Governing Energy Transitions under System Complexity:Why Coordination Failures Persist despite Networked Governance

1. Introduction

The energy transition is increasingly being understood as a societal transformation rather than a purely technological shift. The electrification of energy services, the expansion of variable renewable generation, and the coupling of electricity with heating, transport and digital infrastructures have fundamentally altered how energy systems operate and are governed. As a result, questions of coordination, responsibility and long-term system steering have become central to the sustainability of energy transitions [1].

This shift has been accompanied by a growing body of research that has framed energy transitions as governance challenges. Transition studies have shown that energy systems are shaped by interactions among technologies, institutions, actor practices and cultural norms, and that change unfolds through complex, non-linear processes over long time horizons [1,2]. From this perspective, policy cannot be reduced to instrument choice or market correction but must engage with how societal coordination is organised across multiple levels and sectors.

Policy-oriented research has reinforced this view by emphasising the limits of hierarchical and sector-based governance in the face of system complexity. Governance scholars have argued that energy transitions require participatory and reflexive policy arrangements that can accommodate uncertainty, learning and contestation of goals and pathways [3]. Such approaches emphasise stakeholder involvement, iterative policy adjustment and coordination across governance levels as prerequisites for managing long-term structural change.

In parallel, innovation and sustainability research has increasingly adopted ecosystem perspectives to describe how energy transitions depend on interactions among firms, public authorities, users and intermediaries. These perspectives highlight the fact that no single actor controls the transition process, and that outcomes depend on the alignment of roles, incentives and expectations across diverse actor constellations [4]. Together, these strands of literature point towards governance arrangements that prioritise coordination and adaptability rather than centralised control.

Despite this conceptual progress, a persistent gap remains between governance ambitions and observed outcomes in energy transitions. Many policy initiatives have struggled to scale beyond pilot projects, cross-sector solutions remain difficult to sustain, and coordination costs often discourage participation by smaller actors. These challenges have been documented across different institutional contexts and are not limited to particular technologies or policy instruments.

Infrastructure-focused research provides important insights into why such difficulties persist. Studies of energy distribution and infrastructure transformation show that prevailing models of governance continue to prioritise short time horizons and static notions of efficiency, even as system requirements evolve [5]. Investment decisions and regulatory frameworks are often designed based on individual assets or sectors, rather than on system-level performance and adaptability over time, which means that governance arrangements may inadvertently reinforce fragmentation instead of enabling coordination.

This diagnosis is reinforced by transition pathway research, which demonstrates that different governance logics lead to fundamentally different energy system configurations. Comparative pathway analyses show that market-led, government-led and civil-society-led governance approaches do not merely produce different policy mixes, but instead shape how energy demand, supply structures and user practices co-evolve over time [6]. These findings suggest that governance choices influence the architecture of energy systems themselves, not just the pace of decarbonisation.

Network-based forms of governance have gained prominence in response to growing interdependence between actors and infrastructures. Collaboration platforms, public–private partnerships and multi-actor coordination arenas are being increasingly used to bridge sectoral boundaries and facilitate joint action. However, research on network governance has also highlighted significant limitations. Empirical studies have shown that such networks are often dominated by governmental and industrial actors, while issues of accountability, inclusion and responsibility remain unresolved [7]. Rather than transforming underlying governance structures, network arrangements frequently operate as add-ons to existing institutional frameworks.

Together, these bodies of research point to a recurring but insufficiently articulated problem. Energy transitions are widely understood as processes that require coordination across interdependent actors, infrastructures and practices. At the same time, many governance instruments remain organised around linear, sector-specific and investment-centred assumptions that are poorly aligned with how contemporary energy systems function. What remains under-theorised is not the need for coordination itself, but the underlying assumptions about how energy systems are organised that continue to structure governance instruments, responsibilities and performance metrics.

In this article, I argue that addressing this tension requires greater attention to the system logics embedded in energy governance. Instead of focusing solely on improving individual policy instruments or governance arrangements, I conceptualise coordination failures as manifestations of a mismatch between how energy systems operate and how they are governed. By synthesising insights from energy governance, infrastructure studies and transition research, the article develops an analytical framing that makes this mismatch explicit and analytically tractable.

This article makes three main contributions. First, it offers a problem-oriented synthesis of energy governance research that highlights shared assumptions and recurring challenges across diverse literatures. Second, it positions network governance as an incomplete adaptation to increasing system interdependence, rather than as a fully fledged governance alternative. Third, it introduces an analytical framework that helps explain why prevailing governance approaches struggle to support long-term sustainability in energy transitions, and why similar coordination problems recur across different sustainability domains characterised by complex socio-technical systems. These governance challenges are not peripheral to climate mitigation objectives; instead, they increasingly shape the pace, scalability and robustness of energy transitions under climate change.

