Mobilization for collective market shaping: interplay of innovation and issue networks

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate network mobilization for collective market shaping. The authors focus on sustainable innovations that require broad cross-sectoral mobilization to create collective action among network actors. By drawing on insights from mobilization in innovation and issue networks, the authors shed light on the role of these two different networks in mobilizing collective action and triggering collective market shaping for sustainable innovations.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper presents a qualitative case study on the commercialization of a new low-carbon eco-concrete. The eco-concrete faces significant challenges in entering the market, due to the construction industry’s entrenched practices and institutional arrangements. These challenges emphasize the critical need for mobilizing collective action to generate the momentum for market change.

Findings

The findings reveal four types of interplay between mobilization in innovation and issue networks: synergistic and complementary mobilization that can reinforce collective market shaping and conflicting and diluting mobilization that can impede collective action and hinder the market shaping for sustainable innovations.

Originality/value

This paper contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the role of mobilization in triggering collective market shaping. In particular, this research sheds light on the early stages of market shaping for sustainable innovations where broad mobilization for collective action is critical.

Citation

Mehtälä, M., Lehtimäki, T., Komulainen, H. and Salmi, A. (2025), "Mobilization for collective market shaping: interplay of innovation and issue networks", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 13, pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2024-0113

1. Introduction

There is increasing pressure on companies to create and adopt innovations that address simultaneously economic, environmental and social aspects, i.e. sustainable innovations (Cillo et al., 2019). These innovations, covering products, processes, services and organizational methods are being created at an accelerating pace, but their market implementation remains problematic (Keränen et al., 2023; Planko et al., 2017). Indeed, to achieve substantial sustainability goals, such as reducing carbon emissions on a large scale or transitioning to a circular economy, requires systemic change (Geels, 2011). This means changes across entire supply chains, business models, industry standards and mindsets (Boons et al., 2013; Köhler et al., 2019). Especially in mature industry settings sustainable innovations often encounter resistance from established institutional arrangements, such as industry norms and standards or other regulations, which can constrain market change and potentially hinder or even block their diffusion (Van Bockhaven and Matthyssens, 2017; Vermeulen et al., 2007).

Despite these rigidities and resistance faced in the markets, marketing scholars are increasingly advocating the view of markets as malleable – capable of being shaped by market actors (Nenonen et al., 2014). Market shaping refers to the purposive actions by a market actor or a group of actors to change or modify markets (Nenonen et al., 2019b). The market shaping literature has predominantly taken the perspective of a focal market shaping company (Kindström et al., 2018; Nenonen et al., 2019b), offering a limited view on broader set of network actors. However, market shaping companies can rarely change the market without the help from other market actors. Hence, collective market shaping that takes place through joint and collaborative efforts has gained increasing attention among marketing scholars (Baker and Nenonen, 2020; Fehrer et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2018; Maciel and Fischer, 2020).

Collective marketing shaping is especially relevant for sustainable innovations. These innovations typically involve complex, interrelated challenges that transcend traditional industry boundaries, requiring input and commitment from various actors across the value network (Velter et al., 2020). Furthermore, sustainable innovations often come with additional costs for companies, making the role of policymakers critical in providing incentives to encourage their adoption (Doganova and Karnøe, 2015). Thus, the successful adoption of these innovations frequently hinges on establishing shared goals, aligning economic and environmental aspects and creating supportive institutional frameworks, all of which necessitate collective efforts among diverse stakeholders (Kennedy et al., 2017). Without collective market shaping, sustainable innovations may struggle to gain traction in the market and fail to achieve the systemic changes needed for meaningful sustainability impacts (Musiolik and Markard, 2011; Ottosson et al., 2020; Schot and Geels, 2008).

Although the importance of involving a broad set of actors into market shaping efforts has been recognized (Baker and Nenonen, 2020; Keränen et al., 2023), collective action is still poorly understood within the market shaping literature. Our understanding remains limited especially on how collective action is mobilized and how different network actors are engaged in collective market shaping (Baker et al., 2019; Baker and Nenonen, 2020; Van Bockhaven and Matthyssens, 2017; Storbacka, 2019). Mobilizing market actors and stimulating their engagement is relevant, especially in the early stages of market shaping (Storbacka, 2019; Storbacka et al., 2022), which is characterized by high uncertainty and “fuzziness” about future markets and value propositions (Flaig et al., 2021; Kindström et al., 2023). By examining mobilization, we address the collective action gap in the market shaping literature and provide a deeper understanding of how collective action is initially mobilized to trigger collective market shaping.

To explore the role of mobilization in collective market shaping for sustainable innovation, we draw on insights from the literature on innovation and issue networks, both of which are critical to understanding sustainable innovations. Innovation networks are primarily concerned with the development and commercialization of new technologies, focusing on technical feasibility, market potential and competitive advantage (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2014). However, sustainable innovations, by their very nature, are designed to address pressing environmental challenges, such as reducing carbon emissions. These challenges, or issues, are not just technical or market-based problems, they are deeply embedded within broader societal concerns, which are often the focus of issue networks (Ritvala and Salmi, 2009). Issue networks, which are loose coalitions of a broad range of actors focused on addressing a common issue, play a pivotal role in framing these environmental challenges, shaping public discourse and influencing regulatory frameworks (Dahan et al., 2006). Hence, both innovation and issue network perspectives become central in forming an understanding of mobilization for collective market shaping in sustainable innovation context.

