Organizational Resilience as a Response to the Energy Crisis: Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

In this paper, we provide a literature review on the topic of organizational resilience, in relation to the energy crisis. The concept of organizational resilience refers to the capability to respond and adapt to shocks. Undoubtedly, the recent energy crisis may be considered an external shock, as it has raised energy prices and exerts a significant pressure on decision makers. Although the energy crisis has impacted organizations significantly in recent months, there is little knowledge on how companies should respond to this threat. Thus, to fill in this research gap, we apply the method of a systematic literature review (SLR), combined with text mining tools, to map the topics covered by 124 works in the field. Based on our results, we uncover several important gaps in the existing studies. We also provide suggestions on relevant future research directions that could broaden the scope of the management of energy crisis, in line with the concept of organizational resilience.

1. Introduction

The organizational environment strongly influences how organizations perform. Countless studies explain the role of diverse aspects of the environment in everyday organizational life. Three aspects of the organizational environment have attracted considerable attention: turbulence, hostility, and complexity [1]. These refer to the uncertainty in the task environment, which entails regulations, strategic partnerships, suppliers, or customers.

The influence of environmental turbulence and hostility on organizations has been widely studied from numerous perspectives, including by financial, organizational, and project teams. Not that much attention, however, has been directed toward the changes in the general environment of organizations. The interest in changes in the environment on which organizations have little to no influence is, however, rising rapidly, especially on account of the recent COVID-19 pandemic [2] and, more recently, the war in Ukraine [3]. Thus, numerous works have recently refreshed the concept of “organizational resilience”, which has been given considerable research attention (in the field of management in particular) [4]. Numerous alternative understandings and diverse perspectives on what “organizational resilience” means exist. However, the prevalent concepts link organizational resilience with dynamic capabilities. Simply, a resilient organization can adapt to adversities, counteract them, and enable bouncing back to the state preceding the change [5].

The purpose of our paper is to offer a literature review of studies that cover various facets of organizational resilience. However, our intention is not to revise the whole body of literature in this field, but the content of the papers that discuss organizational resilience and the impacts of the energy crisis. Our motivation behind the focus on this aspect is driven by the outcomes of the war in Ukraine, which has led to severe disturbances in the economic landscape, such as the energy crisis [6]. The prices of oil, gas, electric energy, and coal have increased rapidly. These affect companies’ cost levels and limit profitability and significantly influence everyday operations. For decision makers, this situation is extremely difficult, and often enables the accurate prediction of the scale of the energy crisis impacts on the performance of their organizations. This poses significant threats to numerous organizations, especially micro-, small-, and medium-sized organizations, since they frequently are not well prepared for such conditions. From this perspective, the recent energy crisis emerges as an external shock that challenges organizations’ resilience capabilities. Despite the severity of the impact of the energy crisis on organizations to this day, little is known about how firms should respond to challenges arising from growing energy prices. We seek to fill this research gap by conducting a systematic literature review.

The literature review that we offer in this paper is anchored to academic papers that cover jointly the topics of organizational resilience and energy crisis impacts. Our literature review is aimed at uncovering potential gaps in the existing studies and then to map the problems that need further exploration. Our literature review was performed with the application of the SLR (systematic literature review) methodology, in line with Korber and McNaughton’s [7] work. The SLR requires a rigorous procedure for the sake of identifying which academic works should be subjected to further text-mining-based explorations. For text mining, we applied the functionalities of VOSviewer software. Based on our findings, we identified the main research streams in the literature on resilience and energy crisis. These are related to energy policy, climate change, sustainability and resilience, energy systems, and energy security.

Then, by means of an in-depth analysis of the papers falling in each stream, we identify the “blank spots” in the field of organizational resilience studies, if the energy crisis is considered. Based on this analysis, we suggest topics that shall be given further research attention.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the Section 2, we set the scene of our literature review with a short discussion on the major stages of the evolution of literature on organizational resilience, and the relevance of the energy crisis as an external shock. In Section 3, we explain the methodological aspects of our literature review, in line with the requirements of the systematic literature review (SLR) method. In Section 4, we present our analysis’s results, followed by a discussion of the identified fields of interest and the existing gaps within. Section 5 renders the conclusion.

