Guest editorial: Digital innovation ecosystem: profiting from technology in the era of twin transition Free

The convergence of digital transformation and sustainability imperatives, commonly termed the twin transition, is profoundly reshaping the way innovation is organized, governed and diffused across economies and societies (Cimino et al., 2025; Corvello et al., 2023). Within this changing landscape, the notion of digital innovation ecosystems (DIEs) has become central to understanding how diverse actors, ranging from established corporations and startups to universities, policymakers and civil society, co-create and capture value (Barile et al., 2025a, b). While innovation once could be treated as a firm-level or sectoral phenomenon, the complexity of the twin transition requires networked architectures of collaboration supported by innovative technology such as digital platforms and artificial intelligence (AI) tools and new governance arrangements (Barile et al., 2025a, b; Felicetti et al., 2024).

This Special Issue of the European Journal of Innovation Management, entitled Digital Innovation Ecosystem: Profiting from Technology in the Era of Twin Transition, aims to clarify these dynamics, to conceptualize their systemic properties and to explore their implications for theory, practice and policy.

The Special Issue brings together 12 contributions that collectively reflect the diversity of theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches and empirical contexts currently shaping the study of DIEs. The submissions employ qualitative case studies, bibliometric analyses, configurational methods such as fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), spatial econometrics, partial least square-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), integrative literature reviews, and SWOT/TOWS strategy design, among others. They also span a wide geographical scope, including Europe, China and international comparative cases, and cover a wide variety of organizational forms, from SMEs and startups to platform leaders and universities. This diversity is a strength reflecting the multifaceted nature of DIEs and underscores the importance of interdisciplinary and mixed-method approaches.

Three broad thematic clusters emerge across these contributions. The first cluster focuses on ecosystem strategies and digital orchestration, examining how hub firms and platforms govern relationships, orchestrate resources and shape value creation and capture in digital ecosystems. The second cluster addresses SMEs, startups and the twin transition, showing how smaller firms, often constrained by resources, are nonetheless vital drivers of sustainability and digital transformation through dynamic capabilities, ambidexterity and novel business models. The third cluster considers governance, policy and spatial ecosystems, situating DIEs within broader institutional and contextual environments shaped by policy mixes, universities, ethical and legal imperatives and regional dynamics. In the next section, a detailed description of each paper belonging to the cluster will be developed.

The twin transition, defined as the convergence of digital transformation and sustainability imperatives, is profoundly reshaping the economic and social landscape, increasingly becoming a strategic priority for policymakers worldwide (Faggian et al., 2025). In Europe, the concept has evolved into a “strong” combination designed to make the two transitions mutually reinforcing (Terzi et al., 2023). This transition demands fundamental changes in technologies, user practices and institutional arrangements, giving rise to new modes of production and consumption (Colovic et al., 2025).

Historically, the vertically integrated innovation model underwent a process of un-making (disassembly) (Langlois, 2003) from the late 20th century onward, paving the way for distributed innovation forms that blur organizational boundaries (Chesbrough, 2003; von Hippel, 2006; Ceccagnoli et al., 2012; Pujadas et al., 2024). Within this context, the business environment is increasingly recognized as a vital source of external value (Iansiti and Levien, 2004), acting as the space where innovation trajectories unfold (Pujadas et al., 2024).

Drawing on an ecological metaphor (Moore, 1993), the term ecosystem suggests that firms dynamically develop symbiotic relationships with other actors, co-evolving capabilities and roles (Nambisan, 2013; Nambisan and Baron, 2013). Ecosystem actors are inherently self-interested yet interdependent, jointly creating value (Bogers et al., 2019; Pujadas et al., 2024).

To understand value creation and capture (Teece, 1986) in this distributed context, the concept of DIEs has become central. DIEs are evolving assemblages of actors, activities and artefacts crucial for innovation performance (Khizar et al., 2025; Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020). Digital technologies—such as AI, big data, IoT, cloud computing and robotics—are integral components of DIEs, facilitating knowledge and resource exchange while enabling new business models (Barile et al., 2025a, b; Felicetti et al., 2024). The successful integration of the “Three As” —Actors, Activities and Artefacts—is considered key to establishing DIEs (Khizar et al., 2025).

Because ecosystems are not hierarchically managed, understanding the mechanisms that sustain relationships and coordinate action is fundamental. In this regard, interfaces play a structuring role, facilitating the integration of external sources of innovation (Pujadas et al., 2024). Historically, interfaces such as Web APIs have been conceptualized as design rules ensuring interoperability among independently developed modules, critical strategic tools for leading firms seeking to control access to complementary assets within platform ecosystems (Pujadas et al., 2024).

