ACTA WASAENSIA 564 Nayeem Rahman Energy flexibility as a market shaping mechanism A case study of the Finnish electricity ecosystem Copyright © Vaasan yliopisto and copyright holders. Compilation dissertation’s summary section is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 International . ISBN 978-952-395-212-6 (print) 978-952-395-213-3 (online) ISSN 0355-2667 (Acta Wasaensia 564, print) 2323-9123 (Acta Wasaensia 564, online) URN https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-395-213-3 PunaMusta Oy, Joensuu, 2025. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-395-213-3 ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Board of the School of Marketing and Communications of the University of Vaasa, for public examination on the 10th of October, 2025, at noon. Article based dissertation, School of Marketing and Communications, Marketing. Author Nayeem Rahman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6482-1751 Supervisor(s) Professor Hannu Makkonen University of Vaasa, School of Marketing and Communications, Marketing. Assistant Professor Shah Shakeel University of Vaasa, School of Marketing and Communications, Marketing. Custos Professor Hannu Makkonen University of Vaasa, School of Marketing and Communications, Marketing. Reviewers Professor Anna-Greta Nyström Åbo Akademi University, School of Business and Economics. Associate Professor Hanna Komulainen University of Oulu, Oulu Business School. Opponent Professor Anna-Greta Nyström Åbo Akademi University, School of Business and Economics. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6482-1751 V Tiivistelmä Tämä väitöskirja tutkii, miten erilaiset toimijat muokkaavat Suomen sähkö- markkinoita energiajouston kautta. Energiajousto tarkoittaa loppukäyttäjien kykyä mukauttaa sähkönkulutustaan markkinasignaalien, verkon kuormitustilanteen tai kestävyystavoitteiden mukaan. Se on keskeinen uusiutuvan energian integroinnin mahdollistaja. Energiajousto on perinteisesti nähty sähköverkon suunnittelun operatiivisena osana, mutta sen käsittely kaupallisena markkinainstrumenttina — erityisesti tuottajakuluttajien osallistumisen kautta — on uudempi kehityssuunta. Näin väitöskirja sijoittuu teknologisen murroksen, sääntelymuutosten ja kuluttajien vaikutusmahdollisuuksien risteyskohtaan. Tutkimus tarkastelee markkinamuutoksen mekanismeja ja dynamiikkaa kolmen teoreettisen näkökulman — liiketoimintamallien innovoinnin, alustojen hallinnan ja arvon yhteisluonnin — kautta. Kvalitatiiviseen ja abduktiiviseen otteeseen perustuva työ sisältää yhden monitapaustutkimuksen ja kaksi yksittäistapaustutkimusta. Niissä analysoidaan, miten sähkön vähittäismyyjät hyödyntävät liiketoimintamallien innovointia institutionaalisen logiikan soveltamisessa ja muokkaamisessa mikroperustaisen osaamisen avulla. Tutkimus tarkastelee myös digitaalisten alustojen roolia kollektiivisen koordinaation välineinä kehittyvillä joustomark- kinoilla sekä sitä, miten eri toimijat yhdistävät heterogeenisia resursseja yhteisarvon luomiseksi ja uusien markkinarakenteiden institutionalisoimiseksi. Väitöskirja käsitteellistää markkinoiden muokkauksen moniulotteisena prosessina, jossa on useita toimijoita, tasoja ja aikajänteitä ja jota muovaavat sekä tavoitteelliset strategiat että lisääntyvä vuorovaikutus. Teoreettisesti se syventää ymmärrystä institutionaalisen muutoksen rekursiivisesta kerrostumisesta, tavoitteellisuuden roolista markkinoiden muokkauksessa ja resurssien orkestroinnin performa- tiivisesta vaikutuksesta yritys-, alusta- ja ekosysteemitasoilla. Käytännön tasolla tutkimus tarjoaa näkemyksiä siitä, miten yritykset, viranomaiset ja teknologia- toimijat voivat suunnitella ja sovittaa yhteen markkinoiden muokkaamisen strategioita liiketoimintamallien kokeiluista ja osallistavan hallinnan suunnittelusta tuottajakuluttajien osallistamiseen ja digitaalisen infrastruktuurin kehittämiseen. Tulokset ovat erityisen merkityksellisiä säännellyille, infrastruktuuri-intensiivisille aloille, jotka pyrkivät siirtymään järjestelmätasolla kohti kestävyyttä ja hajauttamista. Asiasanat: markkinoiden muokkaus, markkinamuutos, liiketoimintamallien inno- vointi, alustojen hallinta, arvon yhteisluonti, energiajousto, kuluttajatuottajat, sähkö- markkinat, energiansiirtymä VI Abstract This dissertation explores how diverse actors contribute to market shaping within the Finnish electricity ecosystem through energy flexibility: the capacity of end-users to adjust electricity consumption in response to market signals, grid conditions or sustainability goals. While flexibility has long been treated as an operational element of grid management, its emergence as a tradable market instrument, particularly through prosumer participation, represents a more recent and transformative development. This shift places energy flexibility at the intersection of technological disruption, regulatory reform, and consumer empowerment. To examine this transformation, the study employs three interrelated theoretical lenses: business model innovation (BMI), platform governance, and value co- creation. These perspectives respectively examine how focal firms reconfigure value creation logics, how platforms orchestrate multi-actor coordination, and how distributed actors integrate resources to establish new practices and institutions. The research employs a qualitative, abductive case study design, comprising one multiple-case of electricity retailers and two single-case studies focusing on platform governance and prosumer participation, respectively. This design enables analysis across different levels of the ecosystem while capturing both strategic intent and emergent dynamics. The dissertation conceptualises market shaping as a multi-actor, multi-level and multi-temporal process shaped by both deliberate strategies and emergent interactions. Theoretically, it contributes by clarifying how BMI, platforms, and value co-creation function not in isolation but as mutually reinforcing mechanisms that together explain how markets are destabilised, reconfigured, and stabilised over time. Practically, it provides insights into how managers, regulators and technology developers can design and align market-shaping strategies ranging from BMI experimentation and inclusive governance design to prosumer engagement and digital infrastructure development. The findings are particularly relevant for regulated, infrastructure-intensive sectors undergoing system-level transitions toward sustainability and decentralisation. Keywords: market shaping, market transformation, business model innovation, platform governance, value co-creation, energy flexibility, prosumers, electricity markets, energy transition VII ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This long journey is finally coming to an end. When I started the PhD, I had little idea of the direction it would take me. Despite the challenges and ups and downs, today I am a much different person, with a deeper way of seeing the world. For that, I am profoundly grateful. My deepest thanks must go to my supervisors. Professor Emeritus Arto Rajala, thank you for taking a chance on me. Despite your demanding schedule, I valued our generous discussions, and your support with work contracts when they were most needed. Professor Hannu Makkonen, thank you for your sharp comments and for helping me structure my ideas at a critical juncture — that certainly got me to the finishing line. And Assistant Professor Shah Shakeel, I owe you gratitude for being such an attentive reader of my text, for your detailed feedback, and for your advice in navigating both the academia and the energy sector we call home. I especially want to thank Professor Rodrigo Rabetino, not only for co-authoring the articles that comprise this dissertation but also for being a mentor. I learned so much from you about writing, analysis, and the research process more broadly. I also thank you and Professor Rajala for employing me in the FLEXIMAR project. If I have found a passion for the energy sector and for research more broadly, I owe much of it to that decision. I am grateful to my colleagues in the School of Marketing and Communication, who were always willing to listen and eager to help. Special thanks to the members of the “Helsinki office,” especially Jukka Partanen, for those early mentoring sessions. A heartfelt thank you to the OpenInnoTrain project for sending me on not one, but two secondments. To my hosts, KONČAR Electrical Engineering Institute and UPTEC – Science and Technology Park at the University of Porto: being part of your communities was a true milestone of this journey. I extend my thanks to my pre-examiners, Professor Anna-Greta Nyström and Associate Professor Hanna Komulainen, for evaluating my thesis and providing such meaningful feedback. You truly made the work better. I also gratefully acknowledge the support of the Evald and Hilda Nissi Foundation, Liikesivistysrahasto, and the graduate school of the University of Vaasa for their generous funding of my research. VIII To my friends: thank you for sticking with me through this time. Tibi, Shimo, Juhani, Alain, Eino, and Jani — the weekend adventures we had made this period bearable, if not outright enjoyable. And to Victoria, whose patience and support during this journey meant a lot. Finally, I owe the most profound thanks to my family. To my dear parents, Latifa and Mushfiqur Rahman, who sparked in me curiosity, a sense of adventure, and a healthy scepticism of the status quo. To my brother Naveed Rahman — a fellow PhD student — all the best in your studies; you are surely the smarter one. And to the newest member of our family, my sister-in-law Tashmia Sabera, also pursuing her PhD — soon, we will be three doctors in the family! Helsinki, 22.08.2025 Nayeem Rahman IX Contents TIIVISTELMÄ ............................................................................ V ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................. VII 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1 1.1 Markets as dynamic social constructs .............................. 1 1.2 The electricity market in transition .................................. 1 1.3 Energy flexibility and the Finnish electricity market ............ 3 1.4 Understanding market transformation: key perspectives .... 4 1.5 Market shaping as a conceptual lens ............................... 6 1.6 Purpose of the study, research questions, and intended contributions ............................................................... 8 1.7 Positioning of the study ................................................ 11 1.8 Structure of the study .................................................. 12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 14 2.1 State of research on market shaping .............................. 14 2.1.1 Key literature streams in market shaping ........... 14 2.1.2 Critical gaps in market shaping research ............ 16 2.2 An overview of business models, business model innovation, and microfoundations .................................................. 18 2.2.1 Business model innovation as a focal actor perspective in market shaping .......................... 19 2.3 Overview of platforms and their role in ecosystems .......... 20 2.3.1 Platforms as catalysts for collective market shaping ......................................................... 23 2.4 Overview of value co-creation and resource integration ..... 24 2.4.1 Value co-creation as a mechanism for market shaping ......................................................... 25 2.5 Integrating theoretical perspectives ............................... 26 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 28 3.1 Research philosophy .................................................... 28 3.2 Research design and chosen methods ............................ 31 3.3 Data collection and analysis .......................................... 34 3.4 Trustworthiness and rigor of the study ........................... 38 4 SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLES ................................................. 41 4.1 Article I: Microfoundations for business model innovation: Exploring the interplay between individuals, practices, and organizational design ................................................... 