This paper aims to explore how innovation and issue networks together mobilize collective action to trigger market shaping for a sustainable innovation in the early stages of market shaping. Our research question is formulated in the following way:

• RQ1.

  What kind of interplay can be identified between innovation and issue networks in efforts to mobilize collective market shaping for a sustainable innovation?

To answer this research question, our paper presents a qualitative case study focusing on a sustainable innovation in the construction industry: a new low-carbon eco-concrete that is just entering the markets. This enables us to gain a broader view of the critical, early stages of market shaping that require mobilization and engagement across sectors to bring about collective action and trigger market change. The construction industry offers an exemplary case of a stable and conservative industry setting facing strong institutional barriers in the form of standards, norms and regulations that hinder the adoption of new innovations (Lima et al., 2021; Salmi et al., 2022). To overcome these obstacles and shape more sustainable markets, the market actors must actively work together and mobilize collective action on broad fronts.

We contribute to advancing the understanding of the role of mobilization for collective market shaping in a sustainable innovation setting by integrating insights from network mobilization and collective market shaping literature. By focusing on the interplay between innovation-driven and issue-driven mobilization, we provide a novel perspective that sheds light on how different networks can either reinforce or hinder collective market shaping for sustainable innovations. This approach uncovers the dynamics that arise when diverse market shaping goals meet, offering deeper insights into the complexities of collective action in market shaping. Our contributions are also aimed at informing and guiding both market practitioners and policymakers to address the challenges related to implementing and diffusing sustainable innovations through collective action and mobilization.

2. Theoretical background

2.1 Collective market shaping

Markets are viewed in this paper as complex and adaptable value-creating systems that are shaped by a variety of actors (Kjellberg and Helgesson, 2007; Mele et al., 2015; Storbacka and Nenonen, 2015). Market shaping can be defined as the purposive actions of an actor or a group of actors to change market characteristics by re-designing the content of exchange, and/or re-configuring the network of stakeholders involved, and/or re-forming the institutions that govern all stakeholders’ behaviors in the market (Nenonen et al., 2019b, p. 618). In other words, markets are shaped by influencing these different market elements or dimensions that relate either to the product or service, the actor network and/or the institutions that govern market actors’ behaviour (Nenonen et al., 2019a).

Previous studies on market shaping have provided important insight on the market shaping activities (Kindström et al., 2018) and capabilities that focal market shaping companies need to drive market change (Nenonen et al., 2019b). However, as markets are influenced by multitude of actors, investigating market shaping requires a perspective that goes beyond any single market shaper (Baker and Nenonen, 2020; Storbacka et al., 2022). Consequently, researchers have started to investigate the collaborative aspects of market shaping by focusing on the joint effort and collective action that it involves, i.e. collective market shaping (Baker and Nenonen, 2020; Fehrer et al., 2020; Maciel and Fischer, 2020). Extant research has delved, for example, into collective action among competitors identifying its impact on improved resilience (Beninger and Francis, 2021). Also, some research interest has been directed towards identifying different roles of various actors, highlighting the importance of not only market shapers but also supporters or catalyzers in driving market change (Flaig and Ottosson, 2022).

Collective action for market shaping can take various forms, depending on the nature of the change needed in the market – ranging from radical transformations that disrupt existing practices and systems, to incremental adjustments that refine and improve current processes without fundamentally altering the market landscape (Baker and Nenonen, 2020; Lee et al., 2018). Especially in sustainable innovation context the change needed is often radical and systemic, necessitating a broad and holistic view. Market shaping for sustainable innovation demands the engagement and cooperation of multiple actors to effectively change entire market systems, by transforming the underlying structures, norms and behaviours within the market in a collaborative way (Ottosson et al., 2020; Planko et al., 2017). Earlier research has identified the critical role of, e.g. restructuring value networks (Keränen et al., 2020), reshaping regulatory and incumbent regimes (Markard and Truffer, 2008) and shifting industry mindsets to create an environment that supports sustainable innovations (Varadarajan, 2017).

Actor engagement has been recognized as a crucial element in the formation of collective market shaping, with research highlighting its integral role in creating critical resource linkages and fostering collaboration across sectors (Fehrer et al., 2020; Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2021; Storbacka, 2019; Storbacka et al., 2016). Indeed, understanding collective market shaping requires recognizing that markets are shaped not only by the deliberate actions of market shapers but also by the collective engagement of other market actors who align with and amplify those shaping efforts (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2021). Engaged actors contribute to the co-creation of value (Storbacka et al., 2016), the development and commercialization of innovative solutions (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017) and the alignment of diverse interests within the market (Velter et al., 2020). However, although the importance of actor engagement is well-documented in the literature, the underlying processes that stimulate and mobilize such collective engagement remain poorly understood (Fehrer et al., 2020; Storbacka, 2019). Thus, the concept of mobilization is essential for understanding collective market shaping, as it lays the groundwork for aligning diverse actors and resources, enabling them to collaborate and shape markets.

