Table 3 Coding structure First order... | Emerald Publishing

Table 3

Coding structure

First order concept	Second order theme	Aggregated dimension
- The networked business model was seen to secure electricity costs and increase financial returns on investments. Case A,B,C - Actors joined the network to increase economic gains from existing resources (e.g. land or knowledge). Case A,B,C - Actors joined the network to form new relationships or strengthen existing relationships enabling future partnerships with the involved actors. Case A,B,C - Actors were motivated to join the networked business model to promote their sustainability image, branding and get positive public recognition. Case A,B,C - Actors used the solar PV park as a part of their sustainability commitment toward other stakeholders (customers, citizens and board members). Case A,B - Actors wanted to be part of the transition to sustainable energy production. Case A,B,C - Actors wanted to be seen as innovative organizations. Case A,B - Timing influenced incentives, where at one point there was limited customer interest in solar PV parks, then interest in becoming green grew and electricity prices increased. Case A,B - Actors that did not see economic benefits instead focused on social benefits and image of being a leader in innovation and sustainability investments. Case A,B,C	Multifarious incentives: transactional, relational, environmental and social	Drivers
- Local actors had limited knowledge due to there being few solar PV parks in Sweden. Case A, B - Actors joined the network to acquire new knowledge (e.g. how to develop, construct and operate solar PV parks themselves). Case A,B - Actors were motivated to join the networked business model when it aligned with their goals and strategies (e.g. contributing to a renewable energy transition or supporting local business growth). Case A,B,C - Knowledge was shared within the networks to teach new members and to ensure high quality throughout the projects. Case A,B - Sustainability initiatives have developed and become part of some actors’ core businesses, where solar PV parks was a suitable fit. Case A,B,C	Goal alignment and knowledge acquisition
- Actors whose individual business models were core to the networked business model (e.g. by installing, investing in or providing services connected to solar PV) were motivated to engage in the network. Case A,B,C - Actors’ main business was often in another area, e.g. building small-scale solar PV systems or other types of energy projects. Case A,B,C - Participation in the network resulted in some actors adapting their individual business models to include different activities, e.g. development of solar PV parks. Case A,B - Actors acquired knowledge though the network and were able to establish their own solar energy competence within their organization. Case A,B	Business model synergies and business model evolvement
- Some actors needed to follow certain regulations (e.g. public procurement regulations), limiting their options as network participants. Case B - Regulations require certain actors (e.g. grid owners) to be part of the network, but with limited incentives, these actors were reluctant to engage in the network beyond what was required of them. Case B,C - Time consuming to get permits since the permit process included three levels: municipality, county council and county board. Case A,B,C - The permit process frustrated some actors that were not used to such regulatory obstacles which made them want to exit the network or wait to join the network until permits were secured. Case B,C - New market and industry, where regulations are not yet fully developed, which results in uncertainties and a need for risk mitigation. Case A,B,C	Regulatory impacts on the network	Challenges