41 4.2 Article II: Ushering in a new dawn: Demand-side local flexibility platform governance and design in the Finnish energy markets .......................................................... 43 X 4.3 Article III: Prosumer flexibility as an enabler for ecosystem value co-creation: A resource integration approach from the Finnish electricity markets ........................................... 45 5 DISCUSSIONS ................................................................... 47 5.1 The influence of business model innovation on focal actor market shaping .......................................................... 47 5.2 Collective market shaping through local energy flexibility platforms .................................................................. 50 5.3 Value co-creation and resource integration in market shaping: the role of prosumers and digital infrastructures . 55 5.4 Toward a systemic understanding of market shaping: a multi-actor, multi-level, and multi-temporal synthesis ...... 59 6 CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 63 6.1 Theoretical contributions ............................................. 63 6.1.1 Operationalizing market shaping across the actor, institutional, and temporal dimensions .............. 63 6.1.2 Advancing understanding of intentionality in market shaping ............................................. 63 6.1.3 Bridging micro-level agency and system-level change ......................................................... 64 6.1.4 Linking focal and collective market shaping ........ 65 6.1.5 Extending market shaping to regulated, infrastructure-dependent markets .................... 66 6.1.6 Navigating strategic tensions in market shaping .. 67 6.1.7 Ontological contribution: markets as performed, emergent fields ............................................. 68 6.1.8 Methodological contributions: a heuristic for empirical inquiry ............................................ 68 6.2 Managerial and policy implications ................................ 69 6.2.1 Managerial implications ................................... 69 6.2.2 Policy implications .......................................... 71 6.3 Limitations and further studies ..................................... 73 6.3.1 Conceptual boundaries and contributions ........... 73 6.3.2 Empirical context and actor representation......... 74 6.3.3 Methodological trade-offs and theoretical development ................................................. 75 REFERENCES .......................................................................... 76 APPENDIX: AUTHOR CONTRITUTIONS TO ARTICLES I-III .............. 88 PUBLICATIONS ....................................................................... 89 XI Figures Figure 1. Conceptual framework of market shaping in this dissertation. ........................................................ 12 Figure 2. Updated conceptual framework ............................... 59 Tables Table 1. Key research streams related to market change ......... 5 Table 2. Overview of the dissertation articles ........................ 13 Table 3. Conceptual map of market shaping literature ............ 14 Table 4. Key platform governance decisions.......................... 22 Table 5. Research philosophy ............................................. 31 Table 6. Summary of the interviews .................................... 34 Table 7. Methodological choices in the dissertation papers ...... 36 Table 8. Role of archival data across the three articles ........... 37 Table 9. Comparison of market shaping mechanisms across analytical dimensions ............................................ 61 Abbreviations BMI Business Model Innovation COVID-19 Coronavirus disease 2019 Datahub Centralized platform for electricity market data exchange in Finland DSM Demand-Side Management DSO Distribution System Operator EU European Union ICT Information and Communication Technology IEA International Energy Agency LFM Local Flexibility Market SDL Service-Dominant Logic TSO Transmission System Operator XII Publications [I] Rabetino, R., Kohtamäki, M., Foss, N. J., Rahman, N., Huikkola, T. (2025) Microfoundations for Business Model Innovation: Exploring the Interplay Between Individuals, Practices, and Organizational Design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12784. CC BY. [II] Rahman, N., Rabetino, R., Rajala, A., Partanen, J. (2021) Ushering in a New Dawn: Demand-Side Local Flexibility Platform Governance and Design in the Finnish Energy Markets, Energies 14(15):4405, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154405. CC BY. [III] Rahman, N., Rabetino, R., Rajala, A., Makkonen, H. (2025) Prosumer Flexibility as an Enabler for Ecosystem Value Co- Creation: A Resource Integration Approach from the Finnish Electricity Markets. Applied Energy 390 125814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125814. CC BY. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12784 https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154405 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125814 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Markets as dynamic social constructs Despite being a foundational concept of marketing, the idea of the market has often been taken for granted. Traditionally viewed through a neoclassical lens as an arena for exchange between buyers and sellers (Buzzell, 1999; Stigler & Sherwin, 1985), markets were long treated as fixed, objective realities (e.g., Sprong et al., 2021). However, a paradigmatic shift in recent years means markets are increasingly understood as dynamic, socially constructed systems rather than static constructs (Mele et al., 2015). This ontological movement from a positivist to an interpretivist worldview stresses the role of actors, institutions, and ongoing interactions in shaping market configurations (Pels et al., 2023). In this emergent view, the term market is seen not only as a noun—a stable structure— but also as a verb—a process constantly enacted and reconfigured through practice (Mele et al., 2015). Accordingly, scholars now describe markets as “self-adjusting systems of resource- integrating actors” embedded in institutional frameworks (Kindström et al., 2023) or as value-creating ecosystems where stability emerges through routinization and social construction (Nenonen & Storbacka, 2021). In line with this perspective, this dissertation approaches markets as ecosystems—arenas of interdependent actors, practices, and institutions—and employs the concept primarily as an empirical lens to capture these dynamics, rather than a distinct theoretical construct. Nevertheless, despite the richness of this evolving discourse, the conceptual foundations of the market remain surprisingly ambiguous. Notably, the American Marketing Association’s dictionary altogether omits a definition of markets (Möller et al., 2020). This ambiguity underlines the need for more holistic and flexible conceptualizations that reflect both the complexity and malleability of contemporary markets. A key aspect of this challenge lies in understanding how actor-driven transformations contribute to the ongoing shaping and reshaping of market structures. This dissertation explores this gap by examining how diverse stakeholders influence and redefine markets. It does so in the empirical context of the Finnish electricity market. 1.2 The electricity market in transition The transformation of the electricity sector reveals a long history of technological shifts and strategic redirection. From the iconic war of the currents between Nikola 1 Tesla’s alternating current system and Thomas Edison’s direct current system in the late 1800s to milestones such as the development of the first gas turbine and the commissioning of the first commercial nuclear reactor in the mid-twentieth century, innovation has repeatedly reshaped the sector’s trajectory (Patel, 2017). Concurrently, these shifts have also influenced and been influenced by regulatory frameworks and market structures (Rhodes, 2018). More recently, anthropogenic climate change has pushed renewable energy sources into prominence (Nijhof et al., 2022), while transient crises, such as the recent restriction of Russian gas supplies to Europe, have added further urgency to energy market reform (Nenonen & Storbacka, 2021). One such structural transformation was the liberalization of the European electricity sector in the 1990s, which dismantled state-run monopolies, allowing consumers to choose between suppliers and contract types (Glachant, 2003). Today, consumers across liberalized markets can select between fixed or spot pricing, renewable or hydrocarbon-based sources, and increasingly have the opportunity to act as prosumers by generating some or all of the energy they use (Parag & Sovacool, 2016). As the market evolves, the roles of energy suppliers, grid operators, regulators, and consumers have transformed substantially (Smallbone, 2004). Traditional utilities— such as electricity sellers and distributors—are adapting their business models, while non-endogenous technology companies and novel service providers are entering the sector, contributing to increased competition and innovation (Hall et al., 2021; IEA, 2020). Regulators, in turn, are introducing policies emphasizing renewable energy integration, energy efficiency, and greater consumer participation via demand-side management initiatives (e.g., EU Directive 2019/944). However, these changes also pose significant challenges to the stability and coordination of the electricity grid, requiring fresh approaches to manage distributed and variable resources. The role of the consumer is evolving, too, with individuals becoming prosumers through technologies such as solar photovoltaics and electric vehicles, with mounting consequences for the traditional value chains (Ruostetsaari, 2020). While the shifts in this market are manifold and complex, two particularly powerful trends are driving the ongoing restructuring of electricity markets: electrification and digitalization. Electrification, seen as a key pathway to decarbonization, is accelerating demand for low-carbon energy solutions (IEA, 2020). Concurrently, digitalization, seen in technologies such as smart meters, smart energy appliances, and mobile applications, enhances consumer engagement and enables new business models like peer-to-peer energy trading (Bahga & Madisetti, 2016; Mengelkamp et al., 2018). Moreover, sustainability instruments such as carbon credits incentivize both firms and consumers to reduce emissions, reshaping market logics, regulatory frameworks, and value creation processes in alignment with environmental 2 Acta Wasaensia objectives (Tantau et al., 2021). This evolving landscape demands adaptive mechanisms to maintain system resilience, flexibility, and efficiency. One such mechanism, energy flexibility, has emerged as a critical enabler of a more responsive and consumer-driven electricity market, further encapsulating the technological, regulatory, and structural shifts reshaping the sector. The following section explores this concept in greater detail, particularly within the Finnish context. 