2.2 Network mobilization

Mobilization refers to the critical process by which the actions of separate actors coalesce into collective action (Van Bockhaven and Matthyssens, 2017). In this paper, we draw on insights from the literature on network mobilization, which is strongly rooted in the business network and Industrial Marketing and Purchasing research (Anderson et al., 1994; Axelsson and Easton, 1992; Johanson and Mattsson, 1994). In line with the idea of collective action for market shaping, the network approach emphasizes that companies can achieve their objectives more effectively by collaborating with other organizations rather than working in isolation (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995). Especially, to bring about radical change in networks, and thus in markets, the company needs to mobilize other network actors and their resources to generate support for a specific purpose or goal (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995; Lundgren, 1992).

The literature on innovation networks has offered insights into the mobilization of relevant actors and their resources for commercializing innovations (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2014, 2017) and developing new business fields (Möller and Halinen, 2017; Möller and Svahn, 2009). In this literature, mobilization is often treated as a sub-process of orchestration: mobilization brings actors and resources into the network, whereas orchestration provides the structure and coordination necessary to channel these inputs towards effective innovation outcomes (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2022). The focus has typically been on a focal mobilizer (i.e. the innovator) that plays a central role in identifying actors with relevant resources and bringing them together to actively participate in and contribute to a specific goal (Van Bockhaven and Matthyssens, 2017; Mouzas and Naudé, 2007). Framing has been acknowledged as a key tactic for mobilizers, involving the presentation of goals or initiatives in a manner that shapes perceptions, builds common understanding and motivates action within a network (Van Bockhaven and Matthyssens, 2017). Furthermore, in extensive innovation networks, challenges often arise from the diverse agendas of the involved actors. To address these challenges, a specific focus on consolidating activities in mobilization has been advocated, referring to building trust and cohesion among network actors (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017; Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006).

In addition to innovation networks, mobilization has also been studied in the context of broader issue networks. Issue networks can be defined as loose coalitions of a large number of actors focused on addressing a common issue (Dahan et al., 2006). These issues, such as environmental or social concerns, function as an impetus for collective action (Melo Brito, 1999). Consequently, understanding the dynamics of issues and issue networks is highly relevant for shaping markets in sustainable innovation context. Earlier research indicates that bringing about collective action in issue networks requires mobilizing various actors across public, private and third sectors (Ritvala and Salmi, 2011). Typically, as these actors are very diverse, they also have highly asymmetrical resources and power, and there may be considerable disagreement about the right policies, values and norms and how to induce change through collective action (Dahan et al., 2006). Yet, precisely because of this diversity, issue networks hold significant potential in addressing common issues, as they are able to bring together such varied expertise and understanding (Ritvala and Salmi, 2009). Collective issues and issue networks tend to give a prominent role to so called collective actors, which are created to cope with a collectively perceived and shared issue (Melo Brito, 1999, 2001). Collective actors may be informal, but typically they adopt formalised structures including, e.g. trade associations, cooperatives or consortia, which enable the aggregation, alignment and mobilisation of interests, and driving institutional change in a particular direction (Melo Brito, 2001).

Hence, to gain insight into the interconnected nature of sustainability issues and sustainable innovations, it is necessary to combine the issue network and innovation network levels. These two levels offer important complementary lenses for studying mobilization for collective market shaping in sustainable innovation context. The issue network is suggested to influence the broader market conditions, including norms, regulations and industry expectations that guide market shaping. The innovation network, in turn, focuses on the practical commercialization aspects of bringing a specific sustainable innovation to market. By examining both networks, our study captures the interplay between the broader issue-driven forces and the more targeted innovation-driven efforts, providing a more comprehensive understanding of how market shaping is mobilized for sustainable innovation.

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework for our study, showing how mobilization in innovation and issue networks differ from each other and how they together contribute to understanding mobilization for collective market shaping.

3. Methodology

3.1 Case study research design

Exploring mobilization for collective market shaping required a research design that captured the activities of various actors and their interactions as a part of the early market shaping efforts. Given the complexity and context-specificity of the research setting, we have used a qualitative case study approach (Yin, 2003), which is suitable for creating a deep understanding and rich description about network settings (Easton, 1995). By focusing on a single case study in a network around a sustainable innovation and broader network of actors around a sustainability issue, we were able to delve into the network connections and interdependencies that play a pivotal role in mobilization for collective market shaping.

Our empirical case study investigates mobilization for collective market shaping within the construction industry with a particular focus on the actors most relevant to the concrete and eco-concrete value chain. Firstly, we focus on the mobilization taking place around the innovation network that is commercializing a sustainable eco-concrete innovation. Secondly, we investigate the mobilization in the broader issue network, which includes various actors involved in initiatives and activities aimed at reducing the carbon footprint in the construction sector. Finally, we combine these levels of analysis to gain a comprehensive understanding of how different layers of mobilization interact and influence each other. Although our analysis does not encompass all possible stakeholders, we concentrate on those most directly engaged with concrete and eco-concrete to provide a focused and relevant understanding of the dynamics shaping this specific niche. This targeted approach is justified by the need to delve deeply into the unique challenges and opportunities faced by sustainable concrete innovations within the broader sustainability transition in the construction sector.

