Temporary supply networks in the context of climate change

Social, economic, and environmental transformations have significantly reshaped how organizational activities are structured and managed globally (Fernandes & Santos, 2025; Ramesh, Athira, & Rajeev, 2025). Amid increasingly dynamic business environments, pressures for rapid responses, and complex social demands, there is a growing need for more flexible and adaptable organizational models, often implemented on an ad hoc basis (Burke & Morley, 2016; Wieland, 2021). This landscape has favored the emergence and consolidation of temporary organizational and interorganizational arrangements (Fernandes & Dube, 2023; Sydow, 2017). In this context, temporary supply networks (TSNs) stand out as particularly relevant. They are conceived as a set of organizations brought together for a limited period to provide the resources and processes required to accomplish a specific, time-bounded task, and are applied across multiple contexts (Sarafan, Lawson, Roehrich, & Squire, 2022; Turner & Müller, 2003; Wang, Müller, & Zhu, 2023). This article argues that TSNs play a strategic role in managing the challenges associated with climate change, an aspect that remains underexplored in the literature.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change can be understood as shifts in the state of the climate, identifiable through changes in its properties over extended periods. In recent decades, this phenomenon has manifested as an increased frequency and intensity of extreme events, such as heatwaves, heavy rainfall, and droughts (IPCC, 2023). Beyond the global average temperature, which had already reached approximately 1.1 °C above pre-industrial levels over the period 2011–2020 (IPCC, 2023), gradual processes have been intensifying (Ghadge, Wurtmann, & Seuring, 2020). For instance, the global mean sea level rose by approximately 20 cm between 1901 and 2018, with acceleration in recent decades, while ocean acidification and shifts in hydrological regimes have produced ongoing impacts on ecosystems and human activities (IPCC, 2023).

These transformations directly affect social and economic dimensions. Between 3.3 and 3.6 billion people live in contexts highly vulnerable to climate change (IPCC, 2023). In 2022, approximately 32.6 million people were displaced, with most displacements linked to climate-related disasters (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre – IDMC, 2024). In economic terms, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a United Nations agency, estimates that climate-related disasters caused losses exceeding USD 4.3 trillion and more than 2 million deaths between 1970 and 2021 (WMO, 2023). These impacts have direct implications for productive systems, compromising infrastructure, disrupting logistics flows, and generating cascading effects on operations and across supply chains (Ghadge et al., 2020; Ivanov & Dolgui, 2020).

As a consequence, managers must contend with the multiple challenges arising from climate change. In addition to managing unexpected disruptions in supply chains (Katsaliaki, Galetsi, & Kumar, 2021; Kovács & Sigala, 2021), there is a growing need for transitions toward new production models (Batista, Seuring, Genovese, Sarkis, & Sohal, 2023; Matos et al., 2024), rapid innovation (Feddersen, Xu, Hernes, & Mosangzi, 2025), and new raw materials from renewable sources (Batista et al., 2023), as well as the development of sustainable processes and the regeneration of natural systems (Bag, Chiarini, & Srivastava, 2025; De Souza, Bloemhof-Ruwaard, & Borsato, 2019; Gualandris et al., 2024; Howard, Hopkinson, & Miemczyk, 2019).

In this viewpoint, we argue that TSNs have the potential to effectively address the challenges posed by climate change because their characteristics, such as flexibility, agility, and access to multiple capabilities arising from actor diversity (Balcik, Beamon, Krejci, Muramatsu, & Ramirez, 2010; Dubey et al., 2023), align with the specificities and demands of operations in these settings. However, although the TSN literature has produced relevant contributions on temporary organizational forms (Aaltonen & Turkulainen, 2022; Che Ibrahim, Rahmat, Belayutham, & Costello, 2020; DeFillippi & Sydow, 2016; Jarvenpaa & Välikangas, 2022; Sarafan et al., 2022), it has not established a direct connection between the potential of TSNs and the broader challenge of addressing climate change beyond disaster response (Day, Melnyk, Larson, Davis, & Whybark, 2012; Fernandes & Dube, 2023; Jahre, Jensen, & Listou, 2009). Two valuable opportunities are thus being missed: the chance to apply knowledge about TSNs to critical and underexplored application contexts, and the chance to expand the frontiers of theoretical knowledge on these networks.