2. Governing Energy Transitions Under System Complexity

2.1. Governance Responses to System Complexity

A recurring starting point in contemporary energy transition research is the recognition that energy systems are complex socio-technical configurations, rather than merely technical installations. Technologies, institutions, markets and user practices continuously interact, often in ways that are difficult to predict or control [1]. As electrification and sector integration intensify these interactions, the limitations of linear planning models and sector-specific governance arrangements have become increasingly apparent [8].

This observation has profoundly shaped how transitions are conceptualised within the literature. Rather than treating policy as a steering mechanism directed at well-defined objects, transition research highlights the importance of processes unfolding over long time horizons, across multiple arenas of action. The multi-level perspective has been particularly influential in this regard, framing transitions as the outcome of interactions between niche innovations, established regimes and broader socio-technical landscapes [2]. From this standpoint, governance is less concerned with control than with enabling and constraining dynamics of change.

This shift has led to growing scepticism towards deterministic policy models. In its place, governance is increasingly described as a matter of shaping conditions under which change can take place, often through indirect and distributed forms of intervention [9]. This move away from command-and-control logics reflects an acknowledgement that transition processes are inherently uncertain and contested.

Policy research has picked up on these insights by emphasising the need for governance arrangements that can cope with uncertainty and disagreement. Reflexive governance approaches argue that policies must remain open to revision, allowing goals, instruments and underlying assumptions to be questioned as transitions unfold [10]. Following this view, policy becomes an ongoing learning process rather than a sequence of fixed decisions [11].

Participation features prominently in these responses to complexity. Involving a broader range of actors is commonly justified as a way of mobilising dispersed knowledge and addressing value conflicts that cannot be resolved through technical expertise alone [3]. Therefore, participation is framed not only as a democratic ideal, but as a functional necessity when governing systems that are characterised by uncertainty and plurality [12].

Attention has also shifted towards the spatial and institutional distribution of authority. Energy transitions span local, regional, national and supranational levels, each of which have distinct responsibilities and capacities. Research on multi-level governance has shown that misalignment across these levels can undermine policy coherence and slow down transition processes [13]. Such tensions are increasingly understood as structural features of transition governance rather than as administrative shortcomings [14].

Innovation studies have reinforced this understanding by emphasising the relational nature of transition processes. Ecosystem perspectives describe energy transitions as emerging from networks of firms, public agencies, users and intermediaries, whose interactions shape innovation pathways over time [4]. From this angle, governance involves coordinating relationships and expectations within and across such ecosystems, rather than targeting individual technologies or organisations [15].

Together, these strands of research converge on a common diagnosis. System complexity challenges the effectiveness of hierarchical governance models and calls for approaches that emphasise coordination, adaptability and inclusion. Governance is increasingly conceptualised as the management of evolving relationships within interconnected systems, rather than as the exercise of authority over clearly bounded domains [16].

At the same time, this reorientation does not imply the disappearance of intentional steering. Public authorities continue to play a central role, albeit alongside private and civil-society actors, and through a broader repertoire of instruments and practices [17]. As several authors have noted, the challenge lies in reconfiguring steering under conditions of uncertainty and pluralism, rather than abandoning it altogether [18].

These ideas now permeate much of the contemporary energy governance discourse. Participation, reflexivity and coordination are routinely invoked in both academic analyses and policy debates as responses to transition complexity. Complexity itself has become a dominant explanation for why energy transitions prove difficult to govern and why conventional policy instruments often fall short [19].

However, this convergence also brings new challenges. While governance responses to complexity are widely endorsed, they often remain articulated as general principles rather than as clearly specified governance architectures. Much of the literature emphasises desirable process attributes, while paying less attention to how existing institutional arrangements channel, constrain or selectively reinterpret these ideas in practice [20].

Consequently, responses to system complexity risk becoming programmatic. Participation, reflexivity and multi-level coordination are repeatedly invoked as solutions, even as underlying assumptions about how energy systems are organised remain implicit. This raises a critical analytical question that continues to receive limited attention: how do established ways of organising responsibility, authority and performance persist within governance systems that explicitly acknowledge complexity? It is essential to address this question in order to understand why coordination problems endure despite broad agreement on the need for more adaptive forms of energy governance.

2.2. Persistence of Linear and Sectoral Governance Assumptions

Despite growing recognition of system complexity, a significant portion of energy governance continues to be organised around linear and sector-specific assumptions. This persistence is less a matter of analytical oversight than of institutional inertia. Governance arrangements, regulatory frameworks and policy instruments are often shaped by long-established ways of defining responsibilities, performance and value within energy systems [8].

