ABSTRACT. This work-in-progress paper examines how perceived circular economy impediments are manifested through four environmental layers, and explores how paralysis shapes actors’ perceptions of the future of circular adoption. Circular economy transitions rely on shared understanding and collaboration, yet, many organisations become paralysed in their ability to implement the circular economy changes. Building on Bocken et al. (2025) and environmental layers outlined by Möller et al., 2020, this study explores discursive, relational, and material paralysis, examining how they emerge differently across each of the layers. Through 15 in-depth SME qualitative interviews with participants across Australia’s fashion and textiles sector, this paper explores how organisations interpret and navigate paralysis, distinguishing between temporary impediments and deeper structural inertia that constrains circular transformation. This study advances circular economy literature by empirically examining circular paralysis, integrating these lenses through a multi-layer framework. It further provides actionable insights for organisations and policymakers aiming to move beyond paralysis toward circular transformation.

ABSTRACT. The electrification of heavy-duty transport represents a critical component of decarbonization strategies in the European Union and globally. However, replacing fossil-powered trucks with electric ones alters the conditions for their use in several fundamental ways. In contrast to diesel refuelling, which is largely organized through a well-developed market solution, charging confronts users of electric trucks with multiple options and challenges related to investment decisions, efficient resource utilization, and the coordination of activities. Charging must be coordinated not only with transport operations, but also with other users competing for access to the same charging resources.

Recent developments in smart charging have further increased the complexity of charging operations. Advances such as load management, off-peak charging, battery energy storage systems (BESS), and vehicle-to-grid solutions expand the technical possibilities for optimizing charging in relation to grid conditions and energy prices. While these developments create new opportunities for improving charging efficiency (Kene and Olwal, 2023), they also increase the need for coordination among interdependent actors sharing charging infrastructure (Melander and Wallström, 2023).

This paper explores the governance forms of charging infrastructure for electric heavy-duty transport. We aim to analyse how charging resources are accessed, coordinated, and utilized through different governance forms.

To address this aim, we take the starting point in the Industrial Network Approach to business markets (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995; 2007). In the context of conceptualizing business markets as networks, the three principal governance forms are in focus (Richardson, 1972; Dubois, 1994; Ratajczak-Mrozek et al., 2024): firm-internal, relational, and market governance. Firm-internal governance refers to owning and controlling resources internally. Relational governance has its ground in business relationships and mutual adaptations of resources and activities. Market governance refers to a situation where the market is regulating the situation and price is a key factor.

It means that we examine charging arrangements in terms of firm-internal, relational, and market governance for charging activities. From a firm perspective, charging activities are closely intertwined with transport missions, vehicle availability, and the activities of other users, creating interdependencies that require coordination and cannot always be resolved through market structures alone. These interdependencies are analysed using Richardson’s (1972) distinction between similar and complementary activities at the firm, relational, and network levels of analysis.

Against this background, the following research question arises:

How are charging infrastructures for electric heavy-duty transport governed, and what role does governance play in coordinating shared charging resources?

The paper builds on empirical studies of three hauliers in their business network context. The studies show that hauliers experiment with different ways of organizing access to and use of charging resources. and may have to rely on a mix of governance forms for charging. Some rely on firm-internal solutions, while others engage in shared relational arrangements to reduce investment burdens and improve utilization. As one respondent expressed it, “Why build two when you can share one?” In collaborative arrangements, depot chargers are made available to other users during periods of low internal demand. As another respondent noted, “The more the charger is used, the better the economics. Connections and investments are expensive, so utilization is everything.”

These developments illustrate that charging infrastructures are not governed through one single governance mechanism but through different governance forms depending on how access, use, and coordination are organized. It is interesting to note that there is a variety of forms used for charging infrastructure, and based on this variety, we hope to learn more about governance forms in business networks and support the electrification of heavy-duty transport.

REFERENCES

Dubois, Anna. (1994). Organising Industrial activities-An analytical framework. Chalmers University of Technology.

Håkansson, Håkan and Snehota, Ivan (eds.) (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London ; New York: Routledge.

Håkansson, Håkan and Waluszewski, Alexandra (2007). Knowledge and Innovation in Business and Industry: The Importance of Using Others. Routledge.

