WHEN MANDATES OUTPACE MARKET READINESS: REGULATORY-DRIVEN DOWNSTREAM FRICTION IN INDIA’S E20 TRANSITION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69980/djy54b51Keywords:
disruption, sustainability transitions, downstream, regulatory, upstreamAbstract
This research examines the nature of disruption that is caused by prescriptive sustainability transitions where changes in regulation occur at a rate that is higher than the markets are prepared for. The manuscript employs a theory elaborating single-case longitudinal design and focuses on India's journey from E10 to E20 for example where a policy push triggered a controversy for vehicle compatibilities, mileage and usability (from the perspective of the downstream actors) and was counterbalanced by a coordinated response from government, car manufacturers and intermediaries. The empirical corpus consists of nine sources that are publicly available and classified into four categories: one regulatory notification, four general news reports, two Reuters wire reports and two industry-press reports, which range from February to July 2026. The content was sequentially ordered and coded at three levels, First Order—evidence terms, Second Order—analytical themes, and Third Order—dimensions aggregated, based on the qualitative case based research, benchmarked to the operations and supply chain management discipline. The analysis points to an intermediate mobilization process with three stages: upstream regulatory injection, downstream friction accumulation and threshold triggered by intermediary mobilization. The study contributes to research on sustainability transitions by providing more clarity on the micro-process that facilitates regime-level interventions to instabilise the user interface, and to research on operations and supply chain by separating disruption due to legitimacy and traditional physical disruption. Furthermore, the results show that the functions of the dealers and the service-oriented intermediaries can be understood as a function that buffers, translates and legitimises on the local level vis-à-vis the disruptive green transitions.
References
1.Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.06.002
2.Biresselioglu, M. E., Solak, B., & Sava, Z. F. (2024). Unveiling resistance and opposition against low-carbon energy transitions: A comprehensive review. Energy Research & Social Science, 107, 103354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103354
3.Bode, C., & Macdonald, J. R. (2017). Stages of supply chain disruption response: Direct, constraining, and mediating factors for impact mitigation. Decision Sciences, 48(5), 836–874.
4.Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2007). The severity of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38(1), 131–156.
5.Fesenfeld, L. P., Schmid, N., Finger, R., Mathys, A., & Schmidt, T. S. (2022). The politics of enabling tipping points for sustainable development. One Earth, 5(8), 900–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.09.004
6.Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274.
7.Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., & Sorrell, S. (2017). Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science, 357(6357), 1242–1244.
8.Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955–967.
9.Rosenbloom, D., Meadowcroft, J., & Cashore, B. (2019). Stability and climate policy? Harnessing insights on path dependence, policy feedback, and transition pathways. Energy Research & Social Science, 50, 168–178.
10.Rosenbloom, D., Markard, J., Geels, F. W., & Fuenfschilling, L. (2020). Why carbon pricing is not sufficient to mitigate climate change—and how “sustainability transition policy” can help. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(16), 8664–8668.
11.Shafiq, A., Johnson, P. F., Klassen, R. D., & Awaysheh, A. (2017). Exploring the implications of supply risk on sustainability performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(12), 1881–1907. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2016-0029
12.Stadelmann-Steffen, I., Eder, C., Harring, N., Spilker, G., & Katsanidou, A. (2021). A framework for social tipping in climate change mitigation: What we can learn from the chlorofluorocarbons phase-out. Energy Research & Social Science, 82, 102307.
13.Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R., McLachlin, R., & Samson, D. (2002). Effective case research in operations management: A process perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 20(5), 419–433.
14.Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195–219.
