Digital Business 2 (2022) 100029

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Digital Business
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/digbus

Ecosystems and supply chains: How do they differ and relate

Hervé Legenvre a, *, Ari-Pekka Hameri b, Ruggero Golini c
a
EIPM - European Institute of Purchasing Management, Bâtiment Mont-Blanc 2 59, Rue Antoine Redier 74160, Archamps, France
b
Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC), Anthropole #3071, University of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
c
Department of Management, Information and Production Engineering, Università degli studi di Bergamo, Via Pasubio 324044, Dalmine BG, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: While digital transformations are taking place, we still have limited understanding as to how ecosystems and
Ecosystems supply chains differ from a theoretical standpoint and how they relate practically. We study the evolution of the
Supply chains concept of ecosystems through a systematic review of the literature to describe how the two concepts relate
Governance
throughout this evolution. We use cases to investigate how ecosystems and supply chains relate practically. We
show that non-contractual governance in a supply chain facilitates investment in specific assets by a few key
suppliers, while non-contractual governance in an ecosystem facilitates the creation of collective shared assets by
many ecosystem participants. We also show that practically supply chains and ecosystems can either compete or
complement each other and we present some of the conditions for the emergence of such relations.

1. Introduction highlighted how make or buy decisions need to integrate transaction

The theoretical foundations for ecosystems and supply chains have
developed over the past 30 years independently from each other. Supply
chains were first studied as sets of bilateral relationships using multiple
theoretical frames before being conceptualized as networks and complex
adaptative systems. In parallel, ecosystems were first presented as a
biological metaphor before being positioned as governance structures
that orchestrate relationships among firms participating in platforms.
Recently the study of ecosystems has entered a new phase that aims at
clearly distinguishing ecosystems from other forms of governance
including supply chains. However, these recent papers on ecosystems
tend to depict supply chains in a reductive and oversimplistic way. We
intend to contribute to this clarification effort by further examining how
ecosystems and supply chains differ theoretically and relate practically.
Supply chains were first depicted as a series of steps that transform
raw materials into final products. Over time, as these steps were
increasingly performed by multiple suppliers, the governance of supply
chains has gained strategic significance and competition has sometimes
been described as a rivalry between supply chains, not just firms
(Ketchen Jr & Hult, 2007). The governance of interfirm relationships
within supply chains has benefited from multiple theoretical perspec­
tives such as transaction cost economics, resource dependency theory
and agency theory, which have shaped our understanding of bilateral
relationships within supply chains. Transaction cost economics has
costs and risks of opportunistic behaviour. Resource dependence theory
has described how resource dependencies can lead to the formation of
alliances and joint ventures. Agency theory with its focus on delegation
of authority has been used to describe how some agency risks can be
managed in supply chains and how incentives can help to strengthen
relationships.
More recently, network theory has expanded our view of supply
chains as networks where strong and weak ties influence relationships
along supply chains to help achieve a mix of performance factors such as
reliability and flexibility (Ketchen Jr & Hult, 2007). This has also led to
the description of supply chains as complex adaptive networks where,
for instance, the choice of material by an aircraft manufacturer is
influenced by scanning technologies developed for hospitals (Choi,
Dooley, & Rungtusanatham, 2001). This change of theoretical frame­
work has shifted the study of supply chains from a logic of unilateral
control over other firms to a logic of collaboration and autonomy that
spans different industries (Pathak, Day, Nair, Sawaya, & Kristal, 2007).
This shift has occurred as complexity and dynamism in supply networks
have prevented firms from exerting unilateral control over the rest of the
network.
This description of the supply chain as a complex adaptive system
bears some resemblance to the concept of the ecosystem suggested by
Moore (1993). Moore described firms as members of ecosystems span­
ning multiple industries. He also suggested that executives need to look