1.3 Energy flexibility and the Finnish electricity market Energy flexibility has attracted attention as a key mechanism to ensure grid stability and market responsiveness, which refers to the ability of an energy system to adjust consumption and production dynamically in answer to external signals such as price fluctuations, grid requirements, or carbon intensity (EURELECTRIC, 2014). Traditionally associated with industrial-scale operations (Gough et al., 2020), recent technological and regulatory shifts have expanded energy flexibility to households and businesses through demand-side management (DSM) initiatives (Sajjad et al., 2016). Such DSM programmes offer consumers economic or environmental incentives to modify their energy use patterns, aligning consumption with the availability of energy (Behrangrad, 2015). The shift is especially crucial in markets integrating variable renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, which introduce volatility in supply. Innovations in distributed energy resources, including rooftop solar, smart appliances, and electric vehicles, further enable flexible consumption and electricity storage, benefiting both end users and the grid (Giarmanà, 2023). Beyond technical optimization, energy flexibility contributes to the decentralization and democratization of energy systems. Consumers are leaving behind their passive roles and embracing active market participation, through peer-to-peer trading, local energy communities, or simply by responding to dynamic price signals (Ruostetsaari, 2020). Recognizing its potential, EU policy initiatives such as the Clean Energy for All Europeans Package increasingly promote consumer involvement in flexibility markets, viewing it as a lever for sustainability and efficiency (Tantau et al., 2021). These dynamics are clearly visible in the Finnish electricity ecosystem, which mirrors broader global energy trends but also has some unique characteristics. The rise of wind power as a dominant variable energy source has introduced greater system unpredictability. At the same time, Finland’s increased reliance on nuclear power has strengthened baseload capacity but reduced operational flexibility (Ruokamo et al., 2019). The market itself is highly fragmented, with more than 50 electricity retailers and 70 distributors (known as distribution system operators or DSOs) creating coordination challenges around scaling up flexibility services (Energiavirasto, 2023). Nevertheless, Finland is at the forefront of the energy transition. A climate-conscious 3Acta Wasaensia public and geopolitical developments (e.g., Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) have accelerated efforts to achieve energy self-sufficiency (Numminen et al., 2022). The country’s recent surge in prosumption, evidenced by a 63% annual increase in self- generation contracts (particularly through rooftop solar), illustrates a cultural and structural shift toward decentralized energy (Energiavirasto, 2023). This shift is supported by the Finnish grid’s advanced digital infrastructure. Smart meters, energy-optimized appliances, and a centralized electricity market data exchange platform (Datahub) enable real-time energy management and open new avenues for flexibility trading (Rahman et al., 2025). The rapid uptake of electric vehicles further amplifies flexibility potential, as these assets can function as mobile storage units, charging when renewables are abundant and discharging during periods of high grid demand (Bohnsack et al., 2014). Meanwhile, grassroots initiatives like citizen-led energy communities demonstrate how flexibility is not just a technological solution but a social and institutional transformation (Ruostetsaari, 2020). As these developments converge, energy flexibility in the Finnish electricity market offers a fertile setting to explore how innovation, regulation, and changing consumer roles interact in reshaping energy systems. Nevertheless, how these elements collectively drive deeper transformation in electricity market structures remains underexplored. That is a question addressed in the following section. 1.4 Understanding market transformation: key perspectives Consistent with the view that markets are malleable and evolving systems, market transformation is understood as a multifaceted and ongoing process rather than a singular event (Mele et al., 2015). Westman et al. (2023) highlight that market transformation affects all transactions within a market by reshaping the production, consumption, and structural foundations of goods and services. While transformation can indeed be spurred by major disruptions, it often unfolds as a layered process shaped by incremental change (Nijhof et al., 2022). Sarasvathy & Dew (2005) explain that an interplay of technological, political, and regulatory forces typically drives such evolution. These external factors interact with internal market dynamics as actors actively reconfigure market structures (Flaig & Ottosson, 2022). In the context of electricity systems, particularly energy flexibility, the focus lies in transforming existing market structures rather than creating entirely new markets or initiating radical sustainability transitions. Table 1 outlines key research streams related to market change—market creation, market emergence, sustainable market 4 Acta Wasaensia transition, and market innovation—and positions them in relation to energy flexibility. Table 1. Key research streams related to market change Research stream Definition Relevance to energy flexibility-driven market transformation Market creation Involves building entirely new markets through innovation and stakeholder engagement under conditions of uncertainty (Sarasvathy & Dew, 2005). Energy flexibility does not signify the birth of a new market but a transformation of the present electricity sector. Market emergence Often driven by entrepreneurial efforts to leverage cultural or niche dynamics, leading to new market segments (Biraghi et al., 2018). Energy flexibility reflects more of a top-down transformation driven by technology, regulation, and consumer behaviour shifts, rather than organic niche-driven emergence. Sustainable market transition Involves a radical, non-linear shift towards sustainability, progressing through phases such as inception, synergy, and institutionalization (Nijhof et al., 2022). While sustainability goals influence energy flexibility, this study focuses on adapting current market structures rather than a radical overhaul into a purely sustainable system. Market innovation Refers to institutionalized solutions that emerge from intentional efforts by focal actors to carry out and transform markets (Vargo et al., 2015). While focal actors may play a prominent role in facilitating energy flexibility in the market, achieving comprehensive transformation necessitates collaboration among a broader array of actors. 5Acta Wasaensia Given that energy flexibility involves the adaptation and reconfiguration of established systems, this study draws on the notion of market transformation to capture the empirical scope of change. While not a distinct theoretical construct in the marketing literature, market transformation serves the current research as a descriptive anchor that foregrounds gradual, systemic, and actor-driven change. To develop a more analytically rigorous understanding of these dynamics, this study turns to two established perspectives within marketing research: market driving and market shaping (Pels et al., 2023). Market driving refers to firms proactively reshaping market structures and behaviours through innovation to secure new competitive advantages (Jaworski et al., 2000). In this view, firms act as dominant agents, altering consumer expectations, industry norms, and even regulatory frameworks to suit their strategic interests (Narver et al., 2004). However, this perspective assumes a relatively linear and firm- centric view of change. As Pels et al. (2023) argue, such a perspective is increasingly proving inadequate in today’s interconnected and adaptive market environments. In contrast, market shaping conceptualizes transformation as an emergent and distributed process. Here, markets are seen as evolving ecosystems shaped by the ongoing interaction of diverse actors (Baker & Nenonen, 2020). Firms involved in shaping do not simply impose change; they engage in the collaborative reconfiguration of market structures in alignment with broader visions of value and coordination. This view also emphasizes the enabling role of external forces, such as regulation, digital infrastructures, and changing consumer values, in structuring opportinities for transformation (Harrison & Kjellberg, 2016). Therefore, this study adopts the market shaping perspective to investigate energy flexibility as a driver of market transformation. The approach provides a theoretically robust lens with which to analyse how heterogeneous actors interact, coordinate, and align their efforts within complex institutional contexts, while also accounting for the technological and policy environments that condition market evolution. The following section elaborates on this perspective and outlines its conceptual relevance to understanding electricity market transformation. 1.5 Market shaping as a conceptual lens Market shaping has emerged as a central concept in marketing scholarship over the past two decades, offering a powerful lens for understanding the formation, transformation, and evolution of markets (Nenonen & Storbacka, 2021; Pontikes & Rindova, 2020). It moves beyond passive participation, emphasizing strategic efforts 6 Acta Wasaensia to reconfigure market systems by reshaping the roles, behaviours, and expectations of the various actors embedded within them (Hawa et al., 2020). The theoretical foundations of market shaping are deeply interdisciplinary, drawing from economics, sociology, and management (Mele et al., 2015). Several overlapping perspectives, such as institutional theory, the resource-based view, practice theory, social movement theory, innovation research, entrepreneurship, and service- dominant logic (SDL), contribute to this body of work (Nenonen and Storbacka, 2021). Each offers distinct insights into how actors shape markets. For instance, institutional theory explains how stakeholders participate in institutional work to preserve, disrupt, or create new operating principals (Kaartemo et al., 2020), while SDL focuses on resource alignment and value co-creation across networks (Arnould, 2008). Other strands emphasize the dynamic capabilities of firms, including their ability to sense, seize, and transform in response to changing environments (Flaig et al., 2021). Crucially, market shaping is typically understood as an ecosystem-level phenomenon. It unfolds in settings where a plurality of actors engage to co-create value, leading to the emergence of new markets or the transformation of existing ones (Adner, 2017; Nenonen et al., 2019). In this study, the ecosystem perspective is applied descriptively to the Finnish electricity sector, highlighting interactions that extend beyond producer-consumer exchanges to involve coordination across institutional, technological, and symbolic domains (Pels et al., 2023). When ecosystem participants are aligned, market-shaping efforts are reinforced and enable firms to create favourable conditions for collective transformation (Storbacka et al., 2022). Furthermore, periods of crises and disruption, such as turbulence from globalization, climate change, or pandemics, often act as catalysts for market shaping (Nenonen & Storbacka, 2021; Pedersen & Ritter, 2022). These shifts allow actors to reorganize their roles and activities to achieve specific objectives (Storbacka et al., 2022). Innovations during these periods are often adaptive responses rather than radical disruptions, as actors integrate existing technologies and practices to create value in creative ways (Kaartemo & Nyström, 2021; Nenonen et al., 2019). Intentionality plays a key part in this process, as visionary ideas about future market configurations shape actors’ mental models, business practices, and organizational behaviour (Baker & Nenonen, 2020; Flaig et al., 2021). This process is known as market scripting and involves reconfiguring the foundational structures and practices of a market (Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011). The electricity market provides a particularly compelling context for studying market shaping due to its ongoing transformation. As Syväri et al. (2025) note, market shaping in this sector goes far beyond regulatory compliance or externality 7Acta Wasaensia mitigation to encompass reimagining the fundamental logics of exchange, ownership, and value. For example, the liberalization of electricity markets in the 1990s required profound institutional restructuring to break up monopolies and embed competition (Glachant & Finon, 2003). Similarly, recent EU-level institutional reforms, such as REPowerEU, reflect ongoing efforts to reshape the energy markets (European Commission, 2022). These reforms emphasize accelerating renewable deployment and energy efficiency while also reinforcing consumer engagement, including participation in flexibility markets. Concurrently, actor roles are also undergoing a significant shift. Utilities and grid operators now operate alongside prosumers, energy communities, and digital service providers, each contributing to a distributed and collaborative shaping process (Schaumann & Tarnovskaya, 2023). Such actor diversification exemplifies how market shaping is not limited to dominant incumbents but involves alignment and negotiation across a broader ecosystem. Moreover, market shaping in electricity systems entails the dual nature of market- shaping strategies, with offensive strategies (e.g. introducing ensuring grid stability given variable renewables) both coexisting in the market (Di Foggia et al., 2022; Syväri et al., 2025). Finally, the electricity sector resonates with SDL’s systemic view of markets as configurations of resource integrating actors (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). Markets here are shaped through dynamic integration of generation, consumption, and storage resources across multiple levels (Rahman et al., 2025). This integration illustrates how shaping efforts transcend individual firm boundaries and unfold at the level of entire market systems. Against this backdrop, the following section outlines the purpose of this study and presents the research questions it seeks to address. 