Macro–Meso–Micro: An Integrative Framework for Evolutionary Economics and Sustainable Transitions

Abstract

This integrative review examines the persistent analytical divide in economics by advancing the macro–meso–micro framework as a comprehensive approach for understanding complex socioeconomic ecosystems and sustainability transitions. Drawing on empirical evidence from European energy systems, particularly Greece and the Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, we demonstrate that conventional economic analysis has systematically overlooked the crucial meso-level where evolutionary processes are most visible and transformative. This conceptual “myopia” has led to fragmented policy interventions that work at cross-purposes across different analytical levels. By reconceptualizing economic systems as evolving rule populations operating simultaneously at three distinct but interconnected levels, this view offers diagnostic potential for effective adaptation to sustainability transitions. The framework’s greatest contribution lies in its theoretical thoroughness and, most importantly, in its practical capacity to generate more coherent interventions that harness evolutionary dynamics.

1. Introduction: Evolution of Economic Thought and the Emergence of Multi-Level Analysis

The persistent bifurcation between microeconomics and macroeconomics represents more than an academic convenience—it has become a conceptual “straitjacket” limiting our ability to understand and guide complex socioeconomic ecosystems and their transitions. While this macro and micro dichotomy has generated critical knowledge into individual choice and aggregate performance, it has systematically obscured the patterned structures that mediate between these levels and actors, creating blind spots precisely where evolutionary processes are most active and visible.

This view argues that these obstructions have become particularly problematic in the context of sustainability challenges, where interventions must address multiple levels and actors’ dimensions simultaneously. The macro–meso–micro framework leads to a powerful reconceptualization of economic systems as evolving rule populations that operate across three distinct but interconnected levels. Rather than treating the economy as an aggregation of individual choices or a collection of macro-level regularities, this framework illuminates the critical meso-level where rules diffuse through actors’ dimensions and create patterned structures that give economies their distinctive character.

2. Historical Foundations of Evolutionary Economics

“The Mecca of the economist lies in economic biology rather than in economic dynamics.”

—Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics [1]

Evolutionary economics conceptualizes the economy as a continuously changing entity driven primarily by innovation, addressing questions about the origins and future trajectory of economic progress. Early thinkers like Mandeville, Hume, Smith, Malthus, Mill, and Marx focused on the evolution of human civilization and institutions. This stream of scholars formed the intellectual foundations of classical political economy although without explicitly referencing evolutionary concepts [2].

The explicit incorporation of evolutionary approaches gained prominence in the late 19th to mid-20th centuries, primarily through Veblen and Schumpeter [3,4]. Veblen proposed evolutionary economics as a theory of cumulative institutional sequences, developing biological analogies for institutional evolution. The “institutional school” that emerged from his work later shifted toward “cultural determinism” [5].

Schumpeter revitalized evolutionary economics by combining Marx’s dialectic with the German Historical School’s emphasis on historical specificity [6]. He perceived capitalism as a catalyst for the rationalization of human behavior and equated economic evolution with innovation-driven changes that disrupt equilibria [7]. His concept of “creative destruction” described how obsolete production methods and social structures are replaced by newer ones, though he hesitated to directly reference Darwinian biological mechanisms [8].

Complexity economics adapts a physics perspective, viewing the economy as an organic, but complex adaptive system with differing decision-making agents and emergent properties [9]. Contemporary evolutionary economics owes much to Nelson and Winter, who introduced concepts like “routines” and evolving organizational capabilities as alternatives to profit-maximization models [10]. Their approach borrowed from biology, emphasizing the evolutionary nature of economic processes and providing a foundation for later theoretical developments—for instance, Industry 5.0 sustainability has become one of the determinants of the preferred evolutionary direction [11].

3. The Macro–Meso–Micro Framework

“The distinction between microeconomics and macroeconomics will blur and disappear. This distinction, which, to remind, was the legacy of Keynes, gave responsibility for overall economic performance to the state and the central bank, leaving the traditional role of the classical market to the individual sectors of the economy. Inflation and unemployment were for macroeconomic attention; if they were thereby controlled, the microeconomic performance of the market could be left in firm descent from classical orthodoxy. The compartmentalization of economics between microeconomics and macroeconomics hides the most stubborn cause of present-day unemployment in the mature industrial countries: the decline of the older industries. And it also hides the relevant solutions.”

—John Kenneth Galbraith, Economics in Perspective [12]

The macro–meso–micro framework consolidates methodological foundations in evolutionary economics by challenging the traditional separation between macroeconomics and microeconomics. This dialectical synthesis integrates various theoretical traditions based on evolutionary and institutional economic theories [13].

Galbraith’s neo-institutional approach emphasized the weaknesses of this separation, particularly regarding certain socioeconomic dimensions in mature industrial countries [12]. Similarly, the Italian school of mesoeconomics incorporated Marshall’s industrial districts concept to bridge microeconomics and macroeconomics. Becattini’s work highlighted the socioeconomic dynamics of local industries. Also, the French regulation school analyzed how industrial structures and institutions evolve within economies through periods of crises and transitions [14,15,16].

A significant advancement in theorizing the meso-level came from Dopfer, Foster, and Potts, who redefined it as a key element of economic systems, emphasizing a structured approach to evolutionary economics that addresses the complex, evolving nature of economies [17]. The framework positions “rules-in-population” as fundamental units operating across three levels:

• Micro-level: Individual agents (firms and entrepreneurs) carry and adapt rules.
• Meso-level: Rule populations evolve through origination, adoption, and retention phases.
• Macro-level: Multiple rule populations interact to form complex system patterns.