2. Setting the Scene: The Energy Crisis as an External Shock and Challenge for Organizational Resilience

The roots of organizational resilience date back to the early 1980s [8,9] and are strongly related to the evolutionary theory of organizations (change, selection, and survival mechanisms) as well as learning mechanisms [10]. The notion of resilience gained attention after numerous accidents, including Bhopal (1984) and the Chernobyl disasters (1986), the Exxon Valdez oil leak, leading to a natural disaster (1989), and the NASA space shuttle Challenger disaster. In this vein, Weick and Roberts [11] developed the concept of a high-reliability organization, emphasizing the role of collective mindfulness in relationships in social systems. In 1992, Diamond [12] introduced the term “organizational resilience” to the management literature, claiming that it manifests in a latent capability for responsive leadership. Later, Hind, Frost, and Rowley [13] argued that resilience is an apparent phenomenon resulting from the need to adapt to new situations and quickly learn from experience. In the same vein, Mallak [14] defines resilience as an organizational capability based on the constructive perception of experience, enlarging the borders of decision making, and exercising organizational bricolage (developing capabilities to create new, “immediate”, solutions using the resources at hand). Further, Paton [15] argues that resilience is a way of reacting to incidents or disruptive external events using Weicks’ sensemaking concept. Finally, Coutu [16] describes organizational mechanisms in response to the crisis caused by WTC terrorist attacks. He drew attention to confronting reality, seeking sense in critical events, and using the available resources while employing ritualized creativity.

Since the new millennium, the works on organizational resilience have been addressing organizations’ dynamic capabilities. In other words, the concept of organizational resilience has been presented as a set of mechanisms that enable an organization to respond to the turbulences in its environment. One of the most cited works on organizational resilience, authored by Hamel and Valikangas [17], explicitly claims that companies’ environments became highly turbulent, and organizations struggled to follow these changes, which, in turn, led to failures caused by inadequate changes in their business models. Ponomarov and Holcomb [18] highlighted that resilience manifests as a readiness for potentially disturbing events, an adequate response, and the ability to rebuild. Pettit, Fiksel, and Croxton [19] present a complex organizational resilience model based on the flexibility of a supply chain, the ability to change forms of delivery, accessibility of resources, productivity, visibility, adaptability, anticipation, return to the initial stage (before the crisis), resource decentralization, cooperation, adequate organization of internal functions, market competitiveness, security, and slack resources. Burnard and Bhamra [20] develop a conceptual model of organizational responses to external threats and discontinuities and manifests in abilities to change and adapt to new conditions. In their model, resilience leads to organizational learning, which helps to monitor the environment and develop organizational attention. Finally, the work by Lengnick-Hall, Beck, and Lengnick-Hall [21] grounds resilience in human resource management theory. They argue that organizational resilience is a capability built on developing the individual competencies of key organizational players. It reflects specific cognitive capabilities, appropriate behaviors, and environmental factors. The authors show how human resource management policies and practices contribute to organizational resilience.

To sum up, until the beginning of the 2nd decade of the 21st century, the literature on organizational resilience was filled with diverse, untested concepts based on different theoretical backgrounds [18,19,20,21,22]. This is, in fact, an early stage of the conceptual development of knowledge in the field of organizational resilience. A significant rise in the concept’s popularity began in 2014, when theories were tested, and papers on organizational resilience were recognized in the most influential journals in the discipline of management. Still, however, the underlying concepts are rooted in organizations’ capabilities to respond to external shocks [23].

In 2015, Van der Vegt et al. [24] framed the concept of resilience on the foundation of risk management and indicated its important role in systems, networks and resources, structures, and decision making. They created a conceptual map of problems worth studying, suggesting individual and social resilience as well as internal and external coordination mechanisms in the face of crisis, studying the nature of resilience itself, the resilience of networks of organizations, and issues related to cooperation with the third sector. A year later, in 2016, Ortiz-de-Mandoyana and Bansal [25] compared data from 242 organizations over a 15-year period. Resilience was tested through the lens of short-term financial performance and results from socially responsible business practices. In the same year, Williams and Shepherd [26] focused on building resilience and sustenance in newly created companies in the face of disruption—the Haiti earthquake, in this instance. Based on six case studies, they identified two groups of companies concerning the perception of opportunities in the environment. They also linked the characteristics of companies to the organizational performance that activates latent resilience mechanisms and capabilities. They created a model describing relationships between social capital, managerial approach, fake or deviant resourcefulness, company transformation, and business continuity. In 2017, Williams et al. [27] tried to join resilience and crisis management research streams. They created a complex model of relationships between critical events, organizational adaptation, responses to main threats, and organizational results. These relationships are complemented and interrelated through the resilience feedback loop, perceived as sensemaking processes, individual interpretations of disturbances, and knowledge sharing. Resilience is strongly dependent on leadership, time flow, the complexity of adversity, and key organizational players’ awareness. It leads to the sustainability and reliability of the organization and the capability to act in the face of adversity.

In 2019–2022, many authors focused on organizational resilience, mainly testing newly created scales and providing evidence for most conceptualized relationships. From a plethora of papers published in this period, there are at least two worth significant attention. The first one is the work of Duchek [28], where resilience is conceptualized from a perspective of dynamic capabilities, emphasizing its temporal and processual nature (phases of anticipation, handling the crisis, and adaptation with diverse mechanisms fostered at different phases). In the second paper, Hillmann and Guenther [4] analyze 71 diverse resilience definitions and compare 14 different measurement tools. They also created a model of organizational resilience focusing on behaviors, resources, and capabilities.