Kene, Raymond O. and Olwal, Thomas O. (2023). Energy Management and Optimization of Large-Scale Electric Vehicle Charging on the Grid. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 14(4), p. 95, doi:10.3390/wevj14040095.

Melander, Lisa and Wallström, Henrik (2023). The benefits of green horizontal networks: Lessons learned from sharing charging infrastructure for electric freight vehicles. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), p. 1835–1846, doi:10.1002/bse.3222.

Ratajczak-Mrozek, Milena, Hauke-Lopes, Aleksandra and Harrison, Debbie (2024). The evolution of contractual and relational governance mechanisms when platforms are actors in networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 121, p. 198–212, doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.07.013.

ABSTRACT. The aim of this paper is to contribute to research on embeddedness and sustainability within the field of entrepreneurship by analysing how these factors are connected to the competitiveness of Hungarian enterprises. Accordingly, the central research question guiding the study is: How are enterprise embeddedness, sustainability, and competitiveness interrelated in the Hungarian context?

Although earlier studies have highlighted the importance of stakeholder connections (Wimmer, Juhász and Matolay, 2016; Wimmer and Szánthó, 2006), the relationship among embeddedness, sustainability, and competitiveness remains underexplored in Hungary—a gap this paper seeks to address. By analysing the interconnections among these factors in enterprise operations, the study also aligns with the IMP 2026 conference theme, “Building a Sustainable World Through Business Relationships and Networks,” which examines how interaction mechanisms, business relationships, and networks help address societal challenges and promote sustainability (IMP, 2026).

The concept of embeddedness traces back to Polányi (1944), who argued that economic systems are fundamentally shaped by the social, cultural, and institutional contexts in which they operate. This idea was translated into the network of relationships among economic actors by Granovetter (1985), who asserted that “economic action is embedded in structures of social relations” (Granovetter, 1985, p. 481). This perspective encompasses both the configuration or structure of these ties and networks, and organizations’ positions within them—captured by structural embeddedness—as well as the content, nature, and quality of the ties that develop, referred to as relational embeddedness (Lashitew and Tulder, 2019).

Since its inception, scholarly interest in embeddedness has expanded substantially, and continues to be a prominent research focus (Wigren‑Kristoferson et al., 2022; Liu, Zhang and Shang, 2022). Over time, the concept has evolved into a multidimensional, context‑dependent, and dynamic construct, and a wide range of embeddedness types have been identified—including social, cultural, political, local, technological, network, job, and dual embeddedness (Zukin & DiMaggio, 1990; Sharafizad, Redmond and Parker, 2022; Liu, Zhang and Shang, 2022; Wigren‑Kristoferson et al., 2022). Despite this growing body of work, key questions remain unresolved, including the mechanisms by which embeddedness influences firm performance and its relationship to sustainability (Liu, Zhang and Shang, 2022; Pálffy, 2024).

Enterprises are embedded in complex networks of relationships involving a diverse array of stakeholders (Freeman 1984; Cucino et al., 2024). Accounting for this complexity requires attention to multiple dimensions of embeddedness, including considering connections to the economic sphere (such as supplier relations, industrial clusters, investment activities, and employment), society (including support for local sports and cultural initiatives, corporate social responsibility, and health-related programs), governmental institutions (through e.g. local or national strategic partnerships), academia (via e.g. research, development and innovation collaborations, and university partnerships), as well as the natural environment (for instance, environmentally sustainable practices) (Józsa, 2016). The phenomenon, specifically its relational aspect, can also be examined by assessing the content, nature and quality of ties with various stakeholder groups operating within these domains, such as the company’s primary stakeholders, including internal actors like employees and managers, and value-chain partners, e.g. customers, suppliers, and competitors, and secondary stakeholders, encompassing societal groups—e.g., NGOs, labour unions and local communities—and regulatory authorities at the federal, state/provincial, and local levels (Darnall, Henriques and Sadorsky, 2010; Wimmer, Juhász and Matolay, 2016).