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hlegenvre@eipm.org (H. Legenvre), ahameri@unil.ch (A.-P. Hameri), Ruggero.golini@unibg.it (R. Golini).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100029
Received 11 May 2021; Received in revised form 3 June 2022; Accepted 6 June 2022
Available online 11 June 2022
2666-9544/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
H. Legenvre et al.
beyond their distinctive capabilities and market position to further un­
derstand how cooperating and competing with other firms within their
business ecosystem could influence their long-term success. With the
development of digital technologies and the emergence of platform
business models, ecosystems started to characterize the specific gover­
nance mechanism that brings together heterogeneous, but interdepen­
dent organizations. The role of an ecosystem is to first to combine
complementary capabilities to innovate and second to deliver value
propositions. Recent conceptualization efforts present ecosystems as a
governance mechanism where multilateral relationships cannot be
reduced to a set of bilateral contracts (Autio and Thomas, 2018; Jaco­
bides, Cennamo, & Gawer, 2018), and where non-contractual gover­
nance plays a fundamental role.1 These authors suggest ecosystems that
differ from supply chains where inter-firm relationships are reduced to
bilateral contracts.
We believe that this distinction is overly reductive and simplistic. It
reduces supply chains to a series of bilateral transactions and ignores
most of the recent academic advancement on the adaptive network logic
and collaborative relationships. Therefore, this conceptualization needs
to be refined to gain a more precise and rich understanding of how
complex governance mechanisms orchestrate value creation and value
capture across multiple firms. More precisely, we examine two research
questions. The first is how ecosystems and supply chains differ from a
theoretical standpoint. The second is how ecosystems and supply chains
relate practically. Even if ecosystems and supply chains differ in theory,
practically they can compete or complement each other.
We believe that answering these research questions is important. In
digital transformations the coordination of economic activities becomes
increasingly varied and complex. The coordination of economic activ­
ities relies on more diverse forms of governance. It is therefore impor­
tant to describe how these forms of governance differ conceptually, but
also how they can interact together over time. This contributes to
defining ecosystems and how they function (Autio, 2019; Jacobides
et al., 2018). It also contributes to the development of new language and
concepts that describe new organizational forms (Miles & Snow, 1986).
To answer these two research questions, we proceed in two steps.
First, we study the evolution of the concept of ecosystem thanks to a
systematic literature review, this enables us to describe how ecosystems
and supply chains relate throughout this evolution. We develop our first
four propositions based on a discussion on how non-contractual gover­
nance applies to ecosystems and supply chains. Second, thanks to in­
terviews and secondary data collection, we document cases and develop
three propositions that illustrate how the concept of ecosystem and
supply chain relate practically.
2. Research method
A systematic literature review is a methodology that follows a clearly
defined protocol and where the criteria are clearly stated before the
review in order to identify, select and critically appraise research (Col­
icchia & Strozzi, 2012; Coombes & Nicholson, 2013; Khan, Kunz,
Kleijnen, & Antes, 2003). Compared to a “standard” literature review,
1
There are two important notions associated with non-contractual gover­
nance. First the governance is not bilateral; one firm can simultaneously exert
incentives and controls on multiple firms. For instance, when Apple and Google,
on their mobile application marketplaces, define different categories of mobile
applications and provide visibility to certain applications for each category,
they impact all applications. There are also multilateral forms of governance.
For instance, as firms develop research consortiums, they need to take decisions
collectively. Second the governance is not contractual; while contracts result
from the balance of power between different firms, other forms of governance
contribute to building trust and to achieving mutually beneficial outcomes.
Referring to the example of the research consortium, this includes, for instance,
the development of information exchange, social ties, and long-term
relationships.
2
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100029
where articles are selected by the researcher according to the arguments
to be supported, a systematic literature review is “top-down” and aims to
be an objective and fair representation of the articles published on a
certain topic. What makes our review “systematic” is that we first
defined a research objective, then we defined the search criteria for the
Scopus query to extract all articles on the topic. Next we defined criteria
to manually review and select only the relevant articles given for our
research objective. Finally, we analysed the contribution of these arti­
cles to provide theoretical distinction between ecosystem and supply
chain.
To find the main contributions in the field, we used Scopus as the
major source of information. In September 2018 we searched all articles
containing the word “ecosystem” in the title, abstract and keywords.
Given the purpose of our research, we limited the perimeter to articles
written in English and published in business, management and ac­
counting journals, hence excluding conference proceedings, books and
papers in other domains. We did not limit our search in time, so we could
retrieve contributions as old as the Scopus database (the first paper
extracted dates back to 1969 in World Energy Resources and it was
excluded afterwards as it is not about business ecosystems).
The search resulted in 2284 articles, which were narrowed down
using an iterative process. First, the articles were split between the re­
searchers, and each performed a review based on title, abstract and
journal. Articles clearly referring to natural ecosystems2 were directly
excluded, while the dubious ones were discussed on a case-by-case basis.
For instance, the article “Proposal for a framework for quality mea­
surement to the SPB - Brazilian Public Software”, published in Business
Process Management Journal was not retained because the word
ecosystem is not central to the paper and it is only used once to describe
the digital ecosystem domain.
To validate the manual classification, we also checked that the
selected papers fulfilled at least one of these two conditions:
• Presence of the article in the citation network (i.e., the article cites,
and is cited by, at least one other article in the sample)
• The word Ecosystem appears in the references3
We obtained a corpus of 379 papers which explore or employ, as a
theoretical lens, the concept of ecosystem in a business context. As our
goal is to focus on the literature that has contributed to conceptualize
ecosystems, out of the resulting sample of 379 papers we extracted those
articles that received the most citations by the other papers in the sample
(weighing by the year of publication) (see Table 1). These were called
backbone papers as they are more central in the development of the
discipline. The idea of backbone papers is related to the main path
analysis proposed by Colicchia and Strozzi (2012), which aims to
identify those papers that build on prior papers and continue to act as an
authority in reference to later works. The main path is built by selecting
the papers that are more central, that is, those that have the highest
number of citations by other papers in the sample while citing other
papers in the sample. One limitation of this approach is that to be
considered in the main path, one paper needs to cite the previous paper
in the main path. In cases when two papers' publication dates are close in
time, they may not cite each other, for instance, due to a lengthy review
process. To overcome this limitation, we used a simpler approach, that
is, to identify the papers with the highest number of yearly citations
from the other papers in the sample while checking that they also cite
other papers in the sample. This simpler citation-based approach to
2
e.g., “Monitoring land cover change of the dryland forest landscape of
Central Chile (1975–2008)”, published in Applied Geography)
3
The team also checked the papers that did not comply with these two
conditions. Finally, we double checked the papers that were excluded, but that
contained words that were common in the selected papers (i.e., platform,
innovation) in the title, abstract or keywords.
H. Legenvre et al. Digital Business 2 (2022) 100029

Table 1
Backbone papers.
Authors Title Year Source title Internal citations
per year

Moore J.F. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. 1993 Harvard Business Review 3.1
Iansiti M., Roy L. Strategy as Ecology 2004 Harvard Business Review 4.1
Teece D.J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro foundations of 2007 Strategic Management 3.1
(sustainable) enterprise performance Journal
Adner R., Kapoor R. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological 2010 Strategic Management 8.0
interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations Journal
Kapoor R., Lee J.M. Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new 2013 Strategic Management Journal 3.2
technology investments
Gawer A., Cusumano Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation 2014 Journal of Product 5.6
M.A. Innovation Management
Thomas L.D.W., Autio Architectural leverage: Putting platforms in context 2014 Academy of Management 3.0
E., Gann D.M. Perspectives
Lusch R.F., Nambisan S. Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective 2015 MIS Quarterly: Management 5.8
Information Systems
Vargo S.L., Wieland H., Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective 2015 Industrial Marketing 5.8
Akaka M.A. Management
Vargo S.L., Lusch R.F. Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic 2016 Journal of the Academy of 11.0
Marketing Science
Adner R., Kapoor R. Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves 2016 Strategic Management Journal 3.3
Vargo S.L., Lusch R.F. Service-dominant logic 2025 2017 International Journal of 4.0
Research in Marketing

