A conceptual model for the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process

Manufacturing relocation decisions have gained renewed attention in today’s business environment. Traditionally, location decisions are considered at three levels: country (choosing the country), national (selecting a region within the country) and regional (choosing a specific site) (Heizer and Render, 2006). This research focuses on country-level relocation, where firms decide whether to operate domestically or internationally (Eriksson et al., 2021). In addition, firms must also consider what to relocate, as it can involve moving an entire manufacturing unit or selected activities (Boffelli et al., 2018). It may also entail governance mode changes, where firms decide whether to keep manufacturing in-house or outsource to, or insource from, a supplier (Steiner et al., 2026). Numerous factors influence location decisions (Baldassarre and Campo, 2015; Fratocchi et al., 2016), and these factors vary depending on whether the firm opts for domestic or international relocation (Eriksson et al., 2021).

Recently, relocation decisions have shifted from seeking cost-efficient solutions through outsourcing or offshoring to low-cost countries (Hutzschenreuter et al., 2011) to reconfiguring supply chain networks through reshoring (original location) and right-shoring (optimal location) (Joubioux and Vanpoucke, 2016; Tsai and Urmetzer, 2024). This shift is driven by global disruptions and the diminishing advantages of previous low-cost locations (Phillips et al., 2022; Ancarani et al., 2021). For practitioners, the challenging environment means strategic supply chain reconfiguration is essential. In 2021 and 2023, many European firms moved production closer to the home market to reduce risks, while in the United States, 27% of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and 31% of contract manufacturers (CMs) have stated they are either considering or actively engaging in relocating manufacturing back to the United States (Eurostat, 2025; Moser and Anemogiannis, 2025). The leading drivers were often cost, lead time and quality issues, while a shortage of skilled labour hindered reshoring efforts (Weismann et al., 2017). Maintaining competitiveness requires timing relocation decisions carefully. Ideally, firms try to anticipate the change, yet the ability to respond quickly to unforeseen disruptions is equally critical. This underscores the need for a deeper understanding of how firms initiate the relocation process, an area where current knowledge remains limited.

Scholarly interest in manufacturing relocation has grown alongside these developments. Research has typically focused either on relocation decision-making factors, such as drivers, barriers and contingencies (Wiesmann et al., 2017; Li et al., 2025, 2026; Engström et al., 2018a, b), or on the decision-making process itself (Bals et al., 2016; Boffelli et al., 2020). Existing frameworks divide the relocation process into two phases: a decision-making phase and an implementation phase (Bals et al., 2016; Mihalache and Mihalache, 2016; Ellram et al., 2013). The decision-making phase typically involves five steps: defining the relocation project, assessing current performance, identifying potential scenarios, evaluating alternatives and selecting one for implementation. A relocation is triggered by internal or external events that compel firms to reassess their strategies (Hilletofth et al., 2021; Boffelli et al., 2020).

By contrast, relatively few studies examine the phases preceding the relocation process, though interest is growing (Hilletofth et al., 2021; Sequeira et al., 2021, 2023; McIvor and Bals, 2021). These studies focus on identifying the need for relocation by assessing firm-specific variables and critical success factors, helping decision-makers clarify relocation needs at an early stage. However, prior research suggests that relocation decisions are often reactive, taken only after a disruptive trigger occurs. A more proactive approach, where potential needs are identified in advance, can streamline decision-making, foster early awareness and improve the outcomes of a relocation. Yet, viewing this phase solely as an assessment process is insufficient. We here refer to it as the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process, encompassing all activities leading up to a relocation. Current knowledge about this initiation phase – its scope, dynamics and implications – remains limited, creating a significant gap in the literature.

At present, there is no well-defined model to guide decision-makers and scholars in understanding this initiation phase. McIvor and Bals (2021) propose a conceptual model for the broader relocation process that includes some relevant elements, which they later tested (McIvor et al., 2025). In their framework, relocation begins with drivers (e.g. strategic changes or corrective actions), followed by an exit analysis of relocation difficulties, asset specificity and interdependencies, after which firms decide whether to proceed. While valuable, this model mostly focuses on the overall process but offers some limited insight into the initiation phase. For example, it does not fully account for different types of drivers, strategies, triggers or disruptors that shape the decision context (Wiesmann et al., 2017). Similarly, Tsai and Urmetzer's (2024) review highlights drivers and triggers as key to establishing the need to relocate, but the process by which firms gain awareness remains underexplored. To address these gaps, this paper proposes a new conceptual model specifically focused on the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process.

The proposed model contributes to both research and practice. For scholars, it advances theory by bridging the gap between relocation drivers and subsequent strategic decisions, adding insight into the activities and considerations that define the initiation phase. For practitioners, it provides guidance on developing decision-making structures and processes that enable more timely and informed relocation choices. In today’s rapidly changing environment, firms face mounting pressure to respond both proactively and reactively to shifting conditions. A structured, adaptable approach to relocation initiation is thus crucial. While existing models, such as those of McIvor and Bals (2021), Pedroletti and Ciabuschi (2023) and Tsai and Urmetzer (2024), offer valuable perspectives on decision-making, implementation and outcomes, they provide only limited coverage of the initiation phase. This paper addresses that gap by proposing a model that conceptualises the initiation phase, offering new insights and opening avenues for future research. While this paper's main foundation lies in the operations and supply chain management domain, the perspective of international business is also relevant to consider, given its prominence in the relocation literature. Therefore, to broaden the perspective on the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process, a theoretical perspective from the internationalisation process is used to support the developed model (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977, 2009).

The paper’s structure is as follows: First, an explanation of the conceptual model’s construction is provided. Next, an overview of previous work on the manufacturing relocation process is provided. Thirdly, the various components and the conceptual model are explained. Fourth, a dive into different pathways for initiation is given. Fifth, a discussion of key insights and considerations follows. Sixth, a future research agenda is proposed. Finally, concluding remarks, contributions, limitations and a summary of the future research agenda are provided.

A conceptual approach was adopted to advance knowledge about the initiation phase that precedes the manufacturing relocation process. The choice of research design is motivated by the absence of conceptual models addressing what the authors define as the initiation of manufacturing relocation. Since this topic is both underexplored and fragmented, there is a need to establish a conceptual foundation (Jaakkola, 2020). Accordingly, a model-driven approach was employed to identify novel connections between constructs, while clarifying the relationships between phases and outcomes. The approach integrates insights from prior research on manufacturing relocation with related fields such as operations strategy and strategic sourcing. Literature was selected based on its relevance, specifically when it discussed, addressed or referred to activities, steps or actions that can be considered part of the initiation phase. This was then complemented with studies covering related aspects (e.g. relocation drivers) that were insufficiently addressed in the literature explicitly dealing with the initiation phase.