The short overview of the variety of perspectives and approaches in defining organizational resilience suggests that this is still an evolving concept. Currently, a widely adopted definition of organizational resilience is taken from Williams et al.’s work [27]. Organizational resilience is perceived as a process in which an actor (individual, organization, or society) builds and uses capabilities to interact with the environment in a manner allowing for positive adjustment and maintaining operation before, during, and after the disturbance (an external shock).

The current energy crisis shall be regarded as an important external shock for organizations [29]. It affects individual behaviors by limiting disposable budget, indirectly affects purchase behaviors in the market (towards more sustainable investments [30,31]), leads to price rises, and, from the macroeconomic point of view, drives inflation [31]. For organizations, it leads to increased costs of production, services, and delivery [32], thus limiting their competitiveness [33].

As can be observed in the Eurostat data, oil, gas, and coal prices have risen significantly within the past year [34]. Many governments have decided to subsidize households and companies concerning energy prices. For example, Italy has provided a USD 200 “cost of living bonus” to limit the impact of higher costs. British households will receive a GBP 400 subsidy for energy bills this winter. In Poland, individuals and households can apply for a USD 640 subsidy for purchasing coal (the primary heating source). Germany has set out a EUR 200 billion “defensive shield”, covering a gas price break and a fuel tax cut to protect companies and households from soaring energy prices. Bulgaria has introduced a discount of BNG 0.25 per liter of petrol, diesel, liquified petroleum gas, and methane as of July [35].

The effects of the increase in energy prices are also alarming, given the financial performance of organizations. Large companies are considered to have more resources and frequently manage the impacts of external shocks better. However, small- and medium-sized businesses are more vulnerable to external shocks. In an article published on 7 September 2022, Reuters journalist J. Strupczewski [36] indicates that surging energy costs are putting European small- and medium-sized businesses at risk of failure without external help. This adversity, as presented in the Wall Street Journal [37], is strongly affecting smaller companies that drive the growth of the European economy. According to the WSJ, gas prices have significantly affected not only the financial performance of companies but also their ability to compete effectively with their counterparts from other parts of the world. The rising gas prices have directly affected numerous companies operating in different branches and impacted the costs of basic operations. An increase in these groups of costs implies the necessity of raising prices for products and services, which makes them less competitive. It also signifies higher customer prices and lower demand for offered goods and services; this, in turn, affects companies’ competitiveness.

Given this handful of data that outline the pressure of energy costs on organizations (in particular, small- and medium-sized ones), the energy crisis is considered an important external shock. In this regard, this is a complex problem that falls within the scope of resilience and related dynamic capabilities. However, little is known about what aspects related to energy cost pressure have been studied in the works on organizational resilience. To fill this gap, we designed the systematic literature review (SLR), which is presented in the following sections of this paper.

3. Systematic Literature Review—Methods and Sources

In this section, we provide the details of our methodical approach to revising these works to explore their link with the problem of the energy crisis. In other words, we aim to establish a deeper understanding of the field of knowledge on organizational resilience considering the energy price shocks.

In Figure 1, we provide a map of the design of the applied research procedure. First, we applied the procedure of SLR (systematic literature review), in line with Korber and McNaughton’s [7] work. The sound implementation of SLR requires a clear outline of the process of selecting publications for further text mining analysis.

Our search for publications was restricted to works in the fields of social and economic sciences. We applied very tight terms of request, namely the joint presence of the terms “resil*” and “energy crisis”. The motivation behind this restriction was to filter out the works that have already revised these two problems jointly to fuel our map of covered problems with more focused works. Such an approach allowed for identifying the core issues related to the resilience of broadly defined social systems. To focus on the most significant studies, we decided to study publications listed in four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct (Elsevier), and Sage. Our literature search covered papers published from 2010 onwards. This choice was made considering (a) the limits of the search engines we used; (b) the rising awareness of resilience in the literature from 2010 onwards, especially after the financial crisis from 2007 to 2009 [38,39,40,41,42,43]. Additionally, we noted that before 2010, the number of papers that refer to organizational resilience was very low (significantly fewer than three papers per year; for reference, see the work of Linnenluecke [9]).

Further, to identify the works that fit our interest, we searched for the co-occurrence of “resil*” and “energy crisis” in the: (i) title, (ii) author’s keywords, and (iii) abstracts. The exact syntax depended on the database search engine. The search took place on the 15th of November 2022. We employed an advanced search in all databases, downloaded complete metadata, and integrated them into Zotero for further analysis. The statistics of the papers found in the databases are provided in

Table 1. Number of papers that included the request terms (co-occurrence of “resil*” and “energy crisis”).

Database	Web of Science	Scopus	Science Direct (Elsevier)	Sage	In Total
Number of research papers in journals	28	36	61	19	144
Number of articles in conference proceedings	7	10	2	1	20
Number of book chapters	1	5	0	2	8
Number of other entries (short notes)	0	0	18	3	21
Total number of identified publications	36	51	81	25	193

.