identify the key papers can be found in other systematic literature re­
Table 2
views (e.g., Coombes & Nicholson, 2013; De Marchi, Di Maria, Golini, &
Interviews.
Perri, 2020).
Among these influential papers we selected those that provide Case 1: Ecosystem and supply chain coexist and compete
Software industry A software developer involved in the ecosystem
comprehensive definitions of ecosystems. This led us to identify six
A software distributor manager
backbone papers (in bold characters in Table 1) that have made a sig­ A software user
nificant contribution to the development of the ecosystem theory and Case 2: An ecosystem of service providers complements a supply chain
that are widely cited by the other papers in the sample. We also Automotive industry A car maker executive
A first-tier supplier executive
considered other papers published by the authors of the backbone pa­
A garage owner
pers that contribute to defining the word ecosystem. Case 3: A supply chain complements an ecosystem that develops technologies
Our analysis of the literature shows that the conceptualization of IoT technologies and An IoT application provider executive
ecosystems has evolved over time. The ecosystem was not established as applications One of the founders of the organizations that
a solid theoretical foundation before the years 2010s, it was an analogy orchestrates the ecosystem
Microprocessor Two managers from two different firms that contribute
that helped to depict changes in a firm's environment. By investigating
technology to the technology development ecosystem and offer
how the keywords associated with the 379 papers evolved over time, we products based on the technology
therefore broke the conceptualization of ecosystems down into four A manager in the not-for-profit organization that
stages. Each stage is anchored in some of the backbone papers. The orchestrates the ecosystem
characterization of the four stages enabled us to understand why the
concept of ecosystem was needed and to develop four propositions that
across industries. This stage corresponds to Moore (1993, 1996, 2006)
describe the relation between ecosystems and supply chains. However,
and Iansiti and Levien (2004a, 2004b). For Moore (1993, 1996) the
as the literature has not yet addressed the question of how ecosystems
success of innovative firms depends on their ability to mobilize re­
and supply chains relate from a practical standpoint, we use interviews
sources owned by other organizations such as partners, suppliers or
and secondary data collection to document cases and extend our un­
customers. Moore suggests shifting the locus of strategic analysis from a
derstanding on this matter.
firm's industry to its business ecosystem that crosses various industries.
Three specific relationships could be observed in/among/between
Firms cooperate and compete within an ecosystem, while ecosystems
the industries we selected. First, we looked for industries where an
compete against each other. He sees such ecosystems evolving from a
ecosystem and a supply chain could coexist and compete. Then we
dispersed group of organizations to a more structured community.
looked for industries where an ecosystem of service providers could
Throughout the lifecycle of an ecosystem (Moore, 1993) firms jointly
complement a supply chain that delivers a product. Finally, we looked
define new value propositions, collaborate to scale up supply, and
for industries where an ecosystem could design technologies that are
improve the complete offer together before searching for opportunities
later assembled by a supply chain. The analysis of these three relation­
to renew their value propositions. Throughout this lifecycle, firms also
ships led us to develop three more propositions. Table 2 provides details
compete as they protect their ideas from others, focus on defeating
on the interviews conducted to develop the cases. All interviews were
imitations, and try to maximize their profit share and to create entry
aimed at describing how the ecosystem and the supply chain function
barriers to protect their positions. The broad and dynamic strategic
and relate and they all lasted 30 to 45 min.
perspective proposed by Moore has resonated with practitioners since
his first papers.
3. Ecosystems: A systematic review of the literature
Iansiti and Levien (2002, 2004a, 2004b), Iansiti & Lakhani (2017)
have broadened Moore's perspective. For them, the success of a firm
3.1. Stage one: The ecosystem as an interpretative lens
depends on the success of its business ecosystem, which extends beyond
the boundaries of its industry. They define ecosystems as a large number
Ecosystems and more specifically business ecosystems have emerged
of loosely interconnected participants who depend on each other for
in the normative literature as an interpretative lens used to strategize
their mutual effectiveness and survival. Ecosystems can even bring

3
H. Legenvre et al.
together hundreds of organizations in the design, production, distribu­
tion, or implementation of even a single product (Iansiti & Levien,
2004a, 2004b). This includes immediate suppliers, partners and cus­
tomers together with more distant technology providers or regulatory
agencies. From a strategic standpoint, systematically identifying other
organizations critical to a firm's current and future success is essential.
Within an ecosystem, firms can take on diverse roles. One role is the
keystone or hub organization which captures a significant share of value
across the ecosystem by promoting its health and stability. The keystone
organization cultivates the ecosystem's attractiveness by offering other
firms some means of being productive and successful.
In summary, Moore (1993, 1996, 2006) together with Iansiti and
Levien (2002, 2004a, 2004b), Iansiti and Levien (2017, 2018) have
established the concept of the business ecosystem. Their contribution is
first centred on performing strategic analysis. Business ecosystems are
an interpretative lens that identifies strategic interdependencies across
multiple organizations spanning multiple industries. These authors
suggest that strategic actions can be undertaken throughout the lifecycle
of an ecosystem and that key roles, such as keystone or hub organiza­
tions, can be adopted within an ecosystem. They also highlight the
importance of nurturing the ecosystem attractiveness.
3.2. Stage two: Ecosystems become a prime theoretical concept
Ecosystems become a prime theoretical concept in the papers of
Teece (2007) and Adner and Kapoor (2010). In his description of the
micro foundations of the capabilities necessary to sustain a firm's su­
perior performance, Teece (2007) offered a key role to business eco­
systems in the strategy theory. First, the business ecosystem and more
specifically its periphery are the locus of a firm's search activities: dy­
namic capabilities facilitate access to complementary capabilities across
an ecosystem. Second, in line with evolutionary economics (Nelson &
Winter, 2004), a business ecosystem acts, in part, as a selection envi­
ronment for firms and their strategies. According to Teece (2007), some
business models will be better adapted to an ecosystem than others.
Finally, strong dynamic capabilities shape business ecosystems through
collaboration with customers, suppliers, other service or technology
providers and institutions. Teece does not contrast ecosystems with
supply chains but with Chandlerian vertically integrated firms. Vertical
integration is described as an ecosystem internalized within a firm.
Teece (2012) suggests that one of the pre-requisites for ecosystems is the
presence of firms willing to step inside those ecosystems. A second pre-
requisite for ecosystems is modularity; a synonym of standardized in­
terfaces that enable development to take place outside of a firm.
Consequently, a firm that is in a position to manage an ecosystem can
maximize its ability to capture value by deciding which activities must
be internalized, and which are best supported externally.
Adner and Kapoor (2010) contribute to carve a space for ecosystems
within the innovation literature by showing impacts on performance.
Fig. 1. Components and complements based on Adner and Kapoor (2010).
4
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100029
They describe ecosystems as combining both suppliers and com­
plementors (see Fig. 1). Suppliers provide the components that are in­
tegrated in a firm's product, while complementors provide product
complements to the product clients. A classic example of a com­
plementor for plane manufacturers is airports. Plane manufacturers sell
their products to airlines who use them in conjunction with airports.
Through the study of a single industry over 43 years - the semi­
conductor lithography equipment industry - Adner and Kapoor (2010)
show that technology leaders enhance their competitive advantage
when suppliers innovate, while they see their competitive advantage
eroded when complementors innovate. This study positions ecosystems
within academic literature by suggesting a significant distinction be­
tween suppliers and complementors in terms of performance impact.
Adner and Kapoor (2010) encourage practitioners to create innovation
with complementors. Their study describes ecosystems as encompassing
suppliers, and focuses attention on complementors.
Teece (2007, 2012, 2018a) as well as Adner and Kapoor (2010) have
significantly contributed to position the ecosystem as a prime theoretical
concept. Suppliers remain part of a firm's ecosystem in these contribu­
tions, but complementors take a more central position within the
ecosystem theory for Adner and Kapoor (2010).
3.3. Stage three: Ecosystems meet the empirical world
The contributions of Gawer and Cusumano (2014) and of Thomas,
Autio, and Gann (2014) anchored ecosystems within a specific empirical
phenomenon: the emergence of platforms. For Gawer and Cusumano
(2014) platforms facilitate the generation of a very large number of
products or services. Complementors provide products and services that
tap into the resources offered by the platform to deliver value to their
users. For instance, Android is a platform available on many mobile
phones. Application developers leverage Android shared resources to
offer their application to mobile phone owners. The application devel­
oper is a complementor.
Such platforms benefit from network effects; as new complement
providers and users join the ecosystem, further incentives to join the
ecosystem are created. A platform strategy requires a modular archi­
tecture that enables innovation by complement providers. Gawer and
Cusumano (2014) consider that leading such an ecosystem requires
creating a ‘vibrant coalition’ with mutually beneficial relationships
among participants that cannot be reduced to effective pricing. Gawer
and Cusumano (2014) also describe what they refer to as a supply chain
platform with a modular architecture allowing other firms to supply
intermediate products or components to the final product assembler.
Consequently, platforms are associated with complement providers
while supply chains are associated with component providers.
Thomas et al. (2014) associate the words platform and ecosystem.
Their concept of platform ecosystem is comparable to the Gawer and
Cusumano (2014) platform. The platform owners create a design that is
both dominant and offers a standard allowing other firms in the
ecosystem to create and sell access to valuable and mutually beneficial
complementary assets. Gawer and Cusumano (2014) describe the plat­
form ecosystem as broader than a product family based on a common
supply-chain because of the integration of independent complements.
In the articles by Gawer and Cusumano (2014) and Thomas et al.
(2014) the ecosystem becomes a set of complement providers organized
around a platform. In this third stage, literature on Platforms has
anchored of ecosystem in the objective world. Ecosystem is no longer a
strategic interpretative lens but an objective reality. Ecosystems are
associated with complement providers while supply chains are associ­
ated with component providers.
3.4. Stage four: Ecosystems become an objective reality
At this stage, ecosystems are regarded as a prime theoretical concept
anchored in a reality and no longer as an interpretative lens used to
H. Legenvre et al. Digital Business 2 (2022) 100029