To construct a model of the initiation phase, it is first necessary to discuss what the model should encompass. Central to this discussion is the nature of relocation decision-making and the underlying processes that interconnect with various parts of a firm’s operations. Closely related areas are internationalisation and procurement, where make-or-buy decisions often cause relocations (Eriksson et al., 2021), and the internationalisation process is an antecedent to the firm’s location decision (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977). These interconnections make the boundaries of the initiation phase ambiguous. In practice, these boundaries may shift depending on the context and how a firm is organised. Nevertheless, prior studies have identified certain recurring elements, including firms’ strategies (Baraldi et al., 2018), relocation drivers (Srai and Ané) and triggering effects or disruptions (Bals et al., 2016; Fjellström et al., 2019). The relationships among these elements will be elaborated in the following sections, where the conceptualisation of the initiation phase of the manufacturing relocation process will be developed.

Previous studies have proposed several frameworks and models describing the manufacturing relocation process (Tsai and Urmetzer, 2024). Most of these focus on decision-making and implementation, often linking them to contingencies, antecedents or drivers of relocation decisions (Pedroletti and Ciabuschi, 2023; Boffelli and Johansson, 2020). In general, models of the manufacturing relocation process have been developed and reaffirmed to consist of two phases: decision-making and implementation, which are based on prior research on sourcing decision-making and implementation (Bals et al., 2016; Boffelli and Johansson, 2020; McIvor, 2010; Handley, 2012; Jensen et al., 2013). McIvor and Bals (2021) argue that different steps in the decision-making process require attention to distinct sets of factors, while also considering the possibility of retaining and improving operations at the current location. This model was later extended and tested empirically (McIvor et al., 2025).

What remains underdeveloped in existing frameworks is the decision-making process linked to the initiation stage of manufacturing relocation. Tsai and Urmetzer (2024) included what they termed a “consideration phase” in their systematic literature review, consisting of conceptual incubation and tipping points. Their deductive approach was built on Lyles’ (1981) model of strategic problem formulation, where awareness of a problem leads to its incubation. Once incubated, the problem may trigger a recognition that current operations are affected, prompting further information gathering and ultimately moving into decision-making. Pedroletti and Ciabuschi (2023), in contrast, identified antecedents of the offshoring–reshoring relationship and contextual factors at the firm, industry and global levels as contributors to awareness that feeds into the decision-making process.

Synthesising prior contributions, the manufacturing relocation process can be described as follows: it begins with an initiation stage where awareness and preparation for relocation are established (Tsai and Urmetzer, 2024; Pedroletti and Ciabuschi, 2023; McIvor and Bals, 2021). Following a triggering point, the process moves into a decision-making phase (Bals et al., 2016; Boffelli and Johansson, 2020; Pedroletti and Ciabuschi, 2023; Tsai and Urmetzer, 2024). Once a decision is made, whether to remain at the current location or to relocate, the process advances to implementation (Bals et al., 2016; Boffelli and Johansson, 2020; Pedroletti and Ciabuschi, 2023). After implementation, the relocation outcome is evaluated (Tsai and Urmetzer, 2024; Boffelli and Johansson, 2020; Pedroletti and Ciabuschi, 2023). If the relocation is deemed highly unsuccessful, further relocation initiatives may be considered. This process model is partly consistent with other findings (Boffelli et al., 2020). The initiation stage and its relation to the phases proposed by Bals et al. (2016) are presented in Figure 1. While the model is illustrated as a linear progression, phases and steps within phases may, in practice, occur iteratively.

So far, the model presented in the paper has largely incorporated an operations management perspective on manufacturing relocation. However, insights from an international business perspective are also relevant. The internationalisation process, although debated, is considered a linear process where firms incrementally expand their foreign investments, starting with (1) irregular export, (2) export through agents, (3) sales subsidiary and (4) production/manufacturing (Vernon, 1966; Johanson and Vahlne, 1977, 2009). The decision to invest in foreign markets is associated with the firm’s market commitment and market experience. While drivers for relocation are commonly associated with a market-oriented perspective on why firms engage in a potential relocation decision (Di Mauro and Ancarani, 2022), other aspects shape how to approach the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process.

Market commitment is highlighted as a key factor in a firm’s internationalisation process. First, committing resources to a market may lead to further commitment from the firm’s management (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977). Furthermore, the type of product allocated to a specific market may vary and influence the firm’s commitment to developing market relationships (Vernon, 1966). This shapes the internationalisation process by determining whether the firm is venturing into a new market or searching for lower-cost locations. Markets are dynamic and constantly shifting, and trends and external events may change market conditions (Olhager and Harfeldt-Berg, 2025), occasionally acting as relocation enablers through shifts in culture and institutional factors (Wan et al., 2019). A firm’s decision to begin relocating from a market depends on its connection to, and relationship with, that market, which in turn affects the internationalisation process (Pedroletti, 2025).

Previous research on internationalisation and location decisions has highlighted the role of knowledge (Hutzschenreuter et al., 2011). Knowledge and experience are resources that contribute to a firm’s growth and competitive advantage, and they can be understood as cognitive capabilities that are either taught or learned (Barney, 1991; Penrose, 1995). Knowledge can also drive relocation, and considerations about how to transfer knowledge and learned experience during the relocation process can affect the relocation decision (Fjellström et al., 2023). Experience is therefore part of a feedback loop or learning process that, over time, strengthens a firm’s ability to analyse and make relocation decisions. New experience about a location and market can also reveal that a prior location decision was suboptimal and affect market commitment (Ciabuschi et al., 2019).

Manufacturing relocations vary across periods of economic prosperity and distress; however, time as a temporal dynamic is often overlooked in research on relocation decisions (Podrecca et al., 2021). When firms grow through foreign expansion and cost pressures come to a halt due to economic decline and changing market conditions, this prompts firms to relocate elsewhere (Baraldi et al., 2018; Ciabuschi et al., 2019). As such, an underlying assumption is that the current state of operations will change to a degree due to the changing conditions and experience. The impact of the firm’s internationalisation process on the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process can thus take different shapes. Arguably, the temporal dynamics which affect the market conditions and the accumulation of knowledge are vital to consider. The relation with time, market and knowledge has been illustrated in Figure 2.