Against this backdrop, we explore here how TSNs can play a strategic role in addressing climate change challenges, particularly with respect to (1) disaster response and recovery, (2) the transition of supply chains undergoing reconfiguration toward sustainability, and (3) the creation of spaces for experimentation where climate-oriented innovations can be developed and tested. To this end, a conceptual literature review was conducted following Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011). This type of review synthesizes conceptual knowledge on specific issues, enabling a richer understanding of the topics examined. In particular, the study reviewed the literature on TSNs, climate change, and the interfaces between these topics in databases including JSTOR, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect. While other, more traditional literature reviews focus on temporary organizations more broadly, directing wide-ranging research agendas (e.g. Bakker, DeFillippi, Schwab, & Sydow, 2016; Burke & Morley, 2016) or on single contexts such as humanitarian logistics (e.g. Köstepen & Selim, 2025), the review underlying this viewpoint breaks new ground by advancing a research agenda focused specifically on temporary networks, that is, interorganizational arrangements, and their application to climate-related challenges.

In this sense, this article advances knowledge of TSNs formed in response to the consequences of climate change by proposing a more strategic and comprehensive view of their role. By treating temporariness as an analytically relevant dimension for understanding the responses of interorganizational networks, the study expands the temporary organizations literature beyond a reading confined to disaster response. In particular, the discussions developed here (1) broaden and reframe the concept of temporality by highlighting its fluid, relative, and multiscalar nature in climate contexts; (2) deepen understanding of the operations of these networks in the face of overlapping and recurrent extreme events; and (3) challenge the notion of termination by showing that the demobilization of TSNs tends to be ambiguous, with multiple nuances and frequently followed by reactivation. The article additionally proposes a research agenda that broadens the analytical perspective and repositions TSNs as relevant elements in promoting processes of adaptation and transformation in response to climate-related challenges.

Our argument unfolds as follows. We first define and characterize TSNs, addressing their particularities, analytical challenges, and management implications. We then revisit the potential of TSNs for disaster response and recovery and explore their value in climate-related contexts that have received less attention: the transition of operations and supply chains toward sustainability and the creation of spaces for innovation and experimentation. In the fourth section, we propose ways to advance the field, including a research agenda focused on TSNs in the face of climate change. Finally, we conclude by summarizing our main contributions.

Temporary Supply Networks (TSNs) are interorganizational arrangements established to address disruptive, urgent events and to respond to crises or situations of high complexity (Fernandes & Dube, 2023; Day et al., 2012). Unlike enduring networks, which are structured around long-term strategies, ongoing contracts, and stable relationships, TSNs are typically formed on an ad hoc basis, with well-defined operational goals, a limited scope, and a predetermined time horizon (Turner & Müller, 2003; Wang et al., 2023). The literature has examined this phenomenon under various labels, including temporary multi-organizations (Che Ibrahim et al., 2020; Lizarralde, Blois, & Latunova, 2011), interorganizational projects and temporary alliances (Aaltonen & Turkulainen, 2022; Che Ibrahim et al., 2020; Jarvenpaa & Välikangas, 2022), disaster response supply chains (Day et al., 2012), temporary humanitarian networks (Jahre et al., 2009; Fernandes & Dube, 2023), project-based networks (DeFillippi & Sydow, 2016; Sarafan et al., 2022), and transitory alliances and ephemeral supply chains (Salaün, 2014). These concepts converge in describing independent organizations that come together temporarily to carry out a specific task.

TSNs are implemented across a range of contexts, including health emergencies (Kovács & Sigala, 2021), construction (Davies, Gann, & Douglas, 2009), mega-event organization (Flyvbjerg, 2014), natural disasters (Tatham & Christopher, 2014), and entertainment and other complex projects (Bakker et al., 2016). Regardless of context, their formation generally involves multiple types of organizations (e.g. public, private, military, humanitarian, and community-based) that often have no prior history of collaboration (Fernandes & Santos, 2025). This heterogeneity expands both the potential for resource access and complementarity and the challenges of coordination and alignment among the actors involved (Jahre et al., 2009). Managing TSNs therefore entails a series of challenges and limitations arising from both their temporary nature and the adverse conditions in which they frequently operate, as explored below.