This three-tiered approach allows economists to simultaneously analyze how novel rules emerge through entrepreneurial action, how they diffuse through industries and regions, and how they collectively reshape economic environments—all while maintaining theoretical coherence. The meso-trajectory—the core mechanism of economic evolution—consists of three phases [17]:

• Origination (Meso 1): An imaginative agent invents or adopts first a novel rule.
• Adoption and adaptation (Meso 2): Wide diffusion, local tweaking, rivalry, and learning occur.
• Retention (Meso 3): The rule becomes normalized, maintained, and replicated.

Moreover, the actors’ dimensions (government, academia, industry, society, and natural environment), derived from the reframed quintuple innovation helix of the ecosystem [18], represent another critical approach for advancing the debate on capturing this co-evolutionary complexity. In this context, the distinction between agents and actors is subtle but relevant. Agents are rooted in methodological individualism and are defined by roles in models, not so much by the social context. Meanwhile, actors are socially situated contextual individuals or collectives [18]. The relation between the “rules-in-population” and the actors’ dimension lies in how rules and actors co-evolve across levels of organizational and systemic complexity.

The power of this framework lies in its ability to overcome the traditional micro–macro divide by introducing meso as the analytical fulcrum where evolutionary processes most visibly operate. This creates a more dynamic understanding of economic change while providing clearer intervention points for policy design.

4. Methodological Approach: The Integrative Review

This paper employs an integrative review methodology specifically designed to synthesize diverse theoretical views and empirical findings across traditionally disconnected literature streams. Unlike systematic reviews that answer specific questions using predefined protocols, this approach deliberately crosses disciplinary boundaries to identify conceptual connections that remain obscured within siloed research traditions [19,20].

The review grounds theoretical insights in empirical realities by incorporating findings from recently published field research on energy transitions in Greece [21]. This research synthesized secondary evidence and convergent views from expert interviews in Greece and in-depth examinations of energy companies in the less-developed Greek NUTS2 Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace (ReMTh) [21]. It also proposes an integrative perspective on the renewable energy ecosystem in the European Union (EU). The findings reveal how the macro–meso–micro framework illuminates the complex dynamics of energy transitions across multiple levels of analysis.

To enhance methodological clarity and demonstrate empirical grounding, we outline the mixed-methods design underpinning this integrative review. The framework was operationalized through extensive field research combining qualitative and quantitative. Between 2022 and 2024, we conducted 16 expert interviews with energy sector stakeholders in Greece, including senior executives from major energy companies, academic specialists from five Greek universities, and policy officials. These interviews employed snowball sampling until theoretical saturation was achieved [22].

Additionally, we surveyed 89 energy firms in the ReMTh region (8.7% response rate from 1025 firms), followed by eight in-depth semi-structured interviews with microenterprise owners. The survey employed 15 Likert-scale items measuring satisfaction across dimensions, including crisis adaptation, oligopolistic consolidation, energy transition initiatives, and innovation in the energy sector. We employed a grounded theory approach: interview transcripts and open-ended survey responses were coded into thematic categories, allowing patterns to emerge without constraints of pre-existing models [21,23].

This rigorous approach enabled us to identify and measure “rules” in practice. For instance, we observed how certain managerial routines and innovation practices (the “rules-in-population”) diffused among local firms. The mean Likert scores ranged from 2.46 for policy satisfaction to 3.61 for adaptability and sustainability, with standard deviations indicating varying degrees of consensus. Pearson correlation analysis revealed strong positive correlations between adaptability and sustainability (0.79), sustainability and resilience (0.79), and financial performance and resilience (0.68) [21,22,23].

The methodological integration of interviews, survey data, and case analysis demonstrates the framework’s practical utility. It grounds the macro–meso–micro concepts in empirical evidence while revealing novel meso-level dynamics. For example, 64% of surveyed firms employed 1–5 workers, with 30.3% engaged in energy production primarily through photovoltaic systems [21,22,23]. This micro-level characteristic directly relates to meso-level institutional voids in the region—the absence of robust innovation networks and knowledge-sharing institutions means new “rules” (like advanced managerial routines or collaborative innovation norms) spread slowly. By explicitly detailing this approach, we address the need for transparency in how evolutionary “rules” can be identified and measured in real economic systems.

5. Energy Transitions Through a Macro–Meso–Micro Lens

5.1. Macro: Geopolitics and the Re-Scaling of Energy Security

“The costs and benefits of openness are not symmetrical for all members of the system. The hegemonic state will have a preference for an open structure. Such a structure increases its aggregate national income. It also increases its rate of growth during its ascendency—that is, when its relative size and technological lead are increasing.”

—Stephen D. Krasner, State Power and the Structure of International Trade [24]

The international political economy of energy is undergoing significant transformation due to the rise of renewables and changing geopolitical architecture. This transformation reflects the complex interplay of political, economic, technological, and environmental factors shaping global energy systems.

Renewables like solar and wind energy are increasingly central to the global energy mix due to technological developments, policy initiatives, and investments aimed at reducing fossil fuel dependence and mitigating climate change. The local nature of renewables allows countries to exploit indigenous resources, enhancing energy security and reducing geopolitical risks associated with fossil fuel dependence. However, challenges persist, including renewables’ intermittent nature and the need for significant investment in energy storage infrastructure [25].

Geopolitical developments, including trade tensions and conflicts, profoundly impact global energy prices and market stability. The U.S.-China trade war has disrupted supply chains and increased production costs for renewable technologies, while the Russia-Ukraine war has triggered significant policy shifts in Europe, accelerating the adoption of renewables to reduce dependence on Russian gas [26].

The emergence of new geo-energy forces, driven by solar and wind energy proliferation, is reshaping the international energy political economy. By 2050, the energy sector is expected to undergo substantial transformations characterized by increased renewable investment and climate change mitigation progress, albeit unevenly across regions. Europe’s growing acceptance of nuclear energy, even as a transitional option, together with strategic initiatives such as the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), is advancing the green transition while simultaneously enhancing energy security [22].