1.6 Purpose of the study, research questions, and intended contributions Despite increasing scholarly attention on the evolution of markets, limited understanding persists regarding the mechanisms through which markets are shaped, whether by individual actors exercising strategic agency or through collective, ecosystem-wide interactions. This dissertation addresses that gap by examining how market shaping unfolds across different levels of agency and coordination, driven by technological advances, regulatory shifts, and sustainability imperatives. Specifically, it responds to calls in the literature for exploratory research illuminating the mechanisms, actions, and interactions through which market- shaping processes emerge and evolve (e.g., Nenonen & Storbacka, 2021). 8 Acta Wasaensia The study’s empirical basis is the Finnish electricity ecosystem, and it investigates three interconnected dynamics: how focal actors strategically reconfigure markets through business model innovation (BMI); how platforms and their governance mechanisms enable coordination among distributed actors; and how value co- creation fosters institutional transformation through collaborative resource integration. While these frameworks have been widely studied in isolation, their interdependencies and combined market-shaping potential remain underexplored, particularly in infrastructure-intensive, regulated sectors. This study brings these lenses into dialogue, linking microfoundations of strategy and dynamic capabilities with ecosystem-wide coordination and collaborative institutional change (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Vargo et al., 2015). Synthesizing these perspectives enables a comprehensive investigation of market shaping as a layered, actor-driven process. Accordingly, this thesis is guided by the following research question: How do actors’ actions and interactions contribute to market shaping over time? This overarching question is addressed through three interlinked sub-questions: RQ1: How do focal actors strategically contribute to market shaping in response to external pressures? This question investigates how focal actors, such as electricity retailers, strategically mobilize organizational capabilities to shape emerging market structures in the Finnish electricity ecosystem. The empirical focus lies in understanding how these actors leverage BMI to respond to regulatory shifts, technological disruption, and sustainability imperatives. The key parties apply BMI to reconfigure their value creation and capture logics, contributing to broader market transformation. The study draws on the microfoundations perspective of BMI, which emphasizes mechanisms such as sensing, seizing, and transforming capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, 2007). These dynamic capabilities, embedded in decision- making routines and managerial practices, constitute the building blocks of strategic agency. While BMI has been widely examined as a tool for firm adaptation, its role in intentional market shaping remains underexplored (Hawa et al., 2020; Nenonen & Storbacka, 2021; Storbacka, 2019). By investigating how electricity retailers strategically deploy these microfoundation elements, the study deepens the understanding of focal actors’ agency in market transformation and extends the application of BMI theory. It offers practical insights for energy companies seeking to redesign their business models to align with market conditions and institutional change. 9Acta Wasaensia RQ2: In what ways do coordination mechanisms enable collaboration across an evolving market ecosystem? This question examines how platforms function as coordination mechanisms that facilitate collective market shaping by aligning and orchestrating diverse ecosystem actors. In particular, it investigates how governance structures, such as access rules, control rights, and incentive mechanisms, shape participation, interaction, and value exchange across the market. Drawing on platform governance theory, the study conceptualizes platforms not merely as digital infrastructures but as institutional arrangements that define roles, responsibilities, and collaborative pathways in emerging market configurations (Rahman et al., 2021). The empirical focus of the study is on digital platform development in the Finnish electricity sector, explored through use cases such as managing energy flexibility, aggregating demand-side resources, and facilitating decentralized transactions. These platforms provide coordination architectures that enable participation by both incumbent and emerging actors and nurture interoperability, transparency, and distributed innovation. In doing so, this research contributes to the literature on platform-mediated market dynamics and offers practical insights into how governance design can support flexible, responsive, and collaborative energy ecosystems (Amit & Zott, 2001; De Oliveira & Cortimiglia, 2017; Kavadias et al., 2016). RQ3: How do actors align and integrate resources to co-create value, leading to market shaping? The research question is rooted in SDL and investigates how actors within the Finnish electricity ecosystem mobilize resources to co-create value and, in the process, shape emerging market structures. The empirical focus lies in examining prosumer-enabled energy flexibility initiatives, where actors such as consumers, utilities, and technology providers align their resources and capabilities to enable more responsive and distributed energy systems. These efforts provide a lens on how ecosystem-level collaboration drives institutional and structural change. Service-dominant logic conceptualizes markets as evolving systems of resource- integrating actors where value is created through interaction rather than isolated exchange (Nenonen & Storbacka, 2010; S. L. Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Within this framework, institutional arrangements both shape and are shaped by collaborative activity (Kaartemo et al., 2020). This study investigates such dynamics in practice by analysing how energy market actors engage in resource alignment that transforms the institutional fabric of the market. Consequently, it contributes to emerging midrange theorization of market shaping by empirically grounding SDL in a sectoral application (Kaartemo & Nyström, 2021; S. L. Vargo & Lusch, 2017). It offers 10 Acta Wasaensia practitioners insights into how cross sectoral collaboration enables more responsive and participatory energy systems through value co-creation. 1.7 Positioning of the study The conceptual ambiguity around what constitutes a market continues to spur calls for research grounded in real-world practices and actor dynamics (Mele et al., 2015; Möller et al., 2020). This dissertation answers that call by positioning itself within the market shaping literature, which views markets as evolving ecosystems shaped by the purposeful actions and interactions of multiple actors (Pels et al., 2022). This perspective is particularly valuable for analysing the electricity sector, where longstanding structures are being reconfigured in response to external pressures such as digitalization, regulatory change, and new consumption practices. Within this setting, energy flexibility provides a focal point for examining how market transformation unfolds in practice, capturing both adaptive responses and deliberate efforts to steer systemic change (Ruostetsaari, 2020). The study integrates three theoretical pillars to help illustrate this process: BMI, platform governance, and value co-creation. Illustrated in Figure 1, these concepts operate at different but interconnected levels of analysis: • BMI captures how focal actors (e.g., electricity retailers) strategically innovate and reconfigure their business models in response to changes in the external environment. • Platform governance represents the coordination mechanisms that align and organize interactions among multiple ecosystem actors through shared rules, standards, and infrastructures. • Value co-creation focuses on collaborative resource integration across actor groups, emphasizing how value is co-created through interaction and how markets are shaped through distributed participation. The combination of these perspectives provides a multilevel framework for analysing how market shaping unfolds in a complex socio-technical system. This dissertation contributes to midrange theorizing by empirically operationalizing the concept of market shaping in a sectoral context, using energy flexibility as a lens. 11Acta Wasaensia Figure 1. Conceptual framework of market shaping in this dissertation. 1.8 Structure of the study This dissertation follows a two-part structure. The first part—the introductory chapter or kappa—presents the overarching synthesis of the research project. It outlines the research objectives, reviews the relevant literature, discusses the philosophical and methodological choices, summarizes the individual articles, and synthesizes the main findings and contributions. The second part consists of the three individual articles that form the empirical basis of the study. Within the first part, The Introduction section presents the research problem, theoretical framing, and research questions. The Literature Review section discusses the key bodies of literature and connects them to the concept of market shaping. The Methodology section discusses the ontological, epistemological, and axiological underpinnings of the study and outlines the methodological choices, including data collection, analysis, and reporting strategies. The fourth section summarizes the three research articles and highlights their main contributions. An overview of these articles is also provided in Table 2. Next, the Discussion section synthesizes the principal findings of the dissertation, discusses their theoretical relevance and presents a revised framework integrating the empirical insights. The Conclusion section closes the first part of the dissertation by outlining the key theoretical and practical implications of the study. It also reflects on the study’s main limitations and proposes directions for future research. Market shaping domainBMI Strategic agency at the focal actor level Platforms Governance and coordination mechanisms Value co- creation Co-creation and instituttional alignment 12 Acta Wasaensia Table 2. Overview of the dissertation articles Article I Article II Article III Title Microfoundations for business model innovation: Exploring the interplay between individuals, practices, and organizational design Ushering in a new dawn: Demand-side local flexibility platform governance and design in the Finnish energy markets Prosumer flexibility as an enabler for ecosystem value co- creation: A resource integration approach from the Finnish electricity markets Research questions addressed RQ1: How do focal actors strategically contribute to market shaping in response to external pressures? RQ2: In what ways do coordination mechanisms enable collaboration across an evolving market ecosystem? RQ3: How do actors align and integrate resources to co- create value, leading to market shaping? Themes Microfoundations, BMI, strategic adaption, and focal actors Platform design and governance, collective action, and flexibility markets Resource integration, value co- creation, prosumer engagement, and ecosystem-wide transformation Type of research Empirical study focusing on the microfoundation aspects of BMI in electricity retailers Empirical study on platform governance and design in energy flexibility markets Empirical study using resource integration theory to explore actor roles in co- creation Gaps addressed Provides insights into how electricity retailers strategically adapt their business models, highlighting microfoundations that drive market shaping Shows how platform governance structures facilitate collective action among diverse market actors Demonstrates actor roles in value co- creation and how resource integration supports ecosystem- wide market shaping in the energy sector 13Acta Wasaensia 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This section examines the theoretical foundations of the dissertation. It first maps the key literature streams on market shaping and highlights critical gaps. It then provides an overview of BMI, platforms, and value co-creation literature, and situates each within the broader market-shaping framework. 