On a New Sustainable Energy Policy: Exploring a Macro-Meso-Micro Synthesis

Abstract

This study examines the differences between the emerging new energy policy and its predecessor, offering guidelines for an integrated approach to support a rapid and sustainable energy transition. Using a bibliometric and qualitative integrative analysis of 360 scientific articles on energy policy, ecosystems, and entrepreneurship—supplemented by insights from 16 experts in the European energy sector and an in-depth analysis of 89 relevant business cases—this research identifies a significant shift in priorities. Traditional concerns, such as energy security, self-sufficiency, and market liberalization, are increasingly giving way to a focus on rapid, sustainable energy transitions and development at the macrolevel. The findings reveal that contemporary energy policies are progressively prioritizing integrated strategies across the macrolevel, mesolevel, and microlevel. At the macrolevel, policies are increasingly focused on enabling efficient transitions and promoting sustainable development within an ecosystemic framework. At the mesolevel, there is a growing emphasis on strengthening regional energy ecosystems. At the microlevel, the focus increasingly shifts toward empowering energy firms through innovative organizational strategies, technological advancements, and enhanced managerial practices. The proposed integrated energy policy aims to address these broader goals while fostering diverse energy ecosystems and communities at the mesolevel. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of empowering individual energy firms by enhancing their strategies, technological capabilities, and managerial skills. These improvements are essential for driving innovation, developing green business models, strengthening corporate social responsibility, and aligning with the principles of Resilience, Adaptability, Sustainability, and Inclusiveness (RASI).

1. Introduction

The concept of macro-meso-micro synthesis in socioeconomics, which critiques traditional economic approaches and emphasizes integrating different levels of analysis, has been gaining prominence. Notable contributions include Zezza and Llambí’s [1] advocacy for integrating meso and micro variables into macro policymaking and Dopfer et al.’s [2] redefinition of the “meso” in economics. Peneder’s [3] work on integrated industrial policies and Barbour’s [4] suggestions for multilevel research methodologies are also significant, among others [5,6].

The evolution of energy policy has undergone six distinct phases, beginning with the 18th-century industrial revolution and extending to the present trends in the emerging new globalization era [7]. Initially, policy efforts focused on managing traditional energy sources such as wood and coal. However, the early 20th century marked a shift towards the predominance of oil and natural gas [8,9]. Following World War II, policy emphasis shifted towards ensuring stable oil supplies, highlighting energy security, efficiency, and addressing the risks of energy crisis [10]. The oil crises of the 1970s further accelerated efforts toward energy diversification, with a focus on achieving self-sufficiency, stability, and enhanced security [11]. Since the 1980s, the era of globalization has brought increased attention to environmental issues, the enforcement of emissions regulations, market deregulation, and a growing commitment to sustainability [12].

Energy policy today focuses on transitioning to a low-carbon economy, advancing renewable technologies, and addressing critical challenges such as energy equity—ensuring fairness in distribution—and energy access—expanding infrastructure to underserved populations—alongside diversity, spatial balance, and efficiency [13]. The current challenges include balancing the “energy trilemma” of reliability, affordability, and sustainability [14]. However, much of the current research lacks a comprehensive, integrative, and holistic approach, particularly when it comes to uniting macrolevel, mesolevel, and microlevel dimensions into a cohesive and effective energy policy framework.

Despite these advancements, the application of macro-meso-micro synthesis in the energy policy domain remains underexplored, particularly in terms of its operationalization at different levels. At the macrolevel, robust models for planning, implementation, and control of integrated socioeconomic, environmental, and energy policies are notably lacking [15]. The mesolevel could benefit from a stronger integrative focus on regional energy ecosystems and their adaptive capacity to drive energy transitions [16,17]. At the microlevel the alignment of energy firms’ strategies, technologies, and managerial practices with broader policy goals has not been thoroughly examined [18]. For instance, there is insufficient analysis of how smaller firms adapt to smart-grid technologies or integrate corporate social responsibility (CSR) and resilience principles. Addressing these gaps seems critical to developing a cohesive and effective energy policy framework that aligns with global sustainability goals through a more holistic and integrative approach [19].

Energy policies have undergone substantial evolution over time, influenced by the dynamic interplay of political and environmental objectives, economic imperatives, and technological advancements [20,21,22]. As explored in the next section, traditional energy policies centered on ensuring energy security, fostering market liberalization, and achieving self-sufficiency within a centralized, fossil-fuel-dominated framework. These policies prioritized resource stability and efficiency but often lacked a comprehensive approach to sustainability, resilience, and inclusive stakeholder development [8,10,11,23,24,25]. In contrast, contemporary energy policies are increasingly framed within a holistic and integrative paradigm that aligns macroeconomic stability, regional innovation ecosystem development, and firm-level adaptability. Distinctive features of these modern approaches include an emphasis on low-carbon energy transitions and energy storage due to the intermittent nature of renewables, the growth of decentralized energy systems, and the integration of sustainability principles [26,27]. This transformation reflects a broader response to global environmental challenges and socioeconomic transitions, as elaborated in the analysis of macro-meso-micro synthesis in Section 2.

Addressing these gaps, this study poses two central questions: First, how does the emerging philosophy of new energy policy compare to its traditional predecessor? Second, what could be the guidelines for an integrated energy policy to facilitate an expedited energy transition? The first question investigates the evolution and divergence of contemporary energy policies from traditional models, while the second focuses on developing actionable strategies for creating a comprehensive and effective framework for the new energy policy.

The study’s key findings reveal a significant shift in the focus of energy policy, driven by the pressures and challenges stemming from the profound structural transformation of the modern global socioeconomic system. While previous policies prioritized energy security and liberalization, the current paradigm embraces a more holistic and systemic approach, prioritizing an efficient energy transition and sustainable development. This shift underscores the importance of policies that are responsive to macrolevel dynamics while remaining sensitive to mesolevel and microlevel considerations.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 explores the theoretical background of energy policy, its evolution, and the recent emergence of macro-meso-micro theoretical synthesis in socioeconomics. Section 3 describes the methodology, detailing a comprehensive bibliometric and qualitative analysis of three sets of pertinent literature in the energy sector, complemented by field research conducted with domain experts. Section 4 provides a thorough exploration of the shifting paradigms in energy policy, the dynamics of energy ecosystems, and the evolution of energy entrepreneurship, culminating in the proposal of an integrative policy framework. The study concludes with a discussion in Section 5 and final remarks and recommendations for energy stakeholders in Section 6.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Origins and Trends in Energy Policy

The origins of energy policy have been the subject of scholarly debate, with its evolution influenced by changing societal needs, consumption patterns, technological advancements, and various socioeconomic challenges [15]. As noted earlier, its historical development within the framework of global capitalism can be divided into six distinct phases: the early stages during the 18th–19th century industrial revolution, early 20th century developments, post-World War II advancements, responses to the 1970s oil crises, late 20th century changes amidst globalization, and current trends in the emerging new globalization era.