Key challenges include a scarcity of reliable information at the outset of operations, overlapping competencies among organizations, the absence of clearly defined hierarchies, and coordination difficulties among actors guided by different institutional logics (Bealt, Fernandez Barrera, & Mansouri, 2016; Kovács & Spens, 2007). In some contexts, such as natural disasters, there is an additional need for rapid, coordinated responses (Day et al., 2012). These obstacles are often intensified by contextual factors such as compromised infrastructure, institutional fragmentation, political instability, and strong time pressure (Fernandes & Dube, 2023; Wang et al., 2023).

Moreover, managing the interorganizational relationships intrinsic to TSNs presents significant limitations. A lack of prior interaction among actors is common, which hinders trust-building and information sharing for decision-making (Ergun, Gui, Keskinocak, & Swann, 2014). In addition, the temporary nature of these relationships can discourage investment in more structured collaborative mechanisms, compromising long-term learning and resilience, particularly when tensions arise between short- and long-term goals (Fernandes & Santos, 2025). Disputes over visibility, divergent interests, and power asymmetries may also arise. This scenario becomes even more complex in initiatives that require coordination among multiple actors to enable structural transformations, such as decarbonization or energy transition processes; notable examples include ArcelorMittal Pecém (Santos, 2024) and Mizu Cimentos (Schuck, 2024).

An emphasis on targeted responses and ad hoc solutions tends to reduce incentives to formalize processes (Fernandes, Spring, & Tarafdar, 2018), retain knowledge, and institutionalize practices, thereby compromising the networks' learning capacity and future resilience. As a result, a central trade-off emerges. While TSNs are effective at mitigating immediate impacts and/or developing solutions quickly, they may also reinforce reactive and fragmented response patterns, hindering the development of more structural capabilities.

Given these specifics, managing TSNs requires developing adaptive, context-sensitive mechanisms. These include adaptive leadership, building swift trust (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996), logistical flexibility (Day et al., 2012), transparency in information sharing (Sydow & Braun, 2023), and the capacity to improvise in unforeseen situations (Fernandes & Dube, 2023). Pre-established structures, such as emergency protocols (Van Wassenhove, 2006), joint training, and decentralized stockpiles of essential supplies (Tatham & Christopher, 2014; Kovács & Sigala, 2021), are also essential. Furthermore, efficient communication is central, directly influencing the quality of coordination and decision-making (Fernandes et al., 2018).

Despite these challenges, TSNs offer significant advantages and distinctive features that align with the operational needs of addressing the climate crisis. First, the agility (Charles, Lauras, & Van Wassenhove, 2010) and adaptability (Polater, 2021) inherent in TSNs stem largely from time pressures (Bakker et al., 2016). Their emergency-driven nature tends to foster informal mechanisms that facilitate agile decision-making and task execution (Fernandes et al., 2018), processes that would be difficult to implement at the same speed in more stable networks and operations.

Second, the innovation capacity of these networks deserves attention because it drives the development of creative solutions in crisis contexts, as exemplified by the adaptation of shipping containers for use as temporary shelters in the study by Ramos and Pereira (2021). In this regard, improvisation also plays a central role, particularly given the uncertainties that characterize these contexts and that become even more pronounced in climate change scenarios.

Third, the diversity of actors involved in TSNs can provide access to multiple sources of knowledge, capabilities, and resources (Burke & Morley, 2016). When properly coordinated, the network can generate important synergies by combining different logistical capabilities, local knowledge, and technical resources (Charles et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2023). Moreover, even though temporary, these networks can produce relevant learning that persists beyond their demobilization (Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa, & Hollingshead, 2007). However, this diversity also entails challenges, as differing competencies, norms, working methods, and interests require effective governance mechanisms to ensure the network's coordination and performance (Tatham & Christopher, 2014).

Given the challenges and advantages of TSNs, it should be emphasized that these networks cannot be understood in isolation but rather in relation to the managerial demands that enable their operation and the trade-offs that emerge over time (Figure 1).