2.1 State of research on market shaping This section reviews the state of research on market shaping by outlining key literature streams that have structured the field, followed by a discussion of critical gaps. 2.1.1 Key literature streams in market shaping As noted in the introductory sections, market shaping builds on interdisciplinary foundations. Building on this base, research has expanded and branched out into key streams such as processes, activities, roles, capabilities, and strategies (Nenonen & Storbacka, 2021; Sandvik et al., 2024), as summarized in Table 3. Scholars have explored how firms intentionally disrupt or maintain market conditions (their strategies), how they engage in collaborative value creation and resource alignment (their activities), the dynamic capabilities that enable effective shaping (their capabilities), the sequential and symbolic processes involved (the processes), and the resulting impacts on market configuration (the outcomes) (Azimont & Araujo, 2007; Flaig et al., 2021; Nenonen et al., 2019; Sandvik et al., 2024). Table 3. Conceptual map of market shaping literature Key literature streams Detailed description Central concepts Representative articles Market shaping strategy Refers to the intentional activities firms perform to shape market dynamics in their favour. These strategies can be offensive or defensive, depending on the firm's objectives and its reading of the market stability. Strategic actions include efforts to shape market demand, influence competitive dynamics, or alter institutional Market disruption, market maintenance, and market widening Flaig et al., (2021); Nenonen et al., (2024); Flaig et al., (2021b) 14 Acta Wasaensia Key literature streams Detailed description Central concepts Representative articles frameworks, which together contribute to the long-term reconfiguration of market systems. Market shaping activities Encompasses the specific external actions that actors take to influence market dynamics. These activities involve direct interactions with market participants and structures, such as value co- creation, resource alignment, and technological innovation. Firms engage in these activities to reclassify products, reposition brands, or shape customer expectations. Value co- creation, collaboration, resource alignment, technological innovation, and market reclassification Kindström et al., (2018); Flaig and Ottosson (2022); Baker et al., (2018) Baker & Nenonen (2020); Azimont and Araujo (2007) Market shaping capabilities Focuses on the internal dynamic capabilities firms must develop and leverage to effectively shape markets. These include the capacity to sense market shifts, seize opportunities, and transform resources and activities in response to market conditions. Sensing, seizing, transforming, dynamic capabilities, triggering capabilities, and facilitating capabilities Nenonen et al., (2019); Windahl et al., (2020) Market shaping processes Refers to both the underlying mechanisms and the phases through which firms engage in market shaping. Those processes involve phases such as market exploration, preparation, and experimentation, as well as the symbolic and ideological work needed to reconfigure market narratives and influence market actors. Market exploration, market preparation, market experimentation Regulation and policy, innovation and technology, narrative and symbolism, and ideology shaping Sandvik et al. (2024); Flaig et al. (2021a) Kindström et al., (2023); Storbacka & Nenonen (2011) Baker et al., (2018); Azimont and Araujo (2007) 15Acta Wasaensia Key literature streams Detailed description Central concepts Representative articles Market shaping outcomes Discusses the final results or impacts of market shaping efforts. Market outcomes can range from the creation of entirely new markets to the transformation or stabilization of existing ones. These outcomes are influenced by the effectiveness of market- shaping activities, strategies, and capabilities. Market creation, market transformation, market stabilization, value creation, and resource linkages Flaig et al., (2021); Nenonen et al., (2024); Nenonen et al., (2019) 2.1.2 Critical gaps in market shaping research As articulated previously, market shaping provides a compelling lens illuminating how actors actively influence market configurations, norms, and structures (Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011). This perspective highlights the intentional efforts of firms, policymakers, and other stakeholders to alter market conditions, industry standards, and resource flows. To analyse these efforts, market shaping is often disaggregated into three core components: actors (‘who’), objects (‘what’), and processes (‘how’) (Flaig et al., 2021; Nenonen et al., 2019). Markets evolve within ecosystems where interdependent actors collaborate and compete to shape industry trajectories (Adner, 2017; Pels et al., 2023). These ecosystems operate across multiple levels—micro, meso, and macro—forming dynamic structures that facilitate or constrain innovation and value creation (Nenonen & Storbacka, 2021). While previous research has explored how ecosystems develop through new business models and value co-creation, there is limited understanding of how emerging markets stabilize, particularly in early-stage settings where governance structures and actor relationships are still forming (Purchase et al., 2024). A key research gap concerns the role of platforms as orchestrators of market shaping. Platforms facilitate multi-actor coordination, align incentives, and enable technological convergence through governance mechanisms (Kaartemo & Nyström, 2021). While their influence in mature ecosystems is well established, less attention has been paid to how platforms function in nascent market environments, where regulatory uncertainty, fragmented actor networks, and undefined market norms present added challenges (Purchase et al., 2024). Similarly, the inclusion of peripheral stakeholders remains under-theorized, despite their growing role in 16 Acta Wasaensia shaping decentralized and user-driven markets (Schaumann & Tarnovskaya, 2023). Understanding how firms can engage these actors more effectively presents an important research avenue. Another unresolved question concerns resource integration and sensemaking. The ability to align perspectives, create shared meaning, and coordinate resource flows is fundamental to market shaping, yet the mechanisms through which this occurs remain somewhat opaque (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2021). Firms that successfully foster a shared understanding among stakeholders can accelerate institutional alignment and ecosystem co-evolution; however research has yet to capture the temporal and translational dynamics underlying these processes (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Mattsson & Junker, 2023). Additionally, the interplay between offensive and defensive market-shaping strategies warrant further investigation. While some firms pursue aggressive innovation strategies disrupting existing norms (offensive shaping), others focus on preserving stability and maintaining regulatory alignment (defensive shaping) (Flaig et al., 2021). How firms hybridize these approaches to balance disruption and stability is especially relevant in regulated industries such as energy, where market transitions require long-term coordination involving multiple stakeholders. Finally, future-oriented visions play a crucial role in market shaping by effecting governance structures and institutional norms. However, research has yet to fully examine how long-term visions guide regulatory frameworks and ecosystem coordination, particularly in fuzzy front-end markets, where structures are still emerging (Purchase et al., 2024). Understanding how firms and policymakers embed future visions into market-shaping efforts could offer new insights into long-term industry transformation. The following sections expand on these themes by exploring three critical mechanisms that drive market shaping: BMI, platforms, and value co-creation through resource integration. Business model innovation empowers firms to reconfigure market structures, challenge dominant logics, and introduce new value propositions that drive systemic change. Platforms facilitate multi-actor coordination, governance structuring, and technological alignment, making them essential in shaping emerging and established markets alike. Finally, value co- creation and resource integration highlight the collaborative processes through which actors integrate resources, establish institutional norms, and embed shared meanings into market structures. Together, these perspectives provide a comprehensive framework to unveil how markets are shaped and transformed over time. 17Acta Wasaensia 2.2 An overview of business models, business model innovation, and microfoundations Business models serve as fundamental frameworks through which firms structure value creation, delivery, and capture (Coombes & Nicholson, 2013). These models not only provide organizations with mechanisms to sustain competitive advantage but also enable them to navigate complex and evolving market landscapes (Foss & Saebi, 2018; Teece, 2010). As adaptable systems, business models enable firms to align their internal processes with external changes, particularly in volatile environments (Palmié et al., 2021). Beyond operational structuring, business models contribute to systemic market evolution, acting as vehicles for competitive strategy and market transformation (Budde Christensen et al., 2012). The increasing dynamism of markets, particularly in sectors undergoing disruptive transitions, underscores the need for firms to continuously adapt their business models (Hall & Roelich, 2016; Karami & Madlener, 2021). Teece (2010) highlights that business models must evolve to accommodate external pressures, including emerging technologies, regulatory realignments, and shifting consumer expectations. Nevertheless, reconfiguring such models in response to dynamic environments is rarely straightforward. When legacy models constrain a firm’s ability to innovate, BMI becomes a crucial mechanism for transformation, allowing the organization to fundamentally reconfigure value structures and market interactions (Foss & Saebi, 2017). Business model innovation involves strategically modifying constituent components, including value propositions, revenue models, and delivery mechanisms, to generate new opportunities and address emerging challenges (Kavadias et al., 2016). The successful integration of technological advancements into effective business models is a key driver of industry transformation, emphasizing the importance of aligning innovation with market needs (Kavadias et al., 2016). However, BMI is not a linear process; it involves iterative experimentation, learning, and adaptation. Firms engage in trial-and-error cycles to refine their strategies, ensuring that new models align with changing market conditions (Sosna et al., 2010). Despite its potential, BMI can be hampered by cognitive and structural barriers. Cognitive biases, often shaped by dominant industry logics, can limit managerial decision-making and prevent firms from recognizing transformative opportunities (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002). Structural barriers, such as deeply entrenched value chains and regulatory complexities, further restrict firms' ability to implement novel business models, particularly in highly regulated sectors (Gavetti et al., 2017; Richter, 2013). Overcoming these challenges necessitates a focus on the microfoundations of BMI, which are the individual and organizational-level mechanisms that drive the process (Felin & Foss, 2005). 