During the First Industrial Revolution, energy policy experienced its infancy. Coal emerged as the dominant energy source, driving the need for policies centered around resource management and industrial growth [8]. These early policies were largely unstructured and localized, concentrating almost entirely on regions of resource extraction and production, and prioritizing traditional energy sources such as wood, coal, and water power [9].

The early 20th century witnessed the rise of oil and natural gas as dominant energy sources. During this period, energy policies evolved to incorporate regulations, subsidies for resource extraction, and investments in infrastructure, fostering the conditions for large-scale energy production and consumption with little regard for environmental consequences. Governments took on a more active and systematic role in the energy sector, highlighting the increasing significance of these resources [24].

The postwar era witnessed a surge in energy demand, fueled by economic growth and mass consumerism. During this period, energy policies centered on ensuring stable oil supplies, which had become vital for transportation and geopolitically significant [10]. This period crystallized concepts like energy security, mostly around access to oil, coal, and gas [28], energy crisis, defined by Bridge [23] as the looming challenge of sustaining industrial societies, as well as energy efficiency, which concerns reducing consumption without compromising quality of life [8].

The energy crises of the 1970s marked a critical turning point, exposing the global reliance on and vulnerability to disruptions in oil supply [25]. In response, energy policies underwent a significant shift, emphasizing energy security, the pursuit of self-sufficiency—an ambitious goal that was largely unattainable for most countries given the technological constraints of the time—diversification of energy sources, and the initial steps toward sustainable energy practices [11].

The advent of globalization brought environmental issues to the forefront, influencing energy policies through emissions regulations and cleaner technology investments [12]. This period also saw energy market liberalization in many countries [29]. Climate change concerns in the early 21st century profoundly impacted energy policy, shifting focus to renewable sources, efficiency, and emission reduction, influenced by international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol [30].

Currently, the new energy policy is increasingly focused on transitioning to a low-carbon economy, as dictated by the Paris Agreement of 2015 [7,31]. This involves investments in renewable technologies, electric vehicles, and smart grids, with growing emphasis on energy equity and access in developing countries [13,32]. Contemporary concerns also include the “2000-watt society” vision, sustainable management of the “anthropocene era”, development of distributed energy systems, energy communities, and the evolution—rather slow—of energy entrepreneurship research [8,33,34,35,36,37]. The “energy trilemma”—balancing reliability, affordability, and sustainability—remains a significant challenge [14].

Despite these developments, most current energy policy research often lacks a holistic perspective, tending towards a mere listing of existing fields of the energy sector without integrative treatment [26,27]. The future of energy policy thus beckons a more comprehensive approach, integrating the different levels of understanding to address the complexities of our evolving world.

2.2. Macro-Meso-Micro Synthesis and Policy Considerations

The evolutionary macro-meso-micro synthesis offers a comprehensive framework for examining socioeconomic development through the interplay across various levels of spatial and operational scales, both perceptual and actual. This concept was first introduced in “heterodox” socioeconomics, critiquing the traditional split between macroeconomics and microeconomics. Galbraith’s [38] neoinstitutional approach was pivotal in highlighting the limitations of this dichotomy, particularly in addressing unemployment issues in mature industrial countries.

Subsequent research explored diverse methods, albeit not explicitly integrating the macrolevel, mesolevel, and microlevel into a unified analysis of socioeconomic systems. Zezza and Llambí’s [1] work stands out for advocating the integration of mesolevel and microlevel variables into macrolevel policymaking. They proposed an analytical framework to assess the interactions among these variables in specific contexts.

A significant development in macro-meso-micro analysis was Dopfer et al.’s [2] study, which offered a nuanced understanding of “meso” in economics, extending beyond its traditional use in market structure and industry cluster analysis. They redefined meso from an ontological perspective, identifying it as a key component in the economic system, encompassing industrial districts, regional knowledge clusters, and national innovation systems.

Mirzanti et al. [5] contributed significantly by examining entrepreneurship policy implementation across these levels. They defined entrepreneurs at the microlevel as individuals needing skills to navigate uncertainty and create value. At the mesolevel, organizations are seen as value creators requiring a conducive business culture. The macrolevel was associated with the broader impact of entrepreneurship on job and venture creation.

Peneder’s [3] work on integrated industrial policies and competitiveness further enriched this discussion. He argued that industrial policy should not just aim for structural changes but also for enhancing the system’s competitiveness. This requires a synergy of microlevel, mesolevel, and macrolevel, acknowledging the interconnectedness of individual enterprise choices, sector-specific dynamics, and overarching macropolicies.

Barbour’s [4] research also underscored the challenges and opportunities in conducting multilevel research. He suggested innovative methods, such as the ambient collection of large data sets and computational social science tools, to explore patterns in communication across different levels.

Despite significant theoretical advancements, integrative and evolutionary macro-meso-micro policy frameworks remain, in our view, underexplored. A notable contribution in this direction is Vlados and Chatzinikolaou’s [6] “competitiveness web” concept (Figure 1), which builds a comprehensive approach to bridging these levels of analysis.

This approach conceptualizes a dynamic ecosystem that integrates firms, sectors, and other macrosystems into an adaptive, evolutionary, and cohesive whole. It proposes a multi-layered policy framework comprising micropolicies to promote firm development—particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises in the energy sector—mesopolicies to foster regional innovation and enhance competitiveness, especially in less developed areas, and macropolicies to drive broader economic and societal reforms.

