Energy Entrepreneurship in the Emerging New Globalization: A Macro–Meso–Micro Perspective with Evidence from a Less-Developed Regional Ecosystem

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the shifting focus and emerging themes in contemporary energy entrepreneurship research, alongside the challenges and opportunities faced by select energy entrepreneurs in a rapidly transforming global landscape that is driven by sustainability imperatives, resilience, and systemic energy transitions. Employing a semi-systematic and critical literature review, 238 relevant scientific articles from the Web of Science database were identified and analyzed. We then conducted focused case studies of energy entrepreneurs in a less-developed regional ecosystem. The findings reveal two distinct “generations” of energy entrepreneurship research, marked by a clear shift towards sustainability themes, innovative energy business models, and corporate responsibility. Additionally, we introduce the “Energy Innovation Scorecard” (EN.I.SCORE) framework—a comprehensive macro–meso–micro guideline designed to support energy entrepreneurs. Applying this framework to a sample of 89 surveyed and 8 interviewed firms reveals that, especially among microfirms, there is weak integration of strategy–technology–management, limited energy innovation, and poor financial performance prevail—challenges typical of underdeveloped ecosystems. By examining the origins, evolution, and holistic transformation of energy entrepreneurship, and by investigating the selected regional case, this research potentially helps bridge critical gaps in understanding the dynamics of this field.

1. Introduction

In the context of the transformational crisis within the energy sector—an integral feature of the latest phase of global capitalism characterized by the gradual emergence of a new wave of restructured globalization—the priorities of stakeholders worldwide have undergone a significant shift [1,2,3,4,5]. The era of unrestrained growth and unchecked exploitation of energy resources has been replaced by more complex and often conflicting developmental imperatives across the production spectrum, with a pronounced focus on energy production, distribution, and consumption [6]. In this evolving landscape, a “new model of entrepreneurship” in the energy sector can play a critical role in facilitating the transition towards sustainable energy sources and practices. Historically, innovative entrepreneurs, alongside supportive state policies, have been pivotal in revitalizing socioeconomic systems and propelling capitalism into new phases of development [7]. In line with this tradition, innovative entrepreneurship in the energy sector has the potential to significantly contribute to the ongoing energy transition. By establishing new ventures in renewable energy or challenging established utilities to adapt to the demands of this emerging era, such entrepreneurship can serve as a key driver of transformative change [8,9].

Recent research has increasingly explored the multifaceted dimensions of entrepreneurship within the energy sector. However, systematic approaches remain relatively scarce. A notable contribution in this area is the now-classic Handbook of Research on Energy Entrepreneurship, which outlines key research directions and compiles a broad spectrum of contributions [10]. A significant insight from this handbook is the evolving role of energy customers—transitioning from passive consumers to active producers, thus giving rise to a new category of “prosumers.” This term, introduced by Toffler, describes individuals or entities capable of generating energy, reflecting the convergence of production and consumption roles in a mature market [11,12]. This shift has significant implications for all energy organizations, particularly incumbent ones, which must innovate and adapt to the industry’s evolving energy structures. A notable trend is the increasing view of energy as a commodity. In financial markets, energy has been treated as a commodity in derivative trading for decades, and its prominence in such contexts only continues to grow. This marks a sharp departure from its traditional status as a public service, a shift that demands strategic agility from industry players [13]. Furthermore, recent studies highlight the evolving role of entrepreneurial actors in energy transition processes, emphasizing their impact on sustainability, technological innovation, and policy adaptation [8,9,14,15].

This necessitates further exploration into the sophisticated dimensions of energy entrepreneurship. Currently, it remains unclear whether microlevel entrepreneurial issues have been adequately addressed in the field. Moreover, it is uncertain how the landscape of entrepreneurship research has evolved recently and the ways in which energy entrepreneurs can navigate the new challenges of this era. This paper aims to answer the following questions:

• How has the focus and thematic emphasis of contemporary entrepreneurship research in the energy sector evolved over the last few decades?
• According to recent research, how can energy entrepreneurs successfully navigate the challenges and leverage the opportunities of the evolving socioeconomic environment?
• How do select energy entrepreneurs innovate, what deficiencies do they exhibit, and how might these be addressed?

To address these questions, this paper investigates the evolution of energy entrepreneurship research using a macro–meso–micro analytical framework. This approach enables us to unravel the complex layers of the energy ecosystem and examine critical factors affecting the development of vulnerable socioeconomic systems in terms of their energy balance. First, we conducted a critical semi-systematic literature review, analyzing 238 scientific articles from the Web of Science (WoS) database. This analysis revealed recurring patterns in the literature, their evolution over time, and their defining characteristics. A key finding is the shift in post-2010 literature compared to earlier works, reflecting changes in perceptions, preferences for energy sources, a more integrated understanding of energy ecosystems and communities, and a heightened emphasis on innovation, sustainability, and responsibility—all indicative of the emerging new globalization. Next, we present an empirical investigation comprising a survey of 89 energy firms and in-depth interviews with 8 microfirms. This investigation examines the strategic, technological, and managerial strengths and weaknesses of these organizations and explores why certain firms appear more developed than others.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 delineates the research field and provides a detailed background on pertinent energy entrepreneurship research. Section 3 describes the methodology used to critically analyze the selected literature, explains how we developed a new framework for supporting energy firms, and details the case selection process to illustrate these developments. In Section 4, we present our findings by identifying key themes in the literature—categorized at the macro, meso, and microlevels—and trace their evolution across different generations of energy entrepreneurship research. This section also introduces a framework designed to help energy entrepreneurs navigate the new era, supported by case studies of selected energy firms. Section 5 critically discusses these findings, and finally, Section 6 concludes the paper with final remarks and suggestions for future research avenues.

2. Theoretical Background

Energy economics and entrepreneurship in the energy sector have undergone significant transformations, shaped by historical events, technological advancements, and the demands of globalization. This section delves into the theoretical foundations of these shifts, focusing first on the evolving paradigms of energy economics (2.1) and then on the emergence of energy entrepreneurship as a critical driver of innovation and sustainability in the globalized era (2.2).

2.1. Research Generations of Energy Economics and the Emergence of a New Era of Globalization

Energy economics explores the societal dynamics of energy supply, production, distribution, storage, and consumption, delving into the costs and benefits of energy services that facilitate energy delivery to end-use applications [6]. Over time, the evolution of energy economics has closely mirrored the shifts in global capitalism, particularly since World War II (postwar). This relationship is extensively documented in globalization literature, which emphasizes transformations in political–economic structures [1,3].

The development of global capitalism since the postwar era can be categorized into periods that represent distinct phases in global economic and political structures characterized by shifts in priorities such as industrial reconstruction, energy security, market liberalization, and sustainability, driven by changing technological, geopolitical, and economic conditions [2,16]. These periods—reconstruction and growth (1945–1973), energy crises and diversification (1973–1980), liberalization and climate awareness (1980–2008), and energy transition and digitalization (post-2008)—illustrate significant structural changes in global priorities (Figure 1).