In this section, a new conceptual model for the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process is proposed, built on the previously established models.

A relocation decision is ultimately a strategic decision. It may be driven by opportunities to maximise financial performance or avoid risks. Even when relocation is a response to external pressures (reactive), it should not be separated from the firm’s overall strategies (proactive). Strategies define how the firm’s global operations and value network are structured, and relocation choices must therefore align with existing operations strategies such as product, manufacturing, supply chain and procurement (Bals et al., 2016; Slack and Lewis, 2017).

Strategies are not static, especially when considering supply chain strategies (Srai and Ané, 2016). Market dynamics frequently force decision-makers to reconsider and adjust them (Baraldi et al., 2018). Thus, strategies play a dual role in relocation: they are both a starting point (source for drivers) in the initiation phase and a guiding framework in the final decision. Relocation decisions, therefore, need to be grounded in a thorough understanding of the firm’s operations strategies. Large-scale relocations can influence not only production but also product development, supply chain design and marketing. Some firms even develop explicit relocation strategies to guide decisions about where and how to move operations (Li et al., 2023). Therefore, the initiation of the manufacturing relocation decision should start from a strategic standpoint, which then establishes the driving factors for a relocation decision (McIvor and Bals, 2021).

The first stage of an initiation is the awareness stage (Lyles, 1981). Becoming aware of issues that can lead to relocation decisions is a crucial stage in the process, as becoming aware of an issue early means greater chances of preventing business losses. Stemming from a firm’s strategies, the awareness can take several forms. Awareness may stem from the firm’s decision-makers' experience, making them feel unease with the current situation or monitoring key drivers for relocation that are continuously evaluated. Awareness can also stem from market changes affecting the firm (e.g. new competitors or geopolitical decisions). Becoming aware of these changes is part of the knowledge feedback loop.

The drivers for relocation should be established from the firm’s strategies and represent key factors for the firm’s continuity. Some common drivers for relocation decisions are the previously mentioned shift in strategy and external factors (Barbieri et al., 2018), or the correction of a managerial mistake (e.g. correction of a previous relocation decision) (Kinkel and Maloca, 2009). Historically, relocation decisions have been performed on a pure lower-cost-driven perspective as part of a firm’s internationalisation process (Gurtu et al., 2019), which is still evident today in reshoring or relocating to a new location (Srai and Ané, 2016; Stentoft et al., 2016; Olhager and Harfeldt-Berg, 2025). However, other driving factors have become relevant, for example, quality, brand image, enhanced innovation, responsiveness, lead time, market proximity, resource efficiency and dealing with uncertainty (Baraldi et al., 2018; Foerstl et al., 2016; Li et al., 2026; Moradlou et al., 2017; Srai and Ané, 2016). Since drivers are firm-dependent and linked to the firm’s strategic orientation regarding operations strategies, some firm-specific drivers are missing in the current literature (McIvor and Bals, 2021). Decision-makers need to consider firm-specific drivers that are aligned with the firm’s operations strategies.

Certain drivers for relocations are relevant regardless of the strategic orientation of the firm. One such category of drivers is financial and cost drivers for relocation. Firms may sometimes face challenging periods that force them to downsize and rationalise (Li et al., 2025). Another example is supply chain responsiveness through closer market proximity (Ancarani et al., 2019). A common cost-cutting strategy is to consolidate capacity by closing one factory and relocating to other factories or to a supplier, reducing labour, overhead, and other costs. Another example of drivers that apply, irrespective of strategy, is external factors (Barbieri et al., 2018). Changes in regulations and other government incentives can drive relocations by making the current location unsustainable. Establishing what drives the relocation aids the decision-makers in acknowledging when a relocation is triggered. However, this undertaking also faces the problem of how to assess the drivers.

To stay ahead in today’s dynamic markets, decision-makers must continuously evaluate the firm’s drivers for the manufacturing relocation process. The choice of evaluation methods should be based on the key drivers and strategic decisions made by the decision-makers. Therefore, one cannot prescribe a set of assessment methods at this stage. Rather, decision-makers need to understand what assessments are appropriate to be continuously performed to assess the drivers for relocation. Through continuously evaluating the drivers, a firm’s decision-makers become proactive and potentially avoid being caught off guard or missing business opportunities. Furthermore, the continuous evaluations also facilitate a learning process where the firm’s decision-makers steadily increase their understanding of market and internal developments (Longauer et al., 2023; Fjellström et al., 2023).

A few examples exist in the literature regarding the continuous evaluation of drivers for the relocation decision. An increase in strategic building of supplier portfolios has become increasingly important for firms (Baldassarre and Campo, 2015), where decision makers can utilise continuous make-or-buy (Longauer et al., 2023), and supplier evaluations (Presley et al., 2016) can create synergy when building such portfolios. Evaluating the operational performance (Benstead et al., 2017; Elia et al., 2024) and risk (Joubioux and Vanpoucke, 2016) at the current location are also relevant evaluations to establish an indication if reasonable to start investigating a relocation opportunity. However, drivers such as brand image are hard to evaluate and need several assessments to assess the impact. A conscious decision may be needed to base the assessment partly on the decision-maker's experience and understanding, rather than relying on the method.

The second stage of the initiation phase is the incubation stage, where reasons for relocating start to formulate. When decision-makers evaluate a driver, there is a time when no action is taken, but there is now a more concrete idea of the situation. Here, drivers could also accumulate, with multiple drivers beginning to signal a need for action (Lyles, 1981). If there are none or too vague indicators, then decision-makers do not initiate the relocation process, and the state of operation is left unchanged. However, if a driver or drivers for relocation indicates a change affecting the firm’s operations, this accumulates into a triggering effect.

After the assessment of the drivers has been made and the incubation stage has accumulated enough reasons for a potential relocation, an often-featured aspect in the manufacturing relocation process is the triggering or tipping effect that marks the beginning of a relocation decision being considered. Whether the trigger stems from the accumulation of drivers or a disruptive triggering effect requires consideration. A triggering effect can stem from the driver for relocation and is therefore connected to the performance of the firm at a location or the overall market (Bals et al., 2016; Benstead et al., 2017). On the contrary, a disruptive effect can stem from an external environment, where dynamic changes in the market, geopolitical events or disasters (e.g. pandemics) can cause a need for relocation (Boffeli et al., 2018; Fjellström et al., 2019). The difference between the triggering and disruptive effects in the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process lies in the amount of control the decision-maker has regarding their ability to formulate a response proactively or reactively. The triggering effects should be covered by the drivers for relocation and the subsequent continuous evaluation of the drivers, while the disruptive effects would often be difficult to anticipate.