- Different expectations regarding e.g. recognition, project progress, objectives and communication between actors resulted in disagreements. Case A,B - Some actors with key resources did not prioritize the project. Case B,C - Limited information and engagement from grid owners to establish grid connection. Case B,C - Difficulties in finding a suitable location for the solar PV, making it difficult to involve local actors at early stages. Case A,B,C - Difficulties in identifying offtakers with suitable energy needs since energy production fluctuates. Case A,B,C - Developers had to spend considerable efforts trying to convince potential key actors of the benefits of joining the network. Case A,B - Uncertainties about future electricity prices resulted in hesitation from some actors as to whether they should continue or exit the network. Case A,B - Need to bring in new actors to see the project through. Case B	Network reconfiguration to mitigate challenges
- Actors were reluctant to join networks where potential competitors participated, fearing knowledge leakage and strengthening competitors’ brands. Case B - Actors left the network after changing their individual business models, creating a need to recruit new actors to replace them in the network. Case B - Actors in the network expanded their individual business models as they saw opportunities in taking a larger role in solar PV park development, making them competitors with other network actors. Case A,B	Business model dynamics and developments
- Reliance on established supply chains with proven subsuppliers. Case A,B,C - New actors were approached to join the networks because they possessed necessary resources (e.g. construction knowledge on solar PV parks). Case A,B,C - Actors acquired knowledge from previous projects and collaborations. Case A,B,C - Actors involved several different competences within their own organizations to solve different issues that occurred. Case A,B,C - The network evolved over time, as the project progressed. Case A,B,C - Different phases of the project had different participation by actors. Case A,B,C - New actors entered the network as actors exited the network. Case B - The nascent market resulted in actors searching for their role in the network (roles were not clearly defined from the start but evolved as the project progressed). Case A,B	Dynamic roles as the network evolves	Interactions
- Actors whose individual business models were closely connected to the networked business model (e.g. solar PV developers) were more engaged in establishing and managing the network (e.g. initiating, recruiting and coordinating interaction between actors). Case A,B,C - Some actors with key resources (e.g. land, grid connection) were not particularly engaged in the networked beyond their resource contribution. Case B,C - Dialogue between actors was used to improve participation and attract actors’ attention to the project. Case A,B,C - Actors’ network engagement varied over time. Case A,B,C	Variations in actors’ network engagement
- Formal contracts were primarily used to specify responsibilities, both between actors in the network and internally between different departments within an organization. Case A,B,C - Formal contracts were used specifically with offtakers and landowners. Case A,B,C - The nascent market with limited prior experience resulted in contracts that avoided locking in actors and were flexible in nature, to facilitate adaptation to changes and uncertainties. Case A,B - Established relationships with supply chain actors that joined the network applied limited use of contracts and instead relied on relational ties. Case A,B - Prior relationships resulted in easy communication and limited need for formal agreements. Case A,B - Personal relationships between individuals from prior collaborations facilitated communication and governance. Case A,B,C - The need for control of the project resulted in combining transactional and relational control measures (contracts, reports, informal meetings and trust). Case A,B,C	Combining transactional and relational governance

