Next Article in Journal
Market Concentration, Producer Organizations, and Policy Measures to Strengthen the Opportunities of Farmers for Value Addition—Empirical Findings from the Austrian Meat Supply Chain Using a Multi-Method Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Household Preferences for Improved Solid Waste Management (SWM) Services: A Randomized Conjoint Analysis in Kathmandu Metropolitan Ward No. 10
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring Innovation Ecosystem of Incumbents in the Face of Technological Discontinuities: Automobile Firms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/su14042252
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Symbiotic Relationships in Business Ecosystem: A Systematic Literature Review

by
Changhee Yoon
,
Seungyeon Moon
and
Heesang Lee
*
Graduate School of Management of Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(4), 2252; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042252
Submission received: 1 January 2022 / Revised: 17 January 2022 / Accepted: 14 February 2022 / Published: 16 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Business Performance and Sustainable Innovation Strategies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The business ecosystem shares many unique features with the biological ecosystem due to its origins. Similar to the biological ecosystem, the business ecosystem also emphasizes symbiotic relationships among symbionts (i.e., participants of a business ecosystem). In this study, we have broadened and deepened our knowledge of symbiosis in a business ecosystem, focusing on how each relationship develops and evolves through the interaction between keystone species and symbionts. We have introduced the typology of symbiotic relationships and highlighted the significant role of keystone species in business ecosystems. We defined three symbiosis types based on the analysis results: mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism. The findings indicated that each relationship continuously transitions into different symbiotic relationships as the relationship between the participants changes. The results also showed that a keystone species, a leader of a business ecosystem, can contribute to the success of a business ecosystem by strategically managing their relationship with symbionts.

1. Introduction

The increased pace of technological advancements has changed the competitive landscape in the market by increasing the necessity of cooperation with other participants to create value [1,2]. A complicated business environment, dynamic technological advancements, and the changing shape of competition in the market have meant that it is crucial to understand a business as a complex of organizational entities and its network [3,4]. The business ecosystem concept has received attention from entrepreneurs and academics since the early 1990s [2,5]. The introduction of business ecosystems is founded in the similarities between nature and business fields [5,6]. For example, key natural phenomena, such as prey-and-predator, cooperation, competition, and growth, are also observed in business fields [6].
Furthermore, a business ecosystem shares many features with the biological ecosystem in terms of the concept of survival and evolution [7]. Business ecosystems aim to establish a sustainable business through co-evolution based on the complementary relationships between participants [8,9]. Considering that participants in a business ecosystem can benefit from co-evolution, it is essential to examine and understand the relationships between participants in a business ecosystem. Among various participants, business platforms, such as Amazon and Apple, have received much attention from both academicians and entrepreneurs due to the industry-wide influence that these platform providers have [2,10,11]. In addition, business platforms are located at the center of a business ecosystem as they drive developments and expand specific business fields [2,12,13]. However, extant studies mainly discussed business ecosystems at a conceptual level, such as features and roles of business ecosystems, and did not pay much attention to relationships between participants and the strategic importance of business platforms for entrepreneurs [13,14,15,16,17].
Considering the similarities between nature and business ecosystems, the relationships between species in the biological ecosystem could aid the interpretation of the relationship between participants in a business ecosystem [13,18]. It will further extend the current understanding of the roles of participants in the symbiotic business ecosystem and support us in providing theoretical and managerial implications to the relevant fields. In this study, we investigated the symbiotic relationships of participants in a business ecosystem based on the three research questions below:
  • RQ 1. What types of symbiotic relationships exist between participants in a business ecosystem?
  • RQ 2. How do symbiotic relationships evolve, and how are they developed in a business ecosystem?
  • RQ 3. How can participants in a business ecosystem benefit from symbiotic relationships?
Considering that research regarding symbiotic relationships in business ecosystems is still at an early stage, we conducted a systematic literature review (hereafter SLR) to explore symbiosis in business ecosystems based on extant discussions. The analysis will provide managerial implications for platform providers to help them design successful and sustainable business platforms and theoretical implications for the relevant fields.
The remainder of this study is constructed as follows. First, Section 2 discusses existing studies that focus on a business ecosystem, its participants, and the role of business platforms in a business ecosystem. Next, details of the research methodology and the data collection procedure are provided in Section 3, and the SLR results are provided in Section 4. Finally, in the last section, we discuss theoretical and business implications alongside the limitations of this study.