We identified 193 works (documents) with our restrictive request terms. Next, we revised the selected papers (title, keywords, and abstracts) to exclude duplicates or documents with missing keywords. After this revision, we finally obtained 124 works for further analysis. A list of these papers is provided in the Appendix A.

The next stage of our analysis was the extraction of the keywords from the identified documents. We applied automated extraction in Zotero. However, we double-checked the procedure and manually supplemented the list of keywords, if needed.

The list of keywords was then used as the subject of the text mining analysis. We selected the keywords (not the titles or the whole content of the abstracts), guided by the intention to sharpen the relevance of the topics raised in each identified paper, as stated directly by its author(s). As our work was targeted at exploring the areas of issues raised by the papers that fit our selection criteria (joint interest in resilience and energy crisis), the keywords highlighted by the author(s) provided, in our opinion, a clear indication of the interlinked aspects addressed in their works.

The text mining part of our work was based on the application of the VOSviewer software. VOSviewer is an open-source software developed by N.J. van Eck and L. Waltman [44]. This tool was designed to support bibliometric studies by offering a clear and meaningful visualization of the network of terms and words. In our study, we applied VOSviewer for similar purposes; we aimed at mapping the terms that appeared in pre-selected academic papers to identify the main streams of research in studying resilience to an energy crisis. More specifically, we applied VOSviewer (version 1.6.18) to explore the co-occurrence of terms. The output of the application of this software is a map that demonstrates the close connection network of terms.

The software carries out cluster analysis and operates on so-called “occurrence ratios”. These ratios measure the number of co-occurrences of two terms in one studied document (the set of keywords, in our case). The software measures association strengths to draw a map of co-occurrence by establishing the coefficient calculated according to the equation provided below (see details in [45,46,47]).

$$S_{ij}=\frac{C_{ij}}{\left(W_i*W_j\right)}$$

where

S_ij denotes the similarity between the objects i and j;

C_ij denotes the co-occurrence of the objects i and j;

W_i and W_j denote the occurrence of the objects i and j.

To run the analysis in VOS viewer, the keywords from the identified papers were used to build a thesaurus file [44], and the terms of low relevance were filtered out from the list (in line with the idea of maintaining the relevance of the input). Considering the relatively small number of keywords identified in 124 papers, which equaled 848, we filtered out keywords that appeared only once or twice in papers (the list of keywords is provided in the Appendix A). Next, we manually performed a filtering procedure to remove irrelevant words and manually replaced synonymous phrases with more popular ones (for example, “renewable energy resources” and “renewable energy resource” were replaced with “renewable energy resources”). We performed that action to guarantee that low-relevance words did not appear during the analysis. This left us with 27 significantly interrelated keywords occurring in papers 3 times or more.

4. Systematic Literature Review—Results and Discussion

In Figure 2, we present a map, which is the output of the VOS viewer software. The map indicates several clouds of interrelated problems, and each cloud is highlighted in a different color. This map allows for identifying five main research streams in the international debate on resilience to the energy crisis: energy policy (red color), climate change (blue color), sustainability and resilience (green color), energy security (purple color), and energy systems (yellow color). Below, we briefly characterize each stream by reviewing the scope of the papers that fall into each stream. We also indicate possible implications for organizations with resilience concepts present in organizational studies.

4.1. Energy Policy

Energy policy (Figure 1, red color) is strongly related to renewable energy resources [6], renewable energies [48,49,50], energy crises [51,52], and energy efficiency [53], which has a strong relationship with energy crises. It is also related to fossil fuel and oil prices while indicating paths of green transformation [31,32,54,55]. In this vein, there is a growing awareness of the necessity of creating appropriate country-level [52,56]) and EU [51] policies concerning alternatives to traditional energy resources considering shortages and rising prices of gas [57], oil [58], or coal [59]. The recent war in Ukraine revealed an even higher pressure to create a sound energy policy—especially bearing in mind the gas and coal shortages resulting from this military conflict [57]. The main issue seems to be finding a satisfactory and economically justified solution to dilemmas related to the transformation from currently prevailing energy production solutions in countries, which, in most cases, are based on natural resources and future-oriented green energy solutions [60]. There is also a growing debate over nuclear power [52,61] and micro-nuclear reactors [48]. To a large extent, resilience in these works refers to the static characteristic of a community or studied entity [62,63] and is perceived as a desirable outcome of deliberately taken actions. Moving beyond the review of the first research stream, to interpret findings from an organizational resilience point of view, it should be noted that these topics create macroconditions for organizations, affecting costs, profits, and the performance of companies and institutions. However, frequently they remain behind the absolute control of key decision makers in organizations, constituting uncontrollable, exogenous factors [64]. Managers willing to help their companies become resilient should focus on awareness of energy regulations [65] and preparation activities, concentrating on creating internal crisis management plans [61,62]. This also requires organizing resources to fight against potential adversities via governmental policies directly related to accumulating slack resources—especially financial resources [63,64]. Finally, considering that the current debate is focused on renewable energy, this requires a transition towards greener energy solutions, necessitating innovation and investments [66].