A central feature of these arrangements is their reliance on sectoral separation. Electricity, heating and transport have traditionally been governed through distinct policy domains, regulatory regimes and professional communities. Even as energy transitions increasingly depend on interactions across these domains, governance structures tend to reproduce these boundaries rather than dissolve them [21]. Cross-sector coordination is often treated as an exception or add-on, rather than as a core organising principle.

Linear assumptions are equally evident in how policy problems are framed. Governance interventions are often designed around sequential models in which policy inputs are expected to generate predictable outputs. This means that planning, investment and regulation are oriented towards discrete projects, technologies or infrastructures, with limited attention being given to how these elements interact once deployed in practice [5]. Such models sit uneasily with energy systems that are increasingly characterised by feedbacks, interdependencies and variable use patterns.

These assumptions are reinforced by dominant evaluative frameworks. Performance metrics and accountability mechanisms typically focus on investment volumes, installed capacity or short-term efficiency gains. While such indicators are administratively convenient, they privilege tangible assets over relational and system-level outcomes [18]. Consequently, governance success is often measured in terms of delivery rather than in terms of coordination or adaptability.

Institutional design further contributes to this persistence. Public authorities responsible for energy policy are commonly organised along sectoral lines, with mandates that reflect historical divisions of labour. This organisational structure makes it difficult to address problems that cut across domains, even when those problems are widely recognised [3]. Coordination then becomes a matter of inter-departmental negotiation rather than a built-in feature of governance.

Market-based policy instruments also play a role. Energy markets have traditionally been designed to operate within relatively stable technological and demand conditions. Price signals, contracts and incentives tend to assume well-defined roles for producers and consumers, as well as clear temporal and spatial boundaries. As energy transitions disrupt these assumptions, market arrangements often lag behind, reinforcing governance architectures that struggle to accommodate dynamic interaction and shared responsibility [22].

Pathway-focused transition research provides further insight into the consequences of these assumptions. Comparative analyses demonstrate that governance logics premised on market coordination, state planning or civil-society engagement lead to markedly different energy system configurations over time [6]. Importantly, these differences do not arise solely from policy choices, but from deeper assumptions about how coordination should occur and where responsibility should reside. Once embedded, such assumptions shape subsequent policy responses and limit the range of feasible alternatives.

Therefore, the persistence of linear and sectoral governance is not simply a matter of resistance to change. It reflects the stabilising role of institutions, routines and evaluative practices that favour clarity, control and accountability over adaptability. From this perspective, governance arrangements prioritise manageability, even as the systems they govern become more complex [23].

What is striking, however, is that many governance reforms explicitly acknowledge complexity while leaving these underlying assumptions largely intact. Strategies calling for coordination, participation or integration are layered onto existing frameworks without fundamentally altering how responsibilities are allocated or how performance is assessed [20]. This layering can create the appearance of transformation while preserving the core logic of linear governance.

In practice, the result is a recurring pattern. As energy systems evolve, coordination problems intensify, prompting calls for new governance approaches. However, these approaches are implemented within institutional settings that continue to privilege sectoral control and linear planning. The resulting tension helps explain why governance innovations often struggle to move beyond pilots or to deliver sustained system-level change.

Therefore, understanding the persistence of these assumptions is critical for explaining governance failure in energy transitions. Rather than treating coordination problems as implementation deficits, this perspective highlights how deeply embedded ways of organising governance shape what is considered possible or desirable. The challenge is not only to recognise complexity, but to confront the institutional and conceptual legacies that continue to organise energy governance around linear and sector-specific models.

2.3. Network Governance as an Incomplete Adaptation to Interdependence

As coordination challenges intensify in energy transitions, network-based forms of governance have increasingly been promoted as a way of addressing interdependence across actors, sectors and governance levels. Partnerships, platforms and collaborative arrangements are often presented as pragmatic solutions to the limits of hierarchical steering and sector-specific regulation. In this sense, network governance represents a deliberate attempt to adapt governance practices to more relational and interconnected energy systems [24].

At a basic level, network governance responds to a real problem. Energy transitions involve heterogeneous actors who possess different resources, forms of authority and types of knowledge. No single organisation is able to control system outcomes, and cooperation becomes a practical necessity rather than an optional supplement. Therefore, networks are intended to facilitate coordination where formal hierarchies and market mechanisms prove insufficient [25].

In the energy domain, network-based arrangements have taken many forms, including public–private partnerships, multi-stakeholder forums, coordination platforms and regional collaboration initiatives. Such arrangements are often designed to enable dialogue, align expectations and mobilise resources across organisational and sectoral boundaries. They are also frequently framed as flexible and context-sensitive alternatives to rigid regulatory approaches.

However, research has consistently shown that network governance is not a neutral or unequivocally progressive response to complexity. Empirical studies indicate that participation in governance networks is often uneven, with government agencies and large incumbent actors exercising disproportionate influence [7]. While networks are intended to broaden involvement, they may reproduce existing power asymmetries rather than challenge them.