Table 1. Integrative approach for macro–meso–micro framework for renewable energy innovation ecosystem in the EU. (Source: Own elaboration.)

Actors’ Dimension	Macro (Policies, Strategies, Institutions)	Meso (Networks, Programs, Infrastructures)	Micro (Actors)
Industry	EU industrial strategy Horizon Europe Cluster 5 (Climate, Energy and Mobility) Connecting Europe Facility–Energy	Digitally enhanced electricity networks (smart grids) Twin EU Consortium Joint Undertakings (JUs) in Clean Hydrogen, Circular Bio-based Europe Sectorial Alliances (SolarPower, Hydrogen, Wind, Ocean, and Bioenergy Europe) Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) Innovation Radar	Renewable energy suppliers, providers, and distributors Big energy companies in transition Cleantech start-ups Private investment vehicles in renewables
Academia	European Research Area R&D Framework (Horizon Europe, etc.) SET-Plan (Strategic Energy Technology) DG RTD (R&I) Clean Energy Technology Observatory (CETO) Researchers and students exchange programs (MSCA, Erasmus+, etc.)	EERA—European Energy Research Alliance Common European Energy Dataspace (CEEDS) Testing and Experimentation Facilities (TEFs)—AI ERICs (EU-SOLARIS, ECCSEL) Association of European Science and Technology Professionals (AESTP)	Researchers and labs in renewables Education in renewables
Government	Energy Union Strategy Green Deal Industrial Plan NEIA—New European Innovation Agenda EIC—European Innovation Council EIT—European Institute of Innovation and Technology (InnoEnergy and Climate-KIC) DG ENER REPowerEU RED II (Renewable Energy Directive) EU Sustainable Finance Action Plan EIB (European Investment Bank) European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) National Energy Agencies and Ministries ERDF—European Regional Development Fund (I3—Interregional Innovation Investments)	RRF—Recovery and Resilience Facility Connecting Europe Facility (Energy strand) Regional Innovation Valleys (RIVs) CETP—Clean Energy Transition Partnership Driving Urban Transitions (DUT) S3/S4+ platforms (Smart Specialisation Strategies, for Sustainability) Energy and Managing Authorities Network (EMA)	Local, regional, and national managing authorities Working Committees
Society	European Climate Pact Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities Mission EIE (European Innovation Ecosystem) Work Programmes	Citizen Energy Advisory Hub (CEAH) REScoop.eu (European Federation of Citizen Energy Cooperatives) Energy Cities Social innovation platforms Knowledge Valorization Platform	Active citizens and prosumers NGOs Citizen Energy Communities Social economy entities
Natural Environment	Natura 2000 protected areas Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E) Regulation (EU/2022/869)	UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Platform on Resilient Energy Systems Ecosystem feedback monitors LIFE Programme projects (environmental, climate, and energy action)	Environmental NGOs (WWF, CAN—Climate Action Network) Climate change adaptation

presents a matrix vision at the crossroads of the macro–meso–micro and actors’ dimensions framework. The macrolevel includes principal policies, strategies, and global EU governance that affect the ecosystem outcomes. Institutions codify dominant rule populations. Policies and strategies shape which rules are retained, scaled, or suppressed across sectors. The mesolevel reflects networks, programs, alliances, and projects. They facilitate the diffusion and stabilization of rule populations and/or act as incubators for rule evolution. The microlevel captures actors and projects that are researching, experimenting, or implementing renewable energy solutions. Their behavior reflects rule enactment, experimentation, and adaptation.

Any kind of ecosystem has some intersections with others. In energy renewables, this is the case of energy-intensive industry but also of mobility, transport, and automotive, as well as electronics industries [27]. This can also be seen in Table 1. Of course, European ecosystems interact within a global planetary framework with actors like UNECE but also IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) and IEA (International Energy Agency) or IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). There are likewise various multilateral global institutions providing strategic renewable energy funding, de-risking (e.g., through blended finance), and policy frameworks, such as the World Bank Group, Green Climate Fund, or private Breakthrough Energy Ventures and Climate Investment Funds, alongside standard-setting and advocacy bodies like UN PRI and FI, or the International Capital Market Association. Between 2009 and 2021, ecosystem funding in the EU through venture capital and private equity amounted to about EUR 25 billion, leaving it far behind the United States and closer to China’s expenditure levels. Nonetheless, regarding the network of investment interconnections of global regions in the energy renewables ecosystem, the research results demonstrate that the EU is the central hub for foreign investment inflows and outflows, closely followed by the US [27].

In Greece, the complex interaction of political, economic, environmental, and technological factors significantly affects the overall energy regime. Despite regulatory performance improvements and increased renewable adoption, challenges remain, including low innovation performance and modest advances in environmental technologies and public R&D [28].

The findings align with recent evidence emphasizing the mutual influence of political regulations, economic configurations, and technological developments in shaping energy markets [29]. The transition to a low-carbon future, driven by renewable investments, is a central theme in contemporary international political economy literature, reflecting broader sustainability and environmental consciousness trends in global energy policies [30].