Thus, the attributes that make these networks effective in the short term, such as agility in mobilization, flexibility, and the capacity for improvisation and innovation under pressure, are directly associated with the need for intensive interorganizational coordination mechanisms, swift trust-building (Meyerson et al., 1996), and adaptive governance (Kovács & Spens, 2007; Day et al., 2012; Tatham & Christopher, 2014). Building on this understanding of TSNs, we next explore how they can be useful in the context of climate change.

Climate change is placing increasing pressure on operations and supply chains (Ghadge et al., 2020), demanding responses that combine speed, flexibility, and coordination among multiple actors. In this context, TSNs can contribute: (1) to disaster response and recovery by enabling mobilization and coordination in critical situations; (2) to the transition of operations and supply chains toward sustainability by enabling the temporary alignment of capabilities required for change; and (3) to the creation of spaces for experimentation by providing the conditions needed to develop and test solutions.

Extreme events, such as heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and storms, have intensified, causing damage to critical infrastructure, logistical disruptions, and production losses (Ghadge et al., 2020; IPCC, 2023). Natural disasters often cause severe supply chain disruptions, including the unavailability of raw materials, facility destruction, and interruptions to logistics modes (Jahre et al., 2009; Tatham & Christopher, 2014). These impacts frequently extend beyond the directly affected areas, propagating along supply chains and generating systemic disruptions across multiple interdependent sectors (Katsaliaki et al., 2021). Disaster response thus constitutes an operational environment marked by high uncertainty, time pressure, and the need for coordination among multiple actors (Van Wassenhove, 2006; Kovács & Spens, 2007).

In this context, the literature shows that TSNs are particularly relevant, enabling, for instance, the rapid mobilization and coordination of resources (Balcik et al., 2010), the creation of alternative logistics routes (Holguín-Veras, Jaller, Van Wassenhove, Pérez, & Wachtendorf, 2012), and the orchestration of dynamic (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997) and complementary (Kovács & Spens, 2007) capabilities. Disaster response typically begins with a mobilization phase marked by disorganization, limited access to information, and decision-making under intense pressure (Van Wassenhove, 2006). This is followed by a stabilization phase, marked by the progressive structuring of processes and intensified cooperation among actors (Haavisto, Kovács, & Spens, 2016). Finally, the demobilization phase involves winding down activities and is a critical moment for recording and disseminating lessons learned (Barbosa, Carvalho, Versiani, & Pedron, 2021).

The literature on TSNs shows that adaptive governance and effective interorganizational coordination are essential. Moreover, incorporating lessons learned from previous events is critical to the effectiveness of responses (Fernandes & Santos, 2025). Empirical evidence illustrates both the challenges and the potential of these networks: Ramos and Pereira (2021) show that using shipping containers as temporary shelters can enable rapid, sustainable solutions; Cardoso, Santos, Rezende, Bello, and Franzoni (2014) highlight the importance of effectively managing information on damage, needs, and available resources; and Zucco, Magalhães, and Moretti (2010) demonstrate the role of advance planning, logistical agility, and coordination among multiple actors in the success of operations.

Beyond disaster response, climate change poses challenges for transitioning to more sustainable models. This process involves adopting renewable raw materials, developing cleaner production processes, and reorganizing production flows (Aslani, Hasan-Zadeh, Kazemzadeh, & Sheikh-Azadi, 2024), leading to reconfiguration trajectories with direct implications for the long-term efficiency and resilience of supply chains. In this context, circular economy approaches, which seek to close material loops and reduce waste (Batista et al., 2023), have gained prominence, alongside broader perspectives on transformative operations aimed at generating positive environmental impacts, such as carbon removal and the regeneration of natural systems (Matos et al., 2024). In a complementary vein, recent literature also points to the development of regenerative supply chains (Bag et al., 2025; De Souza et al., 2019) that go beyond mitigating negative impacts and seek to restore ecosystems and foster socio-ecological resilience (Gualandris et al., 2024; Howard et al., 2019).

Although the literature has advanced in proposing strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation (Bag et al., 2025; Ghadge et al., 2020), discussion of the organizational mechanisms that enable these transformations remains limited. In particular, how these transitions are operationalized through reconfiguration processes, such as decarbonization, the adoption of renewable energy, and the implementation of circular, transformative, and regenerative models, remains underexplored (Batista et al., 2023; Matos et al., 2024; Bag et al., 2025).