This is partly because network governance is commonly layered onto existing institutional structures. While networks are created to improve coordination, core responsibilities, regulatory competences and accountability mechanisms typically remain unchanged. As a result, network participants operate within constraints defined by sector-specific mandates and linear planning frameworks [26]. Coordination is encouraged, but rarely institutionalised in a way that fundamentally reshapes governance architectures.

This has important implications for accountability. In network settings, authority is diffuse and decision-making responsibilities are shared. While this can enhance flexibility, it also complicates questions of who is responsible for outcomes and how performance should be assessed. Studies of network governance have highlighted the tendency for accountability to become fragmented or opaque, particularly when networks lack clear mandates or formalised decision rules [27].

The problem is not simply one of design. Network governance often emerges as a pragmatic response under conditions where existing institutions are unable or unwilling to change more fundamentally. Networks provide a space for addressing coordination problems without confronting entrenched sectoral divisions or revising core governance logics. In this sense, they function as adaptive overlays rather than transformative mechanisms.

This dynamic is especially visible in energy transitions, where calls for integration coexist with persistent institutional separation. Networks are frequently tasked with delivering cross-sector coordination, while operating within governance systems that continue to prioritise sectoral accountability and investment-centred performance metrics. Therefore, expectations placed on networks can exceed their actual capacity to effect change [28].

From a governance perspective, this creates a characteristic tension. On one hand, network arrangements acknowledge interdependence and seek to manage it through collaboration. On the other hand, they rarely alter the underlying assumptions about how energy systems are organised, measured and governed. As a result, networks may mitigate some coordination problems while leaving their structural causes largely intact.

Several scholars have noted that this tension can lead to governance fatigue. When networks are repeatedly mobilised to address systemic problems without corresponding institutional reform, their effectiveness may decline over time. Participation becomes costly, expectations remain unmet, and trust can erode among participants [29]. Rather than enabling sustained coordination, networks risk becoming symbolic gestures of responsiveness.

In this context, it is critical that network governance should not be interpreted simply as success or failure. Instead, it reveals the limits of adaptation within existing governance logics. Networks represent an acknowledgement that energy governance must grapple with interdependence, but they also expose how deeply embedded assumptions about responsibility, control and performance continue to shape governance responses.

Seen in this light, network governance is best understood as an incomplete adaptation to system complexity. It signals movement away from strictly hierarchical models but stops short of reconfiguring the institutional foundations of energy governance. This partial adaptation helps explain why coordination challenges persist despite the proliferation of collaborative arrangements.

The implication for energy transition research is that the analytical focus should not be on whether networks are beneficial or problematic per se. Rather, attention should be directed towards the conditions under which network governance is embedded and the extent to which underlying governance assumptions are reconsidered. Without such reconsideration, networks are likely to remain constrained by the very structures they are intended to overcome.

3. Analytical Framing: Governing Energy Systems Through Competing Logics

3.1. Why Governance Continues to Misfire Under Complexity

The preceding chapters highlight a persistent paradox in energy governance. On one hand, research on energy transitions has developed a sophisticated understanding of system complexity, interdependence and uncertainty. On the other hand, governance practice continues to generate coordination problems that appear both predictable and persistent. Similar observations have been made in earlier transition research, where the gap between conceptual advances and governance outcomes has been repeatedly noted [3].

Many of the difficulties identified in Chapter 2 are routinely framed as problems of implementation, capacity or political will. Coordination failures have been attributed to insufficient collaboration, misaligned incentives or ineffective stakeholder engagement. While such explanations capture important features of governance practice, they tend to treat recurring problems as contingent rather than structural. Critical governance scholarship has long cautioned that this perspective risks overlooking how deeply embedded assumptions shape policy design and limit the scope of feasible interventions [18].

A different interpretation emerges when attention shifts from governance instruments to the underlying logics through which energy systems are understood. How policy makers conceptualise what is being governed – that is, how causality is assumed to operate, how responsibilities are defined, and how performance is measured – profoundly shapes governance arrangements. These assumptions are often institutionalised and reproduced through routines, rules and evaluative practices, making them resistant to change even when their limitations are widely acknowledged [8].

From this vantage point, governance does not misfire because complexity is ignored. Rather, governance misfires because complexity is acknowledged primarily at the level of discourse, while organising principles rooted in linearity, stability and separable domains remain intact. Reflexive and participatory instruments are introduced, but they operate within institutional settings that continue to privilege control, predictability and sectoral accountability [10]. The result is a form of governance that recognises complexity without being fundamentally reorganised around it.

This analytical perspective also clarifies why many governance innovations struggle to deliver sustained system-level change. While network arrangements and coordination platforms are added to existing frameworks, the basic assumptions underpinning responsibility and evaluation remain unchanged. As several authors have observed, such layering can create the appearance of transformation while preserving the core logic of established governance regimes [3].