At the heart of this model are the “Institutes of Local Development and Innovation” (ILDIs), envisioned by Vlados and Chatzinikolaou [6] as entities operating at the meso-micro level. The authors posit that ILDIs’ role could be to synergize local governance, educational systems, and businesses, focusing on boosting regional entrepreneurship and supporting less robust firms [39]. They also advocate for ILDIs to better coordinate existing mesolevel institutions, such as incubators, technology parks, and research centers. These institutions often prioritize specific economic niches, which can inadvertently neglect weaker firms and result in inefficient resource allocation. By addressing this gap, the ILDIs can enrich and expand the triple helix approach (government-academia-industry) [40,41].

Moreover, the ILDIs could strive to integrate these institutions with other entities, including financial ones like banks and venture capitalists, which typically focus on specific high-value economic segments, exacerbating resource allocation issues [42]. The ILDIs are further envisioned as tools to strengthen the organizational foundation of firms by providing publicly accessible, “free” consulting services. Functioning as “business clinics”, they could diagnose and enhance local firms’ innovation potential and outcomes by effectively synthesizing strategy, technology, and management—a method referred to as the “Stra.Tech.Man approach” [43]. Vlados and Chatzinikolaou [6] specifically propose that ILDIs should establish a set of enduring internal organizational goals, including acting as a development observatory for regional-local economies, coordinating initiatives between innovation-related actors to uncover investment opportunities, disseminating local knowledge through forums and digital platforms, offering advisory services to bolster the competitiveness of local firms, and improving their Stra.Tech.Man innovation core. Additionally, they could aim to periodically monitor and report progress based on these objectives.

Overall, the macro-meso-micro synthesis is a promising, evolving research area, offering valuable findings for comprehending and influencing socioeconomic development. However, its application in the energy sector remains rather unexplored and this is a gap that needs to be further investigated.

3. Methodology

In this research, we integrated three separate bibliometric analyses to examine energy policy at different levels: macro (energy policy), meso (energy ecosystems), and micro (energy entrepreneurship). Our methodology followed a semi-systematic approach to examining the extant literature along with an integrative review approach as outlined by Snyder [44]. According to Snyder [44], the semi-systematic and integrative approaches provide a robust framework for critiquing, synthesizing, and generating new insights into a topic. These methods systematically examine representative literature and incorporate relevant data from related studies addressing similar issues. This approach is particularly valuable for areas experiencing rapid development and diversification, enabling the identification of knowledge gaps and the proposal of novel frameworks.

Given the primary objective of this study—to uncover new theoretical frameworks and propose a cohesive macro-meso-micro energy policy framework—the research does not prioritize statistical validation or empirical hypothesis testing [45,46]. Instead, its focus lies in identifying patterns, gaps, and intersections in the existing literature through bibliometric and qualitative analyses. This aligns with the integrative review’s theoretical emphasis, where the need for rigorous statistical analysis is inherently limited. The approach is more conceptual, seeking to advance theoretical understanding rather than empirical generalization [47].

We utilized Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases for their extensive journal coverage, as highlighted by Harzing and Alakangas [48], focusing exclusively on journal articles in English to maintain homogeneity in the sample. Our methodology integrated bibliometric and qualitative approaches to comprehensively analyze the selected literature, with a specific emphasis on identifying thematic patterns and relationships within the fields of energy policy, ecosystems, and entrepreneurship. The bibliometric analysis included network mapping and visualization through VOSviewer, as outlined by van Eck and Waltman [49]. This tool enabled us to construct keyword co-occurrence networks, cluster thematic topics, and explore the temporal evolution of research trends, offering a structured foundation for interpreting the literature’s intellectual landscape. We excluded publications lacking full texts available and did not restrict our search by publication date.

Table 1. Literature Search Details.

Field	Search String	Database	Sample Number
Energy policy (macro)	1. “energy policy” (Topic) 2. TITLE-ABS-KEY (“new energy polic*” OR “novel energy polic*”) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE, “final”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “SOCI”)) 3. TITLE (“new energy polic*” OR “novel energy polic*”) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE, “final”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))	WoS, Scopus	>10,000 (bibliometric), 24 (qualitative)
Energy ecosystems (meso)	(TITLE-ABS-KEY (“innovat* ecosystem” OR “business* ecosystem” OR “entrepreneur* ecosystem” OR “knowledge* ecosystem” OR “service* ecosystem” OR “industr* ecosystem” OR “digital* ecosystem” OR “energy ecosystem” OR “ecosystem thinking” OR “ecosystem perspective” OR “ecosystem view” OR “platform* ecosystem” OR “innovat* platform” OR “business* platform” OR “entrepreneur* platform” OR “knowledge* platform” OR “service* platform” OR “industr* platform” OR “digital* platform” OR “energy platform” OR “platform thinking” OR “platform perspective” OR “platform view”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“ecosystem of” W/1 energy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“platform of” W/1 energy) AND (AUTHKEY (*energy*)) OR AUTHKEY (*grid*) OR AUTHKEY (*electric*) OR AUTHKEY (*coal*) OR AUTHKEY (*oil*) OR AUTHKEY (*gas*) OR AUTHKEY (*hydro*) OR AUTHKEY (*nuclear*) OR AUTHKEY (*renewable*) OR AUTHKEY (*wind*) OR AUTHKEY (*solar*) OR AUTHKEY (*biomass*) OR AUTHKEY (*biogas*) OR AUTHKEY (*ocean*) OR AUTHKEY (*thermal*) OR AUTHKEY (*fuel*)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ENER”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “SOCI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ECON”))	Scopus	98 (qualitative-bibliometric)
Energy entrepreneurship (micro)	(((TS = (“energy sector*” OR “energy industr*” OR “energy research*” OR “energy system*” OR “energy field*” OR “energy domain*” OR “energy discipline*” OR “energy economics” OR “energy ecosystem”) AND TS = (“business” OR “entrepreneurship”))) AND ((DT == (“ARTICLE”) AND TMSO == (“6.115 Sustainability Science” OR “6.3 Management” OR “6.10 Economics”) AND EDN == (“WOS.SSCI”) AND SJ == (“BUSINESS ECONOMICS”)) NOT (DT == (“PROCEEDINGS PAPER”))))	WoS	238 (qualitative-bibliometric)

displays the detailed search strings and pertinent additional information for each study, while Supplementary File S1 lists all the articles subjected to qualitative analysis to enhance transparency and reproducibility of the research.