2. Theoretical Background

The topics of business ecosystems and symbiotic relationships between a business ecosystem’s participants have received increased attention from academics and business practitioners [19]. As the term “ecosystem” implies, a business ecosystem is derived from the concept of the biological ecosystem [14,15,20,21]. This section introduces the current developments in a discussion concerning business ecosystems, their participants, and the role of the business platform in a business ecosystem.

2.1. The Emergence of the Concept of Business Ecosystem

In the past, people have taken a narrow perspective and have seen companies as rivals, and companies have focused on their resources and capabilities to compete and survive in the market [22]. The changes in how people view reciprocal relationships between companies and related business environments and the application of ecological concepts to the business world have facilitated discussions regarding business ecosystems since the late 1990s [23,24,25,26]. The term “business ecosystem” was coined by James F. Moore in 1993 [14,15,16]. The business ecosystem concept was inspired by the biological ecosystem, representing a community of heterogeneous species interacting with each other [2,27,28]. There are varying definitions of a business ecosystem. In consideration of the biological ecosystem, interacting organizations could be defined as a community [2,14,16,29,30,31].
Since the introduction of business ecosystems, the concept has received much attention from academics and practitioners [15,17]. Remarkably, the emergence of the business ecosystem concept has shifted entrepreneurs’ viewpoints on competition and business strategy [2]. In addition, the introduction of the concept of the business ecosystem drew scholarly attention to three key features of a business ecosystem: platform, co-evolution, and symbiosis [26].
In the case of the business platform, platforms are frequently discussed in terms of the success of business ecosystems [32]. According to Moore’s definition, participants in a business ecosystem provide their products and services on a platform [14]. Platforms can be described as frameworks or architectures that other companies in a business ecosystem can use to support their business [32,33]. The core strategy of the platform is to create value through interactions with other companies in a business ecosystem [2,25]. Generally, platform providers hold a critical role in a business ecosystem by increasing innovation and productivity while benefitting from lock-in effects by establishing a solid foothold in the market as a dominant platform [2,10,11,34].
The term “co-evolution” originated from biology and described successive changes between two or more species that have intertwined evolutionary trajectories [35]. When it comes to business ecosystems, participants co-evolve through a recursive cycle of evolution and subsequent changes in the ecosystem [13,14,32]. For this to happen, the adaptive capability of each participant and the interactions between participants in the ecosystem is necessary [36]. Among the various participants, the keystones explained in the following subsection have significant influence over the co-evolution in a business ecosystem [13].
The term symbiosis, originating from biology, describes mutualistic relationships between participants in a business ecosystem [37,38]. In general, participants in a business ecosystem have a certain level of symbiotic relationship with other participants because competition tends to be weak between companies within the same ecosystem [26,39]. Several researchers have highlighted the symbiosis in business ecosystems with three types of symbiotic relationships: mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism [27,34,40]. These three types are classified based on the distribution of benefits between the participants in such a relationship [40].