Therefore, understanding governance failure in energy transitions requires more than identifying deficiencies in policy design or execution. It also requires interrogating the organising logics through which energy systems are governed and asking how these logics shape what governance arrangements can plausibly achieve. Making these logics explicit is a necessary step towards explaining why coordination problems persist despite broad agreement on the need for adaptive and inclusive forms of governance.

To do this, the next sections develop an analytical framing that distinguishes between two contrasting ways of conceptualising energy systems and their governance. This framing provides a basis for comparing how different assumptions about system organisation translate into distinct governance capacities and limitations.

3.2. Energy Governance as Supply-Chain Thinking

A central claim of this article is that much of contemporary energy governance continues to operate according to assumptions characteristic of supply-chain thinking. While this logic is rarely articulated explicitly, it exerts a strong influence over how problems are framed, responsibilities allocated and performance assessed. Therefore, it is necessary understand this governance logic in order to explain why coordination problems persist despite widespread recognition of system complexity.

At its core, supply-chain thinking conceptualises energy systems as sequences of production, distribution and consumption. Value is assumed to be created upstream and delivered downstream through identifiable channels. Governance, in turn, aims to ensure the efficient functioning of these channels by regulating inputs, optimising flows and securing delivery. Such assumptions have historically been well aligned with centralised energy systems based on large-scale generation and predictable demand [30].

This logic is reflected in how roles within the energy system are defined. Producers, network operators and consumers are treated as distinct categories, each associated with specific responsibilities and decision rights. Policy instruments are typically designed to influence behaviour within these roles rather than to address interactions between them. Even when new actors emerge, they are often accommodated by fitting them into existing role definitions rather than by rethinking the structure of coordination itself [31].

Supply-chain thinking also shapes expectations about causality. Policy interventions are commonly conceived as discrete inputs that generate corresponding outputs. It is expected that investment will lead to capacity, regulation will lead to compliance, and incentives will lead to behavioural change. This sequential logic underpins planning practices, cost–benefit analyses and regulatory impact assessments, all of which assume relatively stable relationships between action and effect [5].

Measurement and evaluation reinforce these assumptions. Performance is frequently assessed through indicators such as installed capacity, investment volumes, or unit-based efficiency metrics. While such measures provide clarity and support accountability, they privilege tangible outputs over relational or systemic outcomes. Coordination, learning and adaptability tend to remain secondary concerns because they are more difficult to quantify and assign to individual actors [18].

Supply-chain thinking is not inherently misguided. It offers a coherent and administratively manageable way of organising governance in systems where flows are relatively stable and responsibilities can be clearly delineated. It also aligns well with legal and organisational structures that prioritise accountability, transparency and control. These strengths help explain why this logic remains deeply embedded in energy governance institutions, even as system conditions change.

However, problems arise when this logic is extended to contexts for which it was not designed. As energy systems become more decentralised and interdependent, outcomes increasingly depend on how actors adjust and coordinate in use rather than on how resources are delivered. In such settings, linear causality becomes harder to sustain and governance arrangements built around sequential control struggle to cope with feedbacks and mutual dependencies [8].

A consequence of this mismatch is that governance responses often focus on correcting individual components rather than addressing systemic interaction. Coordination problems are interpreted as failures of compliance, incentives or implementation rather than as signals that the organising logic itself may no longer be adequate. Thus, supply-chain thinking channels attention towards incremental adjustment while rendering alternative ways of organising governance less visible.

This dynamic also helps explain the appeal of network-based governance arrangements discussed in the previous chapter. Networks are mobilised to compensate for coordination deficits that supply-chain-oriented governance cannot easily address. However, because these arrangements are introduced without challenging the underlying logic of responsibility, measurement and control, they often become overloaded with expectations they are poorly equipped to meet.

Seen in this light, supply-chain thinking functions as a powerful but largely implicit template for energy governance. It structures how problems are defined and which solutions appear feasible, even in settings where its assumptions are increasingly contested. Therefore, it is essential to make this logic explicit in order to understand both the persistence of linear governance practices and the limitations of subsequent attempts at coordination.

The following section contrasts this governance logic with an alternative way of conceptualising energy systems that starts from interaction, use and co-production rather than from delivery and control. This makes it possible to more clearly identify the sources of mismatch that underpin contemporary energy governance challenges.

3.3. Energy Systems as Service Networks

An alternative way of conceptualising energy systems departs from linear delivery and instead focuses on how energy services are realised through use, interaction and coordination. In service research, value is understood as something that emerges in use when multiple actors integrate resources in specific contexts rather than as something embedded in a product and transferred to a recipient [32]. From this perspective, energy systems cannot be reduced to infrastructures that deliver energy units; they must be understood as configurations that enable and sustain services such as comfort, mobility, reliability and flexibility in practice [33].