In the strand of research focusing on energy policy, we executed three WoS and Scopus searches in late November 2023. To gain a broader perspective on the field, we conducted an extensive WoS search using “energy policy” as the search term in the “Topic” field. This led us to analyze over 10,000 entries using VOSviewer, allowing us to explore deeper trends and patterns in energy policy research. Then, we performed a Scopus search by using terms like “new” or “novel” energy policy, targeting recent developments in this field. Our selection methodology was rigorous and two-pronged. Initially, we screened articles in Scopus based on the “Article Title, Abstract, and Keywords” section, specifically choosing those under the “social sciences” subject area. Subsequently, in the second phase, we filtered out articles that did not include “new” or “novel” energy policy in their title. We then thoroughly reviewed all remaining articles, eliminating those not directly relevant to modern, comprehensive energy policies. This detailed process led to the identification of 24 pertinent articles.

In January 2022, the other research strand involved a Scopus search for literature on ecosystem-based approaches in the energy sector. We explored a broad spectrum of ecosystem concepts, including business, innovation, entrepreneurship, platform-based, service, open innovation, industrial, digital, and regional innovation ecosystems, as outlined by Scaringella and Radziwon [50]. In line with the Harvard Business Review’s [51] perspective, which treats ecosystems and platforms as interchangeable concepts, we included both in our search. The search encompassed various terms related to the energy sector as author keywords, derived from the contents of Bradford’s [8] energy system handbook, using asterisks to capture a wide array of relevant term variations. Our approach also mirrored the systematic review methodology of Jugend et al. [52] which involved excluding articles not listed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR). Initially, this search yielded 438 articles. After a thorough review, focusing on the social science aspects of energy ecosystems, we narrowed these down to 98 relevant publications.

In another strand of our research, conducted in October 2023 using the WoS database, we focused on articles addressing energy entrepreneurship, with an emphasis on integrating business and entrepreneurship in the energy sector. This yielded 238 articles. Our selection criteria were stringent, prioritizing categories in WoS such as sustainability science, management, economics, and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), alongside the “Business Economics” research area. We organized the literature into two periods, 1995–2009 and 2010–2023, to analyze trends in the pre-new global era and the new global era, as defined by Chatzinikolaou and Vlados [7]. To conduct a word frequency analysis, we merged all the full texts into two separate PDF files for each period, enabling us to track evolving research trends and focus areas on energy entrepreneurship from its inception to the present day. We cataloged these findings and visualized them in spreadsheets, culminating in a comprehensive graph that illustrates the developmental trajectory and key themes within this field.

Building on the systematically collected and processed data outlined above, we sought to further enhance our approach in a second phase through a qualitative investigation of the 360 studies under review: 24 macrolevel studies on new energy policy, 98 mesolevel studies on energy ecosystems, and 238 microlevel studies on energy entrepreneurship. Our objective was to identify and highlight points of intersection and integration, with the aspiration of developing a critical, holistic, and integrative framework [45,46].

In addition to the aforementioned methods, we conducted field research to capture the perspectives of experts in the field, as detailed in the extended version of the study by Chatzinikolaou and Vlados [20] and Chatzinikolaou [18]. This research adopted an action-oriented approach, emphasizing collaboration between researchers and participants to address both theoretical and practical issues [53,54,55,56,57]. Specifically, we employed the snowball sampling method—a technique in which current participants “recruit” future participants—continuing until thematic saturation was reached, i.e., when no new categories emerged or when participants could no longer recommend additional candidates. This approach aligns with grounded theory principles [58,59].

The triple helix framework was integral to our methodology, highlighting the critical collaboration among universities, industries, and governments to foster socioeconomic development [60,61,62]. Utilizing this approach, we identified key experts actively engaged in Greece’s energy ecosystem within Europe, holding influential roles across policy, academia, and business sectors [60,61,62].

In June 2024, we conducted interviews with 16 experts from diverse domains, including a senior administrative member of Greece’s leading wind farm, renewables, and electric mobility company, a prominent executive of the national natural gas system operator who also serves as a key member of the ruling political party (thereby embodying a dual role), two General Directors of Greece’s largest utility, a board member of a major construction firm in the energy sector, and two senior executives from other significant companies within Greece’s energy ecosystem. Furthermore, interviews were conducted with seven university professors specializing in energy-related disciplines, as well as with a General Secretary of the Greek Ministry of Environment and Energy and an energy policy coordinator of a major opposition political party.

The interview data were transcribed and systematically analyzed, with responses categorized to reflect participants’ general perspectives on energy policy. Two key questions guided the interviews: (1) What are their views on the ongoing energy market liberalization in Greece and the EU? (2) What should be the main priorities for a new energy policy in Greece and the EU today? The participants’ responses were synthesized into a unified dataset to identify prevailing trends. This analysis facilitated the identification of theoretical saturation, where no new thematic categories emerged from additional interviews.

Another significant field research effort involved collecting primary data through a combination of a Likert-scale survey and in-depth semi-structured interviews with 89 energy enterprises in the less-developed Greek region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace (REMTh) [63]. This presentation also builds on the extended research by Chatzinikolaou and Vlados [20] and Chatzinikolaou [18]. Quantitative data from the survey were analyzed descriptively across the sample of 89 firms, while qualitative insights were derived through thick descriptions and detailed interviews with eight microfirms (employing fewer than 10 people) selected from the sample [64]. This dual-method approach enabled a nuanced understanding of respondents’ perspectives, emphasizing key themes such as business strategies, external challenges, and internal adaptability. The methodology provided comprehensive insights into the perceptions and strategies of energy microfirms in REMTh, exploring areas ranging from adaptability to crises to satisfaction with governmental energy policies.

The raw data from all three field research efforts—including expert interviews, survey, and in-depth interviews—are available upon request for interested researchers.

4. Results

4.1. Macro, Meso, and Micro in the Energy Sector

4.1.1. Energy Policy and Macroanalysis

Dividing the corpus of energy policy research from the WoS into two main periods—pre- and post-2009–2010, a temporal boundary that, in our view, marks the transition from the maturation phase of globalization, initiated in the 1980s, to a phase of crisis and restructuring [20,21]—a notable consistency emerges in the thematic clusters identified through author keywords. Predominant clusters persist across both periods, including “energy policy” as the largest, accompanied by smaller yet significant clusters like “energy efficiency” (depicted in red), “renewable energy” (purple), “sustainability” and “sustainable development” (blue and orange), and “renewable energy policy” (green) as shown in Figure 2a,b.