18 Acta Wasaensia The microfoundation perspective on BMI offers a lens for examining the underlying decision-making heuristics, resource reconfigurations, and learning processes that enable firms to shape markets (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, 2007). Managers play a pivotal role in interpreting market signals and translating them into actionable business model adjustments, often requiring cognitive shifts to overcome organizational inertia (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002). Furthermore, the ability to reconfigure technological, human and financial resources determines the effectiveness of BMI in aligning firms with broader ecosystem shifts (Gummesson & Mele, 2010). Learning and adaptation are integral to this process, as firms must continuously refine their business logic to sustain competitive advantage in uncertain environments (Palmié et al., 2021; Rabetino et al., 2025). To support such processes, organizations must balance innovation and operational continuity —what O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) describe as ambidexterity. In markets such as energy, where technological disruptions and regulatory changes demand continuous evolution, BMI microfoundations are particularly critical. This perspective is particularly relevant when examining the role of focal actors in market shaping, which is explored in the next section. 2.2.1 Business model innovation as a focal actor perspective in market shaping Business model innovation emerges as a pivotal mechanism in market shaping, as it enables focal actors not only to adapt to market conditions but to actively shape them (Flaig & Ottosson, 2022). Traditionally, researchers have presented BMI as a firm- centric process, but its impact extends beyond the firm. Recent scholarship underscores its influence on the broader ecosystem and establishes that it can be a tool for redefining market structures, influencing industry norms, and catalysing systemic change (Kindström et al., 2023). Focal actors, namely firms with significant influence, play a central role in reconfiguring market dynamics through BMI. They introduce new value propositions, alter resource flows, and embed new market logics into the broader ecosystem (Gitelman & Kozhevnikov, 2023). For instance, in energy markets, firms leveraging BMI to introduce demand-response mechanisms do not merely compete within existing structures but actively reshape how value is created, exchanged, and regulated (Kaartemo & Nyström, 2021). A crucial aspect of BMI in terms of market shaping is its ability to challenge and reframe institutionalized mental models; the dominant assumptions that govern industry practices (Kindström et al., 2023). Market shaping requires firms to 19Acta Wasaensia influence how other actors perceive and engage with markets, creating new behavioural expectations and industry standards (Pedersen & Ritter, 2022). Often termed market scripting, this process involves embedding novel business logics into regulatory frameworks, consumer behaviour, and competitor strategies (Baker & Nenonen, 2020). For example, in sustainable energy markets, firms pioneering peer- to-peer energy trading use BMI not only to design viable business models but also to legitimize fresh ways of structuring energy transactions. Market-shaping strategies driven by BMI can be categorized as either offensive or defensive; however, recent studies suggest that firms are increasingly applying hybrid approaches to balance short-term stability with long-term transformation (Syväri et al., 2025). Offensive shaping involves introducing radically new business models, pricing mechanisms, or enhanced consumer engagement aimed at redefining market boundaries. Defensive shaping emphasizes regulatory alignment, stakeholder reassurance, and safeguarding system stability (Flaig et al., 2021). This dual approach is particularly salient in energy markets, where innovation must be pursued within tightly regulated and reliability-focused infrastructures (Parag & Sovacool, 2016). Finally, the microfoundation underpinnings of BMI in market shaping remain largely underexplored. Existing research has examined BMI as a firm-level adaptation tool, often overlooking the individual and organizational capabilities that drive market- shaping efforts (Kumar & Srivastava, 2020). However, studies increasingly highlight the cognitive, relational, and structural microfoundations that enable BMI-driven market transformation (Felin & Foss, 2005; Nenonen & Storbacka, 2021). Managerial cognition plays a crucial role, as decision-makers must interpret emerging trends, construct new value narratives, and align stakeholders on shared visions (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002). At the same time, the ability to strategically reconfigure resources and develop dynamic capabilities is essential for firms to facilitate new market interactions and realign their institutional frameworks (Teece, 2007). This requires firms to experiment iteratively, engaging in trial-and-error processes to test, refine, and scale new market structures (Sosna et al., 2010). Firms that can integrate these microfoundations can apply innovative business models to move beyond reactive market adaptation toward proactive market shaping. 2.3 Overview of platforms and their role in ecosystems Platforms have emerged as fundamental enablers of contemporary business ecosystems, facilitating interaction, value creation, and innovation among a diverse range of actors. While the platform concept is not novel (Kim, 2018), platforms’ role has expanded with technological advancements and the digital economy (Schneider, 20 Acta Wasaensia 2018). Platforms function as multi-sided markets that mediate interactions between producers, consumers, and third-party contributors (Eisenmann et al., 2006), shaping industries through their ability to connect and coordinate stakeholders (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014). At their core, platforms provide the infrastructure for collaboration and value exchange, enabling ecosystem participants to co-develop complementary products, technologies, and services (Gawer, 2009). That characteristic makes platforms pivotal to reshaping industries by enabling resource exchange, standardization, and multi- actor coordination (Fenwick et al., 2019). Whether centralized (controlled by a dominant firm) or decentralized ecosystems (such as blockchain-driven networks), platforms mediate competitive dynamics and strategic interactions within market environments (Fenwick et al., 2019). Platforms also represent a distinct business model that is different from linear value chains. Unlike conventional firms that operate within predefined industry boundaries, platforms leverage network effects, where increased participation expands the total value available to all participants (Katona et al., 2011). These ecosystems thrive on interdependencies, meaning that platform participants do not merely consume value but actively co-create it (Gawer & Henderson, 2007). This structural flexibility enhances adaptability, allowing platforms to integrate evolving technological, regulatory, and market requirements (Eloranta & Turunen, 2016). Governance is a key determinant of platform success, ensuring transparency, trust, and alignment among participants. Governance mechanisms define decision rights, participation rules, pricing models, and accountability structures, thereby shaping how actors engage within platform ecosystems (Tiwana et al., 2010). The effectiveness of platform governance depends on balancing control and openness— restricting access where necessary while enabling enough elasticity for innovation (Parker & Van Alstyne, 2018). In dynamic sectors like energy flexibility markets, governance frameworks must accommodate emerging players while maintaining system stability (Rahman et al., 2021). Table 4 summarizes the key platform governance and design decisions that an ecosystem managers must consider to ensure platform effectiveness and sustainability. 21Acta Wasaensia Table 4. Key platform governance decisions Platform Governance Decisions Description Sources Ownership and Leadership Structures Defines who controls the platform (e.g., platform owner, third party) and determines market access, nurturing competition, or maintaining incumbents’ dominance. Tiwana et al. (2010); Fenwick et al. (2019) Operational Rules and Processes Establishes how actors interact within the ecosystem, including participation guidelines, transaction rules, and integration of new services or technologies. Gawer, 2021; Tiwana et al. (2010); Tura et al. (2018) Data Security and Privacy Protocols Maintains trust through secure data exchange and privacy protections, enabling efficient operations and stakeholder confidence. Fenwick et al. (2019); Tiwana et al. (2010) Pricing and Revenue Models Determines how the platform generates and distributes revenue to sustain operations while encouraging participation and innovation. Furstenau et al. (2019); Tura et al. (2018) Stakeholder Collaboration Facilitates interactions and alignment among diverse participants to promote value co-creation and innovation. Gawer & Cusumano (2014); Brusoni & Prencipe (2009) Balance Between Autonomy and Control Strikes a balance between providing participants with enough freedom to innovate and retaining necessary control to safeguard platform integrity. Tiwana et al. (2010); Fenwick et al. (2019); Parker & Van Alstyne, 2018 22 Acta Wasaensia 2.3.1 Platforms as catalysts for collective market shaping Platforms have long been studied as technological and economic facilitators, but their role in market shaping has only recently been recognized (e.g., Kaartemo & Nyström, 2021). Platforms do not just mediate transactions; they actively reshape market structures, define competitive dynamics, and influence regulatory frameworks (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014). Moreover, platforms’ governance structures support multi-actor alignment, collective action, and ecosystem-wide coordination (Fehrer et al., 2018). Recent research highlights that platforms act as orchestrators of systemic change, moving beyond traditional firm-centric models of market shaping (Nenonen et al., 2019). Instead of individual firms driving market evolution, platforms aggregate and synchronize the efforts of various ecosystem actors, including regulators, startups, incumbents, and consumers (Baker & Nenonen, 2020). This shift from a dominant- actor-driven to a collectively orchestrated market-shaping indicates a fundamental change in how industries evolve (Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011). A central mechanism through which platforms shape markets is governance-driven market orchestration. Effective governance ensures that platforms establish shared norms (Kindström et al., 2023), incorporating new rules and industry standards into market ecosystems. It further enables technological convergence by defining interoperability requirements and resource exchange frameworks (Kaartemo & Nyström, 2021). Governance orchestration also mediates power dynamics by balancing inclusivity (welcoming new entrants) with control mechanisms that prevent monopolistic behaviours (Tiwana et al., 2010). Moreover, platforms function as regulatory intermediaries, bridging the gap between fragmented regulatory environments and market actors (Pedersen & Ritter, 2022). Platforms serving energy markets facilitate compliance with policies and regulations while allowing for decentralized innovation, such as peer-to-peer energy trading (Gitelman & Kozhevnikov, 2023). By integrating policy mechanisms into governance structures, platforms effectively co-shape regulatory landscapes alongside firms and policymakers. The dual role of platforms as market orchestrators and regulatory intermediaries highlights their ability to facilitate both incremental adaptations and systemic transformations (Fehrer et al., 2018). Furthermore, unlike linear firm- driven innovations, platform-based market shaping relies on distributed agency, where multiple actors contribute to shaping market outcomes over time (Flaig & Ottosson, 2022). Despite the transformative potential of platforms, several gaps remain in understanding their role as catalysts for collective market shaping. For instance, 23Acta Wasaensia platforms are particularly influential in nascent ecosystems, where norms and relationships are still forming. However, research remains limited on how platforms synchronize emerging actors and align incentives during the early stages of market development (Purchase et al., 2024). Additionally, while recent studies emphasize their role in shaping mental models and market narratives, the mechanisms through which platforms script new market logics and influence institutional change require further exploration (Kindström et al., 2023). 