A defining feature of this service-oriented perspective is that no single actor produces a service in isolation. Services materialise only when heterogeneous resources – technical, organisational and behavioural – are combined across actors [32]. Therefore, resource integration is the fundamental system mechanism through which service performance is generated. Individual service actors are structurally dependent on others, not by choice but by design, because their own contribution has value only insofar as it is aligned with complementary resources within the broader system [35].

This has important implications for how actors and users are analytically positioned. In service systems, users are not external endpoints of delivery chains but integral participants in value creation [33]. Their practices contribute directly to system performance by shaping demand patterns, temporal alignment and system stability. Conversely, system operators and infrastructure providers rely on user practices to realise intended outcomes. What appears as individual behaviour at the micro level is simultaneously a constitutive component of system-level functioning [36].

Service systems research has developed this insight explicitly at the system level. Service systems are defined as dynamic configurations of people, technologies and institutions that co-produce value through interaction [37]. In such systems, performance results from the quality of coordination among interdependent actors rather than from the additive effect of individual actions. This means that mutual adjustment, information exchange and shared expectations are central determinants of system outcomes, not auxiliary features [38].

Temporal dynamics further reinforce this interdependence. Service performance unfolds over time and is shaped by feedback between use, capacity and system state. In energy systems characterised by variability and uncertainty, outcomes depend on collective synchronisation rather than on sequential delivery. Service-network perspectives make this explicit by conceptualising systems as ongoing processes of alignment rather than as chains of causation [36].

These insights resonate with research on collective resource governance, where system outcomes depend on shared use and mutual dependence, not on individual optimisation. Studies of commons governance demonstrate that when resources are jointly relied upon, effective governance requires institutional arrangements that support coordination, monitoring and adaptive rule-making among interdependent actors [34]. This logic closely parallels energy systems in transition, where services are co-produced across organisational and sectoral boundaries.

Crucially, understanding energy systems as service networks does not entail a normative claim about what governance should look like. Instead, it provides an analytical system model for explaining how energy systems function in practice. By foregrounding resource integration, interdependence and collective performance, the service-network perspective reveals system properties that remain obscured when governance is organised around linear delivery and discrete responsibilities.

For the purposes of this article, the value of this perspective lies precisely in its system-level orientation. It allows coordination problems to be interpreted as consequences of governing a system whose performance depends on institutionally structured interaction, not as failures of individual actors or policy instruments. This provides the analytical foundation for examining the governance consequences of a mismatch between supply-chain assumptions and service-network functioning.

3.4. The Governance Consequences of a Logic Mismatch

Bringing the two perspectives together exposes a fundamental tension in contemporary energy governance. While energy systems increasingly operate as service networks whose performance depends on coordination, interaction and resource integration, governance arrangements remain largely organised around assumptions characteristic of supply-chain thinking. Research on energy governance has repeatedly pointed to similar tensions between system complexity and prevailing governance forms, even if the underlying logic has not always been made explicit [3,18].

A first and immediate consequence of this logic mismatch concerns the allocation of responsibility. Supply-chain-oriented governance typically assigns responsibility to discrete organisations that are held accountable for delivering specific outputs. This presupposes that system performance can be decomposed into separable contributions. In service-network systems, however, outcomes emerge from interdependent action, which makes responsibility inherently distributed rather than individually attributable. Governance studies have shown that attempts to enforce linear accountability under conditions of interdependence often result in fragmented or diluted responsibility, not in greater clarity [27].

Closely related problems arise in performance measurement. Governance regimes grounded in delivery and control rely on indicators that can be attributed to individual actors, such as installed capacity, investment volumes or compliance metrics. Such measures privilege tangible outputs over relational and processual dimensions of system functioning. However, transition research has consistently noted that system performance increasingly depends on coordination quality, learning and adaptability, which remain poorly captured by conventional evaluation frameworks [18,23].

The mismatch also manifests in persistent coordination deficits. Network governance arrangements are frequently introduced to address interaction problems that linear governance cannot resolve. However, these arrangements are commonly expected to operate within institutional environments that continue to prioritise sectoral accountability and hierarchical steering. Consequently, networks are asked to manage interdependence without corresponding authority or changes in evaluative logic, a pattern widely documented in governance research [7,28].

Temporal dynamics further accentuate these difficulties. Supply-chain governance assumes sequential causality, where interventions are followed by observable outcomes and subsequent adjustment. Service-network systems require continuous alignment over time, as system performance depends on synchronisation across actors and changing conditions. Studies of infrastructure and transition governance have shown that governance arrangements organised around discrete planning cycles struggle to cope with such feedback-rich dynamics [5].