4.2. Climate Change

Climate change (blue color in Figure 2) was frequently linked with energy use [67,68,69,70], policymaking [71,72], COVID-19 [6,68], and food policy [73,74], and these studies frequently referred to Africa [75,76,77,78]. In the studied papers, scholars’ attention was mainly focused on problems of sustainable energy use, which strongly correlates with green transition policies [79]. In this vein, the literature strongly focuses on the necessity of optimizing and limiting energy use in the face of an energy crisis, showing how the unsustainable usage of energy may cause climate degradation [80]. Challenges resulting from the energy crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, as argued by Aktar et al. [68], will surely affect the green transition policy. It will also force decision makers to swiftly respond to thought-provoking and possibly destructive consequences of the joint interaction of the post-pandemic environment and energy crisis. In some regions, the COVID-19 pandemic and energy crisis are also linked to social problems, such as food shortages [81] and resulting food insecurity [69]. This is especially important for African countries [74]. To sum it all up, climate change interactions with energy consumption and food security, among other things, are clearly perceived by scholars. Papers in this stream of research refer mainly to necessary changes, and resilience appears to be both the mechanism through which food security is maintained, among other factors, and an outcome of adequate policies. The understanding of resilience in this stream has much in common with social and ecosystem sustainability. It also naturally focuses on policy change processes, on national [82,83] as well as local levels [78].

From the organizational point of view, this reaffirms the necessity of addressing green transition challenges by introducing sustainable solutions to everyday operations [84]. This requires a proactive, entrepreneurial posture focused on developing organizational solutions help society adapt to the growing challenges resulting from broadly perceived climate change [85]. It is also a call for studying resilience and entrepreneurship links. While this topic remains undertheorized [86], it also draws attention to innovation implementation and funding [87].

4.3. Sustainability and Resilience

The literature review revealed an interest in sustainability and resilience issues (green color in Figure 2) [88,89,90] in the context of sustainable development [91,92], alternative energy sources [49,62], electricity and electric power transmission networks [93,94], and electricity [95,96]. In this vein, the country context seems strictly relevant, while three studies refer to the USA [59,97,98]. The debate focuses on the interplay between resilience and sustainability, with both terms being used nearly interchangeably. However, scholars also focused on technicalities, such as, for example, power transmission networks [67] or sustainable biomass energy production and maintaining natural forest ecosystems in Alaska [92]. They also tackled eco-social work activities and their influence on community resilience [88]. Lavric and Petrariu [99] relate the energy crisis and resilience with new technologies (Internet of things and low-power wide-area networks), clearly showing the path for future interdisciplinary studies. This study relates to some extent to industry functioning, referring also to the machine-to-machine industry. The authors show how new technologies can help overcome challenges arising from the energy crisis and help prevent environmental pollution and resource depletion.

Similarly, Masood [93] demonstrate the role of information technologies in creating smart electric power networks that may help mitigate the consequences of the energy crisis. Studies related to climate change also deepen the knowledge on urban energy safety (resilience) [90]. To sum up, resilience in this stream of research refers to the feature or characteristic of a system, the goal to be obtained through an informed, well-planned, and diversified set of actions.

From an organizational point of view, this stream relates strongly to the early stage of studies on organizational resilience, where it was perceived as high reliability in the face of disruption [11,16]. The current literature on resilience largely focuses on creating organizational capabilities [100,101], which are more intangible than practical, technical solutions preventing negative consequences of adversity. It suggests deeper integration of research on the intersection of resilience and crisis management in organizations, as suggested by Williams et al. [27].

4.4. Energy Systems

The next topic of resilience research was focused on investing and gaining a deeper understanding of energy security, especially considering gases [48,70], disasters [95,102,103], and optimization issues [52,93,104]. In this research stream, Bruno et al. [103], focusing on technical details of energy security, show implications for production load and duties, arguing for the necessity of inter-organizational cooperation for balancing energy sources and referring to a systemic perspective. These should not only allow for discrete optimization of input–output time trajectories but also include energy storage technologies, which are the core issues in the energy policy of developed economies. Additionally, Abdussami, Adham, and Gabbar [52] argue for focusing on the implementation of technical solutions related to off-grid energy systems based on nuclear and renewable resources. In a similar vein, Huang et al. [95] call for technical solutions guaranteeing uninterrupted functioning of energy systems via the use of integrated electricity and gas resources. Additionally, Khan and Anwar [49] debate issues of infrastructural investments, helping to strengthen the national economy, adequate capital formation, building human capital through a variety of actions (education, employment opportunities, training, skills, awareness), and installation of renewable energy systems facilitated by governments. This should help to prevent the negative consequences of natural disasters. All these papers show resilience as a state or characteristic of a certain system; it also emphasizes the role of resilience in hazard management and planning. The focus of attention is at the mezzo-to-macro levels of analysis (networks of organizations, large corporations, or whole countries). Resilience to energy crises remains the goal to be reached.