strategize across industries. Consequently, scholars have redefined Table 3

ecosystems as governance mechanisms that orchestrate relationships How ecosystems and supply chains relate in the ecosystem literature.
across organizations. Building on the previous stage, Jacobides, Gawer Stage What is an ecosystem? How do ecosystems and supply
and Cennamo wrote a theoretical paper entitled “Towards a theory of chains relate?
ecosystems” (Jacobides et al., 2018) in which they describe ecosystems Stage It is an interpretative lens, a mental Suppliers are included in a firm's
as a form of governance. These authors have developed theoretical 1 model used to strategize across ecosystem
perspectives on what makes ecosystems different from alternative types industries
of governance including supply chains. We will focus on the contribu­ Stage It is a prime theoretical concept for Suppliers are included in a firm's
2 dynamic capabilities and an ecosystem, but the role of
tions of Adner (2017) and Jacobides et al. (2018). explanatory factor of firm complementors is increasingly seen
Adner (2017) considers ecosystems as a structure that is distinct from performance as central in ecosystems
others by looking at the function fulfilled by the ecosystem. He moves Stage It is a set of complement providers Suppliers are no longer mentioned
away from the platform-centric perspective to define ecosystems as a 3 organized around a platform as ecosystem participants
Ecosystems encompass
means to innovation, as a structure allowing interactions across multiple
heterogeneous yet interdependent
partners, who together create a value proposition. Multilateral gover­ complement providers who
nance differs from a supply chain structure as the relationships within leverage the platform shared
such an ecosystem cannot be reduced to a set of bilateral interactions. He resources to create and capture
also highlights that in supply chains, the positions of the actors are value
Stage It is a governance form distinct Supply chains and ecosystems differ
accepted: “there is active bargaining on terms, there is acceptance of posi­ 4 from industries, value chains or as supply chains are characterized
tions: Who is upstream (supplier) and who is downstream (buyer) is not supply chains by bilateral contracts that govern
contested.” He therefore reduces supply chain management to a coordi­ price and quantities while
nation challenge within an established structure. Nevertheless, by ecosystems are characterized by
non-contractual forms of
focusing on the creation of a value proposition, Adner shows that three
governance
firms A, B and C can form an ecosystem to collaborate on the creation of
a value proposition. However, to deliver this value proposition, they
could later adopt the bilateral relationship model that we find in a source communities, Apps based on Apple iOS or Android, Video Games
supply chain; Firms B and C could deliver a subsystem to A, which could and ecosystems with installation providers.
then integrate their subsystem in a product delivered to the final clients.
Jacobides et al. (2018) describe ecosystems as a specific form of 4. How ecosystems and supply chains differ theoretically:
governance by characterizing the nature of the interdependencies Critical discussion of the backbone papers
among the participating firms. Ecosystems coordinate non generic
complement providers thanks to a modular architecture. Markets are the The following section offers a critical discussion of the literature on
best place to handle generic complementarity. Users can purchase their ecosystems. It focuses on differences between ecosystems and supply
teabags, water and cups on separate markets. In an ecosystem, the chains. This leads us to formulate four propositions. First, a common
modular architecture allows complementors to retain some residual denominator across the different stages of ecosystem conceptualizations
control over their assets and they can charge prices independently of described above is the very dynamic business environment in which
each other. Prices and quantities are not governed by bilateral contracts ecosystems operate. This environment is characterized by complex and
between the complementor and a hub firm as in a supply chain. rapidly evolving technical systems. Iansiti and Levien (2002) describe a
Consequently, non-contractual mechanisms are required to govern the computing industry where hundreds of continuously innovating orga­
ecosystem and to secure more final users and customers for the group nizations are involved in the design, production, and distribution of
(Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018). Additionally, as investments made by single products. Adopting a logic of unilateral control over other firms,
complementors are specific to a certain architecture they cannot be the dominant logic in supply chains becomes unachievable here. Firms
easily redeployed elsewhere without cost. therefore adopt a logic of co-creation with a large variety of com­
Adner (2017) and Jacobides et al. (2018) have developed theoretical plementors leading to the development of ecosystems composed of
perspectives on what makes ecosystems different from markets, supply heterogeneous, but interdependent organizations that span different
chains and other forms of governance. Adner (2017) focuses on inno­ industries. Ecosystems differ from supply chains where, even though
vation, focal value proposition and multilateral dependencies. Jacobides some conceptualizations have described supply networks as complex
et al. (2018) focus on firms, strategies and the nature of complemen­ adaptive systems, the dominant logic remains the control of key
tarity. However, both highlight ecosystems as a form of governance that resources.
cannot be reduced to bilateral contracts (Adner, 2017) and more spe­ Our first proposition is therefore formally stated in what follows.
cifically contracts that govern price and quantities (Jacobides et al.,
Proposition One. ecosystems are effective governance mecha­
2018). As suggested by Thomas and Autio (2019) “What ultimately
nisms for dynamic business environments with complex and
distinguishes innovation ecosystems relative to other constructs is that
rapidly evolving technical systems, whereas supply chains are
the relationships between ecosystem participants are not wholly
effective governance mechanisms for more predictable business
contractually defined, nor are they necessarily hierarchical”.
environments where a firm can exert significant control over key
The ecosystem concept emerged in the strategy and management
resources along a supply chain.
literature in the 90s. Despite its apparent simplicity, it has gone through
successive re-conceptualizations over time. It was first introduced as a As we have seen in the review of the backbone papers, ecosystems
mental representation and an interpretative lens for strategic thinking. It are associated with the platform business model. Platforms are charac­
has now become an institutionalized reality and a specific form of terized by complex, continuously evolving and modular technical sys­
governance that exists in the objective world. Table 3 summarizes the tems with a sizable degree of openness (Boudreau, 2010; Gawer &
four stages and describes how ecosystems and supply chains relate to Cusumano, 2014). Modularity and openness provide the means to easily
each other in each of the stages. mix and match diverse resources together (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014).
Our discussion of the above literature review can now be structured Typically, a digital platform is composed of open-source software pro­
around our two research questions. This discussion builds on anecdotal jects and cloud computing resources. Such blocks of technology keep
evidence from sectors and ecosystems mentioned by Jacobides et al. evolving and new versions can be interconnected with existing ones
(2018). These include: IoT product systems, innovation contests, Open- thanks to the modular architecture of the digital infrastructure.