Deriving relocation drivers from the firm’s strategies and continuously assessing them in relation to potential triggering or tipping effects constitutes a proactive approach to relocation decision-making. However, not all firms conduct such continuous evaluations. This can depend on several factors (e.g. experience), and some firms simply lack a strategic focus on relocation. In these cases, a triggering or disruptive effect may become the first step in initiating the manufacturing relocation process, leading to a reactive response if decision-makers do not actively monitor current performance. In the awareness stage, ongoing evaluation of relocation drivers can enable a proactive response that dampens, negates or circumvents disruptive effects. External threats therefore underscore the need for vigilant decision-making.

After a triggering effect has occurred, decision-makers need to establish the triggering effect's impact on performance and whether it is suitable to initiate the manufacturing relocation process. Before engaging in the manufacturing relocation process, decision-makers can implement a second stage of evaluation to establish if there is enough impact on the current performance to warrant an initiation, and if there is a set of viable options. As previously stated regarding the continuous evaluation of the drivers for relocation, decision-makers need to choose suitable evaluation methods such as total cost of ownership, make-or-buy, scenario, performance and risk evaluation (Hartman et al., 2017; Baldassarre and Campo, 2015; Boffeli et al., 2020; Hilletofth et al., 2021; Sequeira et al., 2021, 2023; Elia et al., 2024; Joubioux and Vanpoucke, 2016). If a disruption triggered the initiation, this can be used to establish an initial understanding. The importance of this stage is to enable firms’ decision-makers to establish whether there is an opportunity to relocate or not, and the decision-makers can either choose to engage or disengage from the relocation process. Depending on the firm’s choice, the options are either to continue their foreign investment in a new market or iterate on their internationalisation endeavours and reshore (McIvor and Bals, 2021; Wan et al., 2019).

To identify relocation potential, decision-makers should first develop initial scenarios (Hartman et al., 2017; McIvor and Bals, 2021). For example, a make-or-buy analysis may show that purchasing is preferable because the firm lacks in-house production capabilities, while an alternative scenario may indicate that relocation to another supplier is feasible. This requires evaluating the supplier portfolio to determine whether potential suppliers offer equivalent capabilities, capacity, responsiveness and an equal or lower risk profile. Developing several scenarios provides a solid basis for comparison and, when combined with a risk assessment, helps decision-makers determine whether some scenarios pose significant risks (Joubioux and Vanpoucke, 2016). Once scenarios and initial risks have been assessed, the next step is to determine whether there are sufficient viable options to justify initiating the manufacturing relocation process (Bals et al., 2016). If scenarios are few or show a high risk of failure, the firm should consider remaining at the current location and instead invest in improvement initiatives (McIvor and Bals, 2021). This process also supports learning by helping decision-makers understand the potential for relocation early in the initiation phase, thereby facilitating more effective knowledge transfer (Fjellström et al., 2023).

When decision-makers have established that there are reasons to engage in the manufacturing relocation, the initiation phase moves on to the formal manufacturing relocation process. The suggested manufacturing relocation process follows a previous conceptual model (Bals et al., 2016). Therefore, the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process is visually presented with the phases proposed by Bals et al. (2016) in Figure 3. The figure also includes an experience loop (Ciabuschi et al., 2019; Fjellström et al., 2023).

To further expand upon Figure 1's portrayal of the conceptual model for initiating the manufacturing relocation process, four different pathways are highlighted in this section. The following section portrays these pathways by using case descriptions from the existing literature as examples. These examples were chosen for their ability to showcase the different pathways an initiation can take within the conceptual model.

The initiation can stem from an external factor, such as geopolitical or environmental disruption, that affects the firm’s current state. The current location may be influenced by a geopolitical decision that either threatens the firm’s operation or makes the location less attractive. One example is the war between Russia and Ukraine, in which several firms had to leave Russia or face sanctions. This type of initiation can be drastic and require swift action. In those cases, the awareness stage quickly progresses to the incubation stage. Drivers include increased sanctions and impact on brand image, which prompts decision-makers to question whether action is necessary. If yes, this triggers a relocation process, in which the decision-making focuses on identifying a new location for the firm. If not, the firm remains at the current location.

One primary example of a reactive pathway is the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the apparel industry (Castañeda-Navarrete et al., 2021). As manufacturing output in Asia decreased significantly, surging demand for protective apparel, combined with escalating geopolitical tension, required Italian firms to rapidly reconfigure their supply chains. Firms that were unaware of the impending disruption were suddenly forced to relocate. As this change occurred rapidly, opportunities to adapt or counteract were limited. Previously committed resources in the affected market were suddenly wasted or locked in, and planned expansions were abandoned. The new situation also affected the decision-makers’ situational understanding, as the market drastically changed and prior knowledge became partly obsolete. In such cases, initiation becomes more difficult due to limited knowledge of the new context, although the gained experience also provides feedback to the learning process. However, reactive approaches do not always stem from drastic market changes. They may also result from internal changes within the firm that alter strategic alignment with the market. In these situations, the knowledge and experience of the decision-makers are highly relevant, especially when addressing managerial mistakes.

Another way for initiation to occur is through a hybrid initiation. An allegory for this is a glass that gradually or rapidly fills until it overflows. In this pathway, the firm experiences increasing difficulties operating at the current location, where various pain points accumulate into a relocation trigger. To determine whether relocation is a viable option, the firm can initially evaluate whether any viable scenarios exist and identify what information is missing or required to support a sustainable relocation decision.

There are a few cases that describe hybrid initiation in the literature. Pt-shoes had previously relocated its manufacturing activities from Portugal to Morocco to lower its manufacturing costs (Boffelli et al., 2021). This was due to the company’s strategy of focusing on a low-cost product strategy. However, after six years, the firm realised through an accumulation of pain points that the current location was underperforming. This was partly due to a mistake in the decision-making were decision-makers failed to realise the production output at the new location would be lower, impacting profit margins. The cultural differences also contributed to the accumulation of pain points. The firm experienced external pain points (e.g. taxes) as well. Evidently, these pain points accumulated over time and thus incubated the problem to the point that the upper management could not ignore the issues since the market and experience had changed for the company (Boffelli et al., 2021). Experience came in the form of cultural differences and misjudgement of the foreign market. This is in part why a relocation was triggered. Other factors such as changes to market commitment and product strategy contributed to the decision to initiate a relocation. The case shows that one way the initiation phase can occur is when a certain number of pain points accumulate and finally trigger a firm to relocate its manufacturing activities.