Moving on to the organizational perspective, there are few implications for decision makers from this stream of research. These issues, similarly to energy policy, frequently remain beyond the direct control of managers, and in most cases, they need to focus on anticipation and passive adaptation [105]. This does not limit the need for continuous monitoring of state-level regulations related to the green transition, with a focus on investing in modern energy solutions/systems and an awareness of weak signals stemming from political decisions [106]. It also necessitates the creation of a resource base enabling adaptation and the green transition in response to the new green transformation related to country- or regional-level policies [107].

4.5. Energy Security

Finally, a few papers in the sample are related to energy security [57,80,108,109]. These papers narrate concrete, albeit energy-policy-related, contexts focused on providing stable, secure solutions guaranteeing energy safety and security. Underwood et al. [108] refer to energy resilience as addressing external threats, such as earthquakes, blockades, or an energy crisis. In this paper, resilience is a passive state of the energy system that should be based on either a centralized or distributed nature, be regionally integrated or nationally isolated, and be based on fossil fuels or renewable energy resources. Developing countries stand in front of decisions related to choices that will determine their energy future. These choices will directly affect country-level energy resilience, create or prevent energy poverty, and lead to perceived justice or injustice.

Energy policy is also strongly related to the functioning of organizations, and SMEs, while these are extremely vulnerable to energy shocks resulting in operational and long-term problems [110]. There are numerous similarities between energy security and energy systems; these issues frequently depend on macroeconomic decisions and lie behind the direct influence of organizational decision makers [111]. Nonetheless, awareness and preparedness for unforeseen policies and social and environmental disturbances are necessary for organizations facing an energy crisis [112]. In the following section, we discuss implications for future research on the resilience of organizations to the energy crisis.

5. Discussion—Tracking Gaps in Existing Streams

The systematic literature review on resilience and energy crisis revealed five main streams of knowledge development in the resilience and energy crisis field. On the other hand, the analysis showed that the focal point of interest is related to macroeconomic issues. The resilience of companies facing challenges resulting from the energy crisis has yet to attract significant attention, apart from a few studies indexed in the ScienceDirect database [113,114,115,116]. Although indexed in organizational resilience and energy crises, these are on the borderline of leading research streams. Additionally, their relationship to the topic of resilience, apart from the work of Bravo and Hernandez [113], could be stronger. This work focuses on measuring organizational resilience, brings new operationalization of the resilience concept, and discusses implications from studies on firms’ performance (oil and gas industry) in unconventional oil and gas development in the Americas. The authors developed a list of customary indicators to measure organizational resilience after an extreme event. However, these strongly reflect the specificity of the oil and gas industry, making the scale challenging to test in other industries. While it brings new knowledge and fresh ideas into the measurement process, it focuses mainly on financial and operational metrics. It might be an extremely valuable proposition for companies operating with natural resources. However, before it can find application in other companies, the instrument’s applicability needs to be tested and requires significant modifications.

Tong and Germany’s [114] work draws attention to industrial manufacturing, storing, and transferring of hazardous materials (easily flammable and toxic explosives). Using Bayesian networks, the authors propose a framework helping to measure the resilience of facilities vulnerable to accidents in the production processes. This technical work can help mitigate potential accidents, thus serving as a practical tool helping to increase safety in the workplace and limit potential hazards for the company’s infrastructure and environment.

Valentino and Perez-Valls [116] concentrate on the long-run sustainability of organizations (corporations) by introducing the concept of “moral wayfinding,” combining immersive engagement in a social environment with moral commitment. This plays a vital role in pursuing sustainable goals, making more socially responsible decisions, and motivating green-transition-related investments. This paper addresses challenges with more complex decision making and loosely relates to the energy crisis. Finally, Leal Filho et al. [115] address issues related to post-COVID-19 recovery and climate change by addressing new technologies (artificial intelligence and data technologies). The authors argue that AI may help in green transformation by allowing the identification of innovative solutions to pressing climate threats. Considering the nature of the energy crisis, this brings new possibilities to the table, but we will have to wait to see its effects.

To sum up all the above arguments, the state of knowledge on organizational resilience to the energy crisis is relatively poor. Although the sheer number of studies on organizational resilience may give the impression that the field is well developed, in fact, there are very few papers addressing the issue of the energy crisis. While the prevailing number of papers on resilience are focused on the response to a disaster [117,118], there are relatively few studies concentrating on long-lasting negative trends, such as crises [5,39]. Organizations are theoretically supported when it comes to overcoming brief shocks. However, long-lasting handling of adversities—such as an energy crisis—will most likely require a different set of capabilities and resources. So far, the literature has not offered a sound unifying theory for handling such situations; there is a clear gap in this regard. We are convinced that the discussion on resilience to the energy crisis should be brought down from the overall macroeconomic perspective to include an organizational point of view.