Traditional focus on macroeconomic characteristics and state-centric approaches to energy international political economy has evolved to incorporate a broader view that includes socioeconomic, cultural, and ideological influences, emphasizing the complex interdependencies defining modern global interactions. However, a noteworthy macro-level phenomenon of the past decade is the evolving relationship between GDP growth and energy use, which provides a practical context for applying our framework. In several advanced economies, economic output has grown while energy consumption remained flat or even declined, indicating a partial decoupling of growth from energy demand. For example, countries like Sweden, the UK, and Germany have increased their GDP in recent years with little to no increase in energy use [31]. This trend is often attributed to efficiency improvements, structural shifts towards less energy-intensive industries, and proactive energy policies. However, at the global and developing-economy level, GDP and energy use largely remain coupled, as rising incomes drive higher energy demand, often met by fossil fuels. Our macro–meso–micro model helps explain these patterns. Macro-level policies (such as efficiency standards, carbon pricing, and R&D funding for renewables) set the stage for decoupling by encouraging innovation and conservation. Yet, whether decoupling occurs swiftly depends on meso- and micro-level dynamics: meso-level institutions (industry consortia, regional programs) are needed to diffuse energy-saving technologies, and micro-level actors (firms and consumers) must adopt new practices. The persistence of historically high fossil fuel use despite policy efforts underscores that macro-level intent alone is insufficient—without supportive meso-level networks and motivated micro-level behavior, energy intensity improvements stall. In other words, our framework suggests that the degree of GDP—energy decoupling is a function of multi-level alignment: when innovative “rules” (e.g., norms of energy efficiency, renewable technologies) are effectively propagated through meso networks and embraced by micro actors, economic growth can continue with less energy throughput. Conversely, if any level lags—say, weak regional institutions fail to spread new rules, or firms lack the capability to implement them—then growth will likely entail rising energy use and emissions, as remains the case in many regions [21]. This multi-level interpretation of GDP—energy trends not only illustrates the model’s applicability to empirical data, but also highlights the imperative for integrated policy: sustainable macro-level growth requires concurrent meso-level system innovation and micro-level adoption to truly decouple economic progress from energy consumption. This shift towards a more holistic understanding of the global energy system reflects the diverse factors examined in this study [32].

Current directions in international political economy should focus on promoting international cooperation and strategic coordination to address the multifaceted challenges of energy transition. Policymakers need to prioritize renewable technology investment, strengthen regulatory frameworks, and support innovation to drive the global shift towards a sustainable energy future. Addressing inequalities in renewable and energy storage investments between developed and developing regions is crucial for an inclusive and just energy transition.

The need for a new, realistic, and innovative global liberalism is particularly relevant in this context [26]. This approach should focus on long-term structural transformation, regulatory reforms to curb financial speculation, and promoting tolerance and pluralism to counter extreme nationalism and xenophobia. By promoting a balanced and sustainable global energy system, this new liberalism can help mitigate destabilization risks and support the global community in achieving energy and environmental goals.

5.2. Meso: Re-Wiring European Energy Ecosystems

“Biological examples are quite simply the most direct way to explain difficult systems concepts. Each time you master a biological example, you learn a systems concept that will be valuable for comprehending the dynamics of business in the new economy.”

—James Moore, The Death of Competition [33]

The energy sector functions much like a biological ecosystem, with a network of interdependent players forming a “supply–production–distribution–consumption nexus” [34]. Each participant is vital to the system’s stability and performance. Suppliers furnish the raw materials required for generating energy—ranging from conventional fuels like oil and natural gas to smart fuels and components for renewables, such as solar panels and wind turbines. Producers are responsible for creating the main energy resources. Distributors bridge the gap between producers and consumers, making sure energy is delivered efficiently and reliably. Finally, consumers use the energy, shaping demand patterns and influencing which types of energy are produced [25,35].

The evolving framework of energy ecosystems within the EU and Greece is shaped by geopolitical dynamics, economic changes, technological developments, and environmental challenges. This meso-level analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of critical factors affecting energy ecosystems and underlines the need for strategic adjustments to ensure energy security, efficiency, and sustainability.

The EU and Greece are transitioning into a complex energy environment characterized by significant dependence on imported fossil fuels. This dependence exposes them to global fossil fuel price fluctuations, affecting supply stability and market dynamics. Geopolitical events, such as the Ukraine war and Middle East tensions, exacerbate these challenges, leading to supply chain disruptions and increased market volatility. Greece’s limited domestic mining capacity and complex regulatory framework hinder early decision-making and investment in major fossil fuel projects [36].

The transition to renewables is central, with significant progress in integrating especially solar and wind energy into the energy mix. However, this shift requires robust infrastructure to support grid capacity and address grid stability and energy storage challenges. Greece’s geographical advantages for renewable energy production, combined with economic incentives, have led to significant investments aligning the country’s energy profile with EU targets. Despite these advances, network capacity constraints and regulatory barriers remain critical obstacles.

Energy distribution in Greece has evolved significantly, shifting from an immature to a mature market. Digital platforms and smart technologies are necessary to enhance competitiveness and attract new market players. However, the long-term economic crisis and the historical dominance of the Public Power Corporation (PPC) continue to shape current market dynamics. Investments in smart grids and meters face resistance from local communities, highlighting the need for better communication and stakeholder engagement [37].

Energy consumption patterns reveal different levels of energy security and use between the EU and Greece. Climate change has altered consumer behaviors, with increased electricity use for cooling during warmer summers and reduced fossil fuel reliance for heating. Technological developments, such as the transition from oil to electric heating systems, have further shifted energy demand towards electricity. Economic factors play an important role, with energy-saving efforts particularly evident among middle and lower socioeconomic classes [28].

Understanding factors affecting energy ecosystems at EU and Greek levels requires examining several key points: global fossil fuel price fluctuations’ significant impact on energy supply and markets; power generation dynamics driven by grid capacity for more efficient renewable integration; distribution factors’ critical role for electricity system efficiency and economic outcomes; and energy consumption patterns revealing different energy security levels between the EU and Greece.