This case offers a setting that is both theoretically and societally significant. Theoretically, this context is fruitful to study as it enables us to understand the interplay between specific innovations and the industry-wide sustainability issues, shedding light on the interconnectedness of sustainable innovations and sustainability initiatives. In addition, the setting is characterized by highly institutionalized processes and practices. As the construction industry is heavily regulated and conservative, there is a heightened need for collective efforts in driving institutional change (Salmi et al., 2022). The societal relevance of the case context is even more critical. Being highly resource- and carbon-intensive, the construction sector is emphasized in many public policies, both at EU and national levels (European Union, 2023; Finnish Ministry of the Environment, 2021). The sector is traditionally labelled as slow to change, yet the urgency of adopting new sustainable solutions is widely acknowledged (Lima et al., 2021).

3.2 Data collection and analysis

The primary empirical data includes 23 thematic interviews spanning a broad range of actors involved in the innovation network for geopolymer concrete and the issue network around the broader sustainability issue of carbon emissions in the construction industry. We started the data gathering by interviewing university researchers and industry actors that were directly involved in joint R&D collaboration to develop this eco-concrete. Snowballing technique was used to include other actors within cement, concrete and construction industries as well as other relevant stakeholders in the network.

The interviews were conducted by videoconferencing between January 2021 and December 2022, each interview lasting between 50 and 90 min. The interview themes included questions about the actors’ involvement in the development and/or implementation of the innovation, challenges related to its upscaling, the required collective market shaping activities and the roles of different actors in the mobilization efforts towards collective action. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. In addition to interview data, we gathered secondary data by participating various events targeted either to researchers, industry representatives or both. These events included workshops and seminars on the specific innovation in question and more generic industry events organized for firms regarding decarbonization of the construction sector. We gathered secondary data also from various internet sources, including news, reports and Web pages of the relevant companies, different industry associations, NGOs and government agencies.

Our analysis followed an abductive logic, based on systematic combining of empirical data and theoretical knowledge (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). As typical for abductive research process, the data gathering and analysis took place partly concurrently, overlapping with theory development. The analysis process was iterative, starting with open and descriptive coding to allow for exploring initial patterns and insights. Towards the end of the interviews, the rate at which new emerging codes were identified decreased, suggesting that data saturation had been reached. During further data analysis, a recurring theme from the interviews emphasized the need for broad collaboration across sectors and the entire value chain. The data highlighted that attracting a critical mass of diverse actors was essential, yet challenging, for driving market change. This led us to focus on mobilization as a key factor, identifying two levels of mobilization: innovation networks and issue networks. Our analysis revealed that while some efforts reinforced synergies, others created tensions, negatively affecting collective market shaping.

4. Case study

4.1 Case context description

The construction industry faces increasing societal pressures to mitigate its environmental impacts, with carbon emissions being one of the main issues. The industry’s carbon emissions are largely due to the use of concrete, a composite material made of cement, water and aggregates (e.g. sand). Traditional cement production is a major emitter of carbon dioxide and responsible for approximately 7%–8% of global emissions (International Energy Agency, 2018). Furthermore, as concrete is the second most used material in the world after water, with a forecasted 50% increase in demand by 2050, there is a lot of pressure from the regulatory bodies and environmental advocacy groups to adopt low-carbon solutions for concrete (Alliance for Low Carbon Cement and Concrete, 2023). Moreover, the rising cost of carbon emissions, driven by the Emissions Trading System, is adding financial pressure on the cement and concrete industry to accelerate the adoption of low-carbon materials and manufacturing processes (Punkki, 2021).

To minimize the environmental impact of concrete, extensive research and innovation effort has concentrated on so called geopolymer concrete, using new supplementary materials to replace traditional cement. In particular, the use of various industrial side-streams (e.g. blast-furnace slags, mine tailings and construction waste such as mineral wool) has been in the centre of recent research attention (Kinnunen et al., 2017; Luukkonen et al., 2018). These materials can play an important role in mitigating the climate impact of concrete by replacing and/or supplementing the use of traditional cement with alternative, low-carbon cementitious materials. Our case study examines an eco-concrete innovation that uses this geopolymer technology and various side-stream materials to develop a more sustainable concrete alternative.

Despite its potential, geopolymer concrete faces significant market adoption challenges, including the conservative nature of the construction industry and the strict concrete standards that are built around traditional cement. Furthermore, the broader construction industry landscape in Finland is characterized by a growing emphasis on sustainability, with a strong push for wood construction. For example, the Finnish Government has actively promoted the use of wood in construction as a sustainable alternative to concrete. This initiative aligns with Finland’s national climate goals and wood construction is seen as a key strategy to reduce the carbon footprint of the built environment (Finnish Ministry of the Environment, 2021). However, while wood construction offers a renewable and lower-carbon alternative, concrete remains indispensable in many applications due to its critical properties, such as durability, versatility and fire resistance (Punkki, 2021). Therefore, exploring how eco-concrete solutions like geopolymer concrete can be integrated into this evolving landscape is essential for a more holistic understanding of sustainability transition in the construction industry.