Parallel to these shifts, energy economics has evolved through broader periods that are distinct phases defined by dominant paradigms in energy production, consumption, and policy, reflecting the interaction between political-economic forces and technological advancements in the energy sector [17,18,19,20,21]. These broader periods include the rebound effect (1860s–1930s), energy security and expansion (1940s–1970s), energy efficiency gap (1980s–1990s), and green nudges (1990s–present), each reflecting a unique focus on efficiency, security, or sustainability:

• Rebound effect (1860s–1930s): This period coincides with the rapid industrialization of economies during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The rebound effect refers to the phenomenon where improvements in energy efficiency lower energy costs, leading to increased energy consumption that offsets the initial efficiency gains [22]. The focus during this era was on maximizing production output without consideration for environmental or sustainability concerns.
• Energy security and expansion (1940s–1970s): The postwar period saw a global emphasis on energy security and infrastructure expansion. Nations prioritized securing reliable energy supplies to support industrial reconstruction and geopolitical stability. Investments in large-scale energy systems, including oil, coal, and nuclear power, were central to this phase. The oil crises of the 1970s brought energy vulnerability to the forefront, compelling policymakers to consider diversification strategies [23,24]. This period bridged the gap between industrial expansion and the emerging awareness of resource limitations.
• Energy efficiency gap (1980s–1990s): By the 1980s, globalization and market liberalization shaped energy policies that prioritized cost-effective energy use. The energy efficiency gap describes the persistent under-adoption of economically viable energy efficiency measures, attributed to market failures, behavioral barriers, and policy gaps [25,26]. During this phase, energy economics began integrating environmental considerations, particularly as the impacts of fossil fuel dependence on climate change became evident.
• Green nudges (1990s–present): The most recent period reflects a global shift toward sustainability and renewable energy systems. Green nudges refer to policy and behavioral interventions designed to promote environmentally friendly energy consumption practices. This phase is characterized by decentralized energy systems, digital innovation, and a focus on consumer empowerment to achieve climate goals [19,27]. The transition to renewable energy has also driven advancements in energy entrepreneurship and community-based energy ecosystems.

These broader periods align with successive generations of energy economics literature, which refer to distinct phases in academic inquiry and research focus shaped by the evolving priorities of energy systems and policies, including resource pricing, environmental awareness, climate change economics, and sustainability. Early research focused on resource and pricing analysis in the mid-20th century, emphasizing the economics of fossil fuels like coal and oil [28,29]. In the 1970s and 1980s, attention shifted to energy crises and environmental awareness, driven by the oil crises and the need for energy diversification [30,31,32]. From the 1990s onward, globalization and climate economics emerged, incorporating market liberalization, carbon pricing, and the integration of renewable energy systems [33,34,35]. The current phase emphasizes sustainability and energy transition, with a focus on digitalization, decentralized systems, and ecosystem-based approaches [8,9,14,15].

The interconnected evolution of postwar global capitalism periods, broader periods of energy economics, and successive generations of energy economics literature illustrates the dynamic interplay between global economic transformations and energy systems. These frameworks highlight how changes in global economic priorities have both influenced and been influenced by shifts in energy policies, technologies, and consumption patterns. Distinguishing between these categories is crucial because they serve different yet complementary roles: postwar global capitalism periods provide a macrolevel context of economic and political restructuring, broader periods of energy economics focus on the paradigms shaping real-world energy practices, and successive generations of energy economics literature capture the evolving intellectual frameworks developed in response to these transformations. For example, the rebound effect period aligns with industrial expansion and the prioritization of production efficiency during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, reflecting a focus on maximizing output without sustainability considerations. In contrast, the green nudges period corresponds to the modern transition toward renewable energy, characterized by digital innovation, decentralized systems, and a growing focus on consumer empowerment and environmental consciousness. Recognizing these distinctions allows for a more nuanced understanding of how global economic transitions, energy systems, and academic thought mutually influence and shape one another.

Some recent approaches increasingly advocate for an integrative “macro–meso–micro” framework. The integrated evolutionary macro–meso–micro synthesis in social sciences is a framework that examines societal changes across large-scale (macrolevel), intermediate (mesolevel), and individual (microlevel) levels through an evolutionary lens [36]. This approach seeks to understand the interplay between broader societal structures, various aggregational dynamics, and individual behaviors in the context of social evolution and adaptation [37]. Such an evolutionary perspective offers valuable insights for analyzing energy sector ecosystems, encompassing the interactions among energy suppliers, producers, distributors, and consumers [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. It underscores the importance of examining microlevel roles of individual energy firms within mesolevel local and trans-spatial ecosystems, as well as macrolevel—national and international—systemic dynamics [47,48].

Nonetheless, despite notable advancements in contemporary energy economics, microlevel entrepreneurial issues seemingly require further investigation. Reflecting on Schumpeter’s [7] emphasis on innovative entrepreneurs as key drivers of innovation and creators of new economic sectors, understanding entrepreneurship’s role in energy economics becomes crucial, especially in the context of new globalization. This underscores the imperative to foster innovation, resilience, and sustainability in energy entrepreneurship—a theme expanded upon in the following section, which emphasizes its pivotal role in shaping the new globalization era.

2.2. Fostering Energy Entrepreneurship in the New Globalization

The “living organization” perspective is seemingly one of the most intriguing and relatively recent approaches to entrepreneurship. It understands business elements like culture, mission, and vision differently than traditional business literature, suggesting these elements evolve organically over time [49,50]. This perspective, rooted in biological analogies, posits innovation as an evolutionary process, which is, among other factors, crucial in the emerging global era [51,52].

Energy entrepreneurship is seemingly an emerging field, whose trajectory in the new globalization context remains largely under-researched. A recent notable handbook nevertheless delineates promising research avenues within energy entrepreneurship [10]. The highlighted themes encompass institutional adaptation, entrepreneurial marketing, renewable energy and cleantech innovations, political implications, infrastructure constraints, and developing nations’ prospects. Within these, the prosumer framework stands out, illustrating the merged roles of producers and consumers in the new era, necessitating flexibility for energy businesses to thrive [13].

Digital technologies are also spearheading the shift towards decentralized energy and prosuming platforms, enabling households to manage renewable electricity production, consumption, storage, and exchange, both locally and on a larger grid scale [53]. The relevant literature appears to lack clear guidelines for fostering the development of prosuming and other energy organizations, underscoring the necessity of further investigating frameworks that could assist with this [10].