An interesting development between these two periods is the emergence of the “energy transition” cluster (highlighted in yellow), which was previously absent. Intriguingly, the aspect of liberalization in energy policy, despite its practical significance in the recent past, particularly in developed economies, is conspicuously missing from these clusters. This suggests a potential gap in the literature concerning the pros and cons of liberalization in energy policy.

To delve deeper into contemporary trends in energy policy, we conducted additional research using Scopus, focusing on “new energy policy”. All identified sources post-date 2010, primarily emerge after 2012, highlighting the recent nature of this concept in scholarly literature. Our qualitative analysis of 24 articles revealed no significant journal clustering, indicating the nascent stage of this research field. This infancy is further underscored by the absence of common cross-citations among these articles. Notably, there is a pronounced focus on countries like China and India, where ambitious renewable energy projects are being supported by specific new energy policies [13,32].

In exploring the broader trends in the new energy policy, we encounter a diversity of approaches and definitions. Reboredo and Wen [65] suggest that policymakers should align with energy companies to establish shared goals, moving beyond a narrow focus on liberalization. These companies should aim to enhance their competitive edge, expand their market presence, and effectively manage risks. Muscio et al. [66] emphasize the need for better integration of EU funding programs in all stages of research and innovation within the EU energy policy. Hernández Ibarzábal and Bonilla [67] advocate for sustainable energy policies that prioritize electricity, clean and renewable energy, and innovation over “extractivism”. Matsuhashi et al. [68] argue for policies that support a secure, prosperous, and environmentally responsible society. Ba et al. [32] highlight the importance of effective communication between central and local governments to establish leading new energy markets and influence neighboring regions in adopting similar policies. Other specific issues gaining attention include the transformation of most new energy into electrical energy, the importance of smart grid and power storage technologies [69], reevaluating the benefits of nuclear energy [70], and the promotion of electric vehicles, renewable energy subsidies, and energy-efficient building upgrades [32].

In summary, new energy policy is increasingly seen as a comprehensive socioeconomic endeavor, aiming for efficient energy transition and sustainable-resilient development. This goal is achievable through enhanced synergy and better integration with energy mesosystems [32]. While microlevel aspects of these policies have received less focus, some exceptions highlight the importance of empowering energy firms, not just pursuing abstract goals of energy sector liberalization [65].

4.1.2. Energy Ecosystems and Meso-Oriented Integration

In examining 98 articles on energy ecosystems, a notable surge in publications from 2017 onwards is evident [71]. Of these articles, only 22 (22%) were published between 2001 and 2016, with a significant 78% emerging after 2017. Leading journals such as the “Journal of Cleaner Production”, “Energies”, and “Sustainability” have collectively contributed to 46% of these publications, with the “Journal of Cleaner Production” remaining particularly active in this field. Meanwhile, journals like “Ecological Economics” have recently shifted their focus away from energy-related issues, likely due to their primary emphasis on environmental studies and ecology. These articles are categorized into four distinct trends, each signifying a cluster of common research interests and findings (Figure 3):

• Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development
• Energy Transition and Socioeconomic Evolution
• Business Ecosystems and Innovation Ecosystems in the Energy Sector
• Distributed Energy Systems, Smart Grid Innovations, and Related Policy-Regulation Dynamics

The evolution of industrial ecology, particularly in the context of sustainable development, has been significant. This trend initially emphasized the shift from non-renewable resources to sustainable energy, underpinned by the ecosystem metaphor and the concept of the “industrial ecosystem’s metabolism” [72]. This metaphor has been instrumental in bridging industrial activities with ecological values, evolving to include business strategies and eco-innovation [73].

In the context of energy transition and socioeconomic evolution, studies have highlighted the role of innovative technologies, such as blockchain, in sustainable energy solutions [14]. Alongside these advancements, the emergence of energy communities has been recognized as a key factor [36]. These communities actively participate in energy production and distribution, fostering a decentralized approach to energy management. The emphasis has been on consumer engagement and the transformation potential in business models, anticipating a future dominated by prosumer-centric and innovative approaches for a more sustainable and integrated energy transition. This future is not only technologically advanced but also socially inclusive, with energy communities playing a pivotal role in empowering consumers and the resilience of local economies [74,75].

The trend focusing on business and innovation ecosystems in the energy sector delves into the complexities of alternative power systems and ecosystem management [76]. This approach offers a comprehensive view of the energy sector and highlights the importance of understanding these ecosystems for guiding the sector towards sustainable and innovative business practices [77,78].

The trend of distributed energy systems, smart grid innovations, and related policy-regulation dynamics covers a range of topics, including the transformative potential of distributed energy systems, collaboration mechanisms, the role of AI and blockchain, practical implications of these technologies, and the challenges and opportunities in decentralized energy sharing platforms [33,79,80]. This trend underscores the multi-faceted nature of distributed energy systems and smart grid innovations, pointing towards a technology-aligned sustainable future [81,82].

In summary, although not explicitly merging macro, meso, and micro concerns into a cohesive framework, the energy ecosystems literature encompasses aspects from all these levels. At the macrolevel, the focus is on the interplay between energy transition and sustainable development. The mesolevel is characterized by discussions on industrial symbiosis and the dynamics within energy business-innovation ecosystems and energy communities. Interestingly, the microlevel appears less emphasized, with a gradual trend towards incorporating research on the operational aspects of energy firms, especially in relation to smart-grid innovations and distributed energy systems.

4.1.3. Energy Entrepreneurship and Microdimensions

Energy entrepreneurship research has undergone transformation from its initial phase to the current one (1995–2009 to 2010–2023). The journals featuring these works show concentrated publication trends. Notably, the “Energy Policy” emerged as a leading platform, with its publications increasing from 18 articles in the first phase to 77 in the subsequent one. “Energy Economics” also exhibited growth, expanding its contributions from 2 to 12 publications. This trend indicates that while the field has historical roots, it is still evolving.

However, this research is primarily oriented toward the macrolevel and mesolevel, leaving microlevel issues less explored, and examining these reveals critical conclusions. The frequency of micro-oriented terms like resilience, circularity, business management, knowledge development, adaptability, organizational strategy, entrepreneurship, CSR, energy innovation, inclusiveness, business models, and sustainability is depicted in Figure 4, illustrating their presence across the two distinct research generations.