4.2 Mobilization in the innovation network

The innovation network under our case study has been developing and commercializing specific types of concrete products based on geopolymer technology. The central actors of this innovation network are university researchers from various scientific disciplines (materials science, physics, chemistry, engineering) and industry actors from multiple industries, either producing the side streams (mining and metals, steel manufacturing) or using them in their products (construction material companies). These actors have been involved in a range of R&D projects where different concrete recipes have been tested and piloted across various construction product categories, such as façade elements, yard tiles and interior panels. The first application areas have been non-structural construction products, as construction codes and concrete standards prohibit the use of certain side stream materials in structural concrete.

As the technology is getting ready to be commercialized in certain product applications, the innovation network’s mobilization activities are geared more and more towards upscaling the production. One of the most critical, yet challenging aspects is building up the supply chain, as there are missing actors that could process the side streams for further use. Hence, mobilization efforts emphasize attracting key players through new value propositions and knowledge sharing with both existing and emerging players in the supply chain.

A major focus for the construction materials companies was also the mobilization of the long and complex downstream value chain, i.e. customers and end users. Many interviewees highlighted the difficulty to reach out to the different types of subcontractors and stakeholders. For example, architects and structural designers are crucial in mobilization due to their influence on material choices. Also cities and municipalities play a key role by setting examples and including low-carbon concrete in public tenders. Furthermore, building owners and developers must understand the long-term benefits of green concrete for adoption to occur, making education and awareness-raising among key upstream actors a vital mobilization activity. In fact, while the initial costs of adopting low-carbon concrete are higher, there are potential long-term economic benefits that can offset the initial costs. The value proposition includes enhanced competitiveness, improved brand reputation and possible future financial incentives like tax benefits. In addition, there are anticipated long-term savings from increased energy efficiency and reduced carbon pricing, as well as alignment with future regulatory frameworks.

The commercialization of the eco-concrete requires also building confidence in the performance of the alternative materials as construction companies are hesitant to adopt new materials without a proven track record. To overcome this inertia, further legitimization and optimization of the technology is critical. Hence, piloting and testing need to continue to accumulate further evidence and knowledge about the material’s durability and safety. The continued engagement with academia was seen as critical to provide objective, scientific evidence on these materials. In addition, disseminating this knowledge was also identified as a central mobilization activity. Although some pioneering construction companies have been eager to adopt these new materials, the standardization challenge remains and hinders the wide-spread usage. The innovation network actors felt that they lack the power to change the formal institutions that have been formed around traditional cement and favour the use of traditional concrete:

We really need the different stakeholders, not only the contractors or the cement producers or the concrete producers […] to boost it [the uptake of eco-concrete] without making any hazardous actions. Because anyway the building industry is so regulated that you cannot just introduce something new without thinking what will happen. So, you must have it in consensus with the academia, with the companies operating here, the small startups who are developing, and the actual suppliers of cement. (Construction material company A)

4.3 Mobilization in the issue network

The innovation network overlaps with a broader issue network that has formed around the sustainability issues in the construction industry. There are numerous coalitions, initiatives and organizations both at the national and international levels that focus on addressing environmental and sustainability issues in the construction sector. Our case study focuses on the issue network actors that are directly involved in the Finnish construction sector and the value creation system around concrete. Hence, the issue network includes industry actors spanning from cement and concrete manufacturing to construction companies and their subcontractors and clients. In addition to these business actors, the issue network also encompasses collective actors. The Finnish Concrete Industry Association and the Green Building Council Finland (GBCF) were identified by the interviewed industry actors as playing key roles in driving sustainability in the construction industry. Indeed, many of the innovation network companies were members of these collective organizations, with some interviewees holding leadership positions on their boards.

Although our case study did not include interviews with wood industry actors, they can be seen as an integral part of the overall issue network of the construction industry. The connection between wood construction and the market shaping of the new eco-concrete is complex and multifaceted, as both wood and eco-concrete are positioned as sustainable alternatives within the construction industry to reduce carbon emissions. However, the governmental push for wood construction, introduces a competitive dynamic that influences the mobilization efforts around eco-concrete. On one hand, this competition drives innovation within the concrete sector, as actors are motivated to accelerate technological advancements and market adoption to respond to the growing popularity of wood. On the other hand, the strong emphasis on wood can potentially dilute the focus on eco-concrete, leading to fragmented efforts and resource allocation for sustainable materials.