Mechanical 2 is another example where awareness progresses to an incubation that ends in a trigger (Bettiol et al., 2023). The primary drivers in the case were poor quality and a lack of skilled suppliers. Through learning experiences at the offshore manufacturing site, the firm realised that productivity in the home country had increased and therefore chose to reshore. The primary triggering factor was the lack of suppliers, indicating a major driver triggered the relocation. However, it is arguably also the result of different factors accumulating, such as available capacity, quality and supplier difficulties. These issues overshadowed the firm’s foreign market commitment, as resource investments were not enough to warrant further commitment. While the firm realised that the current partnership did not work, the factors that were evaluated to establish awareness were not substantially given in the case.

Instead of merely reacting to changes, firms can also initiate the relocation process proactively. In this case, the firm identifies potential reasons to relocate by systematically evaluating the drivers for relocation, for example, through scenario building or forecasting. Unlike a reactive approach, the decision-makers trigger the relocation before a negative impact on the company is realised. This may avoid the potential consequences of geopolitical change or improve margins and cost performance, regardless of whether the firm is currently underperforming at the current location. When the relocation process is initiated proactively, an initial evaluation may not be necessary, as relevant scenarios have already been developed. This enables decision-makers to move quickly towards a formal relocation decision.

Cases that describe a proactive initiation pathway are scarce in the relocation literature. One study established that some British firms adopted a proactive initiation pathway during Brexit to avoid a disruption to the supply chain (Moradlou et al., 2021). Some managers stated that Brexit did not affect them to the same extent, but that timing and changing environment still proved challenging. Thus, experience enabled the firms to make the relocation decision and change their market commitments, even though uncertainties surrounded the new market investments. As stated in the study, even when decision-makers had prior experience with similar occurrences, it was difficult to foresee difficulties when making the decision. Previous studies have found that working with what-if scenarios in relocation decisions is favourable (Kinkel and Maloca, 2009). What-if scenarios may aid in establishing an earlier awareness that reaches an incubation stage and triggers the formal process while the decision-makers are in control. Building scenarios and sourcing portfolios proactively can enable dynamic mitigation of operational risks (Baldassarre and Campo, 2015). Arguably, the proactive initiation can lend itself to a strategically oriented approach, where firms can strive to gain competitive advantage through relocation decisions based on their strategic portfolios and scenarios.

The final type of initiation is an opportunistic initiation pathway where firms have realised a potential business opportunity exists through a relocation decision. This would foremost be linked to strategic changes in the firm; therefore, the pathway may differentiate from the other pathways. A market-driven relocation could stem from a new product release aimed at reaching new consumer groups or markets. As such, brand image may be impacted by the location choice, thus leading to a relocation to another strategically befitting market. In such cases, the awareness stems from a new product line introduction aimed at a different target group, which then triggers a relocation when understood that the market requires production of the product at another location.

A few examples are available in the relocation literature that provide insight into opportunistic initiations. One Accessories Firm in the Italian apparel industry demonstrate the strategy, awareness and triggering stage of the initiation phase (Boffelli et al., 2018). The firm decided to change strategies and commit to a new higher-tier market after experiencing lower margins in the current low-tier market with production in a low-cost country. The made-in effect and the new market opportunity eventually triggered a reshoring decision back to Italy. The change in strategy was noticeable when the new market opportunity presented itself, thus changing market commitment to a new market instead of investing in the current one. Prior experience in the old market may have helped establish an opportunity and enabled the relocation since previous relationships with the supplier base existed. Given the drivers, presumably financial and market analysis were used to build awareness, which then led to the eventual trigger.

Finding the most suitable pathway for a firm is not straightforward. Above all, relocation decisions are context-dependent, featuring different contextual conditions. Therefore, these contextual differences and their potential effects on the choice of pathway are further elaborated on in this section and summarised in Table 1. The clearest example of such context dependence is the reactive pathway.

The case of COVID-19 highlights how external factors influence the choice of pathways, as the pandemic forced firms to adopt a reactive pathway due to changes in the external environment (Castañeda-Navarrete et al., 2021). Thus, the reactive pathway can be characterised as follows: The reactive pathway is triggered by an external disruptive event. This would also involve an awareness and incubation stage; however, these would occur rapidly or instantaneously, as an external factor is the cause of the trigger rather than an internal factor (Boffeli et al., 2018; Fjellström et al., 2019). In these instances, it becomes important to first evaluate and develop a comprehensive understanding of the situation. Prior experience can become obsolete or help firms to quickly regain control of the situation (Ciabuschi et al., 2019), while also creating a learning loop that aids in navigating similar challenges (Fjellström et al., 2023; Johanson and Vahlne, 2009).

The reasons for adopting a certain pathway may be many; distinguishably, the reactive and the hybrid pathways do not always constitute an active choice by the firm’s decision-makers. Some firms may strategically disregard relocating, intentionally not seeking to relocate, but are eventually forced because of declining performance at the current location (Baraldi et al., 2018; Li et al., 2023). The initial decision may be to stay and improve at the current location but ultimately ends in a relocation decision as a last resort. The impact of market commitment is also relevant, as issues that began as internal performance problems are additionally shaped by market-related factors. Market commitment can extend over several years (six years in the case of Boffeli et al., 2021) and therefore influences the initiation phase. In parallel, firms gain experience operating in the current location and market. As a result, their market commitment may increase, which can prolong the awareness and incubation stages. However, repeated experiences with various pain points may also prompt decision-makers to relocate because of friction at the current location. Such experiences may also arise from market-related factors (Barbieri et al., 2018).

Based on this, the hybrid approach can be described as originating from internal pain points and dissatisfaction with performance at the current location. Awareness develops over time, ranging from several months to as much as six years, as problems gradually emerge and create additional pain points. These pain points accumulate during an extended incubation period, which subsequently triggers the need for relocation. Even when multiple pain points accumulate, one major pain point may push the incubation to trigger. Both market commitment and experience influence how the process unfolds and the duration of the awareness and incubation stage. After a trigger occurs, an initial evaluation is recommended to assess potential scenarios, especially regarding changes to the supplier network when relocating (Pedroletti, 2025).

