在全球永續浪潮與淨零轉型的推動之下，能源轉型所帶來的影響不僅是產業技術的進步，也改變了企業參與市場的方式。隨著政策規範、市場需求與產業結構持續變動，企業所處的外部環境也變得更加複雜。面對此一變化，有些企業調整既有營運模式，而有些企業則是進一步投入再生能源、儲能、微電網、綠電交易與碳管理等新興能源服務領域，尋找新的發展機會。
然而，在制度尚未完全穩定、產業規則仍持續形成的情境下，企業進入新興產業並不僅是技術或資源配置的問題，也涉及其角色定位、行動合理性與企業本身能否被外部利害關係人理解與接受。因此，企業如何在制度模糊且變動快速的環境中逐步取得正當性，成為值得深入探討的重要議題。既有研究雖已說明正當性的內涵及其對企業發展的重要性，但相對較少從過程觀點，說明企業如何透過持續感知環境、調整認知與行動，逐步跨越組織內外部界線、取得外部理解與認同。
為了進一步探討此議題，本研究採用質性個案研究，並以永餘智能作為個案，深入分析其在新興能源產業中的發展歷程。
本研究特別關注永餘智能如何持續感知外部環境並透過邊界跨越行動，連結集團內部資源、外部市場需求與制度環境，並在此過程中逐步建立自身角色與取得外部認同。依據永餘智能在發展過程中所面臨的不同挑戰，本研究將其獲取正當性的歷程分為三個階段：「資源整合期」、「市場定位期」與「制度參與期」，並依序分析其在各階段中如何透過資源整合、市場互動與制度參與等行動，突破不同邊界並累積正當性。本研究的貢獻在於深化對新興產業中企業獲取正當性歷程的理解，並歸納出企業在制度模糊情境下，如何透過邊界跨越逐步獲取正當性的架構，為後續相關研究與實務發展提供參考。

In the context of the global sustainability movement and the pursuit of net-zero transition, energy transition has not only brought about technological changes in industries, but has also reshaped the ways in which firms participate in markets. In response to changing policy regulations, market demands, and industrial structures, firms no longer merely adjust their existing business models; instead, they further engage in emerging energy fields such as renewable energy, energy storage, microgrids, green electricity trading, and carbon management in search of new development opportunities. However, when institutions have not yet fully stabilized and industry rules are still evolving, entering an emerging industry is not merely a matter of technology or resources. It also involves whether a firm’s role positioning, action rationality, and business model can be understood and accepted by external stakeholders. Therefore, how firms gradually acquire legitimacy in an institutionally ambiguous and rapidly changing environment has become an important issue worthy of further investigation. While prior research has addressed the nature and importance of legitimacy, relatively few studies have examined, from a process perspective, how firms continuously perceive their environment, adjust their cognition and actions, and thereby cross organizational boundaries to gain external understanding and recognition.
To further explore this issue, this study adopts a qualitative case study approach and uses Ensilience as the case to examine its development process in the emerging energy service field. This study particularly focuses on how Ensilience continuously perceives its external environment and engages in boundary-spanning actions to connect internal group resources, external market demands, and the institutional environment, and how it gradually establishes its role and gains external recognition through this process. Based on the different challenges faced by Ensilience throughout its development, this study divides its legitimacy acquisition process into three stages: the “resource integration stage,” the “market positioning stage,” and the “institutional participation stage.” It then analyzes how Ensilience breaks through different boundaries and accumulates legitimacy through resource integration, market interaction, and institutional participation in each phase. The contribution of this study lies in deepening the understanding of how firms acquire legitimacy in emerging industries. It also develops an analytical framework that explains how firms construct role positioning and development paths through boundary spanning under conditions of institutional ambiguity, thereby providing insights for future research and managerial practice.

Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217-230.
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645-670.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717-736.
Baum, J. A., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 187-218.
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future—Call for action. Environmental Conservation, 14(4), 291-294.
Bunduchi, R., Smart, A. U., Crisan-Mitra, C., & Cooper, S. (2023). Legitimacy and innovation in social enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 41(4), 371-400.
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455.
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545-547.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research.
Danneels, E. (2003). Tight–loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(6), 559-576.
Davoudi, N., Nayeri, N. D., Raiesifar, A., Poortaghi, S., & Ahmadian, S. (2016). Issues of theoretical sampling: A narrative review. Nursing and Midwifery Studies, 6(2), 1-9.
Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. sage.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48(2), 147-160.
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122-136.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Fisher, G., Kuratko, D. F., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 52-71.
Flick, U. (2022). An introduction to qualitative research.
Forstenlechner, I., & Mellahi, K. (2011). Gaining legitimacy through hiring local workforce at a premium: The case of MNEs in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of World Business, 46(4), 455-461.
Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., & Sorrell, S. (2017). Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science, 357(6357), 1242-1244.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Gong, H., Binz, C., Hassink, R., & Trippl, M. (2022). Emerging industries: institutions, legitimacy and system-level agency. Regional Studies, 56(4), 523-535.
Gümüsay, A. A., Claus, L., & Amis, J. (2020). Engaging with grand challenges: An institutional logics perspective. Organization Theory, 1(3), 2631787720960487.
Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: problems and prospects. Ethnography and Education, 1(1), 3-14.
Harris, M. (2001). The rise of anthropological theory: A history of theories of culture. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986-1014.
Heiberg, J., Binz, C., & Truffer, B. (2020). The geography of technology legitimation: How multiscalar institutional dynamics matter for path creation in emerging industries. Economic Geography, 96(5), 470-498.
Huang, C.-H., & Chou, T.-C. (2023). ICT as a collectively enacted artifact? A collective enactment perspective. Information & Management, 60(8), 103887.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (2015). The social psychology of organizations. In Organizational behavior 2 (pp. 152-168). Routledge.
Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64-81.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. sage.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual review of sociology, 28(1), 167-195.
Long, J. C., Cunningham, F. C., & Braithwaite, J. (2013). Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 13(1), 158.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6‐7), 545-564.
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57-125.
Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551-580.
Marcus, A. A., & Anderson, M. H. (2013). Commitment to an emerging organizational field: An enactment theory. Business & Society, 52(2), 181-212.
Markard, J. (2018). The next phase of the energy transition and its implications for research and policy. Nature Energy, 3(8), 628-633.
Markard, J., Wirth, S., & Truffer, B. (2016). Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy–A framework and a case study on biogas technology. Research Policy, 45(1), 330-344.
Marquardt, L., & Harima, A. (2024). Digital boundary spanning in the evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of Business Research, 182, 114762.
Maurer, J. G. (1971). Readings in organization theory: Open-system approaches.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis, 1(1), 1-17.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. sage.
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 479-499.
Nederhand, J., Van Der Steen, M., & Van Twist, M. (2019). Boundary-spanning strategies for aligning institutional logics: a typology. Local Government Studies, 45(2), 219-240.
O'Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. (2008). Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 422-459.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145-165.
Pan, S. L., & Tan, B. (2011). Demystifying case research: A structured–pragmatic–situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies. Information and Organization, 21(3), 161-176.
Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. Free Press New York.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1189.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: the creation and maintenance of organizational paradigm. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1-52.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (2015). External control of organizations—Resource dependence perspective. In Organizational Behavior 2 (pp. 355-370). Routledge.
Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (1998). Testing alternative theories of the firm: transaction cost, knowledge‐based, and measurement explanations for make‐or‐buy decisions in information services. Strategic Management Journal, 19(9), 853-877.
Powers, W. T. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Aldine.
Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 29-44.
Reast, J., Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2013). Legitimacy-seeking organizational strategies in controversial industries: A case study analysis and a bidimensional model. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 139-153.
Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business research, 10(2), 281-305.
Roulston, K. (2018). Triangulation in qualitative research. Retrieved June, 1, 2020.
Saeed, A., Baloch, M. S., & Riaz, H. (2022). Global insights on TMT gender diversity in controversial industries: A legitimacy perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 179(3), 711-731.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16(5), 491-508.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 643-671.
Schotter, A. P., Mudambi, R., Doz, Y. L., & Gaur, A. (2017). Boundary spanning in global organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(4), 403-421.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. sage Thousand Oaks, CA.
Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage publications.
Seale, C., Silverman, D., Gubrium, J. F., & Gobo, G. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice.
Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20-24.
Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 171-193.
Spanuth, A., & Urbano, D. (2024). Exploring social enterprise legitimacy within ecosystems from an institutional approach: A systematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 26(2), 211-231.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Press.
Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 79-92.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (2013). Social structure and organizations 1. In Handbook of organizations (RLE: Organizations) (pp. 142-193). Routledge.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. sage Newbury Park, CA.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451-478.
Thomas, L. D., & Ritala, P. (2022). Ecosystem legitimacy emergence: A collective action view. Journal of Management, 48(3), 515-541.
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289-305.
Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. R. (1981). A need-hierarchy framework for assessing corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 21-28.
Überbacher, F. (2014). Legitimation of new ventures: A review and research programme. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 667-698.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2015). Paris Agreement.
Uzunca, B., Rigtering, J. C., & Ozcan, P. (2018). Sharing and shaping: A cross-country comparison of how sharing economy firms shape their institutional environment to gain legitimacy. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(3), 248-272.
Van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Routledge.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 2). University of California press.
Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations [1]. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305-317.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548-577.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691-718.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414-431.
Zucker, L. G. (1983). Organizations as institutions. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 2(1), 1-47.
Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual review of sociology, 13, 443-464.
潘淑滿. (2022). 質性研究: 理論與應用. 心理.