Despite these competitive tensions, the GBCF plays a crucial role in balancing these dynamics by advocating for a broader, inclusive approach to sustainable construction. The GBCF is a non-profit organization that aims to offer a holistic and integrated approach to sustainable construction. It is a part of a global network, the World Green Building Council, whose mission is to lead the change for sustainable development in the construction sector by bringing together stakeholders from various sectors, including government, industry, academia and other non-governmental organizations. Many interviewees described the GBCF as an important platform that facilitates the dialogue and the exchange of information and perspectives among various stakeholders. The GBCF was also valued as a “material-neutral” actor that can be seen as an impartial advocate and as a channel for building awareness for different kinds of sustainable innovations, including geopolymer concrete. In addition to organizing collective events, trainings and workshops, the GBCF has recently put forward an action plan to mobilize collective action to reach carbon neutrality in Finnish construction and built environment sector by 2035 (Green Building Council Finland, 2022):

In the real estate and construction sectors, there’s been a lot of talk about goals and what needs to be done and where we should be heading. Sure, the pioneering group has been searching for solutions and even implementing some of them, but there is no clear view of the needed actions or when they should be taken. It seems that the next major theme for us will be moving from goals to concrete plans and specific actions. (Green Building Council Finland)

The Concrete Industry Association is responsible for advocating the concrete industry’s collective interests by addressing regulatory concerns and promoting favourable business conditions. Also, the industry standards concerning concrete belong to the industry association’s responsibilities. Although the association is not endorsing any particular technology or solution as such, promoting sustainable development in general is a key concern. In fact, the concrete industry has recently developed a classification system for low-carbon concrete to make it easier for construction companies to compare different offerings in terms of their carbon footprint. The association is currently working actively to promote this new classification system both to concrete producers and construction companies to accelerate the demand for low-carbon concrete:

We do a lot of lobbying in various directions. It’s really about conveying the right information to right places. We have certain inertia for example among the structural designers, how to make them adopt new things when they are so busy with their design schedules. […] And many decision makers are still unaware that you can actually build concrete structures that are low-carbon. Even lower-carbon than wood. (Concrete Industry Association)

Together, the GBCF and the Concrete Industry Association complement each other in the issue network. The GBCF fosters broad-based mobilization and awareness across the construction industry, whereas the Concrete Industry Association focuses on driving practical changes within the concrete sector. Their combined efforts are crucial for advancing sustainable construction practices and achieving the broader goal of market shaping toward sustainability. Policymakers are also integral to the issue network, as they influence regulations and incentives that impact the industry’s sustainability efforts. The collective actors were working in close cooperation with policymakers to shape and advance these regulations in line with industry needs and the broader sustainability objectives of the construction sector. Although there are no immediate repercussions for not pursuing carbon neutrality now, market actors may face significant future consequences. Beyond the evident environmental risks, they could encounter stricter regulations, potential penalties and a loss of market competitiveness.

4.4 Interplay of mobilization between innovation and issue networks

Our analysis revealed four distinct types of interplay: synergistic and complementary mobilization, which reinforced collective market shaping, and diluting and conflicting mobilization, which hindered it.

4.4.1 Reinforcing interplay: synergistic and complementary mobilization

With synergistic mobilization, we refer to the way innovation and issue networks work together to amplify each other’s mobilization efforts, particularly in fostering cross-sectoral collaboration. Combining the spheres of innovation and issue networks brings together diverse expertise, resources and perspectives offering a platform for tackling complex sustainability problems that require a collective approach. The ability to concurrently develop technologies and address issues at more general level, allows the innovation to become a catalyst for sustainable transformation and market shaping. In addition, the momentum created by the issue network further propels the innovation network to strive for even more advancements and innovations, contributing to a more sustainable industry as a whole. As pointed out in the case analysis, carbon neutrality goals act as an important impetus for R&D collaborations aiming to create more innovative materials. This synergistic effect helps to ensure that mobilization within both networks is part of a larger, coordinated push towards sustainability in the construction industry, rather than a group of isolated efforts:

We want to enable and support that kind of [sustainable innovations] development, and maybe encourage the industry to create and grow the market demand for those solutions. We're focused on pushing and encouraging the sector. (Green Building Council Finland)

Complementary mobilization refers to the mutually beneficial relationship between innovation and issue networks, where each network supports the other in ways that neither could achieve alone. The issue network, with its focus on environmental concerns, enhances the visibility and advocacy power of the innovation network by broadening its reach and strengthening its message. This increased awareness helps the innovation network to mobilize support for the innovative technologies, particularly among stakeholders who might be otherwise difficult to reach and engage, such as industry incumbents and regulatory bodies. The innovation network in turn provides the issue network with tangible solutions, such as sustainable innovations, which are crucial for addressing pressing environmental challenges. These innovations not only enhance the effectiveness of the issue network’s advocacy but also help maintain the industry’s social legitimacy. The complementary mobilization thus helps to create a critical mass that has a mutually reinforcing impact, extending the influence of collective action beyond the efforts of the respective networks.

4.4.2 Hindering interplay: diluting and conflicting mobilization

In addition to reinforcing interplay, we also identified certain interplay between innovation and issue networks that worked against collective market shaping.