The literature review revealed a need to study the energy crisis’s influence on the functioning of small- and medium-sized companies. The consequences of rising energy prices may be highly detrimental to SMEs, and in most cases, they are financially unprepared for such a situation [119]. Solutions and practices working in large organizations might not work for smaller entities. Thus, there is a clear need to recognize the influence of the ongoing energy crisis on the operational and sustainable performance of this group of organizations. This should be complemented with available solutions and best practices. Case study research designs can achieve this. The COVID-19 pandemic brought several exciting observations in the tourism/hospitality industry [120,121,122]. More studies on this topic are needed in other industries as well.

Next, most studies on organizational resilience focus on capabilities or intangible resources which can be used to mitigate the disturbance [123,124]. An apparent concentration on strategic perspective in combatting adversities in organizations is present. However, an operational aspect of resilience also exists; for the organization to become resilient, it must survive the hit first. In this instance, organizations need resources—especially financial ones. Financial performance and the ability to survive or grow under pressure are interrelated [125]. Thus, studies on organizational resilience to the energy crisis should focus on finding the balance between operational efficiency, continuity, and seeking opportunities for growth [126].

Finally, only a few papers show the implications of the green transition in the face of the energy crisis in organizational settings. While there are some works related to this issue at the macroeconomic level [6,59], during the review, we were not able to find any papers discussing the implications of the energy crisis for organizations considering the transition to green solutions. This could be exciting, considering the regulations set out in the European Green Deal policy. From one point of view, the energy crisis catalyzes changes and introduces more sustainable solutions based on renewable resources. On the other hand, increasing operation costs limit companies’ investment capabilities. This dilemma still needs to be recognized in the literature and should attract more attention. This is a very relevant and timely topic, with relevant policy implications. For instance, the Network of Central Banks, on 7 September 2022, published a note [127] on the effects of the energy crisis originating from the war in Ukraine and their relationship to the latest scenarios. Its authors argue that the crisis might provide the opportunity for a net-zero transition from a carbon-intensive economy by 2050, as indicated by the Paris Agreement. This, however, requires swift operation and might be hard to follow for less-developed economies. According to the authors, decision makers are currently at a crossroads, and there are two paths they can choose. These companies may focus on increasing the carbon intensity of energy systems, which is a step backward from meeting the regulations and objectives of the Paris Agreement, or moving towards net zero, leaving fossil fuels behind, which might improve the chances of a less costly low-carbon transition. The choice of the first path may lead to catastrophic climate changes. Similarly, the European Think Tank Group [128] has shown how the war in Ukraine has fostered an energy crisis and discussed implications for the Green Deal and its regulatory aspects. The need to act immediately is clearly shown in the European Green Deal, energy security, supply chains, food security, environmental protection, coordination, and coherence of actions with regard to EU policymakers, social protection, and international cooperation. These suggestions refer to critical countermeasures taken to help mitigate the consequences of the energy crisis. However, as noted by FitchRatings.com [129], such actions will strongly influence countries’ fiscal systems by counteracting disruptions.

To comply with the Green Deal policy, organizations will have to invest heavily, and for SMEs, such a challenge might become the final nail in the coffin. It would significantly affect SMEs, especially considering that their customers are unwilling or unable to accept higher prices. These companies usually have insufficient financial reserves to help them withstand the shocks [130]. With institutional help, such SMEs might survive the pressure of investments related to green technology introduction and rising energy prices.

In Figure 3, we present a map of gaps in the existing topics that emerged from our literature review and are discussed above. It is worth mentioning that the map of co-occurrence of keywords (the output of VOS viewer, presented in Figure 2), highlights many words that refer to changing external conditions and the reaction to or perception of a single organization, although these problems are systemic by nature. Additionally, some keywords are simply contemporary “buzzwords” (e.g., sustainability, renewables, climate change, and COVID-19).

Uncovered blind spots indicate future research directions for scholars interested in studying organizational resilience and energy crisis issues. Firstly, since the potential influence of the energy crisis on small- and medium-sized organizations can be perceived as detrimental to their existence [131], there is a clear need for more studies on the influence of the crisis on the functioning of these organizations. These studies should focus on identifying adaptation mechanisms to this threat, such as those in the papers on coping mechanisms in the face of the financial crisis [132,133] or natural disasters with long-lasting effects on the economy [134]. This draws attention to organizational aspects, such as preparedness [135], maintaining a sufficient stock of resources to mitigate the long-lasting negative influence of the energy crisis [136], or preparation of an effective response plan for discontinuities in energy supply [137].