In this context, further integrating evolutionary economics and ecosystem theory in perceptual terms provides useful conclusions about energy ecosystem dynamics [34]. Evolutionary economics emphasizes innovation and continuous transformation of businesses and institutions in an ecosystem context. This view is particularly important for understanding complex interactions within energy ecosystems, where raw material suppliers, producers, distributors, and consumers take on interrelated and complementary roles.

The business ecosystem concept, introduced by Moore and significantly enriched by Iansiti and Levien, highlights these interconnected roles and ecosystem leadership’s importance in fostering cooperation and achieving common energy goals [33,38]. The macro–meso–micro framework provides a comprehensive picture of socioeconomic systems that reinforces this research strand’s findings, particularly studies recognizing meso-level dynamics in the energy sector. This framework is essential for understanding interactions between different levels within energy ecosystems, from individual enterprises to regional and national contexts across different actors’ dimensions.

The emerging new globalization, characterized by increasing interdependencies and rapid digital technology spread, further complicates energy ecosystem dynamics [26,39]. The study’s findings on the importance of digital transformation and smart technologies in enhancing energy distribution efficiency highlight this trend. The energy ecosystem concept, including interconnected entities, aligns with broader emerging new globalization trends, where technological progress and economic integration lead to the current structural repositioning of all participating socioeconomic systems [40].

The study validates the importance of understanding complex interactions shaping energy ecosystems within the EU and Greece. Renewable integration, supported by robust infrastructure and regulatory frameworks, is critical for enhancing energy security and sustainability. The emerging new globalization influences energy ecosystem dynamics. Policymakers need to prioritize strategic adjustments and coordinate efforts to navigate these complex phenomena and ensure a sustainable, resilient energy future.

5.3. Micro: Entrepreneurial “Physiologies” in Transition

“… we cannot define a caterpillar and then use the same definition for a butterfly.”

Edith Tilton Penrose, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm [41]

Business activity in the energy sector in the EU, Greece, and the Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace reveals the dynamics and challenges faced by businesses, particularly micro-enterprises in less developed regions. Despite overall revenue increases in the Greek energy sector, innovation (measured by patent activity) has decreased, demonstrating a mismatch between financial performance and technological progress [36]. Market liberalization has promoted competition and efficiency, increasing revenues, but this has not translated into corresponding innovation increases, highlighting the emergence of powerful oligopolistic forces [34].

At the ReMTh, energy companies—particularly micro-enterprises—present competitive lags in innovative strategy, technology, and management implementation. These businesses face challenges adopting systematic business approaches, with many exhibiting “monad-centric” business “physiology” due to their traditional family nature. This physiological type, simulated with “squirrels” in the “Stra.Tech.Man” context (strategy–technology–management synthesis), is characterized by intuitive decision-making, sporadic technological adoption, and empirical management practices [34].

These findings align with evolutionary economics, which argues that businesses evolve through adaptive processes influenced by their external environment. The emphasis on gradual evolution rather than sudden changes was evident in ReMTh micro-enterprises’ slow adaptation to new technological and managerial standards [22]. Applying biological transport to describe evolutionary behaviors has been discussed by scholars like Nelson and Winter, reflected in the studied enterprises’ physiologies, reconfirming that different enterprises demonstrate varying structural flexibility and adaptability degrees.

The categorization of businesses into different physiological types in the Stra.Tech.Man context provides a useful lens for viewing energy companies’ development challenges in the ReMTh. The apparent prevalence of monad-centric physiologies supports the view that many businesses face problems in the “hybrid” overcoming of inherent constraints and achieving sustainable growth. This aligns with studies highlighting difficulties faced by small and medium-sized enterprises in adopting modern strategic, technological, and managerial practices, especially in less developed business ecosystems [42].

The recent revenue increase in the Greek energy sector, despite PPC’s reduced market shares, indicates a shift towards a more liberalized and competitive market. However, the decline in patent activity suggests this shift has not been accompanied by significant innovation, appearing as a criticism of possible inefficiencies arising from liberalization. ReMTh energy companies, particularly micro-enterprises, did not appear highly developed in strategy–technology–management composition, energy sector innovation, and financial performance—an original finding as international literature usually examines larger energy companies rather than smaller ones, especially in less developed business ecosystems [42].

The different “physiological types” in the energy sector are mutating in response to internal and external pressures, according to international theory and practice for different sector studies [43,44]. The shift towards renewables and digital technology adoption is changing how businesses operate and compete. However, evolution pace varies significantly between different business types. Larger, established companies are better positioned to leverage resources and capabilities to drive innovation and adapt to changing market conditions. Conversely, micro-enterprises in less developed areas like the ReMTh struggle due to limited resources, know-how, and strategic vision.

The business physiology concept in the Stra.Tech.Man framework underlines the importance of an integrated approach to business development that innovatively combines strategy, technology, and management. It validates the assumption that organizations achieving a balanced, dynamic synthesis of these dimensions are more likely to survive and grow competitively in the evolving energy system. However, for ReMTh’s micro-enterprises, achieving this composition requires overcoming significant obstacles, including limited capital access, inadequate infrastructure, and skilled personnel shortage—an issue potentially applicable to other less developed regions of Greece and the EU [45].

The factors shaping entrepreneurship evolution in the energy sector in less developed areas like the ReMTh are complex and evolving. The future of energy ecosystems—especially less developed ones—lies in their ability to adapt to emerging global trends. Strengthening physiology at the micro-level is crucial for promoting a dynamic, competitive energy sector that can meet current and future challenges.

6. Ecological Foundations of the Energy Transition

“By now, no one would deny that the economy of biological processes is governed by the Entropy Law, not by the laws of mechanics.”

Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process [46]

A rigorous account of sustainable energy transitions begins from ecological economics: the economy is a thermodynamically open subsystem of a finite Earth system, maintained by a one-way throughput of low-entropy matter and energy that ultimately returns as high-entropy waste. This insight, classically articulated by Georgescu-Roegen, anchors the claim that economic evolution is biophysically bounded rather than purely mechanical or circular in the abstract [46].

Building on this foundation, Daly’s steady-state program reframes macroeconomic performance in terms of scale (relative to ecological carrying capacity), distribution, and allocation, with scale as the prior constraint. For energy policy, this means that “more efficient” growth cannot substitute for respecting absolute biophysical limits; the economy must remain within a sustainable metabolic size even as rules and technologies evolve [47].

Those limits are now operationalized through the planetary boundaries framework, which specifies a “safe operating space” for humanity across climate, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows, land use, and more. Treating energy transition rules as “rules-in-population” implies that macro-level targets (e.g., decarbonization pathways) should be designed to keep the system within these boundaries, while meso-level institutions translate them into regional infrastructures and practices [48].

To make the climate boundary concrete for policy, remaining carbon budgets provide the necessary macro guardrails: national strategies, sectoral plans, and financing rules should be keyed to budgets consistent with temperature goals rather than to purely economic or technological milestones. In our framework, such budgets function as selection pressures on rule populations, favoring those trajectories that demonstrably align with the finite atmospheric sink [49].

Finally, micro- and meso-level dynamics must reflect behavioral and systems realities: efficiency and technology substitution do not automatically yield absolute impact reductions because demand responses can erode expected savings (the rebound effect). Recognizing and measuring rebound is essential when designing incentives, evaluating life-cycle impacts, or projecting system-wide outcomes—especially in regions where institutional capacity to enforce ecological rules is thin and market signals dominate decision-making.

Together, these five pillars—thermodynamics, steady-state scale, planetary boundaries, carbon budgets, and rebound—embed ecological rules directly into the macro–meso–micro architecture, ensuring that evolving economic rule populations co-evolve with, rather than overshoot, Earth’s biophysical limits [50].

7. Towards a Multi-Level Policy Architecture: Institutes of Local Development and Innovation

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough quantity for some-thing to satisfy everyone who wants it. The first lesson of politics is to ignore the first lesson of economic science.”

Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional? [51]

The findings demonstrate the need for an integrated policy approach that addresses challenges across macro-, meso-, and micro-levels simultaneously. Traditional energy policies have often focused on either broad macroeconomic factors or sector-specific interventions, neglecting the “cellular” elements of energy ecosystems. A complete macro–meso–micro framework could significantly strengthen industrial policy interventions by enabling targeted micro-interventions that support energy companies in their development [52].

Previous research has revealed problems of “compartmentalization” in dominant socioeconomic thinking and industrial policy approaches, criticizing the prevailing focus on macroeconomic trends, organizational frameworks at the meso-level, or individualized behaviors at the micro-level [53]. The absence of unifying macro–meso–micro theoretical frameworks leads to policy-making gaps, particularly in addressing less competitive micro-enterprises’ specific needs–problems faced by energy sector companies.

The proposed Institutes of Local Development-Innovation (ILDIs) represent a policy innovation designed to provide free consulting services that support the sustainability of different industries within a structured ecosystem integrating interventions in a macro–meso–micro framework. This approach operates at three levels [54]:

• Macro-level: Formulating inclusive national strategies and promoting public support mechanisms to encourage business innovation and growth in the industry through collaborative efforts between national ministries and bodies.
• Meso-level: Involving intermediate organizations such as incubators, accelerators, technology parks, chambers of commerce, banks, and investment funds to connect institutions, provide resources, and foster entrepreneurship in the industry.
• Micro-level: Delivering “free at the point of sale” consulting services through a “business clinic” model that offers direct, practical support to socioeconomic organizations, particularly those facing challenges, helping them create or improve business plans.

The ILDIs approach emphasizes the provision of business advice through the proposed “business clinic” model with publicly provided consulting services. This model treats businesses like patients needing care, suggesting that ILDIs can provide substantial support to businesses with chronic problems. The peculiarities of ILDI operation can be adapted to development-policy innovation ecosystem needs, potentially establishing development coordination centers in all NUTS2 regions and others.

This integrated approach highlights complex ecosystem relationships in policymaking, where government, academia, and industry work together to monitor, analyze, and actively support business innovation and development [55]. The proposal is adaptable to specific national or international contexts, varying the degree of public support or intermediaries involved. An integrated energy policy approach is crucial for addressing current challenges in this field, with the extended macro–meso–micro energy policy framework shifting focus from traditional energy security to the new energy transition imperative at the macro-level while incorporating vital strategies at meso- and micro-levels.

8. Discussion: The Macro–Meso–Micro Framework as Methodological Innovation

“Perhaps in the future it will become possible to build and comprehend models of industry evolution that are based on detailed and realistic models of individual firm behavior.”

Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change [10]

The macro–meso–micro framework represents a significant methodological innovation for evolutionary economics that extends beyond mere theoretical merits. Its principal contribution lies in how it resolves persistent analytical blind spots and provides more coherent tools for addressing sustainability challenges. Several understandings emerge from applying this framework to energy transitions.

8.1. Bridging Isolated Knowledge Domains

The framework systematically bridges traditionally isolated knowledge domains that have hindered comprehensive understanding of complex socioeconomic change. By positioning rules-in-population as the basic unit of analysis across all three levels and actors’ dimensions, it creates conceptual coherence that allows insights from international political economy, industrial ecology, and entrepreneurship studies to inform each other rather than develop in parallel.

Traditional approaches either focus on macro-level geopolitical dynamics without addressing how these manifest at organizational and individual levels, or they examine micro-level entrepreneurial innovations without accounting for how these aggregate and interact with broader system structures. The meso level—where rules diffuse through populations and create patterned structures—provides the critical linkage between individual carriers (micro) and system-wide patterns (macro).