Diluting mobilization occurs when the broad and inclusive approach of the issue network weakens the focus on the sustainable innovation. As the issue network is dedicated to addressing environmental concerns across the industry, it tends to adopt a collective advantage approach that promotes a wide range of innovations, rather than advocating for any single technology. Hence, this inclusive approach can dilute the impact of geopolymer concrete, as there are other sustainable technologies competing for attention and support. For instance, in the studied case interviewees were recurrently referring to new carbon capture technologies that have the potential to mitigate the carbon footprint of traditional concrete but only further away in the future. As a result of diluting mobilization, geopolymer eco-concrete may not gain the necessary momentum to drive significant market change, potentially stalling overall progress toward sustainability:

There’s a small risk here, that our interaction is perhaps more with the frontrunners, and they are not waiting for these [carbon-capturing technologies], they are actively taking on new solutions. But then, how large is that group that is waiting and relying on these [future technologies]? Our message is that we should use all available means immediately. (Green Building Council Finland)

Conflicting mobilization emerges from the inherent tensions between the different goals of innovation and issue network actors. Innovation network actors, driven by the need for economic growth and swift market entry, often clash with certain issue network actors, who prioritize long-term environmental goals and cautious progress. These conflicting objectives create friction, when different actors try to balance between urgently needed technological advancements and the stringent standards of the construction industry. Innovators eager to push for rapid adoption and standards renewal often find themselves at odds with more conservative stakeholders, such as construction companies and cement producers, who prioritize safety and caution and aim towards more incremental improvement, e.g. in production processes. Tensions are also evident in the competition between the wood industry and the eco-concrete innovation network, which represent two competing approaches to achieving sustainability in the construction sector. The wood industry, heavily promoted by the Finnish Government as a sustainable construction solution, and the eco-concrete innovation network, which advocates for low-carbon concrete alternatives, both strive for market dominance. This competition creates a conflict in mobilization efforts, as each sector seeks to position itself as the leading solution for sustainable construction:

I don't like that ‘wood versus concrete’ thinking that we have. We should get rid of that completely. Both are good materials and if the materials are treated as neutral, then markets will drive them forward in specific applications. But wood has lobbied itself so well, and we [concrete industry] have to constantly react to that and develop our values to show that we still have a place under the sun. (Concrete producer)

Policy and regulatory tensions further exacerbate this conflicting mobilization. For instance, policy actors within the issue network advocate for more stringent regulations, e.g. by limiting carbon footprint of new buildings to accelerate industry-wide sustainability, whereas representatives from the concrete industry express concern over the potential negative impacts of such regulations. These include cost pressures, compliance challenges and the disproportionate burden these changes may place on smaller players in the field. This clash of priorities and perspectives can hinder collective market shaping, making it difficult for collective action to gain traction.

5. Discussion

The case study presented in this paper sheds light on the role of mobilization for collective market shaping and the interplay across innovation and issue networks. Mobilization is especially critical in the early stages of collective market shaping which is often characterized by uncertainty, fragmented efforts and the need to align diverse stakeholders towards a common goal (Kindström et al., 2023). Our results propose that a more comprehensive understanding of the early stages of collective market shaping in sustainable innovation context requires analysing the mobilization interplay across innovation and issue networks. This dual perspective gives a better view of the forces that mobilize collective action and ultimately shape the market.

Although collective market shaping literature has investigated the role of actor engagement as influential in creating collective action, the underlying process of stimulating and mobilizing this actor engagement remains unclear (Brodie et al., 2019; Fehrer et al., 2020; Storbacka, 2019). We have addressed this gap by describing, how this mobilization occurs through the interplay of innovation and issue networks. Based on our case study, innovation network actors tend to lack capabilities for broad and direct cross-sectoral mobilization, which is critical for the market shaping of sustainable innovations. Indeed, sustainable innovations require the alignment and cooperation of diverse actors across sectors to drive systemic change (Ottosson et al., 2020; Planko et al., 2017), making it essential to direct more attention towards cross-sectoral mobilization. Our study highlights the role of issue networks in facilitating these necessary interactions and collaborations between different stakeholders. Hence, understanding how issue networks operate and how they can be leveraged for collective action is crucial for shaping sustainable markets.

Furthermore, our study provides new insights into how the interplay between innovation and issue networks can take distinct forms, each with varying implications for collective market shaping. Synergistic and complementary mobilization exemplify reinforcing interplays, where efforts across the two networks align to enhance collective action and accelerate sustainable market transformation and sustainable innovation uptake. For instance, innovation networks contribute technological advancements, whereas issue networks amplify their adoption by driving regulatory and societal support. These reinforcing dynamics illustrate the potential for combined efforts to trigger systemic change in the construction industry.

Conversely, diluting and conflicting mobilization represent hindering interplays that expose tensions and misalignments between stakeholders in the two networks. Diluting mobilization occurs when overlapping efforts fail to create momentum, scattering resources and focus across various innovations. Conflicting mobilization arises when competing priorities or strategies, such as the rivalry between materials like wood and eco-concrete, actively block progress towards shared goals. These hindering interplays highlight the complexity of aligning diverse stakeholders, demonstrating how misaligned mobilization can slow down or even derail sustainable innovation.

By distinguishing these four types of interplay, our study advances the understanding of how mobilization dynamics influence collective market shaping, underscoring both the opportunities and challenges. Figure 2 illustrates the overlapping nature of innovation and issue networks and the interplay of their mobilization efforts.