The term frequency analysis aligns with three central trends, reflecting a shift in research focus over time. The first trend addresses the evolution of strategy, technology, and management in energy organizations. Discussions around strategic approaches in energy firms emphasize the importance of diverse goals and organizational ambidexterity [83]. Technological advancements are advised to be met with proactive knowledge management [84], while management practices are suggested to evolve, considering large-scale utilities and sustainable development models [85]. Even though the literature provides guidelines for strategy, technology, and management in energy organizations, specific findings for microfirms or SMEs appear to be limited. The recent literature set shows restrained mention of terms such as “organizational strategy”, “knowledge development”, and “business management”, whereas earlier literature largely omits these terms.

The second trend pertains to business model innovations within energy firms. The literature highlights the emergence of green business models and the pivotal role of entrepreneurship in tackling environmental challenges [86]. Customer-centric models, which focus on energy supply and asset aggregation [87], demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of macrolevel and mesolevel dynamics. However, there remains a significant gap in addressing microlevel strategic, technological, and managerial concerns, particularly in areas like net metering and prosumership. Net metering allows consumers who generate their own electricity—often through renewable sources like solar panels—to feed surplus energy back into the grid, offsetting their energy consumption and lowering costs. Prosumership, on the other hand, reflects the dual role of individuals or entities as both producers and consumers of energy, promoting active participation in decentralized energy systems and fostering sustainability through localized energy generation and consumption [88,89,90].

Current literature on this field predominantly provides broad guidelines on energy innovations and business model typologies, with a sparse exploration of microlevel issues. The literature in this domain advocates a micro-oriented viewpoint, albeit implicitly from a meso-oriented perspective. Terms like “circular”, “entrepreneurial”, “energy innovation”, and “business model” gain prominence in the second generation of research, with “business model” experiencing the most notable increase.

The third trend revolves around the integration of CSR and RASI (Resilience, Adaptability, Sustainability, Inclusiveness) principles in energy firms [91]. Energy organizations, pivotal to sustainable development goals, are increasingly focusing on CSR [92]. RASI dimensions are also elaborated, highlighting resilience in the face of disruptions [93], adaptability to technological and regulatory changes [94], and the commitment to sustainable and inclusive practices [95]. Interestingly, the concept of CSR has garnered heightened interest, particularly in journals like “Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management”, which primarily adopt a mesolevel approach to the energy sector. In the reviewed literature, terms like “resilience”, “adaptability”, “CSR”, and “sustainability” are predominantly featured in the second generation of research, with CSR and sustainability concepts being more prevalent than adaptability and inclusiveness. This trend reflects the progressive mainstreaming of CSR and sustainability, though all RASI dimensions are critically interconnected with these microlevel issues.

In summary, contemporary research in energy entrepreneurship signifies a substantial departure, analytical reorientation, and evolution from earlier studies. The focus has shifted towards a nuanced understanding of strategies, stakeholder relationships, and the importance of innovation in business models, primarily within larger utilities. However, the literature offers limited findings for microfirms or SMEs. The growing emphasis on CSR and the integration of RASI principles reflect the sector’s response to environmental challenges and societal expectations.

4.2. Integrated Macro-Meso-Micro Energy Policy Framework

This section builds on the earlier discussion of significant transformations in energy sector research and the corresponding shifts in energy policy. Energy policy is increasingly recognized as a comprehensive and integrative socioeconomic field that spans the macrolevel, mesolevel, and microlevel:

• Macrolevel perspective: Priorities at this level include nurturing a sustainable and efficient energy transition on a broad scale. Achieving this requires harmonizing diverse policies and integrating them into overarching energy systems, effectively combining and synthesizing economic, industrial, and environmental policies. Contemporary macropolicies go beyond traditional energy market liberalization by empowering individual energy firms, acknowledging their critical role in driving the energy transition.
• Mesolevel focus: At this level, we advocate for the advancement of industrial ecology, emphasizing its contribution to sustainable development. This involves a shift from reliance on non-renewable resources to embracing sustainable energy solutions. Central to this transition is the enhancement of industrial ecosystems’ metabolism, strengthening energy ecosystems and communities, particularly in the context of emerging distributed energy systems and smart grid innovations, both locally and globally.
• Microlevel goals: These revolve around the evolution of strategies, technologies, and management within energy organizations. Contemporary energy policy should also foster business model innovation in energy firms, highlighting green business models and the importance of entrepreneurship in addressing environmental challenges. Additionally, the integration of CSR and RASI principles is gaining importance, necessitating a focus on these aspects in new energy policies (Figure 5).

Based on the “competitiveness web” and the ILDIs approach outlined in Section 2, we propose a cohesive macro-meso-micro integration for articulating energy policy (Figure 5). The goals set could align with the overarching objectives of the “competitiveness web” framework, including ILDIs policy suggestions. The “competitiveness web” framework could be instrumental in addressing energy inequalities by fostering an integrative approach that spans the macrolevel, mesolevel, and microlevel. By conceptualizing the energy sector as an interconnected system of firms, ecosystems, and policy frameworks across different levels, this model emphasizes the importance of collaboration and coordination among stakeholders and diverse socioeconomic actors. At the macrolevel, the competitiveness web includes equitable policy structures that provide regulatory support to individual spatial systems. At the mesolevel, it highlights the role of regional innovation hubs and localized governance in strengthening energy communities and industrial clusters [80]. These hubs can actively identify and address disparities in energy access and technology adoption [8]. At the microlevel, the competitiveness web situates individual firms, especially the smaller ones, by providing tools and frameworks for strategic, technological, and managerial progress.

This macro-meso-micro energy policy framework can aid ILDIs in enhancing coordination among mesolevel institutions, fostering local governance, education, and business synergies, and promoting regional entrepreneurship while supporting and empowering less competitive firms. Integration with the “business clinics” model of ILDIs can further aid in diagnosing and enhancing innovation in local energy firms, offering free counseling and applying the “Stra.Tech.Man approach” for effective innovative synthesis of strategy, technology and management. This represents a novel policy direction, as current energy policies do not typically directly target the internal philosophies and processes of energy firms [43].