8.2. Revealing Evolutionary Mechanisms at Work

The framework exposes where and how evolutionary mechanisms operate in the economy. The energy transition case study demonstrates that core evolutionary processes—variation (through entrepreneurial experimentation), selection (through market and regulatory pressures), and retention (through institutionalization of successful innovations)—occur most visibly at the meso-level.

For instance, the adoption of renewable energy technologies follows a clear meso-trajectory: origination (initial technological breakthroughs and early adopters), adoption/adaptation (diffusion through markets with local modifications), and retention (standardization and normalization within energy systems). This reveals why policy interventions targeting only macro- or micro-levels often produce disappointing results—they fail to address the meso-processes where evolution actually occurs.

8.3. Enriching the Framework of Dopfer, Foster, and Potts

This application of the macro–meso–micro framework extends the original model introduced by Dopfer, Foster, and Potts. First, its applicability to sustainability transitions is demonstrated, showing how it can illuminate the complex interplay of technological, institutional, and behavioral changes required for decarbonization. Second, specific carrier populations (energy companies, regulatory bodies, consumers) whose interactions drive or impede rule adoption are identified. Third, practical policy implications through the ILDI model that operationalize the framework for real-world application are developed.

This enriched framework overcomes limitations of traditional approaches by recognizing that economic coordination and change are two sides of the same coin. Rather than treating stability and innovation as separate phenomena requiring different analytical tools, the macro–meso–micro perspective shows how economies continuously re-coordinate around evolving rule systems and actors’ dimensions. This is likely useful for understanding sustainability transitions, which require simultaneous destabilization of unsustainable practices and construction of new, more sustainable arrangements.

8.4. Policy Coherence Across Multiple Levels

Perhaps the most significant contribution of the macro–meso–micro framework is its ability to inform more coherent policy interventions. Traditional approaches often create policies that work at cross-purposes—macro-policies that inadvertently undermine micro-innovation, or micro-incentives that fail to address meso-level barriers to adoption [56]. The ILDIs proposal exemplifies how policies can be designed to operate synergistically across all three levels:

• At the macro-level, it aligns with national development strategies and international sustainability commitments.
• At the meso-level, it coordinates intermediary organizations to strengthen regional innovation ecosystems.
• At the micro-level, it provides direct support to individual businesses for enhancing their adaptive capabilities.

This multi-level coherence is especially critical for energy transitions, which require coordinated change across technical systems, market structures, user practices, and policy frameworks. The framework seems to provide conceptual clarity and practical guidance needed to orchestrate such complex transitions.

8.5. Beyond Competing Frameworks: Conceptual Advances and Remaining Challenges

The macro–meso–micro framework offers distinct advantages over three established multi-level analytical approaches in sustainability research. The Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), pioneered by Geels and colleagues, has illuminated socio-technical transitions through its regime-niche-landscape structure but treats these levels as relatively static categories while providing limited explanation of underlying economic mechanisms [57,58,59]. In contrast, the macro–meso–micro framework grounds its analysis in evolutionary economic theory, offering dynamic accounts of how rule populations evolve across levels through specific mechanisms of variation, selection, and retention.

Institutional approaches excel at documenting formal and informal rules but often fail to bridge macro-institutional environments with micro-level behaviors systematically [60,61]. Network approaches effectively map complex interdependencies yet frequently lack causal explanations for network evolution [62]. The macro–meso–micro framework addresses these gaps by specifying rules-in-population as its unit of analysis across all levels, enabling researchers to trace how rules originate at the micro-level, diffuse through meso-structures, and aggregate into macro-patterns.

However, significant challenges persist. The framework currently lacks robust methodologies for empirically identifying and tracking rule populations through their evolutionary trajectories. Its emphasis on rule diffusion may underestimate power dynamics and political processes that shape which rules gain dominance. These limitations suggest productive research directions: developing operational measures for rule populations, incorporating explicit power analyses into selection mechanisms, and examining interactions between technical, social, and cognitive rule types. Such extensions would enhance the framework’s practical utility for sustainability transitions while maintaining its distinctive evolutionary theoretical foundation.

9. Conclusions: Advancing an Integrative Paradigm for Sustainable Transitions

This research investigated the intersections between international political economy, business ecosystems, and entrepreneurship in the renewable energy ecosystem of Europe, with emphasis on Greece and the ReMTh region. Through an integrated multilevel analysis using the macro–meso–micro framework, some findings about the current evolution of renewable energy ecosystems have been presented, while the analytical power of this approach for understanding complex socioeconomic change has been proposed.

9.1. Key Findings and Contributions

This analysis attempted to enlighten some aspects that would not have been apparent through conventional micro-or-macro approaches. First, at the macro-level, the international political economy of energy is being reshaped by renewable energy investments and changing geopolitical dynamics. However, despite significant progress, fossil fuel use remains at historically high levels, and CO₂ emissions continue to increase [34]. The pace of energy transition may be insufficient to avoid climate change, raising critical questions about the sustainability of global energy strategies.

A critical strength of the macro-meso-micro approach is its ability to link abstract theoretical constructs to concrete observations. Throughout our findings, we see how real-world phenomena can be reinterpreted as manifestations of evolving rule populations. The observation that many smaller enterprises in less-developed regions like ReMTh have “limited capabilities and resources” is not merely descriptive—it reflects an underlying theoretical dynamic. In evolutionary terms, these firms are missing certain adaptive “rules”: advanced managerial routines, technical knowledge, or collaborative practices that would enhance competitiveness.