One such framework is the Stra.Tech.Man approach, which evolutionarily intertwines strategy, technology, and management. It asserts that the effective combination of these elements drives and renews innovation potential [54]. This synthesis is encapsulated within a “business physiology” perspective, which classifies organizations based on their development of philosophies and procedures within these interconnected spheres [55]. Existing research suggests that Greek firms—and other socioeconomic contexts of comparable developmental scope—often exhibit a “monad-centered” organizational physiology [39,56,57]. Strategically, they typically rely on an instinctive approach, while their technological approach tends to be sporadic, and their management style is rooted in day-to-day practical experience. By contrast, more “flexible” physiologies, which entail cutting-edge technological approaches, dialectical strategic thinking, and participative management, remain relatively scarce in Greece and similarly structured economies [39,56,57]. Building upon this, the Stra.Tech.Man Scorecard (Stra.Tech.Man.SC) serves as a tool for organizations to chart their evolutionary trajectory through introspective analysis (Figure 2). This analysis highlights vulnerabilities and promotes remediation through intra-organizational consultation, scrutinizing additional forces that impinge upon the organization’s strategic, technological, and managerial approaches, alongside its innovativeness and financial performance [55].

In response to contemporary global challenges, this scorecard approach has incorporated a “RASI” analysis—the dimensions of resilience, adaptability, sustainability, and inclusiveness—facilitating organizations in navigating the demands of the rising new globalization [58]. Moreover, the “Green Stra.Tech.Man.SC-RASI” signifies a substantial advancement, urging organizations to critically assess their green strategies, technologies, and management practices in alignment with the new globalization imperatives [59].

In conclusion, situating energy entrepreneurship within the broader framework of the “living organization” and a biological and ecosystemic analytical perspective amplifies its importance, particularly in the context of current demands for fostering organizational innovation and advancing digital energy technologies amidst complex, dynamic interactions. Moreover, innovative entrepreneurship is crucial in addressing the challenges arising from the new globalization and the transition towards sustainable energy era. While the Green Stra.Tech.Man.SC-RASI offers a roadmap, the future course of energy entrepreneurship is still ambiguous, highlighting the need to formulate recommendations that support energy entrepreneurs in navigating this shifting landscape.

3. Methodology

To address the study’s research questions, we employed a twofold methodological design. First, we conducted a semi-systematic literature review of 238 scientific articles to examine the evolution and key thematic shifts in energy entrepreneurship research. Second, we performed an empirical investigation of energy firms located in a less-developed Greek region (Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, ReMTh). This dual approach aimed to (a) establish a critical theoretical backdrop on the phenomenon of energy entrepreneurship, (b) illuminate how contemporary energy firms perceive and implement strategic, technological, and managerial (Stra.Tech.Man) dimensions of innovation, and (c) integrate these findings to propose guidelines that may support energy entrepreneurs in less-developed business ecosystems.

3.1. Semi-Systematic Literature Review

Following recent guidelines on semi-systematic literature reviews in energy sector management research [60,61,62], we focused on identifying publications examining entrepreneurship in the energy field while ensuring a reproducible and transparent process [63,64]. In October 2023, we searched the Web of Science (WoS)—a database covering over 10,000 academic journals—using a concise set of energy-related keywords (e.g., “energy sector”, “energy system”, “energy ecosystem”) combined with “entrepreneurship” or “business”.

The results were refined by selecting WoS categories likely to yield relevant research in economics, management, and sustainability. Non-English publications, conference proceedings, books, and book chapters were excluded. After discarding incomplete entries or items with no available full text, 238 peer-reviewed journal articles remained (refer to Supplementary Files S1 and S2). A bibliometric analysis was then carried out using VOSviewer to track publication patterns, journal distribution, and co-occurrence of authors’ keywords. In addition, a word-frequency analysis was conducted by splitting the sample into two periods (1995–2009 and 2010–2023) to detect key terms and thematic evolution, and a critical thematic synthesis grouped the final articles into macrolevel, mesolevel, and microlevel perspectives to identify the main research trends in energy entrepreneurship (Appendix A). This process revealed a surge in publications after 2010 and a shift in emphasis from energy efficiency and liberalization to sustainability, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and innovative business models, as well as limited but emerging research addressing the strategic, technological, and managerial integration required for energy entrepreneurs.

3.2. Case Studies

Second, we collected empirical data from the ReMTh region—a NUTS 2 Greek region characterized by comparatively low competitiveness, structural weaknesses, and less-developed entrepreneurship [65,66]. We aimed to understand how (and to what extent) local energy firms perceive and implement innovative practices and respond to global sustainability imperatives, thereby complementing our literature-based insights.

Registered energy-related firms in the ReMTh were compiled by scanning the Greek Business Registry (ΓΕΜH) for businesses with at least one energy-related activity code, based on Bradford’s [6] comprehensive energy-sector definition. From an initial set of 2237 entities, those under suspension or lacking any online presence were excluded, resulting in 1025 active firms. In March 2024, each of these firms was invited via email to complete an online survey, yielding 89 valid responses, which represents approximately an 8.7% response rate.

The survey featured 15 five-point Likert-scale questions and one open-ended question on local development (Appendix B). These questions were derived in part from the newly proposed “Energy Innovation Scorecard” (EN.I.SCORE) presented later in the study and were adapted for large-scale use. Collected data were processed using IBM SPSS 29.0.0.0 for descriptive analyses and Pearson’s correlation tests. At the end of the survey, respondents were asked if they wished to participate in more extensive in-depth interviews; eight microfirm owners agreed. These interviews, conducted between May and June 2024, lasted approximately one to two hours each and employed a more detailed questionnaire that combined Likert-type items with open-ended inquiries (Appendix C). This approach enriched the quantitative data with nuanced qualitative insights through word frequency analysis and “thick descriptions” [39,67,68].

By triangulating literature-based insights with the survey and interview findings, we aimed to explain why some energy entrepreneurs in less-developed regions exhibit monad-centered strategic conduct, limited managerial sophistication, and weak technological adoption. Throughout our study, we hypothesized that microfirms in less-developed ecosystems often face persistent innovation and performance challenges, fueling significant developmental gaps [57,69].

In overall terms, the scientific hypothesis of this study follows the explanatory and predictive scheme that can be captured as follows: If “X, Y, Z…” in conditions “A, B, C…”, then “K, L, M…” for the reasons “N1, N2, N3…” [67,70]. Based on this explanatory mechanism, we can arrive at predictions as conditions change over time—predictions produced specifically from the collection and analysis of primary data. In line with this research perspective, a central hypothesis is formulated as follows: If energy firms in the ReMTh region—particularly microfirms—remain less competent at effectively integrating strategy, technology, and management, they will likely face inadequate innovation and financial performance, thus perpetuating the developmental lag in less competitive areas.

By designing a mixed-method approach that combines a semi-systematic literature review with survey and in-depth interviews, the study aims to test this hypothesis. In other words, our goal is to investigate whether and how smaller energy firms in the ReMTh—confronted with the conditions of a relatively underdeveloped regional ecosystem—struggle with strategy–technology–management integration and, consequently, exhibit diminished innovative and financial capacities.

