within complex supply chains and across-sectoral collaboration. This is inconsistent with existing CE literature, which often uses institutional and stakeholder approaches to conclude that the transition towards CE is primarily driven by external pressures. The inconsistency in the current CE literature limits the understanding of the real drivers of CE transition and treats external pressures as a linear translation and unidirectional, neglecting how these external pressures for CE transition are resisted, adapted, interpreted by companies and networks and how companies interact and collaborate and barriers to interfirm interactions and collaborative responses to external CE pressures. To address these limitations, the study drew on the actor, resource, and activity model, employed a multi-embedded case study approach, and relied on multiple data sources, including semi-structured interviews, archival documents, and direct observation. Based on the findings, the study first advances the CE literature by clarifying that external pressures do not solely drive the CE transition. Secondly, the study contributes to B2B research on CE by developing an interaction-under-pressure framework that identifies and explains three mechanisms through which companies interact and collaborate under pressure: network coordination, transactional interaction and symbolic signalling. Additionally, institutional mistranslation, resource asymmetry, divergent interests, and weak bonds are barriers to interfirm interaction and collaboration. Lastly, the study advances the actor, resource, and activity (ARA) model by arguing that “institutions” should be considered a fourth dimension, resulting in the ARAI model. The study offers recommendations to policymakers, practitioners, industry, supply chain actors, businesses, and consumers to navigate the CE transition.

ABSTRACT. According to a recent report, companies are investing around 30–40 billion dollars in generative AI (GenAI), but 95% of these companies are getting neither returns nor benefits from their investments (Challapally et al., 2025). According to Statistics Finland (2024), 24% of Finnish companies use AI technologies: 57% of the largest companies and 17% of small and medium-sized enterprises. Among companies that do not use AI, 68% state that the main reason is a lack of expertise. However, for the competitiveness of Finnish companies, it is crucial to start leveraging the possibilities of AI technology – at an individual level, in company-wide processes, and in relationships between companies. Using AI in buyer-supplier relationships is challenging because these relationships work in different logic than intraorganizational processes. First, neither party has a hierarchical position over the other. Second, there may be mutual dependence between the parties, which affects how the relationship is managed and conducted. In addition, both parties may possess knowledge or expertise that enables them to create competitiveness and success together—better than they could individually. Buyer-supplier relationships are coupled with exercise of power, understood as an actor’s potential capacity to affect the behavior of another (Cowan et al., 2015; Cuevas et al., 2015). Despite extensive scholarly attention, research on the consequences of power use in business relationships remains inconclusive. Several studies suggest that power imbalances may lead to dysfunctional outcomes and diminish the productivity of partnerships (Caniëls et al., 2017), and that unreflective or inappropriate use of power can jeopardize the continuity of a relationship (Caniëls & Gelderman, 2007). Conversely, other research indicates that power asymmetries may facilitate supply chain integration and contribute to positive performance outcomes (Maloni & Benton, 2000). Beyond focusing on outcome and performance, relationships between companies are managed and governed by individuals who attempt to interpret and respond to the other party's actions in a way that advances their own goals. Therefore, individuals play a critical role in buyer-supplier relationships and in how these develop. Research shows that the focus should increasingly be on individuals rather than solely at the company level (Tuncdogan et al., 2019). While much of the existing discussion on generative AI adoption emphasizes efficiency and performance outcomes (Guida et al., 2023), far less attention has been paid to how GenAI reshapes power relations between interacting actors. In buyer-supplier relationships, where power is negotiated rather than hierarchically given (Meehan & Wright, 2012), the introduction of AI may fundamentally alter perceptions of control, dependance, and vulnerability at the individual level. This ambiguity in empirical findings highlights the need for more nuanced examinations of power tactics across different contextual settings. For example, additional research has been called for to better understand how power shapes the dynamics of buyer–supplier relationships, where the role of power remains only partially understood (Meena et al., 2023). Rather than treating AI as a neutral decision-making tool, this paper conceptualizes AI as a quasi-actor that mediates power within buyer-supplier relationships. AI may reshape power dynamics by introducing new forms of informational asymmetry, interpretive authority, and perceived legitimacy in decision-making processes (Mahroof et al., 2025). In doing so, AI becomes embedded in everyday interactional practices through which power is enacted, justified, and contested. Adopting a microfoundational perspective, the paper focuses on how individuals involved in buyer-supplier relationships experience and enact power when AI is present. Particular attention is paid to shifts in perceived control, dependance, and vulnerability, and how these perceptions influence power-tactics and relational behavior in practice. This perspective allows for a more fine-grained understanding of power as something that is felt, interpreted, and enacted in situated interactions, rather than merely embedded in structural positions. The nature of the study is conceptual, as we develop a theoretically constructed framework including propositions for future research. This study contributes to existing research on power and AI in buyer-supplier relationships in several ways. We shift focus from outcome and performance to microfoundations, including individual perceptions and activities. By doing this, we add new knowledge about the microfoundations of AI and power in buyer-supplier relationships. Moreover, we explore the connection between AI and power from a multilevel perspective, that is individuals, interactions between individuals, as well as interactions between firms. References Caniëls, M. C. J., & Gelderman, C. J. (2007). Power and interdependence in buyer supplier relationships: A purchasing portfolio approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2), 219–229. Caniëls, M. C. J., Vos, F. G. S., Schiele, H., & Pulles, N. J. (2017). The effects of balanced and asymmetric dependence on supplier satisfaction: Identifying positive effects of dependency. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, February. Challapally, A., Pease, C., Raskar, R., & Chari, P. (2025). STATE OF AI IN BUSINESS 2025. Cowan, K., Paswan, A. K., & Van Steenburg, E. (2015). When inter-firm relationship benefits mitigate power asymmetry. Industrial Marketing Management, 48, 140–148. Cuevas, J. M., Julkunen, S., & Gabrielsson, M. (2015). Power symmetry and the development of trust in interdependent relationships: The mediating role of goal congruence. Industrial Marketing Management, 48, 149–159. Guida, M., Caniato, F., Moretto, A., & Ronchi, S. (2023). The role of artificial intelligence in the procurement process: State of the art and research agenda. Journal of purchasing and supply management, 29(2), 100823. Han, Z., Handfield, R. B., Huo, B., & Tian, Y. (2022). Effects of power use in buyer–supplier relationships: The moderating role of communication. Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 45–57. Mahroof, K., Weerakkody, V., Hussain, Z., & Sivarajah, U. (2025). Navigating power dynamics in the public sector through AI-driven algorithmic decision-making. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), 102053. Maloni, M., & Benton, W. (2000). Power influences in the supply chain. Journal of Business Logistics, 21(1), 49–74. Meehan, J., & Wright, G. H. (2012). The origins of power in buyer–seller relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4), 669-679. Tuncdogan, A., Lindgreen, A., Van Den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2019). Guest editorial: Psychological micro-foundations of business-to-business decision making. Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 128–133.