In contrast to the reactive and hybrid pathways, the proactive and opportunistic pathways arguably suit firms with a strategic orientation to relocate. For a firm aiming to stay ahead of its competition, a proactive pathway is more favourable than a reactive pathway. This could also be due to the experience of not acting quickly to disruptions. Adopting a proactive pathway is therefore an active choice that requires experience and that the firm’s strategy allows for relocating production. As such, the proactive pathway originates from the firm’s strategies, where awareness develops through continuous evaluation (Baldassarre and Campo, 2015; Longauer et al., 2023; Presley et al., 2016). Awareness can stem from internal factors (e.g. decline in performance) and external factors (e.g. geopolitical decisions) (Elia et al., 2024; Moradlou et al., 2021). The incubation stage could consist of cumulative and major single drivers that eventually trigger a relocation. Thus, awareness and incubation could take anywhere from a few months to a year. The initial evaluation afterwards aims at reviewing, refining and comparing prior evaluations and constructed scenarios.

A proactive approach may help firms address dynamic market changes, either by acting against them or by leveraging them when beneficial, possibly enhancing market commitment. Furthermore, it may facilitate the generation of knowledge about how these dynamics operate (Longauer et al., 2023; Fjellström et al., 2023). However, market commitment is influenced by the firm’s strategies and its relocation proneness. If a firm tends to relocate frequently, it may be less committed to a given market. Contrary, a proactive approach may strengthen market commitment by enabling preventive actions that ensure longevity in the market. Therefore, the decision to adopt a proactive pathway must take these perspectives into account.

If a firm possesses strong market knowledge and experience or demonstrates an entrepreneurial drive to establish a new market position, it may relocate in response to emerging business opportunities (Ancarani et al., 2019; Boffeli et al., 2020). Thus, an opportunistic pathway is implemented, which becomes relevant when firms expand into new markets or change their strategies, thereby altering their market commitment (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977). The opportunistic pathway follows when awareness arises either from changes in market-positioning strategies or from shifts in market dynamics that incubate (Ancarani et al., 2019; Baraldi et al., 2018; Olhager and Harfeldt-Berg, 2025). Whether relocation is incubated by an accumulation of factors or by a single factor is difficult to determine in this paper. However, it is plausible that relocation is triggered by a specific opportunity; thus, an accumulation of factors is less likely than one major driver. Another aspect concerns the duration of the awareness and incubation stages. Depending on the source of awareness of the opportunity (e.g. new product line or new market entry), the incubation period may vary. Accordingly, incubation may last from several months to a year, depending on the window of opportunity. An initial evaluation could be used to assess other aspects of the initiation process that may have been overlooked when first considering the opportunity (e.g. supplier availability).

Changing pathways is primarily a theoretical concern, but clarifying it helps distinguish the four initiation pathways. Even if decision-makers favour one pathway, circumstances may force them to follow another. The most defining aspects of a pathway are how awareness arises, how it incubates and how this incubation produces a trigger. It is primarily in these stages that the pathway’s characteristics are formed. Because these elements differ across pathways, it is difficult to redirect within a pathway. Instead, firms exit one pathway and enter another. For example, when a firm moves from a proactive pathway into a reactive one, the decision-makers who have failed to be proactive are pushed to exit the proactive pathway and enter a reactive pathway.

At first glance, it may appear that firms can simply change direction within a pathway, especially when considering a proactive pathway, which seems to offer multiple possible directions. By proactively evaluating relocation drivers and building knowledge about market behaviour, decision-makers may end up pursuing an opportunistic relocation to strengthen market position or a hybrid relocation when they are forced to remain passive because viable scenarios are lacking. However, if these outcomes stem from a consistently proactive process, they can still be interpreted as results of the proactive pathway. Thus, the relocation decision may display characteristics associated with another pathway, but the underlying initiation logic remains unchanged.

In times of uncertainty where firms are actively reconsidering their manufacturing networks, it is crucial to understand how to initiate such an undertaking. This paper addresses the insufficient understanding of the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process by proposing a model that explicitly conceptualises the initiation phase, offering new insights and opening avenues for future research. While earlier work has touched upon the topic (McIvor and Bals, 2021; Tsai and Urmetzer, 2024), this paper advances and provides further extension on the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process.

The conceptual model is an extension of the already established models provided by prior conceptualisations that focus on the formal decision and implementation phases (Bals et al., 2016; Boffelli and Johansson, 2020; Pedroletti and Ciabuschi, 2023). As shown in these models, the knowledge on drivers and triggering factors is substantial (Tsai and Urmetzer, 2024; Weisman et al., 2017; Benstead et al., 2017). By establishing a conceptual model, this paper provides a linkage between these and how drivers and triggers can connect, especially understanding how awareness in a company can incubate into a trigger. This interconnectedness is rather underdeveloped, and exploring the interconnection to understand how, when and why firms decide to initiate a relocation process in a particular way is less covered.

The connection between each stage of the initiation phase is not substantially covered in the literature. As seen in the four different pathways, there is some evidence to support certain connections, especially between awareness, incubation and triggering factors (Boffelli et al., 2018, 2021; Ancarani et al., 2019). However, certain factors are still in need of discussion to further expand on the conceptual model (Figure 3). Looking beyond the awareness stage as a stage where key drivers are evaluated, the firm’s decision-makers' awareness gradually increases during a fixed period. The period for the awareness to increase lacks coverage. However, given the nature of the topic, it is possible to assume that it could be over a period of months or up to several years. If the relocation stems from the outcomes of a failed relocation, the increase in awareness could cover a span of several years (Boffelli et al., 2021). Another aspect of the awareness stage is from which direction in the firm it originates, as an initiation could stem from various units in the firm (e.g. procurement or production). This affects the awareness stage, for it means different key drivers and evaluations are used depending on who is gaining awareness.

Depending on how awareness is established in the initiation stage, the incubation stage is affected differently. Judging by the findings from Boffelli et al. (2021) and Bettiol et al. (2023), the incubation stage is a result of an accumulation of driving factors, matching prior established concepts (Lyles, 1981). However, the question remains whether uniform across all relocations, as it is not entirely clear in the literature. This has further implications for what eventually triggers a relocation. In some instances, it may be clear what triggers a relocation, such as disruptive events, while in other cases the line may be more unclear. The incubation and triggering effects are also linked to the specific units in the firm from which the initiation might start. Although there are instances where drivers associated with different units could mix.