However, empirical research shows that Web APIs can also foster distributed network structures and enable decentralized governance. While Web APIs facilitate interorganizational co-production of services and products, they are also key sources of value creation and capture, often monetized through per-call service models. Because imitation of Web APIs by new entrants (e.g., Google in the travel sector) is relatively easy and connection costs to alternative APIs are low, suppliers and customers gain bargaining power (Porter, 2008). Consequently, Web APIs are ineffective as mechanisms for “locking in” complementors, encouraging competition as well as cooperation, and leading to processes of disintermediation and reintermediation. Sustainable competitive advantage thus depends less on data ownership and more on the ability to process and analyze data in real time to derive context-specific insights (Gregory et al., 2022).

DIEs do not evolve in isolation but are deeply embedded within institutional and contextual environments. Their performance, legitimacy and social contribution depend on governance architectures, policy mixes and ethical, legal, and social safeguards (ELSI) (Colovic et al., 2025). As a socio-technical transition, the twin transition requires institutional work, the intentional actions of individuals and organizations to create, maintain and transform institutions (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Public innovation intermediaries, such as European Digital Innovation Hubs (EDIHs), engage in this institutional work across cognitive, normative and regulatory dimensions, operating at organizational, network and ecosystem levels (Colovic et al., 2025).

Finally, a central challenge of this editorial lies in understanding profiting within a context where the impacts of the twin transition are heterogeneous and sometimes contradictory (Faggian et al., 2025; Bianchini et al., 2023). Empirical evidence from European regions reveals that while the development of environmental technologies reduces greenhouse gas emissions, the local growth of digital technologies, especially big data and computing infrastructure, can increase them due to high energy demands. Nonetheless, a crucial synergistic effect emerges: the environmental benefits of green technologies are stronger in regions rich in digital capabilities, and the harmful effects of digital technologies are weaker where green capacities are advanced (Bianchini et al., 2023).

This highlights the strategic need for a coherent twin transition, promoting an ICT-for-Green strategy to foster regional innovation and resilience (Faggian et al., 2025). The systemic complexity of the twin transition thus requires new architectures of collaboration and governance. While Web APIs facilitate the co-production of services and products across interorganizational networks, as demonstrated in the online travel ecosystem, it remains critical to understand how power asymmetries and the need for strategic orchestration shape profiting from these technologies, especially given their potential negative environmental impacts (e.g., increased emissions from computing infrastructure).

Accordingly, this Special Issue of the European Journal of Innovation Management, “Digital Innovation Ecosystem: Profiting from Technology in the Era of Twin Transition”, seeks to clarify these systemic dynamics by conceptualizing the properties of DIEs. The 12 included papers represent a diversity of theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches and empirical contexts. They are grouped into three central thematic areas that address the conceptual challenges discussed earlier:

1. Ecosystem Strategies and Digital Orchestration, examining how hub firms and platforms strategically govern relationships to create value;

2. SMEs, Startups and the Twin Transition within Innovation Ecosystem (IE), exploring the crucial role of smaller firms in driving sustainable innovation and

3. Governance, Policy and Spatial Ecosystems, analyzing how institutional environments, policy frameworks and ethical–legal–social safeguards (ELSI) define the performance and legitimacy of DIEs.

The following sections provide a detailed discussion of each of these contributions.

Based on the theoretical principles set out earlier, this section introduces the 12 papers comprising the Special Issue. Each paper makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of how DIEs evolve and function in the context of the twin transition. Table 1 provides an overview of all the contributions, summarizing their main objectives, methods and findings. These papers are organized into three thematic clusters that capture complementary yet interconnected dimensions of the DIE.

The first cluster, on ecosystem strategies and digital orchestration, captures the strategic essence of DIEs. At its core, this stream of research asks how ecosystems are deliberately structured, governed and reconfigured so that innovation and value creation can occur under the pressures of the twin transition. A central theme is that orchestration is not simply coordination: it is a strategic, staged and contested process that defines both who leads and how benefits are shared. Within this perspective, Jin and Sheng (2026) introduce the notion of Digital Ecosystem Orientation (DEO), conceptualized as a staged process by which hub firms evolve from dominance to cooperation and eventually to collaborative hybrid governance. This theoretical framework formalizes the sequencing logic through which firms orchestrate resources, establish digital identities and set ecological norms. It provides both scholars and practitioners with a roadmap to understand how orchestration evolves and why governance choices matter in the twin transition. Magro-Montero et al. (2026) complement this perspective with an in-depth study of Amazon's orchestration of third-party logistics providers in Spain and Portugal. Their analysis illustrates how value creation and capture in digital ecosystems are co-determined by orchestration, business models and sustainability pressures and also reveals the asymmetrical power exercised by dominant platforms. Song (2026) adds further nuance by examining multilateral relationships among complementors in platform ecosystems. Their findings reveal that both dependency and coopetition have inverted-U effects on low-carbon technology adoption, moderated by the architecture of the platform. This result challenges simplistic assumptions that “more cooperation” is always better, showing instead that optimal levels of interdependence and carefully designed architecture-strategy fit are required to accelerate sustainability-oriented adoption. Finally, Marchese et al. (2026) apply orchestration logic to a sectoral setting, the EdTech industry, where firms orchestrate digital technologies across ecosystem boundaries to develop dynamic capabilities. Their qualitative analysis highlights the generative, convergent and combinatorial roles of digital tools in strengthening sensing, seizing and transforming capabilities, underscoring the critical importance of digital skills and open innovation platforms in educational ecosystems.