ABSTRACT. Industrial metaverse technologies are increasingly shaping how business-to-business (B2B) firms collaborate, coordinate, and create value across interorganisational networks. Although prior research has examined organisational readiness for digital innovation, there is a need for an empirically grounded and integrated understanding of the industrial metaverse, one that moves beyond isolated technologies to provide a holistic view of its conceptualisation and value pathways. This is particularly relevant for B2B processes as they are rapidly transforming from physical to digital modes of operation. However, despite growing scholarly and practitioner interest in the industrial metaverse’s influence in consumer markets, little attention has been directed toward its implications for B2B markets. This study seeks to understand how the industrial metaverse affects B2B interactions and networks, and how B2B managers should use the industrial metaverse effectively.

Drawing on and extending Institutional Readiness Theory, this research develops an outcome-focused framework that explains how institutional readiness influences key B2B marketing outcomes associated with industrial metaverse adoption. Specifically, the paper theorises how readiness shapes interorganisational relationship quality, value co-creation processes, and supply chain resilience in industrial markets. Building on this framework, the study advances a set of theoretically grounded propositions that articulate the mechanisms linking readiness to these outcomes. By extending Institutional Readiness Theory beyond firm-level adoption to encompass B2B marketing consequences in digitally mediated industrial ecosystems, this paper contributes to research on digital transformation, interfirm relationships, and innovation in industrial markets.

The paper concludes by outlining managerial implications and a research agenda to guide future empirical research on industrial metaverse adoption and its strategic implications for B2B marketing.

ABSTRACT. Supply chains face increasing exposure to disruptions, calling for more proactive approaches to risk identification. Artificial intelligence (AI) could serve as an enabler of supply chain risk management, yet empirical evidence on AI enabled risk identification and its implications remain limited. This study examines how AI use in supply chain risk identification process influences supply chain risk management performance, supply chain resilience, and environmental performance. Drawing on the actor–resource–activity perspective, survey data from 109 Finnish firms are analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS SEM). The results show that AI use in risk identification is positively associated with risk management performance and environmental performance. While AI does not directly enhance supply chain resilience, its effect is fully mediated by risk management performance. The findings highlight that AI creates value primarily when embedded within effective risk management practices, offering important implications for both supply chain performance and sustainability.