Importantly, these consequences do not indicate failure of specific instruments or actors. Instead, they reflect structural limitations associated with governing relational systems through logics designed for linear delivery. Several authors have noted that governance reforms often acknowledge complexity rhetorically while leaving core assumptions about responsibility, control and performance intact [10,20]. Thus, reform efforts improve coordination at the margins without altering the foundations of governance.

This perspective also sheds light on why governance reforms frequently achieve only partial or temporary effects. Participatory processes, integrative strategies and collaborative platforms are layered onto existing frameworks, enhancing communication but rarely reshaping how authority and accountability are institutionalised. Energy governance research has repeatedly observed such layering dynamics, particularly at the regional and sector-coupling interfaces where interdependence is strongest [3,21].

Therefore, understanding governance through the lens of a logic mismatch reframes how governance capacity itself is conceptualised. Capacity is not determined solely by the number of instruments or networks in place, but by the alignment between governance assumptions and system functioning. Where governance logics resonate with how systems operate, coordination can emerge with relatively modest intervention. Where they diverge, persistent coordination problems are a predictable outcome [18].

For the purposes of this article, the analytical value of this argument lies in its explanatory reach. By making the tension between supply-chain and service-network logics explicit, it becomes possible to account for recurrent governance difficulties across diverse energy transition contexts. Rather than attributing failure to insufficient ambition or implementation deficits, attention is directed towards the deeper assumptions that structure what governance arrangements can realistically achieve.

4. Discussion: Governing Energy Transitions Under Service-Network Conditions

4.1. What the Logic Mismatch Helps Explain

The analytical distinction developed in this article helps explain why certain governance problems persist across energy transition contexts despite repeated reform efforts. Energy governance research has long documented recurring difficulties related to coordination, accountability and implementation, even as governance frameworks become more participatory and reflexive [3,18]. Viewed through the lens of a mismatch between supply-chain governance and service-network system functioning, these difficulties appear to be predictable structural effects rather than contingent failures.

The first consequence concerns responsibility. Governance arrangements grounded in linear delivery typically allocate accountability to discrete organisations responsible for specific outputs. This presupposes that system performance can be decomposed into separable contributions. Under service-network conditions, however, outcomes emerge from coordinated action among interdependent actors. Governance research shows that attempts to impose linear accountability in such settings often result in fragmented or contested responsibility rather than greater clarity [27]. Thus, responsibility diffusion reflects a misalignment between accountability frameworks and the collective character of system performance.

The logic mismatch also clarifies persistent problems of measurement and evaluation. Delivery-oriented governance privileges indicators such as installed capacity, investment volumes or compliance metrics. While administratively convenient, these measures are poorly suited to capturing performance that depends on coordination, temporal alignment and adaptive use. Transition research has repeatedly shown that such system-level properties remain marginal in prevailing evaluation regimes, allowing coordination problems to persist even when formal targets are met [18,23].

Finally, the distinction explains why coordination mechanisms are chronically overburdened. Network governance arrangements are often introduced to address interaction problems that linear governance cannot resolve. However, these arrangements operate within institutional settings that continue to prioritise sectoral accountability and asset-based performance. Empirical studies of collaborative governance show that networks expected to compensate for such structural mismatches tend to achieve incremental alignment without resolving underlying coordination tensions [7,28].

Taken together, these patterns indicate that recurring governance challenges are not anomalies or implementation deficits. They are the expected effects of governing systems whose performance depends on interaction and co-production through logics designed for delivery and control.

4.2. Implications for Energy Governance Design

Viewing energy governance through the lens of a logic mismatch reframes how governance design challenges are understood. A lot of research has assumed that improved outcomes follow from better instruments, stronger coordination mechanisms or broader participation. The analysis developed here suggests that such efforts remain limited when they operate within governance logics that are misaligned with system functioning [3,18].

One implication concerns responsibility. Supply-chain-oriented governance presupposes that responsibility can be allocated to discrete actors accountable for delivery. Under service-network conditions, however, system performance depends on coordinated action among interdependent actors. Governance research shows that applying linear accountability frameworks in such settings often leads to fragmented or contested responsibility rather than to greater clarity [27,28]. This reflects a structural misfit between individualised accountability and collective system performance.

A second implication follows for performance measurement. Delivery-oriented governance continues to prioritise indicators such as installed capacity, investment volumes and compliance metrics. These measures are administratively useful but poorly suited to capturing performance that depends on coordination, timing and adaptive use. Transition studies have repeatedly noted that such system-level properties remain marginal within prevailing evaluation regimes, even when they are operationally decisive [18,23].

Finally, the logic mismatch clarifies the role and limits of coordination mechanisms. Network-based arrangements are often mobilised to address interaction problems that linear governance cannot resolve. However, research on collaborative governance demonstrates that networks are only effective when they are embedded in institutional settings that recognise interdependence and provide stable expectations regarding authority and responsibility [7,29]. When coordination platforms are expected to compensate for deeper governance mismatches, they become structurally overburdened.