These transitions tend to occur incrementally and experimentally because they involve fundamental changes to sociotechnical systems. In this context, TSNs offer a relevant analytical lens for understanding the “how,” as we agree with Feddersen, Xu, Hernes, Mosangzi, and Schultz (2025) that such initiatives could be more effective when structured through temporary arrangements, such as interorganizational consortia that facilitate transitions.

These mechanisms allow testing and adjustment of solutions before large-scale adoption, thereby reducing risks and uncertainties (Huguenin & Jeannerat, 2017). TSNs enable coordination of dispersed capabilities and support transition initiatives in environments that are still taking shape (Balcik et al., 2010; Dubey et al., 2023), lending agility and adaptability to the early stages of reconfiguration. In addition, they provide capacity for improvisation in the face of unforeseen situations (Fernandes & Dube, 2023) and allow the creation of structures that can be carried forward as reconfiguration continues, such as relationships among actors, protocols for adopting new technologies, best practices for adapting to change, and bodies of specialized knowledge on ecosystem management, natural resource use, and socio-ecological resilience (Berkes, 2012; Wright, Gabel, Ballantyne, Jack, & Wahoush, 2019). We thus argue that TSNs can act as mechanisms that not only support but also enable the transition of supply chains toward sustainability in response to the climate crisis, particularly during the early stages of reconfiguration.

The challenges posed by climate change require creating spaces for experimentation where new sustainable solutions can be developed, tested, and adjusted under real-world conditions. The unpredictability of climate risk reinforces the need for rapid, action-oriented innovation, which has driven initiatives such as hackathons and temporary laboratories in emergency contexts (Monsef et al., 2022). In a complementary vein, pilot projects and demonstration plants have become established as strategic spaces for developing and testing more sustainable production solutions (Dahl, Tveiten, & Cowan, 2022). These arrangements enable not only the short-term generation of prototypes but also the development of organizational capabilities that can be incorporated into longer-term strategies (Huguenin & Jeannerat, 2017).

The literature on adaptive management emphasizes the importance of approaches grounded in continuous cycles of experimentation, monitoring, and adjustment, particularly in complex, highly uncertain systems (Garmestani, Allen, Angeler, Gunderson, & Ruhl, 2023). This logic is especially relevant given the need to develop and integrate sustainable solutions into operations and supply chains, such as new raw materials from renewable sources and cleaner production processes (Batista et al., 2023). At the same time, the climate crisis demands accelerated innovation, which requires arrangements that enable rapid experimentation under real operating conditions (Feddersen, Xu, Hernes, & Mosangzi, 2025).

In this context, TSNs provide an organizational foundation particularly well suited to creating spaces for experimentation. By bringing together multiple actors in flexible, goal-oriented arrangements, TSNs can serve as testing environments (or “living labs”) where solutions are developed and adjusted in real time. Their characteristics, including agility in mobilizing resources, diversity of capabilities, and adaptability, enable faster innovation and the ability to adjust solutions as new demands emerge (Balcik et al., 2010). Moreover, the capacity to recombine resources and coordinate multiple actors in dynamic contexts reinforces these networks' potential for experimentation (Dubey et al., 2023).

However, unlike traditional innovation contexts, in which actors often share convergent goals (Santos & Cabral, 2022), innovation in the context of climate change tends to involve diverse and at times conflicting interests (Fernandes & Dube, 2023). Processes such as shifts in the energy matrix mobilize companies, governments, and communities with distinct priorities, which makes coordination more complex and prone to tension (Fernandes & Santos, 2025). Given this, TSNs can play a significant role by creating temporary structures that enable collaborative innovation grounded in swift trust (Meyerson et al., 1996) and that contribute to the development of solutions better suited to the complexity and urgency of climate challenges. By delimiting scope and time horizon, these networks reduce the risks associated with engaging multiple actors and allow solutions to be tested that can later be scaled up or incorporated into more permanent arrangements.