2.4 Overview of value co-creation and resource integration Value co-creation has become a foundational concept in understanding collaborative market dynamics, particularly within the SDL framework (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008). Service-dominant logic reconceptualizes markets as interconnected ecosystems where value emerges through resource integration and reciprocal interactions rather than through traditional linear exchanges (Akaka & Vargo, 2014). This perspective expands value co-creation beyond firm-customer interactions to include multi-actor collaborations, incorporating firms, consumers, regulators, and technology providers into shared value-creation processes (Hein et al., 2019; Williams & Aitken, 2011). The theoretical foundations of value co-creation have been examined through various lenses. Saha et al. (2022) identify four dominant perspectives—SDL, practice theory, social exchange theory, and stakeholder theory—each offering distinct insights into how actors interact and integrate resources in market environments. Similarly, Alves et al. (2016) categorize co-creation research into six streams, emphasizing aspects such as service science, postmodern marketing, and consumer culture theory. Among these, SDL is particularly relevant for market shaping, as it underscores the role of resource integration in reconfiguring market structures and driving systemic transformation (Saha et al., 2022). Importantly, resource integration plays an essential role in both value co-creation and market shaping by facilitating the alignment and recombination of various resources, enabling markets to evolve dynamically (Vargo & Lusch, 2006). It involves the structured and collaborative deployment of technological, financial, and relational resources to generate new value propositions (Frow et al., 2016). Three key dimensions of resource integration relevant to market shaping are complementarity, redundancy, and asymmetry. Complementary refers to the integration of synergistic resources, such as combining technological capabilities with market knowledge, to nurture innovation (Gummesson & Mele, 2010). 24 Acta Wasaensia Redundancy, involving the sharing of resources among actors, facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge and collective learning but requires careful management to avoid inefficiencies (Pikkarainen et al., 2022). Asymmetry, characterized by unequal access to critical resources such as capital or networks, necessitates deliberate efforts to promote inclusivity and equitable participation (Dehling et al., 2022; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Resource integration drives market shaping by enabling actors to align their capabilities and address shared challenges. For instance, in the energy market, it facilitates the integration of green energy technologies with existing infrastructure to create flexible energy systems (Shakeel et al., 2023). From a process perspective, value co-creation unfolds through three interconnected stages: antecedents, activities, and outcomes (De Oliveira & Cortimiglia, 2017). Antecedents establish the conditions conducive to collaboration, such as trust, shared objectives, and governance frameworks. Activities involve active resource integration and joint problem-solving among ecosystem actors to generate market value. The outcomes of these interactions include economic value, institutional stability, knowledge diffusion, and innovation spill overs. Value co-creation is particularly relevant in markets undergoing technological and regulatory transformation, as collective efforts not only lower transaction costs and enhance system adaptability but also drive new market configurations (Mele et al., 2010; Nenonen & Storbacka, 2010). For instance, in energy markets, prosumers actively shape market structures by contributing surplus energy to decentralized networks, thereby influencing grid stability and reshaping traditional distribution models (Shakeel et al., 2023). 2.4.1 Value co-creation as a mechanism for market shaping Unlike firm-centric market strategies, value co-creation is rooted in collective action, positioning markets as adaptive ecosystems where interactions among diverse stakeholders continuously reshape structures and create new value networks (Nenonen et al., 2019; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Value co-creation-based market shaping operates through three interrelated mechanisms. First, institutional work and market reconfiguration emerge as actors engage in repeated interactions, co-developing shared understanding, behavioural expectations, and governance structures that define emerging landscapes (Kindström et al., 2018). These interactions contribute to institutional evolution, where business models, industry standards, and stakeholder relationships are continuously refined, enabling markets to adapt to environmental shifts (Sandvik et al., 2024). Second, networked resource integration further reinforces market shaping as firms, policymakers, and consumers strategically align their resources toward shared objectives (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). 25Acta Wasaensia This process involves coordinated investments, the development of interoperability standards, and the structuring of market infrastructures to support long-term ecosystem stability (Baker et al., 2019). Third, innovation spill overs and market expansion enhance the market’s adaptive capacity by integrating underutilized resources and attracting new participants into value networks (Tantalo & Priem, 2016). As more actors engage in co-creation, they reinforce positive feedback loops that accelerate market transformation, increasing the system’s overall capacity for value creation and exchange (Flaig et al., 2021). In the energy sector, value co-creation mechanisms enable collective energy flexibility, where households, businesses, and utilities dynamically co-integrate resources to balance supply and demand in real time (Di Foggia et al., 2022). This transformation is further reinforced by regulatory shifts that incentivize market participation from prosumers, aggregators, or third-party operators ensuring that policy objectives align with market dynamics (Dodd & Nelson, 2019). Such systemic shifts resonate with socio-technical transition theory, which emphasizes how new technologies, user practices, and institutional structures co-evolve during periods of market transformation (Geels, 2004). By embedding value co-creation principles into energy markets, these mechanisms facilitate both incremental market adjustments and deep systemic transitions toward more sustainable and decentralized energy systems. However, the understanding of how value co-creation measures shape markets remains incomplete. Inclusivity in co-creation is underexplored, particularly with regard to peripheral actors such as community groups and local innovators (Schaumann & Tarnovskaya, 2023). Technology is a critical enabler of co-creation, facilitating real-time coordination, data sharing, and decentralized participation (Amit & Han, 2017). Nevertheless, research on these enablers remains fragmented, particularly in understanding how digitalization enhances co-creation dynamics and scales market transformation (Leone et al., 2021). Additionally, cross-sectoral insights are limited, with most value co-creation studies focusing on high customer involvement sectors, such as consumer technology and product innovation; non- traditional markets, like electricity, remain underrepresented (Alves et al., 2016). 2.5 Integrating theoretical perspectives Taken together, the perspectives of BMI, platforms, and value co-creation offer complementary mechanisms that interconnect dynamically in market shaping. BMI explains how focal firms reconfigure value propositions, challenge dominant logics, and embed new practices that can cascade across the wider market. Platforms extend 26 Acta Wasaensia this agency by creating governance structures and coordination mechanisms that aggregate efforts, synchronize actors, and mediate regulatory or technological conditions. In turn, value co-creation highlights how distributed participation and resource integration consolidate these changes into emergent, adaptive ecosystems. Importantly, these mechanisms are recursive and mutually reinforcing. Firm-level BMI often requires platforms to scale and stabilize new practices; platforms, in turn, depend on value co-creation to generate legitimacy and engagement; and co-creation processes are frequently catalyzed by innovative business models or platform- mediated governance. Thus, market shaping unfolds not through isolated mechanisms but through a dynamic interplay across firm-centric innovation, platform orchestration, and collective co-creation. This synthesis provides the conceptual basis for examining how these dynamics manifest in practice in the following empirical chapters. 27Acta Wasaensia 3 METHODOLOGY This section outlines and justifies the methodological and philosophical foundations of the dissertation. It begins by discussing the study’s research philosophy, including its ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions, followed by an explanation of the chosen research design and the methodological approach. The next part elaborates on the data collection and analysis methods used across the three case studies. The section concludes with a critical evaluation of the research quality, addressing trustworthiness and rigour. 