Together, these contributions in this cluster show that ecosystem orchestration is neither a technical adjustment nor a one-size-fits-all formula. It is an evolving process that unfolds in stages, produces asymmetries of power and requires careful calibration between cooperation and competition, innovation and fairness, efficiency and sustainability.

The second cluster focuses on SMEs and startups as pivotal drivers of the twin transition. Unlike large hub firms, these organizations often lack abundant resources, yet their agility, entrepreneurial orientation and embeddedness in ecosystems make them crucial actors in advancing both digitalization and sustainability. The cluster collectively shows that transformation at the organizational level is not a linear trajectory but a set of contingent pathways, where dynamic capabilities, ambidexterity and ecosystem support structures enable smaller firms to overcome barriers and scale their contributions.

In line with this view, Burtscher et al. (2026) draw on 62 interviews with SMEs in Austria and Germany to apply fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, uncovering multiple equifinal pathways to successful twin transformation. They identify organizational culture, partnerships and technological readiness as central enablers and show how ecosystems provide vital support in overcoming financial and knowledge barriers. De Fano et al. (2026) further illuminate this theme by analyzing AI ambidexterity in SMEs within European Digital Innovation Hubs. Using PLS-SEM analysis of 102 firms, they show that balancing explorative and exploitative uses of AI enhances dynamic capabilities and drives competitive advantage. Building on the sustainability dimension, Cerchione et al. (2026) (EJIM-12-2024-1519) conduct a bibliometric and systematic review of circular startups, mapping their role within IEs. They demonstrate that such startups can catalyze environmental, technological and social innovation but face relational asymmetries when collaborating with incumbents. Their study sets out an agenda for targeted policy and financial support to help circular startups fulfill their transformative potential. Finally, Felicetti et al. (2026) make a conceptual contribution to this cluster by conducting a systematic review of the literature and developing a conceptual framework to examine the cooperation of startups and major businesses in asymmetric DIEs. Their research identifies four key areas—market entry strategies, innovation transfer, investment dynamics and collaborative development—shedding light on the manifestation and governance of asymmetries among actors, institutions and temporal contexts. Their 6 W approach (who, what, why, how, where, when) clarifies power dynamics, cultural compatibility and orchestration mechanisms, offering scholars and policymakers a multifaceted perspective to improve the design and support of these collaborations.

To summarize, this cluster illustrates that SMEs and startups are not passive recipients of digitalization and sustainability mandates but active navigators of transformation. Their pathways are diverse and contingent, reflecting equifinal routes rather than a single linear model. Capabilities, partnerships and supportive ecosystems are the keys to unlocking their potential. Thus, SMEs and startups embody the micro-dynamics of the twin transition: they reveal both the opportunities and the vulnerabilities of transformation processes, and they underscore the importance of inclusive and enabling ecosystem environments.

The third cluster examines governance, policy and spatial ecosystems, highlighting that DIEs never evolve in isolation but are deeply embedded in institutional and contextual environments. These contributions emphasize that the performance, legitimacy and societal contribution of DIEs depend also on the governance architectures, policy mixes, ethical safeguards and spatial conditions that surround them. This cluster foregrounds the systemic layer of ecosystems, in which public and private actors interact to shape the context that enables or constrains innovation.