Together, these implications indicate that challenges of governance design in energy transitions cannot be resolved by coordination alone. Instead, they point to the need for analytical attention to the governance assumptions that shape what coordination mechanisms can plausibly achieve.

4.3. Empirical Resonance: Regional Energy Systems as Illustrative Contexts

The analytical framework developed in this article resonates with patterns reported in studies of regional energy systems, where governance challenges frequently arise from dense interdependencies between infrastructures, service providers and user practices. Research on regional energy transitions indicates that system outcomes in such contexts depend less on individual investments than on coordination among heterogeneous actors operating under different mandates and institutional constraints [5,19].

Empirical studies have illustrated how coordination problems may persist even when technical capacities and policy instruments are formally in place. Actors can fulfil their organisational responsibilities while system-level outcomes remain fragile or unpredictable. Analyses of distribution networks and local energy governance show that performance increasingly depends on how resources are aligned in use rather than on the delivery of predefined outputs [6].

These contexts also highlight the limits of network-based governance when it is introduced without corresponding changes to underlying governance assumptions. Collaborative platforms can facilitate information exchange and temporary alignment but often operate alongside accountability and evaluation frameworks that remain oriented towards individual performance. As a result, coordination relies heavily on ongoing negotiation and informal adjustment, a dynamic that has been documented in research on regional governance networks [7].

In the context of the present study, these findings serve a heuristic function. They illustrate how the logic mismatch identified in this article manifests in applied governance settings characterised by high interdependence and sectoral organisation, reinforcing the analytical relevance of distinguishing between supply-chain governance assumptions and service-network system functioning.

4.4. Broader Relevance for Sustainability Transitions

Although this article is grounded in energy governance, the analytical contribution extends beyond the energy sector. The distinction between supply-chain governance and service-network system functioning addresses challenges that recur across sustainability transitions in complex socio-technical systems. In domains such as mobility, water, housing and digital infrastructure, system performance increasingly depends on coordination among interdependent actors rather than on the delivery of discrete outputs.

Sustainability transitions research has long emphasised that transformative change involves shifts not only in technology, but also in institutions, practices and modes of coordination [1,2]. The logic-mismatch perspective developed here sharpens this insight by showing how governance difficulties arise when inherited system assumptions are misaligned with how systems function in practice. This helps explain why transitions often stall or fragment even when policy ambitions and technical solutions are in place.

The relevance of this argument is particularly clear in policy domains characterised by shared resources, distributed agency and long time horizons. In such contexts, governance capacity depends less on central control and more on the ability to sustain coordination over time among actors with different mandates and interests. Research on collective resource governance highlights how system outcomes emerge from institutionally structured interaction rather than from individual optimisation [34], reinforcing the applicability of a service-network perspective.

By foregrounding system logics rather than specific instruments, the analysis contributes to debates on sustainability governance evaluation. It suggests that persistent governance challenges should not automatically be interpreted as failures of implementation or ambition but instead seen as signals of deeper misalignment between governing assumptions and system functioning [18]. In this sense, the present article offers an analytical lens that supports comparative reasoning across sustainability domains while remaining sensitive to sector-specific and institutional variation.

5. Conclusions

This article has argued that recurring governance problems in energy transitions cannot be adequately understood as failures of policy instruments or implementation. Instead, they reflect a persistent mismatch between how energy systems function and how they are governed. While contemporary energy systems increasingly operate as service networks characterised by interdependence, coordination and resource integration, governance arrangements remain largely organised around supply-chain assumptions centred on delivery, control and sectoral accountability.

By synthesising insights from energy governance, infrastructure studies and service systems research, the article has introduced a conceptual distinction between supply-chain governance and service-network system functioning. This distinction helps explain why coordination failures, responsibility diffusion and measurement problems recur across diverse energy transition contexts, even when policy ambition and technical capacity are high. Importantly, the analysis shows that network-based governance arrangements often represent incomplete adaptations to interdependence rather than fundamental shifts in governance logic, which has direct relevance for climate-related sustainability transitions.

The article’s contribution is analytical rather than normative. Instead of proposing a new governance model or offering prescriptive solutions, it provides a lens for making explicit the system assumptions embedded in governance design and for understanding how these assumptions shape what governance arrangements can plausibly achieve.

Beyond the energy sector, the logic-mismatch perspective is relevant for sustainability transitions more broadly. In socio-technical systems where performance depends on collective coordination over time, it is necessary to address the alignment between governance logics and system functioning in order to address persistent governance challenges. Future research can use this perspective to examine how governance assumptions evolve and how alternative system logics might be institutionalised across sustainability domains.