4. Results

Section 4.1 explores the evolution of energy entrepreneurship research by categorizing it into macrolevel, mesolevel, and microlevel dimensions. This categorization reveals how themes like globalization, energy transition, energy ecosystems, and business model innovation have evolved over two distinct generations of literature, reflecting shifts in research priorities and societal needs. Section 4.2 introduces the “EN.I.SCORE” framework, a tool designed to integrate macro–meso–micro perspectives to support innovation and sustainability in energy organizations. Section 4.3 presents the empirical findings from the ReMTh study, highlighting how energy firms in this region perceive their strategic, technological, and managerial performance, and how they adapt or fail to adapt to the area’s developmental constraints.

4.1. Evolution of Macro, Meso, and Micro Energy Dimensions in Entrepreneurship Research

The literature review highlights a significant acceleration in the development of the broader thematic area since 2010. In light of the emerging new globalization era, the 238 studies can be classified into two generations of entrepreneurship research in the energy sector: the first generation comprises 26 studies from 1995 to 2009, while the second consists of 212 studies from 2010 to 2023.

From 1995, there is a significant growth in publications, starting from just 1 and rising to 12 by 2023—a staggering 1200% increase over almost three decades. The peak in research interest is in 2019, with 29 publications.

In the second generation, when analyzed with VOSviewer, several author keywords with an entrepreneurial focus emerge, with a minimum occurrence of five times. These keywords predominantly center on articulating business models, contextualized within the larger frame of the energy transition. Additionally, the intersection of sustainability and CSR with climate change is explored. It is worth noting that the first generation displayed no keyword co-occurrences, suggesting that the field of energy entrepreneurship was still nascent.

A closer look at the journals publishing this research reveals some interesting facts. The journal “Energy Policy” leads the pack, witnessing a rise from 18 articles in 1995–2009 to 77 articles in 2010–2023. Similarly, “Energy Economics” shows a growth from 2 publications in the former period to 12 in the latter, highlighting the burgeoning interest in merging energy and entrepreneurship themes.

However, the majority of articles adopt a perspective either in terms of the macrolevel or mesolevel, with fewer articles focusing on microlevel issues. This trend becomes evident when examining the frequency of certain terms in the literature (as shown in Figure 3).

4.1.1. Changing Perceptions of Globalization and Liberalization in the Energy Sector at the Macrolevel

In the early era, the relevant literature primarily viewed globalization as a unifying force for a global market, combined with the significant impacts from the ongoing liberalization of the electricity sector. This liberalization arises largely from massive foreign direct investments, mainly through privatizing public sector assets [71]. In the later period, some scholars argued that globalization is entering a prolonged restructuring in favor of local production due to increasing transportation costs. Some contended that reimagined CSR forms can offset the potential negative effects [72,73]. A standout that needs mention in this new era is recognizing that the liberalization of the electricity sector results in the industry’s concentration under a few major (state-owned) players [9]. The energy sector is now generally viewed not just as a public service but also as a commodity. However, due to ongoing regulatory uncertainties, some utilities are decreasing their R&D investments [74]. The usage frequency of the terms “globalization” and “liberalization” remains consistent across both periods, which may stem from the literature’s dominant mesolevel perspective.

4.1.2. Evolution of Clean-Green Energy Transition, Climate Change, and Related Policies at the Macrolevel

Historically, energy policies leaned towards ensuring stable, affordable energy, often from carbon-heavy sources to fuel growing economies and maintain energy security, with clean, green energy being a secondary concern or seen as a luxury [75]. Today, policies prioritize clean and renewable energy, aiming for a sustainable, low-carbon future. This shift highlights a gradual departure from previous government passivity in energy policies, as some scholars now stress the government’s pivotal role in this change [76,77]. While the term “energy transition” does not appear at all in the past generation, in contemporary discussions it rises to prominence because of increasing climate sustainability concerns. This evolution is evident in the increasing prevalence of terms such as “climate change”, “clean energy”, and “green energy” in relevant research themes. The term “energy policies” continues to dominate the literature, as demonstrated by the prominence of the renowned journal “Energy Policy” in the field. Nevertheless, scholars have traditionally approached this topic from a mesolevel and sectoral perspective. Only recently have they begun to explore broader and more holistic issues, such as energy transition and climate change, signaling a shift in research focus.

4.1.3. Rise of Renewable Energy Communities at the Mesolevel

The current generation of literature is more directly concerned with localized energy communities, whereas earlier works primarily focus on the traditional energy efficiency of production and distribution at the national level. Larger energy utilities, component manufacturers, and other organizations with the expertise to coordinate extensive data flows are now aiming to establish both real and virtual energy communities, or to aggregate smaller communities on a larger scale [8]. Energy communities enhance renewable energy capacity, mobilize private capital, and empower consumers [9]. The growing focus on renewable energy communities and trans-spatial networks is reflected in the declining frequency of terms such as “oil” and “gas” related to simple production, while the use of “renewable” has risen significantly. Additionally, the reduced mention of “energy efficiency” indicates a shift away from traditional discussions on efficiency, highlighting a growing interest in fostering resilient and sustainable energy communities, local institutions, and regional energy subsystems.

4.1.4. The Gradual Emergence of the Energy Ecosystems Concept at the Mesolevel

This perspective provides new insights and helps us understand the role that supporting organizations have in the emergence and growth of energy communities. It aids in analyzing the roles that ecosystem actors play by looking at the kinds of support they offer [33]. Previous research in this field often lacked an ecosystem-oriented perspective, failing to explicitly incorporate concepts relevant to “biological” or “symbiotic” evolution. It was linear and did not fully acknowledge the interconnectedness among different actors and organizations crucial for sustaining the entire energy system. The term “ecosystem” only emerges in the second generation of literature, as previously noted.

4.1.5. The Era of Smart Grids, Digital-Distributed Energy and Prosuming at the Mesolevel

In the current era, scholars examine the smart grid as an advanced electricity network infrastructure featuring a two-way flow of information and often, a two-way flow of electricity. It does not stem from a single company; instead, it is a complex system of interconnected products and niche technologies, including storage and peer-to-peer trading platforms [78]. This distributed energy system primarily uses renewable sources and relies on small-scale energy generation technologies [53]. At the same time, global communities of prosumers are emerging. These prosumers not only produce electricity or heat for their own use but also contribute surplus power to the electric grid or share excess heat through district heating networks [79]. This emerging trend is underscored by the exclusive use of terms such as “distributed energy”, “prosumer”, “smart grid”, and “digital” in the present era, as opposed to the past. Unlike previous research, which focused primarily on the unidirectional energy flow from centralized power stations to consumers, the current generation emphasizes dynamic interactions with prosumers.

4.1.6. Navigating the Evolution of Strategy, Technology, and Management in Energy Organizations at the Microlevel

When analyzing organizational strategy, technology, and management in energy organizations, only a few approaches emerge as particularly noteworthy. Regarding the strategy for energy organizations, some researchers argue that success is more likely when setting diverse strategic goals based on forms of organizational ambidexterity. This refers to the balance between exploration and exploitation skills within organizations [80]. Others advocate for renewable energy organizations to shift strategies from transactional stakeholder approaches (win–win) to relational ones. These relational strategies aim to foster stronger stakeholder relationships and understanding, often demanding flexibility and compromise in their implementation [81].