5
H. Legenvre et al.
On the contrary, firms which exert control over key resources along a
supply chain tend to develop offerings made of proprietary resources
and interfaces (Teece, 2007). While firms might favour modularity to
achieve economies of scale (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014), they try to limit
the possibilities for complementors to openly access their products.
Typically, a battery manufacturer provides mobile phone companies
with hard to imitate proprietary components. Having proprietary com­
ponents that cannot be easily interchanged facilitates extracting value
from the product. Additionally, leading mobile phone manufacturers
tend to impose proprietary interfaces to extract more value from ac­
cessories and repair activities.
Our second proposition is therefore formally stated in what follows..
Proposition Two. Ecosystems support platforms built around
modular technical systems with a sizable degree of openness,
whereas supply chains support products characterized by pro­
prietary resources and interfaces.
Adner (2017), Jacobides et al. (2018) and Thomas and Autio (2019)
claim that ecosystem governance cannot be reduced to bilateral con­
tracts. Jacobides et al. (2018) associate supply chains with bilateral
contracts that govern price and quantity (Jacobides et al., 2018). While
these research associate supply chain with arms-length market trans­
action, contracts also provide incentive and control mechanisms that
reduce the risks associated with market transactions (Noteboom, 1996).
As bilateral contracts also exist within ecosystems, we need to clarify
their role. Bilateral contracts established between platform owners and
complementors allow platforms to establish the access conditions to the
platform and to capture value. In the video game industry, which is a
prolific source of data for research on platforms and ecosystems (Cen­
namo & Santalo, 2013; Ozalp, Cennamo, & Gawer, 2018;), multiple
types of contracts and legally binding agreements exist between the
platforms and the complement providers. Contracts formalize the access
conditions to a platform (Boudreau, 2010) including revenue sharing
schemes by which the platform takes a share of the sales made by
complement providers. Contracts also govern access to resources such as
development kits and certification schemes used by developers to ensure
technical inter-operability and to force complementors to respect certain
rules. Finally, contracts provide access to marketing services offered by
the platform as a complementary offering to regulate for instance how
the brand of the platform can be used by complementors and can also to
specify access conditions to specific advertising solutions for com­
plementors. Similar types of binding agreements exist for mobile apps
(Oh, Koh, & Raghunathan, 2015).
Platforms can collect revenue from complementors using these
contracts. In return, platforms grant complementors access to the shared
resources provided by the platform while maintaining some technical
and commercial controls.
Our third proposition is therefore formally stated in what follows.
Proposition Three. In a supply chain, bilateral contracts govern
the price, quantity and risk associated with market exchanges,
whereas in ecosystems bilateral contracts govern a broader set of
access conditions to the platform.
Jacobides et al. (2018) and Thomas and Autio (2019) reduce supply
chains to arm's length bilateral contracts. However, supply chains can
also display non-contractual forms of governance, especially for the key
relationships that govern access to specific assets and dependency
situations.
Scholars have used the social capital theory developed by Nahapiet
and Ghoshal (1998) to show the impact of non-contractual mechanisms
on performance in supply chains (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Krause, Hand­
field, & Tyler, 2007; Kwon & Suh, 2004; Li, Ye, & Sheu, 2014; Matthews
& Marzec, 2012). Social capital theory includes three mechanisms: first,
structural aspects as the strength of ties in a supply network can be
reinforced though socialization and information exchange; second,
relational aspects as the quality of inter-firm relationships can be
6
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100029
reinforced by trust building mechanisms; and third, cognitive aspects as
some activities can favour the emergence of shared goals, norms and a
common language. While non-contractual governance in supply chains
strengthens relationships with a few key suppliers to address asset
specificity situations and dependency risks, non-contractual governance
in ecosystems aims to attract a multitude of complementors to enhance
the value of the ecosystem. Within an ecosystem, non-contractual
mechanisms are used to attract complementors so they participate in
the ecosystem and enhance the value of the platform's shared asset
(Cennamo & Santaló, 2019), the collective value of the platform and its
ecosystem. As Google provides Android to many mobile phone manu­
facturers, it is rather easy to promote the value of the Android ecosystem
to developers. As mobile phone companies use Android, developers can
be sure that their applications will be accessible to many users. Other
trust building mechanisms can include visibility given to the launch of
high-profile games on a gaming platform. Therefore, further users can be
attracted to the platform and its reputation enhanced (Rietveld, Schil­
ling, & Bellavitis, 2019). Similarly, in open-source ecosystems, many
participants invest in promoting the value of the project they contribute
to. As high-profile members join an open-source project extensive
communication takes place which reinforces the trust of ecosystem
participants. Trust building mechanisms foster the development of
shared goals and create a sense of reciprocal obligation.
Our fourth proposition is therefore formally stated in what follows.
Proposition Four. Non-contractual governance in an ecosystem
aims to attract numerous complement providers who collectively
increase the value of the platform's shared assets, whereas non-
contractual governance in supply chains focuses on a limited
number of key suppliers by positively impacting investment in
specific assets.
Our systematic review of the literature enabled us to understand the
evolution of the ecosystem concept. We then critically reviewed the use
of non-contractual governance for both ecosystems and supply chains.
Our first four propositions […]. Based on the above four propositions we
conclude that ecosystems are best suited for dynamic business envi­
ronments and rapidly evolving technical systems. Ecosystems support
platforms built around modular technical systems with a sizable degree
of openness. In ecosystems, bilateral contracts govern access conditions
to the platform. Non-contractual governance in an ecosystem aims to
attract numerous complement providers who collectively increase the
value of the platform's shared assets.
Supply chains are best suited for predictable business environments.
Supply chains support products characterized by proprietary resources
and interfaces. In a supply chain, bilateral contracts govern prices and
quantities. Non-contractual governance in supply chains focuses on a
limited number of key suppliers by positively impacting investment in
specific assets.
The four propositions are summarized in Table 4, which compares
ecosystems and supply chains from a theoretical standpoint.
5. How ecosystems and supply chains relate practically
Two forms of governance can differ theoretically, but they can relate
practically. Therefore, even if ecosystems and supply chains differ in
theory, practically they can relate. We have identified three types of
relationships between ecosystems and supply chains. First, ecosystems
and supply chains can coexist and compete. Second, an ecosystem can
complement a supply chain by delivering multiple services after a
product is sold on a market. Third, a supply chain can complement an
ecosystem by mixing and matching technologies within a product. In
such cases the ecosystem develops the technologies. We use short cases
from diverse industries that were developed out of interviews and sec­
ondary data to show that such relationships exist. We also suggest some
of the conditions allowing practical relationships between ecosystems
and supply chains to emerge. Then we develop three additional
H. Legenvre et al. Digital Business 2 (2022) 100029