Our empirical data substantiates this linkage. When we examined the 89 surveyed firms, we found that 85.4% were microenterprises (0–10 employees), with 63.3% reporting annual revenues below €250,000. This micro-level characteristic signals a co-evolutionary gap: if we conceptualize sustainable energy transition as the spread of new rule populations (operating with green innovation and strategic planning), then “limited capabilities” indicate that these rules have not successfully taken hold among the firm population.

The failure manifests across levels. While macro-level policies promote renewable energy (Greece achieved 35% renewable electricity by 2023), and meso-level programs exist (such as EU structural funds), micro-level actors are not fully internalizing these paradigms. Our interviews revealed that most photovoltaic operators entered the sector motivated by guaranteed feed-in tariffs rather than innovation-driven growth strategies. When policy landscapes changed and tariffs were reduced, these firms struggled to pivot—they had not developed the strategic, technological, and managerial “rules” needed for more complex areas like energy storage or efficiency services.

The “monad-centered” orientation observed in Greek microfirms—essentially self-contained, non-collaborative operation—further exacerbates the issue [42]. This cultural rule at the micro level impedes scaling up or integrating into broader networks. In the ReMTh case, adoption and adaptation of crucial rules has lagged: firms have not adopted modern business models or updated management routines, so those rules fail to progress to retention within the region.

By casting micro-level observations in these terms, we reinforce how the theoretical lens of “rules-in-population” directly illuminates practical challenges. When we report phenomena like “limited capabilities” or “fragmented networks,” we are diagnosing where the evolutionary process is breaking down. Such clarity guides interventions: recognizing co-evolutionary failure suggests policy should repair missing links through training programs, knowledge transfer partnerships, or incentive structures that help firms acquire needed routines.

9.2. Policy Implications

The need for integrated approaches that address challenges at all three levels simultaneously also emerged. The proposed ILDIs exemplify this approach by providing structural support at the macro-level (through national strategies), coordination at the meso-level (among intermediary organizations), and direct assistance at the micro-level (through free consulting services). For smaller energy enterprises, particularly in less developed regions, several practical actions emerge from the analysis:

• Cooperation networks: Creating partnerships or joining energy cooperative organizations to share resources and knowledge.
• Digitalization: Adopting digital tools like cloud-based energy monitoring platforms to streamline operations without requiring major organizational changes.
• Targeted support: Working with ILDIs or similar institutions to receive tailored guidance for improving competitiveness and strategic prospects.

Beyond these specific recommendations, this research suggests that policymakers should adopt multi-level thinking in all aspects of energy transition planning. This means ensuring that macro-level commitments (such as emissions reduction targets) are supported by meso-level structural changes (such as grid modernization) and micro-level capacity building (such as enterprise development programs).

Looking ahead, the macro–meso–micro framework suggests a fundamental reimagining of energy governance. Rather than designing policies exclusively at national or international levels and assuming they will smoothly filter down to local contexts, future governance systems must be deliberately constructed to operate simultaneously across all three levels [63]. This means developing what might be called “evolutionary policy platforms”, that is, institutional architectures that can coordinate interventions while allowing for context-specific adaptation. These platforms would combine clear directional signals at the macro level (such as carbon pricing), structural support at the meso-level (such as mission-oriented innovation policies), and targeted capability building at the micro-level (such as the ILDIs proposed here). The result would be not merely a faster energy transition, but a more economically viable one that creates new opportunities for regions and communities while avoiding the social disruptions that have plagued previous industrial transformations.

9.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

First, the empirical focus on Greece and particularly the ReMTh region limits generalizability to other contexts, though the theoretical framework is designed for broader applicability. Second, the analysis captures a specific moment in a rapidly evolving transition process, necessitating longitudinal studies to track changes over time. Future research should address these limitations while extending the macro–meso–micro framework in several directions:

• Temporal dynamics: Investigating how rule populations evolve over time and how the three levels interact through different phases of sustainability transitions.
• Comparative studies: Applying the framework to different regions and sectors to identify common patterns and context-specific factors.
• Quantitative modeling: Developing metrics and models that can capture evolutionary processes across all three levels, enabling more precise evaluation of policy interventions.
• Expanded policy experiments: Testing the ILDI concept and other multi-level interventions in diverse contexts to refine implementation approaches.

9.4. Concluding Reflections: From Analytical Tool to Transformative Perspective

The macro–meso–micro framework represents far more than an analytical tool—it embodies a fundamentally different way of conceptualizing economic ecosystems and their evolution. By positioning rules-in-population as the basic unit of analysis and viewing micro and macro as complementary perspectives on these rule populations, this approach fundamentally reorients how we think about economic change and policy intervention.

What makes this perspective particularly valuable for sustainability transitions is its practical implications mostly. By revealing the evolutionary processes operating at different levels and their interconnections, it explains why so many well-intentioned interventions fail to produce desired outcomes: they either target the wrong level entirely or fail to account for cross-level interactions. The framework’s greatest contribution lies in its capacity to generate more coherent interventions that work with rather than against evolutionary dynamics.

As Thomas Kuhn observed in his seminal work on scientific revolutions [64]: “The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another and the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other.” This insight resonates particularly strongly with our analysis of energy transitions, where the shift from fossil-based to renewable energy systems represents not merely a technological substitution but a fundamental paradigm shift in how we conceptualize and organize our relationship with energy.

As we confront the unprecedented challenge of decarbonizing global energy systems while supporting human development, this perspective offers diagnostic power. It helps identify where barriers to change arise—whether from macro-level policy inconsistencies, meso-level structural rigidities, or micro-level capability deficits—and suggests targeted interventions that can unlock transformative change. The macro–meso–micro framework thus represents not just an incremental advance in economic theory, but a necessary evolution in how we conceptualize and navigate the complex transitions that will define our collective future.