3.1 Research philosophy A research philosophy reflects assumptions about reality (ontology), knowledge (epistemology), and values (axiology). These foundational perspectives shape how the research is designed, how data is collected, and how the findings are interpreted. As this study explores the transformation of the Finnish electricity ecosystem through the lens of market shaping, it necessitates a philosophical stance that can account for both the complexity of socio-technical systems and the agency of actors operating within them. Ontology reflects on the nature of reality and what we consider to exist in the world (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). The ontological position of this study is anchored in critical realism, a stance that asserts reality exists independently of human perceptions and is only partially accessible through observation and interpretation (Bhaskar, 1975; Sayer, 2000). Critical realism posits a stratified view of reality, composed of (i) the real—underlying structures and generative mechanisms; (ii) the actual—events that occur regardless of whether they are observed, and (iii) the empirical—events and experiences as they are perceived and interpreted by human actors. The empirical context of this study, namely the transformation of the Finnish electricity market exemplifies the need for such a layered ontological perspective. Changes such as the rise of prosumers, digital platforms, and novel regulatory mandates are evident; nevertheless, they are underpinned by deeper institutional structures, socio-technical regimes, and historical dependencies that shape and constrain actor behaviour. A critical realist ontology enables the interrogation of these hidden mechanisms, providing a deeper understanding of how and why certain patterns of market change emerge. Moreover, the focus of this dissertation on market shaping demands an ontological lens that appreciates both the constructed nature of markets and their embeddedness in material and institutional structures. Markets are not merely abstract or conceptual spaces but socio-material systems that evolve through a combination of mutual constitution of technologies, infrastructures, and 28 Acta Wasaensia social practices (Kjellberg & Helgesson, 2006). As such, the ontological commitment in this study avoids the binary between objectivism and subjectivism. Instead, it embraces a stratified and emergent view of reality grounded in the critical realist tradition, which acknowledges that while reality exists independently, our knowledge of it is always mediated through social interpretation (Bhaskar, 1998; Sayer, 2000). Epistemology deals with how knowledge is generated, evaluated, and justified. From a critical realist perspective, knowledge is considered fallible, theory-laden, and socially mediated, yet capable of uncovering real mechanisms through interpretive engagement and empirical investigation (Bhaskar, 1975; Sayer, 2000). Accordingly, this dissertation adopts the epistemological stance that meaningful explanations require attention to both actors’ sense-making and the broader structural conditions that enable or constrain action. This aligns with the critical realist view that understanding the social world necessitates bridging the interpretive accounts of actors with the causal analysis of the structures that shape their behaviour (Easton, 2010). The approach views subjective meanings and objective mechanisms as independent rather than contradictory; actors’ interpretations are seen as both shaped by and shaping the institutional, material, and technological structures in which they are embedded (Archer, 1995; Sayer, 2000). Hence, interpretive insights contribute to identifying causal tendencies, while causal analysis helps explain the conditions under which certain interpretations emerge and become consequential (Wynn & Williams, 2012). Such epistemology is particularly suited to the study's focus on how actors, including electricity retailers, prosumers, and regulators, make sense of and act upon emergent opportunities in energy flexibility. At the same time, it acknowledges the existence of broader regulatory, infrastructural, and technological systems that influence these sense-making processes The research draws on semi-structured interviews, industry documents, and contextual materials to explore how actors make sense of and respond to emerging developments. However, these accounts are not taken as direct reflections of an objective reality. Instead, they are treated as windows on how different actors engage with, and are shaped by, underlying structural forces and institutional arrangements. The goal is not to generate generalizable laws but to develop context-sensitive explanations that illuminate patterns of agency, coordination, and systemic change. This aligns with critical realism’s post-positivist orientation, which prioritizes explanatory depth over the mere identification of surface-level regularities (Easton, 2010). Axiology refers to the role of values that underpin the research process (Saunders et al., 2012). This dissertation adopts a value-aware stance, recognizing that the topic of 29Acta Wasaensia energy flexibility is deeply entwined with normative concerns such as sustainability, resilience, and the democratization of energy systems. Rather than striving for detached neutrality, the research acknowledges the transformative aspirations of many actors involved in shaping the future of energy systems in Finland. This orientation also reflects the researcher's own position as an engaged scholar. While striving for analytical rigour and empirical grounding, the researcher recognizes that all knowledge is produced from a particular vantage point (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2018; Finlay, 2002). Reflexivity was employed throughout the research process, especially during interviews and analysis, to remain cognisant of personal biases, theoretical predispositions, and contextual influences. That approach included active reflection during interviews, critical engagement with emerging themes during analysis, and iterative sense-making with co-authors and informants (e.g., Tracy, 2010). Moreover, ethical considerations, namely informed consent, confidentiality, and respect for participant perspectives, were integral to the study design and implementation. Participants were treated as co-constructors of knowledge, and their perspectives were respected not only as data points but as valuable insights into the complexities of market shaping (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004; Tracy, 2010). This aligns with the epistemological commitment to understanding markets from the inside out by considering the experiences and interpretations of those who enact them. Such an approach is grounded in interpretivist enquiry, which values thick description and insider perspectives to reveal how actors make sense of and engage with socio-material systems (Flyvbjerg, 2001). While Section 3.2 explains the research design choices, it is also important to consider the methodological implications of the philosophical positions outlined above. Given the study’s critical realist ontology and epistemology, an abductive research logic was adopted. Abduction is well suited to research that moves iteratively between theory and empirical data, allowing the researcher to refine conceptual understandings in light of real-world complexity (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). Such orientation supports the dissertation’s aim to develop an explanatory, midrange theory by linking observed practices and actor perspectives to deeper market-shaping dynamics. It is also consistent with the study’s qualitative case study design, which emphasizes contextually embedded knowledge and interpretive depth. The specific methods of data collection, case selection, and analytical techniques are explicated in the following sections. The research philosophy and the methodological choices of the dissertation are summarized in Table 5. 30 Acta Wasaensia Table 5. Research philosophy Dimension Position adopted Relevance to study Philosophical paradigm Critical realism Enables the investigation of both observable phenomena and the deeper, institutional, and socio- technical mechanisms that shape them; both are necessary for the study of market transformation. Ontology (Assumption about the nature of reality) Stratified Reality (Real / Actual / Empirical) Acknowledges that observable changes in the electricity market are underpinned by hidden structures and historical dependencies. Avoids simplistic objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy. Epistemology (Assumption about the optimal ways to enquire into the nature of the world) Situated Explanation (Critical Realist Epistemology) Combines depth-seeking explanations with sensitivity to actors’ sense-making in context. Recognizes knowledge as fallible, socially situated, and theory- laden. Axiology (Assumptions about the role of values in research) Value-aware and Reflexive Recognizes the normative dimensions of sustainability and energy democratization. Reflects the researcher’s engaged but critically reflexive stance. 3.2 Research design and chosen methods The research design of this dissertation is rooted in a qualitative tradition with its emphasis on uncovering how diverse actors collectively shape the market through BMI, platform governance, and value co-creation. Qualitative research is particularly fitting when the goal is to examine social processes, actor perspectives, and institutional change within real-world contexts (Fisher, 2007). Rather than testing 31Acta Wasaensia predefined hypotheses or pursuing statistical generalization, such methods enable researchers to engage with empirical realities in a flexible and interpretive manner, thereby emphasizing meaning-making, negotiation, and situated action (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Miles et al., 2014). In this dissertation, the research questions are processual and exploratory in nature, as they not only ask what is changing in the electricity market but also how and why actors contribute to market shaping under evolving technological, regulatory, and societal conditions. Such questions demand a design capable of attending to both actor-level sense-making and broader structural influences, precisely where qualitative inquiry excels. Moreover, because energy flexibility remains a relatively novel and developing concept within the electricity market, the phenomenon requires methodological openness and contextual sensitivity, qualities best served by adopting qualitative approaches rather than rigid, variable-driven quantitative designs. A case study strategy was adopted to explore these market-shaping dynamics in depth. A case study design enables an in-depth investigation of contemporary phenomena in their real-life contexts, particularly when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are blurred (Yin, 2015). This is especially relevant in infrastructure-heavy, highly institutionalized settings such as electricity markets. The case study approach supports the dissertation’s aim to produce context-sensitive, empirically grounded insights into the dynamics of market transformation. Given the heterogeneous nature of the research questions, the study employs both multiple and single-case study designs across its three constituent articles. Article I applies a multiple-case-study approach, drawing on three focal cases of electricity retailers in the Finnish market. This design enables comparison across different organizational dynamics and strategic responses to illuminate the microfoundation aspects of BMI in the energy sector. The multiple-case approach helps identify patterns in how retailers adapt their business models in light of regulatory, technological, and consumer changes. Articles II and III employ single-case study designs to investigate specific empirical contexts in greater depth. Article II focuses on the design and governance of a local flexibility market in Finland. The case was selected for its revelatory value and represents the first commercial attempt in Finland to establish a demand-side flexibility platform with collaborative actor involvement. The single-case design permits a detailed examination of the platform’s architecture, governance choices, and stakeholder coordination mechanisms, as well as their implications for the broader evolution of the electricity market. The article thus contributes to the theoretical debate on platform-mediated market shaping. 32 Acta Wasaensia Article III investigates prosumer flexibility and ecosystem-level value co-creation. The study focuses on the Finnish electricity ecosystem as a whole but concentrates on specific actor constellations (e.g., emerging versus incumbent actors) and their resource integration practices. The case illustrates how prosumer engagement with flexibility initiatives contributes to a reconfiguration of market structures and actor roles. A single-case design is appropriate here because it enables an in-depth, process-oriented analysis of complex co-creation dynamics and their institutional embeddedness. The meth