Regarding the valorization of technology in energy organizations, some scholars recommend a proactive approach to knowledge, tapping into technical guidelines, standardized products, technology reputation, and support programs. In these programs, it becomes essential to create relevant knowledge resources [82]. As for general management in energy organizations, some researchers analyze large-scale utilities and advise segmenting them into distinct operational activities and businesses [83]. Others underscore broader guidelines, such as addressing the looming environmental, economic, and human crises. From these crises, a new business management model, sustainable development, emerges, linking economic, environmental, and human domains [84].

Though guidelines exist in the literature for strategy, technology, and management of energy organizations, specific findings for microfirms or SMEs in these areas are scarce. Most scholars primarily focus on aspects of larger utilities and seldom explore strategy, technology, and management in a holistic manner. For example, management in an energy organization, particularly an SME, should integrate operational activities instead of segmenting them, which contrasts with the prevailing literature. The limited mention of terms such as “organizational strategy”, “knowledge development”, and “business management” in more recent literature is also a point of interest, whilst earlier literature does not address these terms at all. Furthermore, terms like “organizational technology” and “organizational management” are absent in all relevant studies. Consequently, it seems challenging to derive concrete recommendations for enhancing these areas in energy organizations based on the examined literature.

4.1.7. Business Model Innovations Within Energy Organizations at the Microlevel

Innovation in energy organizations is often explored from a business model perspective [85,86,87,88,89,90]. In the present era, scholars identify energy innovations that support decarbonization, digitalization, and decentralization of the energy system [91]. Among the many approaches to business model generation and reinforcement, certain methods stand out. Green business models emphasize the flexibility to build upon innovation and sustainability foundations, essential for thriving in the dynamic environments that new market mechanisms introduce [92]. Moreover, the vital role of entrepreneurship in shaping and growing a circular business is recognized, as entrepreneurs proactively pursue innovative solutions to environmental challenges while maintaining profitability [93]. Some propose a customer-centric business model for future energy suppliers, where they act both as an energy supply contractor (via third-party ownership) and as an aggregator of energy assets for their clients [94].

Most approaches on energy innovations in the current literature tend to offer general guidelines and focuses on broad business model typologies. Such sources seldom delve into strategic, technological, and managerial microlevel issues, occasionally attempting to propose a more integrated approach, as discussed in the previous section. In essence, this business model literature explicitly endorses a microlevel viewpoint, even though it implicitly views its examined issues from a mesolevel perspective. Regarding the frequency of pertinent terms, it is notable that many relevant terms do not emerge in the first generation of related research. However, terms like “circular”, “entrepreneurial”, “energy innovation”, and “business model” become prominent in the second generation, with “business model” seeing the most significant surge relative to all other terms examined.

4.1.8. Advancements in CSR and RASI Dimensions in Energy Organizations at the Microlevel

The energy sector is under intense pressure from both public and private actors to undergo radical transformation. Simultaneously, like in other industries, energy companies must address CSR demands, especially since they rank among the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. This positions them as pivotal contributors to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda [95,96]. As profit-driven entities—constituting the majority globally—energy companies need to harness resources and produce energy while demonstrating a profound commitment to society and emphasizing CSR, which influences corporate financial performance [72].

Concerning RASI principles (resilience–adaptability–sustainability–inclusiveness) in energy organizations, some researchers offer relevant definitions. The synthesis of these definitions is as follows:

• Resilience describes the capability to bounce back and sustain operations in the face of unexpected disruptions, ensuring a stable energy supply [97].
• Adaptability highlights an energy organization’s ability to evolve and adapt to shifts in energy-related technology and regulations, ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness amid environmental strains [98].
• Sustainability commits to eco-friendly practices, resource optimization, and minimizing negative impacts on both the environment and socioeconomic systems. This ensures organizational longevity while reducing ecological and social footprints [99].
• Inclusiveness emphasizes efforts to guarantee equal energy access and opportunities within the socioeconomic system, addressing energy poverty and promoting diverse stakeholder involvement [100].

Regarding the CSR concept, a rising interest in its nuances exists, with significant research coming primarily from the journal “Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management”, which takes primarily a mesolevel approach to the energy sector. Similarly to other microlevel aspects discussed in the preceding sections, discussions on the various RASI dimensions do not explicitly explore these areas since they seem to be in their early stages. In the reviewed literature, terms such as “resilience”, “adaptability”, “CSR”, and “sustainability” are largely absent in the first generation of research but gain prominence in the second generation. Among these aspects, CSR and sustainability concepts dominate, while adaptability and inclusiveness receive less focus. This pattern might exist because CSR and sustainability are now more mainstream, but all dimensions are equally critical in tandem.

4.1.9. Synthesis: Shifting Perspectives in Energy Entrepreneurship

The literature review reveals the emergence of distinct and autonomous energy entrepreneurship research in the 1990s—since 1995 in the examined sample. Dividing the 238 studies across two generational periods reveals a notable increase in focus on this sub-theme starting in 2010. The second generation of research demonstrates significant differences from the first in several key areas:

Macrolevel:

(a)

Early literature portrayed globalization as a homogenizing force and celebrated the liberalization of the electricity sector. In contrast, recent research identifies global industry consolidation under a few oligopolistic major players, alongside dynamic local, national, and international disparities. The perspective has shifted from viewing energy solely as a public service to recognizing it as a commodity with incremental innovative potential.

(b)

Policy discussions have moved away from reliance on carbon-intensive energy sources, emphasizing clean, renewable alternatives, unified distribution channels, and advanced storage technologies. This shift underscores the increasingly active role of governments in mitigating climate change.

Mesolevel:

(c)

The second generation highlights a growing interest in renewable energy communities. Larger energy entities are working to establish or consolidate these communities, moving away from traditional energy efficiency models and emphasizing the development of resilient, pluralistic, and sustainable local energy systems.

(d)

An ecosystem-oriented perspective has emerged, offering a more interconnected understanding of the roles various actors play in the energy sector. This holistic and evolutionary approach replaces earlier linear perspectives.

Microlevel:

(e)

Recent research emphasizes the bidirectional flow of electricity and information in smart grids, emphasizing the critical role of prosumers in these digitally advanced networks.

(f)

The focus has shifted from broad, generic strategies to more nuanced examinations of organizational ambidexterity, stakeholder relationships, and knowledge resources, primarily within larger utilities. However, strategies for microfirms and SMEs remain underexplored.

(g)

Modern energy organizations explore innovative business models that support decarbonization, digitalization, and decentralization. Innovative entrepreneurship plays a critical role in developing ecologically friendly and socioeconomically sustainable solutions.

(h)

CSR has become a focal point due to the energy sector’s environmental impact. The emerging RASI principles—resilience, adaptability, sustainability, and inclusiveness—are gaining prominence, emphasizing their integration within energy organizations and the local systems that support them.