The embeddedness of companies is also closely connected to the notion of corporate sustainability, and the scientific literature highlights several points of overlap between the concepts (Pálffy and Ablonczy-Mihályka, 2024). Corporate sustainability, grounded in the three dimensions of environmental protection, economic development, and social equity, refers to “how business entities, along with their usual goal of profit maximisation need to focus on social and environmental improvement to enhance the sustainability of their business operations in the long term” (Das, Rangarajan and Dutta, 2020, p. 110). Pálffy and Ablonczy-Mihályka (2024) argue that, given the conceptual parallels, corporate sustainability, together with corporate social responsibility, should be understood as an integral component of embeddedness. In this framing, the authors draw attention to the emerging notion of sustainability embeddedness.

Sharafizad, Redmond and Parker (2022) conceptualise sustainability embeddedness as the integration of sustainability into a firm’s core values, strategic orientation, and decision-making processes. They argue that this phenomenon is closely linked to and can be considered a sub-type of enterprises’ local and social embeddedness, “due to the recognition of the importance of stakeholder relationships in influencing owner decision making” (Sharafizad, Redmond and Parker, 2022, p. 61). Building on this perspective, the present study examines how companies’ relational embeddedness with various stakeholder groups is connected to the extent to which sustainability is incorporated into their strategic priorities and operational practices, and how these interconnected dimensions, in turn, relate to their overall competitiveness.

The paper draws on data from the 2024 Competitiveness Research Program questionnaire of the Competitiveness Research Centre at Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary. The survey collects the views of company executives on a wide range of issues, resulting in a sample of 335 firms. Of these, 90% are Hungarian‑owned, and over one‑third are family businesses. In terms of employment size, 87,2% are medium‑sized, and 12,8% are large firms; by revenue classification, most fall into the small category (46%), with an additional 7% categorized as micro enterprises. Sectoral distribution spans manufacturing (49%), trade (26%), transport (16%), and construction (10%) (Chikán et al., 2025).

The assessment of competitiveness in the present research relies on the Firm Competitiveness Index (FCI), an indicator that measures a company’s competitiveness through three sub‑indexes—business performance, operational capability, and changeability—derived from 25 variables. Based on this index, the sample is divided into two groups: highly competitive and less competitive enterprises (Chikán et al., 2025). Relational embeddedness is examined by analysing firms’ connections with a broad set of stakeholders, including primary and secondary, internal and external, and value‑chain, regulatory, and societal actors. Sustainability embeddedness, in turn, is assessed by evaluating the presence of social and environmental considerations in everyday operations and in long-term strategy.

Preliminary findings indicate that highly competitive firms attribute greater importance to sustainability-related considerations and maintain more robust relationships with both internal and external stakeholders than their less competitive counterparts, although internal and value‑chain actors emerge as the most influential. Drawing on these insights, the paper further analyses the interrelations among firms’ relational embeddedness across different stakeholder groups, their incorporation of sustainability considerations, and dimensions of competitiveness.

Acknowledgements:

“Project no. ADVANCED 150782 has been implemented with the support provided by the Ministry of Culture and Innovation of Hungary from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund, financed under the National Research Excellence Programme funding scheme. The data collection was supported by the OTP Bank Plc., the Corvinus University of Budapest and the Vállalatgazdasági Oktatási és Kutatási Alapítvány.”

References:

Chikán, A., Czakó, E., Losonci, D. & Rőfös Horvát, J. (2025) Gyorsjelentés a magyar vállalatok versenyképességéről – 2025. Önbizalom és alkalmazkodás ingatag talajon. Budapest: Versenyképesség Kutató Központ, Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem.

Cucino, V., Marullo, C., Annunziata, E. & Piccaluga, A. (2024) ‘The human side of entrepreneurship: An empirical investigation of relationally embedded ties with stakeholders’, Management Research Review, 47(13), pp. 1–21. doi:10.1108/MRR-08-2022-0593.

Darnall, N., Henriques, I. & Sadorsky, P. (2010) ‘Adopting proactive environmental strategy: The influence of stakeholders and firm size’, Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), pp. 1072–1094. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00873.x.

Das, M., Rangarajan, K. & Dutta, G. (2020) ‘Corporate Sustainability in SMEs: An Asian Perspective’, Journal of Asia Business Studies, 14(1), pp. 109–138.

Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.

Granovetter, M. (1985) ‘Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), pp. 481–510. doi:10.1086/228311.

IMP Group (2025) IMP Conference 2026. Available at: https://impgroup.org/imp-conference-2026/ (Accessed: 15/01/2026).

Józsa, V. (2016) ‘Corporate Embeddedness from a New Perspective’, CROMA, 4, pp. 15–29.

Lashitew, A. & van Tulder, R. (2019) ‘The Limits and Promises of Embeddedness as a Strategy for Social Value Creation’, Critical Perspectives on International Business. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3460815 (Accessed: 15/01/2026).

Liu, S., Zhang, K. & Shang, J. (2022) ‘Retrospection and prospect of embeddedness theory: Knowledge map analysis based on bibliometrics’, Journal of Data, Information and Management, 4, pp. 57–70. doi:10.1007/s42488-022-00067-5.

Pálffy, Zs. (2024) ’A vállalati beágyazottság fenntarthatósági aspektusai–elméleti megközelítés’, COMITATUS Önkormányzati Szemle. 34 (249), pp. 34-49. https://doi.org/10.59809/Comitatus.2024.34-249.49

Pálffy, Zs. & Ablonczy Mihályka, L. (2024) ‘Sustainable approach of corporate embeddedness: good practices of small and medium-sized family companies’, Journal of Community Positive Practices, 2, pp. 115–135. doi:10.35782/JCPP.2024.2.06.

Polányi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation. New York: Holt, Rinehart.

Sharafizad, J., Redmond, J. & Parker, R. (2022) ‘The influence of local embeddedness on the economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices of regional small firms’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 34(1–2), pp. 57–81.

Wigren Kristoferson, C., Brundin, E., Hellerstedt, K., Stevenson, A. & Aggestam, M. (2022) ‘Rethinking embeddedness: a review and research agenda’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 34(1–2), pp. 32–56. doi:10.1080/08985626.2021.2021298.

Wimmer, Á. & Szántó, R. (2006) Teljesítménymenedzsment és értékteremtés az érintettekkel való kapcsolatok kezelése tükrében (Versenyképesség Kutatások Műhelytanulmány-sorozat, 46). Budapest: Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, Versenyképesség Kutató Központ. Available at: https://unipub.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/2341/ (Accessed: 15/01/2026).

Wimmer, Á., Juhász, P. & Matolay, R. (2016) ‘Érintett-szemlélet és üzleti teljesítmény’, in Etikus közgazdasági gondolkodás és versenyképesség: Etika – gazdaság – jog. Budapest: Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem, pp. 260–269. Available at: https://unipub.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/7472/ (Accessed: 15/01/2026).

Zukin, S. & DiMaggio, P. (1990) Structures of Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ABSTRACT. This systematic literature review examines public buyer–supplier relationships within the context of public procurement systems. Using a theory elaboration approach, we draw on the business relationship characteristics framework to analyse the specific features of these relationships. The findings distinguish between structural/static aspects (continuity, complexity, symmetry, informality) and procedural/dynamic aspects (adaptations, cooperation and conflict, social interaction, routinization). Across 81 peer-reviewed articles, the review identifies what is distinctive about public buyer–supplier relationship characteristics and highlights how procurement settings—such as regulation and accountability—constrain interaction while also enabling relational practices to emerge within these constraints.

ABSTRACT. The Industrial Marketing Purchasing (IMP) group was founded in the 1970s. The group developed market models that were novel at the time. Today, the IMP groups' research is a marketing paradigm with a paradigmatic fog that is argued to hinder researchers' ability to do impactful research. The primary way to conduct research in the IMP paradigm is through an analytical method termed systematic combining. Systematic combining has, in past research, been viewed as a single process of “matching” and “direction and re-direction”. However, the purpose of this paper is to investigate how systematic combining can be understood in terms of two types of processes, depending on the researcher's goal. Based on organisational research on problematization, the paper's main contribution is to illustrate that systematic combining in practice can be achieved through two distinct processes we term systematic reproduction and systematic disruption. In particular, the introduction of systematic disruption is important as a tool for scholars to dispel the paradigmatic fog hanging over the IMP community.