The RASI principles are particularly significant in this context, offering a robust foundation for cultivating dynamic, equitable, and adaptable energy ecosystems. At the meso-micro interface, these principles ensure that regional energy ecosystems and individual energy firms are well-equipped to handle both global disruptions and localized challenges [36,71,72]. For instance, resilience is about the ability of energy systems and firms to recover from external shocks, such as supply chain disruptions or regulatory shifts [93]. Adaptability refers to the capacity of firms and ecosystems to evolve alongside technological advancements and market demands, such as transitioning to renewable energy technologies or integrating distributed systems [96,97]. Sustainability prioritizes the balance of ecological, economic, and social development over the long term, ensuring that energy initiatives align with global climate goals [86,94]. Inclusiveness underscores the need for equity in energy access and participation, particularly for underserved regions and marginalized communities [91].

In the context of recent related studies [18], experts were consulted to empirically validate the findings and address the identified challenges. Regarding microlevel concerns, experts identified the lack of a clear research and development (R&D) strategy and insufficient emphasis on patentable innovations as significant barriers to technological progress in Greece’s energy sector. They criticized universities and researchers for prioritizing academic publications over patents, which has resulted in lower innovation outputs. To address these issues, they proposed incentivizing patent-focused research and encouraging the return of specialized professionals to Greece, which could drive technological advancement. They also stressed the importance of businesses balancing investments in cutting-edge technologies with maintaining competitive pricing to support market health and sectoral growth.

In discussions surrounding the gradual liberalization of the energy market, they highlighted that recent energy crises, particularly the surge in energy prices, had significantly boosted energy company revenues and profits, despite little change in their product offerings. While acknowledging that European-wide liberalization has enhanced competition and efficiency—benefiting both the market and consumers by gradually replacing inefficient state-run or regulated monopolies—they noted the emergence of new oligopolistic dynamics. Experts emphasized that the post-COVID-19 economic recovery, combined with overall growth in the European and Greek economies, has driven a sharp increase in energy demand [98]. This heightened economic activity, coupled with rising consumer consumption, has led to higher market prices and revenues. However, they stressed the need for robust regulatory mechanisms to prevent cartel formation and ensure fair pricing in the energy market [99,100].

In terms of energy policy, experts stressed the urgency of diversifying energy sources and accelerating the development of distribution and storage infrastructures. This includes exploring natural gas reserves in Greece and investing in energy storage solutions across Europe to enhance the viability of renewable energy sources. They advocated for measures prioritizing green energy initiatives within the EU to reduce dependency on imported energy and promote self-sufficiency through local renewable energy production, particularly solar and wind power. Experts emphasized Greece and Europe’s potential to become leaders in the energy transition, especially as producers and exporters of green hydrogen, leveraging also abundant solar and wind resources [20].

Strengthening Greek regulatory authorities was also a key recommendation. Experts called for equipping these bodies with specialized personnel and resources to ensure effective implementation of energy policies and maintain market stability. They advocated for reduced government intervention in energy markets, suggesting a balanced regulatory approach that fosters competition while ensuring market functionality. Furthermore, they highlighted the pressing need for substantial investments in energy infrastructure, such as modernizing electricity grids and improving interconnections to facilitate efficient distribution of renewable energy across less developed regions of Greece and Europe.

When exploring solutions, experts emphasized the importance of energy policies that ensure affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy [101]. They stressed the need to balance green initiatives with practical market dynamics and supported opening the energy market to private investments, particularly in infrastructure development, to accelerate progress and enhance efficiency. Additionally, they recognized the interconnected nature of global energy markets, emphasizing policies that address international supply chain dynamics and their implications for local markets.

In this context, experts indirectly validated the macro-meso-micro framework introduced in this paper. They underscored that addressing systemic challenges in Greece’s and Europe’s energy sectors requires a holistic approach. At the macrolevel, the focus was on effective regulation to prevent cartels and ensure fair pricing. At the mesolevel, the emphasis was on diversifying energy sources and integrating renewables. At the microlevel, they advocated for fostering innovation through clear R&D priorities and balanced investment strategies.

Furthermore, the survey and in-depth interview results highlighted significant findings about the perceptions and challenges faced by energy microfirms in Greece. Participants generally expressed satisfaction with issues directly related to their businesses, such as internal strategies and operational efficiency. However, dissatisfaction was notably prevalent when discussing external factors like government energy policies and the oligopolistic nature of the energy sector. For instance, regarding energy policies, nearly half of the respondents reported low satisfaction, indicating significant concerns about how enterprises adapt to governmental energy frameworks. Weak correlations between satisfaction with government policies and other variables, such as crisis adaptation and energy transition, underscored the perceived independence of these factors from external policy frameworks.

The analysis revealed that internal adaptability, sustainability, and resilience are tightly interlinked with perceived operational effectiveness. Variables such as renewable energy communities demonstrated moderate but not strong correlations with inclusivity and smart grid promotion, suggesting limited perceived relationships between these elements. Notably, external factors like government policies exhibited minimal influence on internal business dynamics, as evidenced by their weak correlations with other variables. These findings suggest that external pressures, rather than internal shortcomings, are the primary sources of dissatisfaction among respondents.

A deeper examination of the data revealed the underlying reasons for these perceptions. As detailed previously in the methodology section, most participants were owners of small, less dynamic businesses, often with limited expertise in advanced business strategies and lower educational levels. These characteristics likely contributed to their dissatisfaction with external forces like market consolidation and government policies. Despite this, there were exceptions, with some respondents from larger and more informed enterprises demonstrating clear insights into the issues examined. These results emphasize the need for targeted support to enhance the capabilities of smaller enterprises while addressing systemic challenges in the broader energy ecosystem.

The survey and in-depth interviews also provided critical evidence supporting the framework’s holistic approach to addressing challenges at multiple levels of the energy sector. The macro-meso-micro framework’s emphasis on integrating external, regional, and internal dynamics aligns with the findings that external pressures, such as inefficiencies in government policies and market consolidation, disproportionately affect microfirms. This highlights the necessity of macrolevel regulatory reforms to alleviate these pressures and foster fairer competition.

Furthermore, the framework’s mesolevel focus on supporting business ecosystems is validated by the moderate correlations observed between inclusiveness and renewable energy communities. These findings underscore the potential for regional innovation hubs and smart grid developments to strengthen local energy ecosystems. The mesolevel’s capacity to bridge macrolevel policies with microlevel practices is essential for enhancing resilience and fostering community engagement within the energy sector.