Considering the scarcity of natural resources [138], the energy crisis will most likely constitute a long-lasting negative trend that affects the functioning of organizations. To the best of our knowledge, few studies have compared the effects of sudden incidents, which strike unexpectedly and usually end shortly after they begin (hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disturbances), and long-lasting negative trends (such as financial crises, wars, and pandemics). Little is known about the effectiveness of organizational responses to these two distinct types of negative disruptions. In particular, the knowledge of successful mechanisms (for example, crisis management plans) in dealing with hurricanes’ consequences [139] is equally efficient in response to prolonged tendencies. Thus, the effectiveness of organizational responses to long-lasting negative trends requires more attention.

Looking at the national and international debate on climate change [140], and its influence on the regulation of energy markets [141], researchers interested in resilience studies should also pay closer attention to policy implications for the well-being and survival of organizations [142]. The green transition significantly strains an organization’s everyday life, impacting costs, profits, and investments [143]. More studies are needed to establish a better understanding of the repercussions of legal regulations in this regard for organizations. In this vein, case study research might bring necessary knowledge about triggers and mechanisms that enable organizations to prepare for the uncertain future [144].

It also seems rational to focus more on the specific context, or the industry, in which organizations operate [145]. A lot is known about the resilience of tourism organizations to crises—mainly because numerous studies on this topic appeared in the field after the COVID-19 outbreak [146,147], as well as many on supply chain management [148]. However, relatively little attention has been paid to the resilience of companies functioning in industries less affected by the crisis. The energy crisis will most likely strike whole economies, and companies operating in numerous industries that were previously unaffected will have to face this challenge. Highly energy-dependent organizations and industries (production and construction in particular) especially will be placed in a very uncomfortable position.

From the theoretical point of view, it is also high time to face the challenge of clearly setting the stage and recognizing mutual relationships between organizational resilience and crisis management concepts. Although the first work on this subject has already been published, much must be done to evaluate its conceptual propositions and validate them in organizational practice [27]. Since resilience occurs at different levels of analysis [21], multilevel studies [149] carried out among employees, teams, organizations, industries, and possibly countries, seem necessary. This requires much theoretical insight into justifying relationships between different levels of resilience since the knowledge in this field needs to be improved to link constructs conceptually contributing to resilience at different levels.

6. Final Remarks

The reviewed and briefly summarized papers deal with the ability to react (adapt) to changing conditions (changes in the external environment) that come as various external shocks that cause uncertainty, instability, and volatility. However, for organizations of all kinds that are not homogenous, the impact of the shock may vary. There is evidence of shocks (followed by volatility and uncertainty) that are causing significant impacts and can thus be overcome only when an organization is resilient enough (can adapt, is flexible); these occur in areas that used to be stable for long periods (decades). Such islands of stability (safe havens) were energy prices, distribution of electricity and commodities, the climate, supply chains, and energy policy. Either they were stable for ages, such as the weather, or were evolving gradually and thus were predictable.

A certain level/amount of resilience is needed for an organization to withstand sudden changes in formerly stable variables. Resilience can be developed inside the organization (flexible management, entrepreneurial mindset, building up reserves and organizational slack, practicing risk management) or, as the analyzed studies show, it can be boosted via innovations, national level regulation and interventions (e.g., energy policy), international cooperation (EU energy and security policy), global actions (climate action movement and agreements), advancements in technology, and last but not least through availability of knowledge and sharing good practice.

Our study faces some limitations. First and foremost, we focused on papers from the last 12 years, showing the growing interest in the field of resilience to energy crises over time. We intentionally applied rigorous selection criteria to focus on papers directly referring to the notion of organizational resilience to the energy crisis as a specific type of disturbance. We did so to intentionally highlight the existing gaps. To our surprise, only a few works focused on issues related to mitigating the negative impact of the energy crisis from the perspective of organizations. We believe that further developments in the literature on resilience and the energy crisis will provide a more in-depth view into the topics we highlighted as blind spots. The green transition, which has only just begun, and the war in Ukraine show how important it is to be prepared for energy insufficiency and an increase in prices. On the other hand, war only accelerates the crisis, which, sooner or later, will strike organizations. Finally, the map presented in Figure 2 is based on keywords. It would be interesting to dig deeper into the papers and analyze whole articles. This was, however, beyond our reach due to the number of papers and difficulties in obtaining copies that would enable such an analysis. This paper signals gaps in our knowledge in the management field and outlines gaps that should be filled in with empirical and theoretical studies.

From the practical standpoint, the map showing research gaps indicates the necessity of an ambidextrous approach to managing organizations [150]. Simultaneous balancing of past, present, and future seem necessary in highly volatile environments. Additionally, an organizational focus on operational efficiency and sustainable development requires swift movements between alternative and frequently conflicting forces. Our study also highlights that practicing mindfulness and organizational attention to weak signals may determine organizational survival [151] and help organizations prepare for future adversities. Entrepreneurs should also focus on creating sound relationships with key stakeholders, especially local and national level institutions, which can help to overcome temporal difficulties. There is a clear indication of the role of inter-organizational cooperation under external pressure. Temporal co-work aiming to identify solutions may safeguard the future of clusters of organizations or whole industries [152].