As shown above, TSNs play a significant role in managing multiple fronts related to climate change. However, the literature on temporary interorganizational arrangements (e.g. Aaltonen & Turkulainen, 2022; Che Ibrahim et al., 2020) has not focused on this context. We therefore propose a research agenda to understand how TSNs can be strategic in addressing the three fronts discussed in the previous section. To this end, we propose four interdependent and interconnected thematic axes designed to inspire and foster more in-depth research into the constitution, operation, and outcomes of these networks. These axes were selected to incorporate (1) themes relevant to TSN operations that have not yet been addressed in the literature through the lens of climate challenges (e.g. coordination and organizational learning), and (2) themes of particular relevance to the context of climate change (e.g. (re)configuration). These axes are preliminary and non-restrictive, given the many other topics available for exploration. Table 1 presents each axis, indicating the main ways of addressing climate challenges, potential research questions, and corresponding methodological approaches.

TSNs are continuously configured and reconfigured to achieve their goals, typically under strong time pressure (Sydow & Braun, 2023). In the context of climate change, this process takes on a distinct dynamic, as it no longer responds to isolated events but instead unfolds within an environment marked by the recurrence of diverse and concurrent crises. Floods, fires, and prolonged droughts not only trigger the formation of these networks but also shape their reactivation and ongoing adjustment, blurring the boundaries between formation, operation, and termination. Moreover, in processes of gradual reconfiguration, the recurrent formation of the network is to be expected. This axis therefore covers investigations into how reconfiguration occurs once the temporality of the crisis ceases to be episodic and clearly demarcated and instead becomes persistent and fluid.

A direct implication of this scenario is the need to reconcile different time horizons when analyzing TSNs. The urgency of immediate response coexists with demands for longer-term adaptation, requiring actors to operate across multiple temporalities. Future studies could examine how these networks are activated, reconfigured, and demobilized over time; which actors gain centrality at different moments; and how interorganizational relationships evolve as disruptions recur or intensify (Bakker et al., 2016; Burke & Morley, 2016; Feddersen et al., 2025). In this process, practices such as improvisation, rapid innovation, and the mobilization of local knowledge become particularly relevant, not merely as emergency responses but as mechanisms that sustain adaptation in contexts of prolonged uncertainty (Mendonça, Beroggi, & Wallace, 2001; Altay & Labonte, 2014; Berkes, 2012; Wright et al., 2019).

Another interesting aspect is that climate change pressures the very notion of demobilizing temporary arrangements. Recurrent events tend to make the termination of TSNs more ambiguous, whether through the reactivation of previous arrangements or their gradual transformation into more permanent structures. A promising research agenda thus involves investigating the triggers of termination as well as the transition mechanisms that connect episodes of temporary organization or sustain their continuity over time (Brookes, Sage, Dainty, Locatelli, & Whyte, 2017). From this perspective, reconfiguration ceases to be understood as a one-off adjustment and instead is analyzed as a continuous process, shaped by the interplay of multiple temporalities and the cumulative dynamics of multiple climate risks.

Given the diversity of public, private, and civil society actors that make up TSNs (Fernandes & Santos, 2025), this thematic axis seeks to understand how governance arrangements and coordination mechanisms are structured in climate crisis scenarios. In temporary contexts such as disaster response (Jahre et al., 2009) or collaborative projects oriented toward specific goals (Sarafan et al., 2022), coordination tends to be facilitated by strong alignment around a common purpose. In the context of climate change, however, this alignment is strained by divergent interests, capabilities, and perceptions of urgency, making governance less a matter of execution and more a challenge of reconciling multiple agendas.

In this regard, productive transitions toward more sustainable supply chains require agile decision-making models and coordination mechanisms capable of operating under high pressure (Balcik et al., 2010), while also depending on the development of interorganizational trust to enable collaboration among multiple actors (Bealt et al., 2016). Moreover, the growing complexity of interorganizational arrangements reinforces the need for more transparent and adaptive governance structures (Wang et al., 2023). In the context of climate change, however, these elements are not sufficient on their own, since coordination also involves managing asymmetries that unfold over time.

Future studies could investigate the inclusion of diverse forms of knowledge in decision-making processes. Incorporating local knowledge, such as Indigenous knowledge (Kapucu & Van Wart, 2006; Berkes, 2012; Wright et al., 2019), can broaden the adaptive capacity of TSNs and contribute to more contextualized responses, while also expanding traditional governance models. In this context, researchers could explore how different types of norms, rules, and forms of knowledge (academic, technical, and traditional) might be integrated, negotiated, and legitimized over time within TSNs (Sydow & Braun, 2023), particularly in networks marked by distinct temporalities and mounting pressures for transitions associated with climate change.