6. Conclusions

6.1 Theoretical contributions

By integrating network mobilization and collective market shaping literature, we have deepened the theoretical understanding of how mobilization drives collective action in the early stages of market shaping for a sustainable innovation. By focusing on mobilization as the critical first step in the process leading to collective actor engagement and collective action, we have addressed the gaps in understanding what stimulates and mobilizes collective action and drives the entire process of collective market shaping (Baker and Nenonen, 2020; Lee et al., 2018).

Furthermore, we offer a novel theoretical synthesis of mobilization in innovation and issue networks. This synthesis enables two important perspectives to be considered: the innovation and the broader issue that the innovation is trying to solve. While innovation and issue network literature have offered valuable contributions in themselves, separately they offer a limited view and cannot explain the unfolding of collective action in the context of sustainable innovations. Hence, this study responds to the call for more research on shaping sustainable markets (Keränen et al., 2023; Nenonen et al., 2021; Storbacka et al., 2022). Our findings expand the existing understanding by demonstrating how both innovation and issue networks are not only influential but also essential in shaping sustainable markets. To further clarify, innovation networks and issue networks play distinct roles in mobilization efforts. Innovation networks are primarily oriented toward technological development, commercialization and the creation of supply chains. Mobilization in these networks often focuses on engaging actors directly involved in the innovation process, such as R&D teams, technology developers and early adopters. Issue networks, on the other hand, focus on broader societal concerns, such as climate change and sustainability. These networks mobilize by creating legitimacy and urgency for systemic change, engaging policymakers, NGOs and advocacy groups.

Moreover, our study reveals new aspects of collective market shaping by highlighting how different types of mobilization interplay (synergistic, complementary, conflicting and diluting) either reinforce or hinder collective action. While our focus has been on sustainable innovation, our findings have also broader implications for understanding collective market shaping. We propose that the interplay between innovation and issue networks extends beyond sustainability challenges to other systemic issues, such as those faced by healthcare, mobility or energy sectors. These insights highlight how mobilization and collective action drive systemic change in general, offering guidance for aligning diverse actors and interests to achieve market transformations. This underscores the broader applicability of our findings, offering a framework for understanding and facilitating collective market shaping across a range of systemic challenges, not limited to sustainability.

6.2 Managerial and policy implications

As for managerial and policy implications, our findings highlight the need to consider the multifaceted pathways through which mobilization across innovation and issue networks can influence and shape the broader landscape of environmental issues and creating a supporting environment for a sustainable innovation.

For market practitioners, our findings offer insights into how to leverage strategically different types of networks to mobilize collective action and to trigger market shaping for sustainable innovations. Understanding the distinct roles and interactions of innovation and issue networks can help companies in designing more effective strategies for mobilizing collective action and aligning technological innovation with environmental issues and societal demands. Furthermore, our study highlights the importance of understanding both the reinforcing and hindering effects caused by the differing goals of the involved actors. Indeed, the simultaneous promotion of different sustainable materials, like wood and low-carbon concrete in our case study, creates a complex competitive environment where various materials are being positioned as solutions to the same environmental issue. This context adds layers of complexity to the market shaping process, demanding ability from market actors to navigate through competing narratives and technologies.

For policymakers, the study provides insights on how especially issue networks can be leveraged and mobilized to overcome barriers to market entry and support the wider diffusion of sustainable innovations. It lays a foundation for understanding where policy interventions might be most effective, whether in fostering collaboration between innovation and issue networks or in addressing the tensions that arise from conflicting or diluting interests. This can help shape policies that not only promote technological advancements but also ensure that these advancements are aligned with broader sustainability goals.

6.3 Limitations and future research

Despite the rich insights into the mobilization for collective market shaping gained from our case study, we acknowledge certain limitations. The study focused on a specific subset of the construction industry (eco-concrete) within one country (Finland) and the findings may not be generalized. Although the insights gained are particularly relevant to other conservative industries that are slow to adopt change, further research is needed to confirm their applicability across different contexts.

The findings from our case study underscore the unique challenges faced by industries like construction, where entrenched practices and regulatory frameworks can impede innovation. However, to fully grasp the dynamics of mobilization and collective market shaping for sustainable innovations, future research should investigate how these processes unfold in different industries and geographical regions. Examining contextual factors, such as cultural, economic and regulatory environments, will be critical to understanding how these factors influence the success or failure of collective market shaping. Furthermore, the simultaneous investigation of multiple concurrent innovations and innovation networks could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how these innovations interact and influence each other.

Finally, the temporal scope of our study was limited to a short timeframe, which constrains our ability to observe the long-term effects of mobilization on market shaping. Longitudinal studies are therefore recommended to capture the dynamics of how mobilization and collective action develop and sustain over time within both innovation and issue networks. Given the challenges of maintaining collective action over extended periods (Hargrave and Van de Ven, 2006; Struben et al., 2020), such research would provide valuable insights into the factors that contribute to or hinder the persistence of collective efforts.

Figures

Figure 1

Conceptual framework for studying network mobilization for collective market shaping in a sustainable innovation context

Figure 2

Mobilization interplay between innovation and issue networks and its reinforcing and impeding effects on collective market shaping