In conclusion, contemporary energy entrepreneurship research has evolved significantly from earlier studies, reflecting shifts in perceptions, priorities, and approaches. The focus has transitioned to cleaner energy sources, a more interconnected view of the energy ecosystem, and increased emphasis on innovation, sustainability, and social responsibility. These changes align with broader global trends and challenges, particularly regarding climate change and sustainable development. Notably, these shifts are especially relevant for less-developed countries and regions, which face unique challenges in achieving energy equity and sustainability.

4.2. The Energy Innovation Scorecard (EN.I.SCORE) Framework

Many existing approaches to entrepreneurship within the energy sector tend to focus predominantly on just one of the three dimensions: macro, meso, or micro. This often results in an incomplete understanding, as the dialectic interplay of these macro–meso–micro dimensions is overlooked [36,37]. Such a limited perspective potentially hampers the development of comprehensive guidelines that address the evolutionary variations of entrepreneurship in the energy sector, as its implications—both internal and external—span all analytical levels. To address this need, we introduce the “Energy Innovation Scorecard” framework, henceforth referred to as “EN.I.SCORE”.

The integration of macrolevel, mesolevel, and microlevel perceptions in the proposed questions underscores the interconnected nature of energy innovation within a firm, as outlined in the previous section. At the macrolevel, the questions examine broad systemic dynamics, such as the influence of globalization and national policies on energy innovation, highlighting how external forces shape strategic priorities. At the mesolevel, the focus shifts to the organization’s role within energy ecosystems, investigating collaborations, partnerships, and the development of renewable energy communities that drive localized and sectoral energy transitions. At the microlevel, the questionnaire delves into internal organizational processes, including strategies for leveraging technology, fostering innovative business models, and addressing CSR and RASI dimensions. This tripartite approach ensures a comprehensive evaluation of energy innovation, synthesizing macro–meso–micro perspectives to capture how global trends, industry-level networks, and internal capabilities converge to shape a firm’s innovation potential and strategic decision-making.

The questionnaire employs a Likert-based scale to measure perceptions across two timeframes—present and past—allowing for the identification of trends in organizational satisfaction [101]. An open-ended section complements the quantitative data by capturing qualitative justifications, enabling respondents to explain their scores and offer deeper insights. This design positions the questionnaire as a self-assessment tool akin to strategic audit methodologies [102,103,104,105] and promotes firm-wide introspection and action-oriented research [106]. By involving all senior management members, the process ensures a comprehensive evaluation of organizational dynamics. Aggregated responses, recommended to be collected on an annual basis, serve as a foundation for discussions focused on areas of divergence and significant interest, fostering opportunities for collaborative problem-solving and innovation. This iterative approach seamlessly integrates the precision of quantitative analysis with the depth of qualitative exploration, establishing it as a powerful tool for continuous organizational improvement and alignment with the evolving challenges of the energy sector.

Additionally, we recommend integrating the questionnaire with the Stra.Tech.Man.SC framework [55] previously introduced in this paper, thereby serving as a foundation for a comprehensive scorecard methodology. Drawing upon the eight key findings outlined earlier—presented as points “a” through “h” and discussed in Section 4.1.1, Section 4.1.2, Section 4.1.3, Section 4.1.4, Section 4.1.5, Section 4.1.6, Section 4.1.7 and Section 4.1.8, respectively—we propose the following series of self-assessment questions:

Macrolevel:

(a)

How does your organization interpret the implications of globalization within the energy sector, especially in the context of the ongoing consolidation under major industry players and the shift in viewing energy as a commodity?

(b)

What initiatives is your organization undertaking to transition from carbon-reliant sources towards sustainable energy, and how are these aligned with governmental policies on climate change mitigation?

Mesolevel:

(c)

In what manner does your organization collaborate with and foster the development or consolidation of renewable energy communities?

(d)

How is your organization positioning itself within the evolving energy ecosystem, promoting partnerships and synergies with various industry stakeholders?

Microlevel:

(e)

What strategies does your organization employ to capitalize on the bidirectional flow of electricity and data within smart grids, and how are you integrating and supporting prosumers?

(f)

How does your organization navigate the balance between exploration and exploitation in its strategy, leverage knowledge resources in terms of organizational technology, and integrate its operations for efficient management amid a broad spectrum of stakeholders in the energy landscape?

(g)

In which ways does your organization transcend the boundaries with innovative business models that accentuate decarbonization, digital transformation, and decentralization?

(h)

How does your organization emphasize CSR and integrate the principles of resilience, adaptability, sustainability, and inclusiveness into its operations?

By building on the foundation established by the Stra.Tech.Man.SC, the EN.I.SCORE could serve as both a complement and an extension. This fusion could culminate in the creation of a “Stra.Tech.Man.SC.EN.I.SCORE” framework. This extended framework could not only encapsulate the core elements of the original but also act as a guiding tool for energy organizations of all sizes. Its primary objective would be to identify vulnerabilities among energy entrepreneurs and recommend corrective actions through evidence-based, methodical self-evaluation. This approach emphasizes systematic, longitudinal internal assessment and performance tracking, grounded in the interpretations and evaluations of the organization’s own leadership.

4.3. Empirical Analysis: Evaluating Energy Entrepreneurship in the ReMTh

4.3.1. Survey Results

Between April and June 2024, 89 valid responses were collected. Each respondent took approximately 15–20 min to complete the questionnaire. This relatively extended duration hints at the respondents’ willingness to reflect on their practices, possibly also because they were familiar with (and interested in) the region’s major public university in which the survey was conducted. The sample demographics (

Table 1. Survey identity (frequencies).

Years of Operation
<3	25.8%
3–5	12.4%
5–10	15.7%
10–20	27%
>20	19.1%
Headquarters (regional unit–city)
Drama	19.1%
Evros	30.3%
Thassos	1.1%
Kavala	16.9%
Xanthi	22.5%
Rodopi	10.1%
Number of permanent employees
0	21.3%
1–5	64%
6–10	9%
11–50	2.2%
51–250	3.4%
>250	0%
Activity in the energy sector
Energy distributor	5.6%
Energy distributor and user	1.1%
Energy producer	30.3%
Energy producer and supplier	5.6%
Energy producer and user	7.9%
Energy supplier	11.2%
Energy supplier and energy user	2.2%
Energy supplier, distributor, and user	3.4%
Energy user	32.6%
Annual revenue
<EUR 10,000	6.7%
EUR 10,000–50,000	24.7%
EUR 50,000–250,000	25.8%
EUR 250,000–1,000,000	16.9%
EUR 1,000,000–10,000,000	5.6%
>EUR 10,000,000	0%
I do not wish to report	20.2%

) indicate that 25.8% of firms are less than three years old, 27% have been in operation for 10 to 20 years, and 19.1% have been operating for more than 20 years. In terms of location, 30.3% of the firms are based in Evros, 22.5% in Xanthi, 19.1% in Drama, 16.9% in Kavala, 10.1% in Rodopi, and 1.1% in Thasos. Regarding employment, 64% of the firms have between one and five employees, while 21.3% are operated on by a single individual, and only 5.6% have more than ten employees. The largest revenue group (25.8%) reports annual earnings between EUR 50,000 and EUR 250,000, although just 5.6% exceed EUR 1 million, and 20.2% chose not to disclose their revenues. Overall, most surveyed firms are microfirms facing structural competitiveness hurdles. Their energy-related activities vary across production, supply of raw materials, distribution, and usage, with many focusing on small-scale production, often of photovoltaic energy, or on energy usage.