Climate change expands the role of innovation in TSNs, shifting it from an isolated emergency response to a structuring mechanism necessary for adaptation and transformation. Future studies could explore how these networks can function as spaces for experimentation, where logistical, technological, and social solutions can be rapidly tested, adjusted, and eventually diffused to address climate challenges. This ranges from innovations aimed at disaster response and the restoration of production chains to initiatives linked to broader transitions toward sustainability. In this context, it is relevant to investigate the extent to which the temporariness of TSNs fosters or constrains the generation and consolidation of innovations, including possible tensions (Fernandes & Dube, 2023) and existing trade-offs. It would also be valuable to understand how dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997), such as rapid learning, agile resource reallocation, and improvisation, develop in real time in settings where the time available for consolidating routines and accumulating experience is, by definition, limited.

Additional research opportunities include examining the empirical contexts where these dynamics are most visible, such as temporary laboratories for testing renewable raw materials, prototyping early warning systems, reorganizing production processes, and experiments that incorporate community-based management practices (Aslani et al., 2024; Feddersen et al., 2025; Berkes, 2012; Wright et al., 2019). In these spaces, innovation can emerge from the interplay of different forms of knowledge and the need for rapid responses, but it is also constrained by limitations related to temporariness, resource availability, and the heterogeneity of interests. Investigating how dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997) and innovation processes intertwine within TSNs under the specific pressures of climate change therefore constitutes a relevant avenue for advancing the theoretical understanding of these networks.

TSN operations generate valuable learning, yet their temporary nature tends to hinder the retention and transfer of this knowledge (Sarafan et al., 2022). In the context of climate change, this problem tends to intensify, since the recurrence and overlap of crises expand the volume and diversity of accumulated experience while simultaneously reducing the time available for its consolidation. This axis thus opens a research agenda aimed at understanding how learning and knowledge management processes are structured once temporality ceases to be episodic and becomes continuous, requiring different cycles of experience to be connected over time.

In this regard, research could examine the formal and informal mechanisms (Fernandes et al., 2018) through which knowledge is captured, translated, and mobilized across temporary operations. This would involve analyzing practices ranging from documenting and codifying lessons learned to more informal processes, such as personal networks, narratives, and traditional knowledge (Wright et al., 2019). In the context of climate change, it is particularly relevant to examine how lessons on sustainable production processes, the use of renewable raw materials, the regeneration of natural systems, and the integration of local and Indigenous knowledge are incorporated (or not) into new organizational arrangements (Moynihan, 2008; Berkes, 2012; Wright et al., 2019). Here, learning involves the capacity both to retain past experiences and to recombine heterogeneous forms of knowledge.

In addition, climate change creates opportunities to rethink the notion of legacy associated with TSNs. Beyond one-off outcomes, it is necessary to understand how the learning generated within TSNs can shape future trajectories (Burke & Morley, 2016), whether by incorporating practices into permanent organizations or by translating them into public policy and sectoral standards. A promising research agenda thus involves investigating how and under what conditions learning derived from TSNs becomes stabilized over time, contributing to broader and more lasting institutional change in future situations (Fernandes & Dube, 2023). In this sense, learning and legacy come to be understood as central dimensions for assessing the long-term impact of TSNs in addressing climate challenges.