Building on this framing, Koch et al. (2026) provide a comprehensive integrative review of policy–ecosystem interactions. They synthesize a decade of research using bibliometric mapping and AI-assisted coding. Their analysis identifies four types of themes: specialized (open innovation and public policies), driving themes (sustainability and digital platforms), basic and transversal themes (partnerships and collaboration) and emerging themes (circular economy). The authors advocate for adaptive, multi-level policy combinations that can reinforce ecosystems while promoting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Albergo et al. (2026) bring the discussion into the context of higher education by analyzing determinants of social media adoption among Italian universities. Their study demonstrates how organizational status and size influence engagement practices, showing that digital communication is not merely a technical tool but a governance mechanism that shapes stakeholder relationships and legitimacy in university-driven ecosystems. Ethical and legal imperatives are introduced by Tiron-Tudor et al. (2026), introducing ethical and legal imperatives and proposing a human-centered, actor-driven framework for embedding ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) into DIEs. Using SWOT and TOWS analysis, they argue that responsible innovation requires collective governance rather than centralized control, and they offer actionable strategies to ensure inclusivity and accountability. Meng et al. (2026) adopt a governance perspective on spatial dynamics, applying spatial econometrics to assess the niche fitness of DIEs in different Chinese regions. Their findings reveal uneven fitness levels, with higher performance in the east and south of the country, and stagnation in innovation community fitness. These results emphasize the importance of regional spillovers, place-based policy and long-term investment in community building to sustain ecosystem performance. Together, these contributions highlight that governance and context are central pillars of DIEs, not peripheral considerations. Policies, universities, ethical frameworks and spatial factors define the boundaries of what ecosystems can achieve and how they are perceived by stakeholders. This cluster shows that advancing the twin transition requires both innovative firms and orchestrated networks as well as adaptive institutions, responsible governance and context-sensitive strategies that integrate ecosystems into society.

Based on these contributions, this Special Issue provides several broader insights for theory, methodology and practice. Conceptually, it deepens our understanding of DEO, niche fitness and the role of circular startups while also embedding ethical and social considerations in DIEs analyses. In terms of methodology, it demonstrates the value of combining configurational approaches (fsQCA), structural modeling (PLS-SEM), spatial econometrics, bibliometric reviews and qualitative case studies. This diversity enhances the robustness of findings and also moves DIE research from metaphorical usage to operationalized models and testable frameworks. In practice, the papers provide actionable lessons: hub firms can adopt stage-appropriate orchestration strategies; SMEs can use partnerships and hubs to overcome constraints; policymakers can design adaptive policy mixes and spatially sensitive interventions; universities can leverage digital engagement to strengthen their societal impact and ecosystem actors more broadly can incorporate ethical, legal and social considerations into their governance design.

The Special Issue also reveals a forward-looking research agenda. Firstly, scholars should examine how orchestration strategies evolve over time and how power asymmetries can be mitigated. Secondly, they should study how SMEs and startups navigate dynamic tensions between exploration and exploitation, digital and green imperatives, autonomy and interdependence. Thirdly, policy research should integrate spatial and multi-level governance analyses in order to better understand how national, regional and local interventions interact in shaping DIEs. Fourthly, more empirical research is needed on university ecosystems and their role as boundary organizations that mediate between knowledge producers, users and policymakers. Finally, the ethical and legal dimensions of DIEs require design-science research to deliver governance templates, standards and tools for responsible innovation.

Avenues for future research are identified moving from the above research area and can be expressed in terms of following issues:

1. How do orchestration strategies within DIEs evolve over time, and which mechanisms enable hub firms to balance coordination efficiency with fairness and inclusivity?

2. Which governance configurations can mitigate power imbalances among hub firms, complementors, SMEs and start-ups in digital ecosystems during the dual transition?

3. How can SMEs and start-ups reconcile digital and green imperatives, developing ambidextrous capabilities that foster innovation and sustainability simultaneously?

4. In what ways do digital platforms and AI-based orchestration tools reshape interorganizational trust and dependency, and what implications do they have for ecosystem resilience?

5. What role do universities and public intermediaries play as boundary organizations that facilitate knowledge co-creation and diffusion across DIEs?

6. How can multi-level and spatial governance frameworks—national, regional and local—be aligned to enhance ecosystem fitness and regional innovation performance?

7. Which ethical, legal and social safeguards (ELSI) are most effective in ensuring responsible innovation and accountability in the design and governance of DIEs?

8. How can DIEs incorporate circular economy principles to enable startups and established companies to co-create value while reducing their environmental footprint?

9. What methodological advances (e.g. longitudinal fsQCA, hybrid modeling and design-science research) are needed to capture the dynamic and multi-scalar nature of DIEs?

10. How can policy mixes and institutional frameworks be adaptively designed so that DIEs remain inclusive, context-sensitive and resilient to societal and environmental disruptions?

In conclusion, this Special Issue highlights the urgent need for conceptual clarity, robust evidence and practical guidance when navigating the twin transition through DIEs. It demonstrates that the future of innovation lies in designing and governing interconnected systems that promote sustainability, inclusion, and resilience, rather than in isolated technological advancements. The success of DIEs depends on three key factors: the strategic orchestration of hub firms, the empowerment of SMEs and start-ups, and the development of adaptive, ethical and place-sensitive governance frameworks.

Together, the contributions offer a comprehensive understanding of how IEs can be structured to address societal and environmental challenges while maintaining competitiveness.

We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the authors, reviewers and editorial team for shaping this issue into such a valuable contribution to the field of innovation studies. We hope that the insights offered here will inspire future research and support practitioners and policymakers in shaping digital innovation ecosystems that are technologically advanced, equitable, sustainable and future-ready.