First order concept	Second order theme	Aggregated dimension
- The networked business model was seen to secure electricity costs and increase financial returns on investments. Case A,B,C- Actors joined the network to increase economic gains from existing resources (e.g. land or knowledge). Case A,B,C- Actors joined the network to form new relationships or strengthen existing relationships enabling future partnerships with the involved actors. Case A,B,C- Actors were motivated to join the networked business model to promote their sustainability image, branding and get positive public recognition. Case A,B,C- Actors used the solar PV park as a part of their sustainability commitment toward other stakeholders (customers, citizens and board members). Case A,B- Actors wanted to be part of the transition to sustainable energy production. Case A,B,C- Actors wanted to be seen as innovative organizations. Case A,B- Timing influenced incentives, where at one point there was limited customer interest in solar PV parks, then interest in becoming green grew and electricity prices increased. Case A,B- Actors that did not see economic benefits instead focused on social benefits and image of being a leader in innovation and sustainability investments. Case A,B,C	Multifarious incentives: transactional, relational, environmental and social	Drivers
- Local actors had limited knowledge due to there being few solar PV parks in Sweden. Case A, B- Actors joined the network to acquire new knowledge (e.g. how to develop, construct and operate solar PV parks themselves). Case A,B- Actors were motivated to join the networked business model when it aligned with their goals and strategies (e.g. contributing to a renewable energy transition or supporting local business growth). Case A,B,C- Knowledge was shared within the networks to teach new members and to ensure high quality throughout the projects. Case A,B- Sustainability initiatives have developed and become part of some actors’ core businesses, where solar PV parks was a suitable fit. Case A,B,C	Goal alignment and knowledge acquisition
- Actors whose individual business models were core to the networked business model (e.g. by installing, investing in or providing services connected to solar PV) were motivated to engage in the network. Case A,B,C- Actors’ main business was often in another area, e.g. building small-scale solar PV systems or other types of energy projects. Case A,B,C- Participation in the network resulted in some actors adapting their individual business models to include different activities, e.g. development of solar PV parks. Case A,B- Actors acquired knowledge though the network and were able to establish their own solar energy competence within their organization. Case A,B	Business model synergies and business model evolvement
- Some actors needed to follow certain regulations (e.g. public procurement regulations), limiting their options as network participants. Case B- Regulations require certain actors (e.g. grid owners) to be part of the network, but with limited incentives, these actors were reluctant to engage in the network beyond what was required of them. Case B,C- Time consuming to get permits since the permit process included three levels: municipality, county council and county board. Case A,B,C- The permit process frustrated some actors that were not used to such regulatory obstacles which made them want to exit the network or wait to join the network until permits were secured. Case B,C- New market and industry, where regulations are not yet fully developed, which results in uncertainties and a need for risk mitigation. Case A,B,C	Regulatory impacts on the network	Challenges
- Different expectations regarding e.g. recognition, project progress, objectives and communication between actors resulted in disagreements. Case A,B- Some actors with key resources did not prioritize the project. Case B,C- Limited information and engagement from grid owners to establish grid connection. Case B,C- Difficulties in finding a suitable location for the solar PV, making it difficult to involve local actors at early stages. Case A,B,C- Difficulties in identifying offtakers with suitable energy needs since energy production fluctuates. Case A,B,C- Developers had to spend considerable efforts trying to convince potential key actors of the benefits of joining the network. Case A,B- Uncertainties about future electricity prices resulted in hesitation from some actors as to whether they should continue or exit the network. Case A,B- Need to bring in new actors to see the project through. Case B	Network reconfiguration to mitigate challenges
- Actors were reluctant to join networks where potential competitors participated, fearing knowledge leakage and strengthening competitors’ brands. Case B- Actors left the network after changing their individual business models, creating a need to recruit new actors to replace them in the network. Case B- Actors in the network expanded their individual business models as they saw opportunities in taking a larger role in solar PV park development, making them competitors with other network actors. Case A,B	Business model dynamics and developments
- Reliance on established supply chains with proven subsuppliers. Case A,B,C- New actors were approached to join the networks because they possessed necessary resources (e.g. construction knowledge on solar PV parks). Case A,B,C- Actors acquired knowledge from previous projects and collaborations. Case A,B,C- Actors involved several different competences within their own organizations to solve different issues that occurred. Case A,B,C- The network evolved over time, as the project progressed. Case A,B,C- Different phases of the project had different participation by actors. Case A,B,C- New actors entered the network as actors exited the network. Case B- The nascent market resulted in actors searching for their role in the network (roles were not clearly defined from the start but evolved as the project progressed). Case A,B	Dynamic roles as the network evolves	Interactions
- Actors whose individual business models were closely connected to the networked business model (e.g. solar PV developers) were more engaged in establishing and managing the network (e.g. initiating, recruiting and coordinating interaction between actors). Case A,B,C- Some actors with key resources (e.g. land, grid connection) were not particularly engaged in the networked beyond their resource contribution. Case B,C- Dialogue between actors was used to improve participation and attract actors’ attention to the project. Case A,B,C- Actors’ network engagement varied over time. Case A,B,C	Variations in actors’ network engagement
- Formal contracts were primarily used to specify responsibilities, both between actors in the network and internally between different departments within an organization. Case A,B,C- Formal contracts were used specifically with offtakers and landowners. Case A,B,C- The nascent market with limited prior experience resulted in contracts that avoided locking in actors and were flexible in nature, to facilitate adaptation to changes and uncertainties. Case A,B- Established relationships with supply chain actors that joined the network applied limited use of contracts and instead relied on relational ties. Case A,B- Prior relationships resulted in easy communication and limited need for formal agreements. Case A,B- Personal relationships between individuals from prior collaborations facilitated communication and governance. Case A,B,C- The need for control of the project resulted in combining transactional and relational control measures (contracts, reports, informal meetings and trust). Case A,B,C	Combining transactional and relational governance

Source: Authors’ own work