This viewpoint argues that TSNs offer an organizational response particularly well suited to the challenges of climate change, not only in disaster response and recovery but also in broader processes of transition and experimentation/innovation. By moving beyond disaster response (Day et al., 2012; Jahre et al., 2009; Fernandes & Dube, 2023), it proposes a research agenda that broadens the analytical lens and repositions TSNs as key elements in promoting systemic transformations related to climate issues. In this sense, this article contributes to the development of knowledge on TSNs by advancing a more strategic and comprehensive view of their role. It thereby expands the temporary organizations literature in three ways. First, the article revisits the concept of temporality, moving beyond the prevailing view that TSNs have clearly defined beginnings and ends (Turner & Müller, 2003). In climate contexts, TSNs operate across multiple, overlapping temporalities, including recurring extreme events and transition processes that must balance the short and the long term. By treating temporariness as a relevant analytical dimension for understanding how interorganizational networks respond to climate challenges, the discussions presented here (1) reframe the notion of relative temporality by lending the concept greater fluidity and complexity, and (2) challenge the logic of TSN termination/demobilization, which, in the context of climate change, must be understood as ambiguous and multi-faceted, since these networks do not necessarily conclude, given the ongoing need for adaptation and transition mechanisms. In doing so, we hope to expand the understanding of temporality by showing that it is not merely a descriptive characteristic (Bakker et al., 2016) and to challenge the notion of an endpoint for these networks (Day et al., 2012).

Second, this viewpoint broadens understanding of the role TSNs play in addressing climate challenges. Rather than restricting them to disaster response (Bealt et al., 2016; Kovács & Spens, 2007; Van Wassenhove, 2006), it argues that these networks perform three interconnected functions: response and recovery, support for transition processes (such as supply chain reconfiguration), and the creation of spaces for experimentation. This reading complements the existing literature while expanding its scope to include dimensions of transition and innovation. It further questions the foundational and widely held notion in the literature that TSNs are oriented toward specific, fixed goals (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995), showing that their purposes can be multiple, evolve, and overlap over time.

Finally, the article contributes by synthesizing discussions that remain fragmented across strands of the temporary organizations literature, including disaster response (Day et al., 2012; Fernandes & Dube, 2023; Jahre et al., 2009) and projects (DeFillippi & Sydow, 2016), and by proposing a research agenda for studying TSNs in climate contexts, organized around four initial thematic axes. By systematizing aspects such as coordination (Aaltonen & Turkulainen, 2022) and governance and legacy (Sarafan et al., 2022), the study complements prior work by engaging it in dialog with debates on climate challenges. At the same time, it expands the field by drawing attention to underexplored issues, such as the recurrence of climate events, the influence of different institutional contexts, and the tensions between temporariness and continuity.

From a practical standpoint, the implications are direct, particularly given the growing frequency and intensity of extreme climate events. In the public sector, the improved understanding of TSNs offered by this study can inform the refinement of public policies aimed at reducing risk and responding to climate challenges. The research agenda developed here can guide the structuring of contingency plans that more explicitly incorporate the logic of TSNs, for example, by defining roles among organizations in advance, establishing coordination protocols, and conducting interorganizational training. In disaster response situations, this type of preparation can reduce mobilization time and increase the effectiveness of actions taken.

In the private sector, this study offers a useful framework for managing disruptions, innovation, and transitions. Companies can, for example, activate TSNs to quickly test inputs better suited to the climate crisis, or establish temporary partnerships to develop logistics solutions in contexts of scarcity and supply disruption. In a complementary vein, creating experimentation spaces organized as TSNs can support the development and validation of innovations before their incorporation into permanent operations, helping to reduce risks and losses.

From a social standpoint, this study also has relevant implications, particularly for disaster response and the effects of climate change on the quality of life of affected populations. The adoption of TSNs can enable faster, more focused, and better-coordinated responses, reducing response times and expanding people's access to essential resources such as water, food, shelter, and medical care. In addition, by enabling coordination among multiple and diverse actors, these networks can increase operational effectiveness and reduce social vulnerabilities, contributing to improved living conditions for communities facing climate emergencies.

As a viewpoint, this article has limitations. The arguments developed here are conceptual and have not yet been subjected to empirical testing, which limits their explanatory reach. Moreover, the proposed agenda is not intended to be exhaustive but rather to offer a starting point for future research, one that can be refined as new studies advance understanding of these networks across different contexts. Rather than proposing answers and solutions, this viewpoint seeks to open space for new questions and interpretations regarding the role of TSNs in managing climate crises. Recognizing these networks as legitimate and strategic structures is essential for enhancing response and adaptation capacity in the face of increasingly complex scenarios. It is hoped, therefore, that the reflections presented here can underpin the deepening of academic debate and inspire practical solutions concerning the constitution, operation, and impacts of TSNs across different contexts.