Regarding the Likert-scale items (EN1–EN15), the survey results indicated that items related to external forces, such as oligopolistic consolidation (EN2) and government policies (EN15), received comparatively low scores (

Table 2. Percentage frequencies of Likert scales in the survey.

	EN1	EN2	EN3	EN4	EN5	EN6	EN7	EN8	EN9	EN10	EN11	EN12	EN13	EN14	EN15	AVR
Too little (1)	15.7	16.9	10.1	6.7	16.9	20.2	13.5	20.2	14.6	10.1	10.1	6.7	9.0	13.5	13.5	13.2
A little (2)	11.2	36	9.0	12.4	10.1	18	5.6	9.0	5.6	7.9	3.4	6.7	7.9	7.9	49.4	13.3
Moderate (3)	24.7	24.7	25.8	34.8	37.1	38.2	32.6	32.6	32.6	21.3	24.7	28.1	32.6	28.1	18	29.1
A lot (4)	29.2	18	32.6	33.7	23.6	19.1	33.7	29.2	30.3	42.7	39.3	36	31.5	39.3	15.7	30.2
Very much (5)	19.1	4.5	22.5	12.4	12.4	4.5	14.6	9	16.9	18.0	22.5	22.5	19.1	11.2	3.4	14.2

). This reflects a general dissatisfaction among respondents with factors perceived as beyond their control. In contrast, items capturing internal capabilities, such as resilience (EN10), adaptability (EN11), sustainability (EN12), and financial performance (EN14), tended to receive moderate or high satisfaction ratings. However, some paradoxical findings emerged; for instance, although many respondents claimed high adaptability, the correlation between “crisis adaptation” (EN1) and policy (EN15) was notably weak (0.20), suggesting that entrepreneurs do not clearly associate their crisis responses with broader policy changes.

Correlation analyses (Figure 4) revealed significant positive relationships among resilience, adaptability, and sustainability, indicating that where entrepreneurs view one of these dimensions as strong, they tend to rate the others highly. Conversely, variables like crisis adaptation (EN1) and policy support (EN15) remain relatively uncorrelated, implying a limited sense of synergy between governmental frameworks and firm-level transformations. Overall, the data suggest that while microentrepreneurs view themselves as resilient, they are critical of what they regard as structurally unfair market conditions and inadequate policy support.

4.3.2. In-Depth Interviews

In addition to the survey, eight microfirm owners with zero to five employees volunteered for detailed semi-structured interviews. Their feedback was both quantified through Likert-type items and qualitatively analyzed for recurring themes. Descriptive statistics were computed across six categories—strategy (ST), technology (TC), management (MN), strategy–technology–management-based innovation (IN), energy-related innovation (EN), and financial performance (FN)—revealing several notable outlier values (

Table 3. Some variables that show outliers in the descriptive statistics of in-depth interviews.

	ST1	ST2	ST6	ST7	ST8	TC1	TC2	TC3	TC8	MN5	MN8	IN6	IN7	EN2	EN3	EN10	FN6
Mean	4.00	3.88	4.38	3.75	3.50	4.50	4.38	4.13	4.38	2.88	3.38	2.88	3.63	2.63	3.75	4.50	3.50
Std. Error of Mean	0.33	0.35	0.32	0.37	0.27	0.27	0.26	0.30	0.26	0.13	0.26	0.30	0.26	0.63	0.56	0.27	0.27
Median	4.00	3.50	5.00	3.00	3.00	5.00	4.50	4.00	4.50	3.00	3.00	3.00	3.50	2.00	4.50	5.00	3.00
Mode	3.00	3.00	5.00	3.00	3.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	5.00	3.00	3.00	3.00	3.00	1.00	5.00	5.00	3.00
Std. Deviation	0.93	0.99	0.92	1.04	0.76	0.76	0.74	0.83	0.74	0.35	0.74	0.83	0.74	1.77	1.58	0.76	0.76
Variance	0.86	0.98	0.84	1.07	0.57	0.57	0.55	0.70	0.55	0.13	0.55	0.70	0.55	3.13	2.50	0.57	0.57
Coefficient of Variation (%)	0.23	0.20	0.39	0.22	0.21	0.32	0.17	0.22	0.15	0.15	0.22	0.12	0.31	0.22	0.22	0.22	0.15
Skewness	0.00	0.31	−1.00	0.64	1.32	−1.32	−0.82	−0.28	−0.82	−2.83	1.95	−1.69	0.82	0.55	−0.90	−1.32	1.32
Std. Error of Skewness	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75
Normality of Skewness	0.00	0.41	−1.33	0.86	1.76	−1.76	−1.10	−0.37	−1.10	−3.76	2.59	−2.25	1.10	0.73	−1.20	−1.76	1.76
Kurtosis	−2.10	−2.36	−1.04	−2.24	0.87	0.88	−0.15	−1.39	−0.15	8.00	3.20	4.97	−0.15	−1.80	−0.69	0.87	0.88
Std. Error of Kurtosis	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48	1.48
Normality of Kurtosis	−1.42	−1.59	−0.70	−1.51	0.59	0.59	−0.10	−0.94	−0.10	5.40	2.16	3.36	−0.10	−1.21	−0.47	0.59	0.59
Sum	32	31	35	30	28	36	35	33	35	23	27	23	29	21	30	36	28

).

Regarding some key observations, high ratings often surfaced in technology (TC1–TC3, TC8) and financial (FN6) questions. Interviewees cited routine machinery upgrades and stable (though modest) profit margins. They perceived continuous monitoring of technology as crucial but seldom embraced formal R&D processes. Lower ratings arose in management (especially MN5 on leadership) and innovation (IN6 on innovation flexibility). Here, entrepreneurs openly admitted a lack of modern leadership skills, organizational processes, or a “culture of continuous innovation.”

Figure 5 shows that the most frequently mentioned word in the interviews was “improvement”, indicating that many believe conditions are gradually improving. However, the contradictory phrase “has not changed” was often used to describe internal managerial systems—suggesting that small-scale operations may experience incremental gains without undergoing fundamental restructuring. The interviews further revealed that most owners lacked formal training in strategic planning. Many had launched photovoltaic-based ventures primarily in response to government subsidies rather than through proactive opportunity-seeking. As these subsidies waned, the owners found it difficult to pivot toward new business models, such as storage or aggregator roles.

In terms of a thick description analysis and comparing with broader evidence, patterns echo previous findings on “monad-centered” business physiology in Greece [54,55,56]. Microfirms typically emphasize daily survival over strategic repositioning. This approach, while understandable in a region with subdued demand, undermines deeper market differentiation or advanced integrative practices.