Table 4 Eisenhardt (2018). Among the firms they studied, the product (solar
How supply chains and ecosystems differ. panels) does not provide differentiation factors. The source of market
ECOSYSTEM SUPPLY CHAIN advantages comes from the relationships with complementors who
provide sales, financing and installation solutions. Among the five
Environment Governance mechanism for Governance mechanism for
dynamic business predictable business competing firms studied in the research, the two which experienced
environments characterized environments where a firm rapid growth had either invested in complementors or established
by complex and rapidly can exert significant control partnerships with large and successful complementors. Other firms
evolving technical systems. over key resources along a which had kept an arm's length relationship with some of the com­
supply chain.
Offering Platforms, modular technical Product characterized by
plementors did not experience growth. In this case, the two governance
systems with a sizable degree proprietary resources and forms (i.e., supply chains and ecosystems) exist during a transitory phase
of openness interfaces until one gains a dominant position on the market. Consequently, an
Role of contractual Govern access to platforms Govern price, quantity, and ecosystem can compete with supply chains at least during a transition
governance and their shared resources risk along the supply chain
period.
mechanism
Role of non- Attract large number of Manage access to specific Our fifth proposition is therefore formally stated in what follows..
contractual complementors assets with a limited number
Proposition Five. Practically, supply chains and ecosystems can
governance within the ecosystem. of key suppliers
mechanism Enhance the collective value Allow privileged access to coexist and compete in a market. This is possible either during a
of the platform and its shared key resources by the buying transition period until a dominant form of governance emerges, or
assets firm. it can endure as none of the governance mechanisms represent a
distinctive advantage on the market.
propositions. The short cases were developed through the compilation of In the second relation, we looked at how an ecosystem can comple­
secondary data from trade magazines or company websites. They were ment a supply chain along two stages of a product lifecycle. During the
then completed with interviews of industry representatives. For the 3D first stage, a firm establishes a supply chain to design and deliver specific
modelling, animation, and game design case we interviewed a software products to clients. In the second stage, services complementary to the
developer and a user of these products. For the automotive case we product are offered to clients by an ecosystem of firms. In line with our
interviewed three industry representatives: one executive from an OEM, first three propositions, this ecosystem is characterized by a wide array
one from a first-tier supplier and a garage manager. For the RISC V of complementors and by shared resources used by these com­
ecosystem, seven interviews were conducted with different ecosystem plementors. To study this practical relationship, we looked for empirical
members. The interviews were used for another research project fully evidence within an industry where multiple service providers are
focused on the RISC V ecosystem. The interviews lasted between 30 and needed to either install or maintain the product after it was delivered to
90 min. The number of interviews and their length were commensurate the client. We found that within the automotive industry, the design
with the complexity of each ecosystem and supply chain, and the depth manufacturing and sales of new vehicles are performed by a supply
of analysis we needed to achieve. chain, whereas aftermarket activities are performed by an ecosystem of
In this software segment, many product benchmarks and product complementors. Gawer and Cusumano (2014) suggest that the supply
comparisons available online show that Cinema 4D from Maxon and chain characterizes the automotive industry. A new vehicle results from
Blender are competing options for users. Cinema 4D is sold by a com­ a complex division of labour along a supply chain where car manufac­
pany named Maxon, which has established a supply chain to deliver the turers have multiple first-tier suppliers and these suppliers in turn have
product to users. Maxon use bilateral contracts to hire resources to work multiple suppliers of components and raw materials. Supply chains
on the development of the software and then they can sell the software design and deliver new vehicles whereas the automotive aftermarket is
to a distributor who can package it for clients along with additional organized differently. Multiple firms complement the vehicles delivered
services. In the same product and market segment, Blender is an open- by car makers by offering repair and maintenance services. The auto­
source software that leverages an ecosystem. In 2002, the “Free motive aftermarket is best described as an ecosystem that is comprised
Blender” crowdsourcing campaign orchestrated by the non-profit of a diverse group of complementors. Hammant, Disney, Childerhouse,
Blender Foundation collected €100,000 allowing to release Blender as and Naim (1999) and Breitschwerdt, Cornet, Kempf, Michor, and
a community based open-source project. Add-ons are created by an Schmidt (2017) have shown that complementors include aftermarket
ecosystem made up of individuals, but a few companies, such as Ubisoft parts providers, accessories providers, wholesalers, local retailers, fast
and Epic Games or organizations such as NASA, also use Blender and fit solution providers, independent garages, and specialist garages.
contribute to its development. Our analysis of Maxon and Blender shows During the design of a vehicle the car maker contracts with a few first-
that a supply chain (Maxon) and an ecosystem (Blender) can compete. tier suppliers that design and produce parts which are integrated in
None of these organizations have yet created decisive advantages in the vehicle. However, the first-tier suppliers create and control the
terms of cost or in functionalities offered to clients. Consequently, no complementary diagnostic equipment, software, and tools necessary to
governance form has the upper hand. Neither collective shared assets, diagnose and repair a vehicle in the aftermarket. Thanks to the control of
nor investment in complementary assets create advantages. Two these capabilities, first-tier suppliers can develop and orchestrate a large
different governance forms can therefore coexist. This is best described group of partners which deliver complementary services. The ecosystem
as the result of a historical development and of path dependence pro­ of complementors uses the brand, equipment, software, and tools pro­
cesses. The two governance forms have evolved differently, but neither vided by the first-tier supplier to deliver maintenance and repair ser­
has a dominant position. A specialist of this software, who we inter­ vices, which allows the first-tier supplier to capture a solid share of the
viewed, commented on the case: “You will find some people who are automotive aftermarket.
very keen to have an open-source model available on the market and Our sixth proposition is therefore formally stated in what follows.
others who have been trained on a proprietary software and would never
Proposition Six. Ecosystems and supply chains can coexist and
consider to switch to another tool. This creates two communities that in
complement each other within a product lifecycle. An ecosystem
some ways ignore each other.” The co-existence of two different forms of
can deliver services after a product is sold on a market. This is
governance is a path dependency in governance structures; a phenom­
possible as complementary capabilities provide the meansto
enon identified by Heide (1994) and De Reuver and Bouwman (2012).
establish an ecosystem of partners.
A second source of anecdotal evidence is provided by the study of the
transformation in the nascent solar panel industry by Hannah and In the third relation we looked at how supply chains can complement