At the microlevel, the framework’s focus on innovation, strategic management, and adaptability is supported by the observed links between operational effectiveness and internal capabilities. While many microfirms lack advanced strategies, notable exceptions among larger, more informed enterprises illustrate the transformative potential of targeted interventions. By addressing these findings through tailored policies and support at all levels, the framework potentially offers a comprehensive pathway for fostering a sustainable and inclusive energy transition.

5. Discussion

This integrated approach represents a departure from traditional energy policies by prioritizing energy transition and employing multilevel strategies to foster resilient and adaptable energy systems. Our findings underscore a substantial shift in energy policy research and practice, aligning with the observations of Hamilton [15] and Bradford [8], who noted that the evolution of energy policy reflects changing societal, technological, and economic demands. Our study likely augments these past approaches by underscoring the current phase’s emphasis on comprehensive energy transition and sustainability, and the integration of policies across various levels.

Recent research on energy ecosystems and firm-level adaptability highlights how smaller firms and regions are particularly affected by the shifts in global energy transitions. These entities often face challenges such as limited access to resources and technology but simultaneously possess unique strengths, including closer ties to local communities and the potential to adapt more rapidly to localized demands and conditions. Effective energy policies at the mesolevel and microlevel should therefore address these disparities by supporting smaller firms and underrepresented regions in their integration into broader energy ecosystems. Such support could include tailored strategies for technological adoption, managerial innovation, and regional policy alignment to ensure a cohesive and inclusive transition [20].

Contrasting with the macro-meso-micro synthesis literature [3,5,6], which highlights the interconnectedness within socioeconomic systems, our study extends these concepts into energy policy. This application, not extensively covered in the literature from Section 2, filled a research gap by offering a holistic and critical perspective often missing in existing studies.

This framework diverges from existing studies in several critical ways, particularly in its integrated approach to addressing energy policy challenges. Traditional studies often focus on isolated levels—macro, meso, or micro—resulting in fragmented analyses that do not capture the interconnectedness of these dimensions. Macro-focused research has primarily emphasized goals such as energy security and market liberalization without adequately addressing the needs of regional ecosystems or firm-level adaptability [10,32]. While existing mesolevel literature on industrial ecology often centers on ecosystem metaphors and sustainable development [72,73], this framework bridges these concepts with firm-level strategies like the adoption of net metering and prosumership, which have been underexplored in prior studies [86,89]. Additionally, earlier studies on firm-level adaptability frequently highlight strategies for large utilities but overlook smaller firms, whose role in distributed energy systems is pivotal [20,33,87].

Regarding research and practical implications, our study highlighted the critical importance of evolving energy policies in addressing contemporary challenges such as environmental degradation and the transition to sustainable energy generation, distribution, and consumption [35]. The traditional focus on energy security and market liberalization has resulted in fragile and often ineffective policy foundations, particularly in developing countries where issues of energy access and equity remain pressing [101,102]. This highlights the urgent need for a more comprehensive and theoretically integrative approach to effectively address these shortcomings, with an increasing emphasis on strengthening small-scale producers and fostering the creation of productive and consumer associations, as well as networks for production, distribution, and storage. These efforts are particularly vital in less-developed regions of the world [8,33,87].

Our analysis across the macrolevel, mesolevel, and microlevel in the energy sector advocates for a unified policy framework that is adaptable to diverse socioeconomic contexts. In developing nations, this framework should emphasize investments in decentralized renewable energy projects to improve access and bolster resilience in rural and underserved areas. Governments can promote inclusive energy ecosystems by incentivizing collaboration among local authorities, private investors, and community stakeholders. Moreover, establishing supportive financial mechanisms, such as low-interest loans or grants for renewable energy entrepreneurs, and introducing consulting frameworks like the ILDIs policy proposal outlined in this study, can further empower smaller firms to innovate and expand within the energy sector. Reducing bureaucratic barriers is also essential to create a more enabling environment for growth and innovation.

6. Conclusions

In this study, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the evolution of energy policy research and its development through an evolutionary macro-meso-micro framework. Our findings indicated a distinct shift in energy policy, moving from traditional focuses such as energy security and liberalization towards an integrative approach that emphasizes efficient energy transition and sustainable development. This new energy policy differs from its predecessors by integrating activities and strategies across various levels, including macro (policy and regulation), meso (ecosystems and communities), and micro (organizational strategy, technology, and management). It places a stronger emphasis on empowering individual energy firms, advancing industrial ecology, and promoting sustainable energy solutions, while highlighting the significance of green business models, corporate social responsibility, and RASI principles.

An integrated energy policy, as proposed in our study, should be holistic, dynamic, and resilient, keeping pace with technological advancements and addressing the interplay of socioeconomic factors. Guidelines for such a policy include fostering collaboration among mesolevel institutions, local governance, education, and business communities, and promoting regional entrepreneurship.

Additionally, the development of energy storage technologies for renewable energy sources and the integration of distribution networks are identified as critical research areas that warrant greater attention from the scientific community. Concepts such as net metering and prosumership, which encourage active consumer participation in energy production and management, also deserve priority in future policies and research [20,36,79].

The importance of this study lies in its comprehensive analysis of energy policy, filling a gap in the literature by providing a holistic perspective often missing in existing studies. Our research highlighted the need for a theoretically integrative approach to energy policy, one that can effectively address contemporary challenges like environmental degradation.

Like any research, this study has limitations that warrant further exploration. The literature review focused on scientific articles across macro, meso, and micro scales in energy policy, energy ecosystems, and entrepreneurship, excluding other sources for sample homogeneity. Future iterations of this research could broaden the scope to include diverse sources for a more inclusive analysis, such as books or reports. Moreover, our bibliometric-qualitative analysis, centered on examining trends in energy sector literature, may have limitations in terms of empirical grounding. Future research could expand on this by conducting empirical studies through interviews with stakeholders in energy policy at all scales, to validate the effectiveness of the proposed integrative energy policy framework. This approach could answer critical questions about the practical applicability and impact of the macro-meso-micro guidelines proposed in our study.

In conclusion, this study offered a forward-looking perspective on energy policy, advocating for an integrated approach that embraces the complexities of the evolving global socioeconomic landscape. The suggested framework aims to assist policymakers and industry stakeholders in navigating these complexities, while also setting a foundation for future research to further validate and build upon these ideas. As the energy sector undergoes continuous transformation, it is imperative that our strategies and policies evolve correspondingly.