Overall, the combined survey and interview data confirm that many ReMTh energy microfirms exhibit limited capacity to dynamically integrate the strategic–technological–managerial nexus—a critical factor stifling innovation and financial growth. They seldom leverage the potential of distributed energy, smart grids, or meaningful collaborations within energy ecosystems. Yet they do see themselves as adaptable and financially stable, suggesting a paradox: they recognize certain threats (oligopolistic consolidation, limited policy support) but hesitate to pursue advanced (and riskier) innovation pathways.

5. Discussion

Our findings indicate a significant shift in energy entrepreneurship research over the past two decades. Notably, recent years have seen increased interest, driven by the gradual emergence of a new era of globalization that mirrors broader transformations in both the global economy and the energy sector [107,108,109]. While the patterns identified indicate increasing emphasis on sustainability and innovation, further studies are needed to confirm whether these trends are consistent across all regional and sectoral contexts. Before 2010, most literature addressed liberalization, large-scale efficiency, and static energy markets. Conversely, since 2010, attention turns to macrolevel imperatives (e.g., sustainability, climate policies), mesolevel ecosystems (renewable energy communities, prosumers), and microlevel entrepreneurship (innovation-based business models, CSR, RASI principles). This shift corresponds with broader dynamics in the global energy transition and with calls for strategic reorientation amid pressing sustainability challenges [1,8,10].

However, our review also highlights gaps concerning microlevel organizational integration of strategy, technology, and management—areas that appear underexplored or addressed only in fragmented business model frameworks [85,88]. The proposed EN.I.SCORE framework (Section 4.2) responds to this gap by offering an integrated approach that situates energy entrepreneurship within a macro–meso–micro dialectic, underscoring how entrepreneurs can better navigate the interplay of global energy markets, local networks, and internal processes.

Compared to seminal insights from Wüstenhagen and Wuebker [10], our approach expands their broad agenda into an explicit and integrated macro–meso–micro framework. Rather than simply mapping energy entrepreneurship themes, our analysis identifies specific correlations—such as the paradox of perceived adaptability coexisting with limited real innovation—and suggests that systematic introspection via the EN.I.SCORE questionnaire can help entrepreneurs diagnose and address strategic, technological, and managerial weaknesses.

In conclusion, the findings confirm that most microfirms in the ReMTh region demonstrate “monad-centered” organizational physiologies, typified by intuitive strategic approaches, sporadic technology adoption, and empirically based management. These observations strongly support our central hypothesis: namely, when microfirms lack systematic strategy–technology–management integration, they tend to underperform in innovation and financial outcomes, thereby reinforcing the structural weaknesses often seen in less-competitive regions. In this sense, the hypothesis is validated in the specific context examined.

Comparing these results with the broader literature [1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10] suggests that improving local energy entrepreneurship hinges on targeted, integrative interventions that align with macro (policy), meso (ecosystem), and micro (organizational) levels. On the one hand, policymakers could foster resource accessibility and reduce market-entry barriers for microfirms, promoting collaborative networks and capacity-building. On the other, microfirm owners themselves might adopt systematic self-assessment tools—such as the proposed EN.I.SCORE—to regularly audit their strategic, technological, and managerial orientations and to catalyze incremental improvements.

In sum, by examining smaller energy entrepreneurs under real constraints, this study demonstrates how insufficient Stra.Tech.Man integration can perpetuate underdevelopment. Conversely, structured capacity building and ecosystemic coordination can enable even small-scale firms to transition toward cleaner, smarter, and more resilient energy models. Strengthening these dimensions appears vital for moving beyond a necessity-based mode of survival and fulfilling the sustainability imperatives of the emerging new globalization era.

6. Conclusions

In addressing the evolution of the thematic focus in contemporary research on energy entrepreneurship, we observe a pronounced shift toward sustainability, energy transition, CSR, and innovative business models after 2010, moving away from earlier emphases on deregulation and unidirectional efficiency. When considering how energy entrepreneurs can navigate the evolving socioeconomic environment, it becomes evident that integrated macro–meso–micro strategies—incorporating climate policies, local energy communities, and consistent internal Stra.Tech.Man interplay—can enable a transition to green, digital, and decentralized models. Finally, regarding the innovation practices of selected energy entrepreneurs, the microfirms in the ReMTh display limited strategic planning, sporadic technological adoption, and rudimentary management processes, indicating that targeted frameworks such as the “Stra.Tech.Man.SC.EN.I.SCORE” can facilitate ongoing self-assessment, guide capacity building, and foster more robust business ecosystems supportive of energy transitions.

These results reveal specific organizational deficiencies in real-world entrepreneurial contexts and illustrate how local, smaller-scale energy actors can innovate under constraints. Policymakers, practitioners, and scholars can use the new scorecard approach to better diagnose gaps in strategy–technology–management integration, thus informing targeted policy measures and capacity-building programs.

While this study enriches our understanding of energy entrepreneurship, several avenues for further exploration remain. First, future research could expand the literature search beyond WoS by incorporating additional databases and literature sets to ensure a more comprehensive review of global research trends. Second, empirical studies could be conducted in diverse geographical and economic contexts to examine the generalizability of the findings primarily in less-developed regional ecosystems and beyond. Third, a longitudinal approach could be employed to analyze how energy entrepreneurs adapt over time in response to shifting policy and market dynamics. Additionally, future research could refine and empirically validate the EN.I.SCORE framework by testing it in other samples and cross-sectoral comparisons. This could help assess its effectiveness as a diagnostic and strategic tool for firms of various sizes and developmental scopes. Finally, more studies could explore the role of emerging digital technologies, such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, and smart grids, in reshaping energy entrepreneurship models, particularly within decentralized and prosumer-driven energy systems.

This challenge highlights the potential value of a policy approach that enhances these activities. Recent research [110] suggests that energy policy must shift from its traditional focus on energy security and market liberalization toward a holistic, integrated strategy addressing sustainability and adaptability at multiple systemically interconnected levels—macrolevel (macrosocial policy and regulation), mesolevel (regional ecosystems and communities), and microlevel (firm-level strategies and technological innovation). Such a framework should prioritize support for smaller firms and underrepresented regions, particularly in less-developed areas, by promoting decentralized renewable energy projects, fostering collaboration among local stakeholders, and reducing bureaucratic barriers. As a result, it moves away from fragmented analyses toward a unified policy that adapts to our evolving socioeconomic and technological landscape, ultimately reinforcing energy strategies that are resilient, inclusive, and capable of addressing contemporary environmental challenges while encouraging active consumer participation in energy production and management.

Nonetheless, the findings suggest a pivotal insight: the strategic alignment of macrolevel, mesolevel, and microlevel forces could help shift energy entrepreneurship toward more resilient, sustainable, and inclusive outcomes. By adopting a comprehensive approach, energy entrepreneurs—even in less-developed regions—might progress from “necessity-based” survival modes to genuinely innovative roles in the global energy transition.