7
H. Legenvre et al.
an ecosystem along two stages of a product lifecycle. During the first
stage, an ecosystem of firms collaborates on technology development
activities. In the second stage, firms assemble multiple products from
this pool of technologies. In line with our first three propositions, the
ecosystem is characterized by a wide array of complementors which
create shared resources, and technologies that are accessible to all users
and complementors. We considered some ecosystems that are classified
as production side ecosystems by Jacobides et al. (2018). We found that
within the IoT and the processor sectors, the development of a tech­
nology can be performed by an ecosystem, whereas the product design
and manufacturing is performed by a supply chain.
According to Teece (2018b), in the digital economy, enabling tech­
nologies and standards serves as the foundation for multiple applica­
tions across industries. Therefore, when such enabling technologies and
standards are developed by an ecosystem, multiple supply chains can
subsequently be designed. The Internet of Things is one instance of low-
power wide-area networks; where technologies can be interfaced around
standards to create a broad diversity of applications including precision
agriculture, intelligent logistics, smart infrastructures, utilities, and
cities. The ecosystem designs the technological foundations on which a
specific product architecture can be developed. One of our informants
told us that in this field, it is very important to test the interoperability of
different technologies prior to the development of applications. The
ecosystem provides an open architecture together with some key hard­
ware and software components, so new supply chains can be built upon
them to provide specific applications.
Another example of enabling technologies comes from the micro­
processor industry where over 2000 firms and organizations have
established an ecosystem that creates complementary technologies to
the RISC V open standard; an instruction set architecture for processors.
In this case, the ecosystem designs multiple complementary technolo­
gies to the standard, and these are later mixed and matched to deliver a
wide array of domain-specific processors. Technologies are created by
the ecosystem whereas the final products and applications are integrated
in, and delivered, by supply chains.
Our seventh proposition is therefore formally stated in what follows..
Proposition Seven. Ecosystems and supply chains coexist and
complement each other by having an ecosystem that designs
technologies which are later delivered by supply chains. This is
possible as multiple technologies can be mixed and matched to
create a wide array of applications.
Fig. 2. How ecosystems and supply chains relate practically.
8
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100029
The three propositions are summarized in Fig. 2. Supply chains are
represented by the three triangles and ecosystems by the multiple cir­
cles. The three diagrams illustrate the three propositions described
above. First, supply chains and ecosystems can coexist and compete
within a market either during a transition period or for a longer time if
none of the governance mechanisms provides a distinctive advantage on
this market. Second, an ecosystem can complement a supply chain after
a product is sold on a market. This requires controlling the comple­
mentary capabilities necessary to establish an ecosystem of partners.
Finally, a supply chain can complement an ecosystem. The ecosystem
designs technologies that are later mixed and matched along a supply
chain to create a wide array of applications.
6. Managerial implications
Some managerial recommendations can be derived from the present
investigation of how ecosystems and supply chains differ theoretically
and relate practically. As many companies focus on leveraging digital
technologies to move from a product strategy to a platform strategy, we
position our managerial implication within this context. We invite ex­
ecutives who operate supply chains to review the complete lifecycle of
their products and assess where, along their supply chain, digital tech­
nologies can create a dynamic business environment characterized by
complex and rapidly evolving technical systems. They can then assess
opportunities to leverage an ecosystem. First, they should assess if they
can convince many firms to collaborate around an open architecture to
design technologies that are accessible to all. Second, they can assess if
they can control the capabilities required to build a platform and
orchestrate a wide ecosystem of complementors. If they comply with one
of the criteria above, they need to design effective governance mecha­
nisms. To orchestrate the ecosystem, they should first be prepared to use
contractual governance to control access to the shared resources of the
platform. Second, they should be prepared to use a non-contractual form
of governance, such as social capital to attract a large number of com­
plementors within the ecosystem and enhance the collective value of the
platform and its shared assets.
7. Conclusion
Moore's (1993) concept of the ecosystem has shaped the language of
practitioners. They have used this semantic resource to broaden the
locus of their strategic analysis beyond single industries. The emergence
of platforms has anchored ecosystems in a reality made of open in­
terfaces and complementors. Recently, scholars have carved a specific
conceptual space for ecosystems among other forms of governance
structures. Our article contributes to this effort by offering seven specific
propositions that illustrate how ecosystems and supply chains differ
theoretically and relate practically.
The seven propositions were developed over a two-stage research
process. First, we performed a systematic literature review to analyse the
evolution of the ecosystem concept. This allowed us to describe how
ecosystems and supply chains relate theoretically throughout this evo­
lution. Our first four propositions were developed according to a dis­
cussion on how non-contractual governance applies to both ecosystems
and supply chains. Second, thanks to interviews and secondary data
collection, we documented cases that illustrate how the concept of
ecosystems and supply chains relate practically. Consequently, another
three propositions were then developed.
Our findings can be summarized as follows. Ecosystems are gover­
nance mechanisms that are well fitted to dynamic business environ­
ments and rapidly evolving technical systems. Ecosystems are at the core
of platforms that are built around modular technical systems with a
sizable degree of openness. Within ecosystems, bilateral contracts
govern access conditions to the platform while non-contractual gover­
nance increases the value of the platform's shared assets by attracting
numerous complement providers. On the other hand, supply chains are
H. Legenvre et al.
governance mechanisms that are well fitted to predictable business en­
vironments. Supply chains support products characterized by pro­
prietary resources and interfaces. Within a supply chain, bilateral
contracts govern prices and quantities while non-contractual gover­
nance has a positive impact on investment in specific assets by a limited
number of key suppliers.
We also identified three situations where ecosystems and supply
chains relate practically. First, supply chains and ecosystems can co-
exist within a market during a transition period or if none of the
governance mechanisms provides a distinctive advantage on this mar­
ket. Second, an ecosystem can complement a supply chain after a
product is sold on a market, which requires controlling the comple­
mentary capabilities necessary to establish a broad ecosystem of part­
ners. Finally, a supply chain can complement an ecosystem, in which
players design technologies that are later mixed and matched along a
supply chain to create a wide array of applications.
We believe that our study can help practitioners understand the
nature and characteristics of ecosystems and supply chains. Most
importantly, our contribution can help them understand some of the
implications of adopting and participating in new modes of governance.
As open-source software and hardware ecosystems play an increasingly
important role in the diffusion of digital technology, we believe that it is
particularly important to understand the role of ecosystems in technol­
ogy development and supply chains.
Finally, both our discussion of the literature and the evidence gath­
ered highlight the need to further understand how ecosystems and
supply chains relate. More research is needed to study such relationships
and their impact on the functioning and the performance of ecosystems
and supply chains.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. AMR, 27,