Based on the conceptual model and case studies performed in the prior literature, four different pathways are evident for initiation. The path for an initiation can be either reactive, hybrid, proactive or opportunistic. Out of these pathways, the reactive and hybrid initiations are the ones that are arguably more commonly perceived in the literature (Bettiol et al., 2023). Since prior research has tried to understand why firms relocated, often after the initiation has occurred, it tends to be explained as a reaction caused by external drivers or previously failed relocation outcomes (Kinkel and Maloca, 2009; Srai and Ané, 2016). Another explanation could be that a firm lacks strategies to relocate regularly, but rather seeks the right location (Li et al., 2023). As such, the awareness that builds over time that the location is not right for them is met by a reactive response, even if drivers for relocating have started to accumulate before a triggering effect occurs. The same is shown about the opportunistic pathway, as strategies change, so the choice of location was for firms focusing on leveraging brand image, and the “made-in effect” (Ancarani et al., 2019; Boffelli et al., 2018).

As seen from the cases provided by Castañeda-Navarrete et al. (2021), Boffelli et al. (2018, 2021) and Bettiol et al. (2023), the change in operational performance and market dynamics is affected by time at the current location (Baraldi et al., 2018; Ciabuschi et al., 2019). However, there are also other aspects related to the initiation process (Figure 3) that must be considered regarding the time perspective. In certain cases, it seems that the awareness stage followed by the incubation stage takes 1–6 years. This could occur more quickly in more dire situations, although an accumulative effect takes time to incubate. Regarding the reactive and hybrid pathways, this can occur faster, as the firm’s decision-makers are unaware of the changing environment (Castañeda-Navarrete et al., 2021). Awareness can also gradually emerge in early discussions of political decisions, accumulating into a trigger where the firm acts proactively to reduce risk (Moradlou et al., 2021).

The proactive pathway is less explored in the literature regarding relocation decision-making. In the proposed model, firms should link strategies to drivers and continuously evaluate these to gain awareness of a potential relocation. When considering dynamic market changes, a proactive pathway may enable firms’ decision-makers to better judge whether it is wise to further commit resources to an established network in an offshore market or create a new network in a new market (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977; Pedroletti, 2025). However, this would be a product of years of experience to establish, as a great understanding of how the market behaves is needed to transfer it to a proactive decision-making process (Fjellström et al., 2023). The prior literature shows that firms’ decision-makers are implementing this; however, it is not fully developed as a concept in the literature (Moradlou et al., 2021). Thus, it is an area of the topic that requires further elaboration.

Some further discussion regarding the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process is required. Even though it is recommended, some firms may not implement all steps of the conceptual model, such as the continuous evaluation of drivers, choosing not to proactively engage in relocation decisions. Some firms may lack the resources or strategic orientation to adopt a proactive initiation, making a reactive or hybrid pathway more suitable. Adopting a proactive pathway may benefit a firm as it potentially reduces the risk of a disruptive event becoming disastrous. However, this is also a question of market commitment and experience in relocation decisions (Johanson and Vahlne, 2009). First, a firm committed to a market may be unwilling to relocate, as this would mean invested resources are sacrificed. Thus, it directly or indirectly chooses a reactive or hybrid pathway. Secondly, a proactive pathway potentially requires more experience, effectively meaning firms more prone to relocating could have a greater inclination to develop the necessary proactive capabilities.

Even with a proactive approach, a certain degree of reactivity remains necessary. Proactivity can generate additional benefits and enable decision-makers to adjust relocation drivers when the firm’s strategy changes (Baraldi et al., 2018). Since strategic shifts can themselves trigger relocation, continuous evaluation of the firm’s strategic direction and relocation drivers supports dynamic adjustments in operational strategies (Barbieri et al., 2018; McIvor and Bals, 2021). Importantly, the objective is not to increase the frequency of relocations but to enhance resilience and mitigate the impact of disruptions. However, at times it is not always possible to respond to a relocation trigger, and decision-makers may judge it wiser to remain at the current location despite poor performance (McIvor and Bals, 2021). This may result from proactively evaluating the current market or the firm’s performance and recognising that viable alternatives are limited. Prior experience that led to the relocation decision to the current site may also make relocating away from it undesirable, since it still represents the better option. In essence, experience and knowledge shape the decision; however, how this is established is less well understood and may require a trial-and-error approach.

To enable practitioners to develop their capabilities in proactively initiating the manufacturing relocation process, we suggest several key focus points in addition to the conceptual model. First, it is essential to establish the key drivers for relocation in the firm (Srai and Ané, 2016; Baraldi et al., 2018; Foerstl et al., 2016). These drivers should then be regularly evaluated, in line with the firm’s strategies, whether yearly, biannual or quarterly. The choice of evaluation methods will depend on the drivers in question, but total cost of ownership, risk, and performance evaluations are a useful starting point (Baldassarre and Campo, 2015; Elia et al., 2024; Joubioux and Vanpoucke, 2016). These evaluations can support scenario building, which should also be reviewed regularly (Hartman et al., 2017). Depending on the firm’s internal processes, other methods may be more suitable. Taken together, these steps help ensure that decision-makers remain aware of both the current situation and potential future developments.

To establish whether the initiation is starting to accumulate into a triggering effect, a certain mindset may provide further improvements. Advisably, firms’ decision-makers could work with thresholds in the incubation stage. As a first threshold, when certain drivers are approaching the point at which relocation may occur, it is advisable to evaluate these drivers on an even more frequent basis. For example, if the evaluations are made on a biyearly basis, a quarterly basis might be needed. When a second threshold is reached, the relocation is triggered. Thinking in terms of thresholds allows decision-makers to act more proactively by putting in countermeasures to dampen the effect before the issue becomes an inevitable relocation endeavour.

Depending on the awareness, incubation and triggering stages of the initiation, the initial evaluation may differ across pathways. According to Bals et al. (2016), the primary decision-making phase begins with defining the relocation project and gathering essential information. In a reactive pathway, an initial evaluation may be almost a requirement to establish a foothold. In other pathways, such as the proactive pathway, some firms may consider the initial evaluation redundant, as decision-makers are already sure why a relocation is necessary. Thus, they can proceed to the first steps of the manufacturing relocation process, which is intended to provide the same information but in greater depth. However, there are advantages to including the initial evaluation before starting the manufacturing relocation process. Establishing a well-suited structure that initially assesses scenarios and relocation risks can streamline the relocation process, saving both time and resources. Researchers recommend scenario-building and scenario evaluation at this stage (Boffelli et al., 2020). Scenarios enable decision-makers to quickly gather the necessary information and establish critical factors, allowing decision-makers to simplify and reduce complexity (Hartman et al., 2017; Sequeira et al., 2023). To ensure applicability and reliability, scenarios require solid information and suitable assessment methods. Determining the exact approach to scenario construction, however, is beyond this paper’s scope and requires further research.