17–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.5922314
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of
Management, 43, 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the
structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new
technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 306–333. https://doi.org/
10.1002/smj.821
Autio, E., & Thomas, L. D. W. (2018). Ecosystem value co-creation. Proceedings, 2018,
15913. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.15913abstract
Boudreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs.
Devolving Control. Management Science, 56, 1849–1872. https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.1100.1215
Breitschwerdt, D., Cornet, A., Kempf, S., Michor, L., & Schmidt, M. (2017). The changing
aftermarket game–and how automotive suppliers can benefit from arising
opportunities. McKinsey., 1–36.
Cennamo, C., & Santalo, J. (2013). Platform competition: Strategic trade-offs in platform
markets. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 1331–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/
smj.2066
Cennamo, C., & Santaló, J. (2019). Generativity tension and value creation in platform
ecosystems. Organization Science, 30, 617–641. https://doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.2018.1270
Choi, T. Y., Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks and complex
adaptive systems: Control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19,
351–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(00)00068-1
Colicchia, C., & Strozzi, F. (2012). Supply chain risk management: A new methodology
for a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal.. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211246558
Coombes, P. H., & Nicholson, J. D. (2013). Business models and their relationship with
marketing: A systematic literature review. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5),
656–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.05.005
De Marchi, V., Di Maria, E., Golini, R., & Perri, A. (2020). Nurturing international
business research through global value chains literature: A review and discussion of
future research opportunities. International Business Review, 29(5). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101708
9
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100029
De Reuver, M., & Bouwman, H. (2012). Governance mechanisms for mobile service
innovation in value networks. Journal of Business Research, 65, 347–354. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.04.016
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jpim.12105
Hammant, J., Disney, S. M., Childerhouse, P., & Naim, M. M. (1999). Modelling the
consequences of a strategic supply chain initiative of an automotive aftermarket
operation. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 29,
535–550. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039910287501
Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018). How firms navigate cooperation and
competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 3163–3192.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2750
Heide, J. B. (1994). Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. Journal of
Marketing, 58, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800106
Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for
profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47,
1391–1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.019
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2002). Keystones and Dominators, 83.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004a). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of
business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston, Mass:
Harvard Business School Press.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004b). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3),
68–78.
Iansiti, Marco, & Lakhani, karim (2017). Managing Our Hub Economy. Harvard Business
Review.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems.
Strategic Management Journal, 39, 2255–2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904
Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Hult, G. T. M. (2007). Bridging organization theory and supply
chain management: The case of best value supply chains. Journal of Operations
Management, 25(2), 573–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.010
Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a
systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96, 118–121. https://doi.
org/10.1177/014107680309600304
Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Tyler, B. B. (2007). The relationships between supplier
development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance
improvement. Journal of Operations Management, Special Issue Evolution of the Field of
Operations Management SI/ Special Issue Organisation Theory and Supply Chain
Management, 25, 528–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.007
Kwon, I.-W. G., & Suh, T. (2004). Factors affecting the level of trust and commitment in
supply chain relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40, 4–14. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2004.tb00165.x
Li, Y., Ye, F., & Sheu, C. (2014). Social capital, information sharing and performance:
Evidence from China. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
34, 1440–1462. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2013-0132
Matthews, R. L., & Marzec, P. E. (2012). Social capital, a theory for operations
management: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Production
Research, 50, 7081–7099. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.617395
Miles, Raymond, & Snow, Charles (1986). Organizations: New Concepts for New Forms.
California Management Review, 28(3), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165202
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business
Review.
Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business
ecosystems (1st ed.). New York: HarperBusiness.
Moore, J. F. (2006). Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. The Antitrust
Bulletin, 51, 31–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X0605100103
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266. https://
doi.org/10.2307/259373
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2004). An evolutionary theory of economic change, digitally
(reprinted. ed.). Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press.
Noteboom, Bart (1996). Trust, Opportunism and Governance: A Process and Control
Model. Organization studies, 17(6), 985–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/
017084069601700605
Oh, J., Koh, B., & Raghunathan, S. (2015). Value appropriation between the platform
provider and app developers in Mobile platform mediated networks. Journal of
Information Technology, 30, 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.21
Ozalp, H., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Disruption in platform-based ecosystems.
Journal of Management Studies, 55, 1203–1241. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12351
Pathak, S. D., Day, J. M., Nair, A., Sawaya, W. J., & Kristal, M. M. (2007). Complexity and
adaptivity in supply networks: Building supply network theory using a complex
adaptive systems perspective. Decision Sciences, 38(4), 547–580. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00170.x
Rietveld, J., Schilling, M. A., & Bellavitis, C. (2019). Platform strategy: Managing
ecosystem value through selective promotion of complements. Organization Science.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1290
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations
of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28,
1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Teece, D. J. (2012). Next-generation competition: New concepts for understanding how
innovation shapes competition and policy in the digital economy. J.L. Econ. & Pol’y,
9, 97.
Teece, D. J. (2018a). Business ecosystem. In M. Augier, & D. J. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave
encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 151–154). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
H. Legenvre et al. Digital Business 2 (2022) 100029

Teece, D. J. (2018b). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling Thomas, L., & Autio, E. (2019). Innovation ecosystems. SSRN Journal.. https://doi.org/
technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research Policy, 10.2139/ssrn.3476925
47, 1367–1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.015 Thomas, L. D. W., Autio, E., & Gann, D. M. (2014). Architectural leverage: Putting
platforms in context. AMP, 28, 198–219. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0105

10