As the topic of initiation of the manufacturing relocation process is still in its infancy, further research is required. In this section, an outline of promising future research agendas related to the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process is presented.

Although the paper provides some insight, its value can only be fully assessed through empirical testing. To deepen understanding of how firms initiate the manufacturing relocation process, further empirical testing is needed to evaluate the model’s practical usefulness and all its aspects in greater depth. Currently, the literature focuses mostly on sourcing, the effect of market and internal performance assessments, along with scenario building and analysis. Future research could establish the types of evaluations firms perform, scenario building, what drivers are relevant, how accumulations occur and strategies’ effect on the initiation. Additionally, further understanding of the initiation process itself is essential. Especially the transition from awareness into incubation and subsequently a trigger point. Since the model in this paper builds upon the researcher’s interpretation of the topic, there may be relevant elements or factors that were overlooked. Thus, more empirical, qualitative research, such as case studies, is required to expand the understanding of this phenomenon.

One area for empirical investigation is the set of pathways through which a relocation process may be initiated. Although there is a general assumption that the hybrid pathway may be the most common form of relocation, this may not necessarily be the case. Identifying which pathway is most prevalent among manufacturing firms would yield insights into both operational and market-related behavioural characteristics. Moreover, understanding why firms choose one pathway over another is crucial for clarifying what differentiates these pathways. In this paper, we discuss certain differences between pathways, such as their source of awareness, but additional distinguishing factors may exist. These factors may interact with firm-specific characteristics to shape how each pathway is implemented in practice. To further develop the pathways and potentially a typology, additional research is needed on all four pathways to understand their defining characteristics better.

Another suggestion for future research is to deepen the understanding of how different pathways can enhance competitive advantage in relocation decision-making. Research on firms’ strategies and competitive advantage has long been central in the Operations and Supply Chain Management and International Business research fields. However, in recent relocation literature, this focus has diminished. Shifting focus towards how different pathways, such as a proactive pathway, can enhance this becomes increasingly relevant. The authors encourage researchers to develop new insights into how firms can enhance competitive advantage through different pathways in their relocation decisions, essential for advancing this topic for both researchers and practitioners.

To deepen understanding of the different pathways, empirical research should examine the timeline, temporal dynamics, market commitment and prior experience. The current literature provides limited evidence on the precise duration of the initiation phase. While some studies indicate that awareness may develop over months or years, the length of each stage within the initiation phase remains unclear. This is further complicated by factors that may accelerate or prolong the process. For example, the timeline may be influenced by external conditions (such as market dynamics) that either compress the incubation period or extend it in the presence of heightened uncertainty. The firm’s experience in each market may also shape both the timing and overall duration of initiation. Moreover, how market demands and the firm’s cognitive decision-making capabilities influence the initiation process are still underexplored. Further conceptual and empirical development of the role of knowledge would significantly advance this research area, particularly in terms of how such knowledge is built, transferred and maintained within firms.

From a theoretical perspective, further iterations of the conceptual model are possible. While theoretical considerations related to internationalisation, strategies and decision-making processes are present, the model relies on existing literature combined with related literature. Further development of the conceptual model could incorporate and increase the theoretical perspectives, such as the resource-based view and eclectic paradigm, adding another theoretical dimension to the conceptual model.

The research presented in this paper contributes to the understanding, definition and development of the initiation of the manufacturing relocation process. It does so by developing a new conceptual model that links relevant constructs to form a foundational framework for both researchers and practitioners. Its main contribution is establishing this topic as a distinct area of study. Additionally, it highlights the importance of firm strategies, how firms become aware through relocation drivers, and the role of decision-makers in evaluating these drivers. Furthermore, how awareness incubates into action through a triggering effect. Together, this helps firms in developing a foundation for initiating the manufacturing relocation process, potentially improving decision-making and optimising resource usage. Based on the proposed model, four pathways for initiating the relocation process are presented: reactive, hybrid, proactive and opportunistic. To date, only a few other conceptual models and frameworks have addressed the topic of initiation of the manufacturing relocation process, none capturing the topic in full. Although certain parts of the model have been explored in previous studies, this paper’s model is distinguished by its expansion and integration of earlier constructs into a unified concept.

Given that the existing literature focuses on the main decision process, as well as the drivers, barriers and decision factors related to manufacturing relocation, this paper presents a novel conceptual model in an underexplored research area. To further enhance the model's insight, market commitment and prior experience are included as complementary factors. Experience is a key enabler in the initiation stage. Depending on the pathway, it can provide the basis for initial awareness, be critical for enabling certain pathways and inform decisions about market commitment. Understanding market dynamics that shape experience and relocation decisions is essential in the initiation phase. Furthermore, relocation drivers and triggers may arise from multiple sources, suggesting that decision-makers should draw on a broad range of assessments to identify the most salient drivers.

The paper provides practitioners with a conceptual model that can serve as a foundation for firms’ decision-makers to develop their own pathways for initiating a manufacturing relocation process. The model offers a starting point for understanding how different types of initiation can occur. The four identified pathways can guide decision-makers in recognising which type of initiation is currently being used and what additional options can be developed over time. The model can help focus attention on key drivers derived from the firm’s strategies and on establishing a pathway that supports the firm’s strategic objectives. When combined with appropriate evaluations, it can streamline the process and enhance organisational awareness.

As this is a conceptual paper, it is limited by the available literature and the researchers’ understanding of the topic. Although conceptual papers do not provide empirical evidence, their value lies in introducing new ideas for researchers and practitioners. As the first conceptual paper devoted solely to this topic, it plays an important role in establishing a research agenda for future studies. For researchers, the conceptual model provides a foundation for further exploration, and the authors have outlined several areas for future research. Suggested research includes empirical studies to test the model in real cases, examining factors and firm strategies. Additionally, future research should further develop the four pathways for initiation, potentially forming a typology. Future research should also focus on establishing how the temporal dynamics, such as market dynamics, knowledge and the timeline of the initiation, affect the approach. The authors also invite other researchers to further refine and expand the conceptual model from a theoretical perspective.