2.2. Participants of the Business Ecosystem

Like a biological ecosystem, a business ecosystem consists of various participants, such as companies, government authorities, consumers, and competitors [30,41]. Moreover, similar to a biological ecosystem, the sustainability of a business ecosystem depends on its participants’ survival [9,23]. For this reason, the participants of a business ecosystem share two goals, mutual effectiveness and survival, even though they are loosely interconnected with each other [16,18].
Among various participants, several studies suggested the taxonomies of participating companies. According to extant studies, companies can be categorized based on their position in a business ecosystem and organizational characteristics. In terms of their position in a business ecosystem, companies can be categorized into five groups: keystone species (i.e., leading species), dominant species, flagship species, hub landlords, and niche species [12,18,31,42]. Keystone species are placed at the highest position in business ecosystems, similar to predators in the food chain [43]. As leading players in a business ecosystem, the keystone species try to improve the ecosystem’s overall health and determine the ecosystem’s survival [6,43]. In some cases, keystone species limit the number of species or even remove some species to improve the ecosystem’s health and productivity [18]. Widely known examples of keystone species in business ecosystems are Microsoft’s operating system, Apple’s iOS, and Google’s Android mobile operating system [18,20,31].
Dominant species are distinguished from keystone species by two points: they are easily recognizable due to their physical size, and they reduce the diversity of the ecosystem by taking over other species [16,18,43]. As with keystone species, dominant species also play a central role in business ecosystems, although their size is more significant than keystone species [16,43]. Keystone species have indirect influence over the ecosystem, while dominant species aggressively take over the ecosystem by eliminating or absorbing other species to integrate horizontally or vertically to own a large proportion of the business ecosystem [18,20,43]. Examples of dominant species include IBM’s computing system and Google’s YouTube Music [20].
Flagship species are located in a hub position in business ecosystems [44]. The term flagship species originated from conservation biology, which defines species that receive the most popular support [44,45]. Strategic leadership is mainly provided by flagship companies with closer relationships with the participants of a business ecosystem than keystone species [44]. As a hub, flagship species play a role as a bridge between participating companies and keystone species; however, flagship species have received little attention from researchers [44].
Similar to flagship species, hub landlords also occupy a hub position and link nodes (i.e., participating companies) around them [16,44]. Compared with flagship species, hub landlords create little or no value to the ecosystem while extracting the most value possible from nodes linked to them [16]. Compared with dominant species, hub landlords prefer to control value extraction rather than the network [46].
Niche species are neither keystone nor dominant species and have a lesser impact than keystone or dominant species [18]. Niche species are diverse and collectively make up a large portion of the ecosystem; thus, they are essential for shaping it [16,18]. In a business ecosystem, niche species make themselves attractive to other species by differentiating themselves using unique resources and capabilities [6]. The relationships between keystone and niche species are critical for the ecosystem’s overall health, because niche species account for a significant portion of the ecosystem and create most of the value by forming complementary relationships with keystone species [6,16].
In terms of organizational characteristics, companies can be categorized into two groups: profit organizational species and nonprofit organizational species [47,48]. The concept of profit organizational species, derived from natural biological selection introduced by Darwin, explains each company’s motive to maximize profit to survive under a competitive environment [47]. On the other hand, nonprofit organizational species consist of two types according to the revenue source: collectivist (relying on government grants or public donations) and individualist (relying on fees from members) [48].

2.3. The Role of Business Platform in Business Ecosystem

A business platform can be defined as one of the business strategies used to create value through transactions between participants [10,25,37]. In the case of the ICT sector, a platform is a framework provided by a platform owner to launch services, applications, or software [33]. Platforms have two distinctive features; one is an intermediary role in a business ecosystem, and the other is network effects [19,25,49,50,51]. Platforms such as Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon typically link consumers and product/service providers; in some cases, platforms allow consumers to simultaneously assume the role of provider and consumer [19]. As a platform’s transaction volume grows, the size of the market also expands with the help of network effects [10,25,26,51].
Business platforms, located at the heart of business ecosystems, play a central role in a business ecosystem [2,6]. Extant studies regarding business ecosystems describe platform providers as hubs or keystone species to highlight the platform’s central position and strong influence in business ecosystems [12,52]. Primarily, platform providers determine the overall health of a business ecosystem by leading innovation and increasing productivity [2]. In recent years, platforms have become a core foundation in many industries by shifting competition in the market and influencing business strategies and business models [35].

2.4. Research Gap in the Field of Business Ecosystem

An increasing amount of research on business ecosystems has been conducted since Moore introduced the concept. Although various participants collectively make up a business ecosystem, most studies regarding business ecosystems have only focused on partial aspects, such as the roles and activities of keystone species (i.e., established platform providers) [2,14,26,35,50]. Thus, further research highlighting the relationships between heterogeneous participants in business ecosystems is needed to develop our understanding of the nature of business ecosystems. In terms of the typology of relationships between participants, a few studies highlighted ideas regarding the typology of symbiotic relationships in business ecosystems; however, there is still much room for theoretical development. Remarkably, most extant research focused on symbiotic relationships only discussed mutual relationships. Business ecosystems have great potential to be developed and investigated further in many different ways regarding the symbiotic characteristics and relationships of a business ecosystem.

3. Data and Research Method

This study explored the symbiotic relationships and unique features in business ecosystems. Referring to extant studies exploring the concepts and features of a specific field, we adopted a systematic literature review (hereafter referred to as SLR), which helped us aggregate existing discussions from various articles [53,54,55,56,57]. An SLR, also known as a systematic review, is a qualitative research method which allows a researcher to investigate a specific field based on a literature review [53,58]. There are three basic principles of SLR: reproducibility, explicitness, and transparency [58]. These three principles make up the unique characteristics of SLR. The first principle, reproducibility, means that any researcher can derive a similar result under the same research setting, such as keywords for data extraction and data sources. The second and the third principles describe the SLR process, which is clearly defined compared to a traditional literature review.
This research framework consists of four steps in analyzing extant studies: data collection, title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and analysis (see Figure 1) [53,56,57]. Firstly, we used several sources, such as Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Springer, and snowball sampling, to collect articles, books, and conference proceedings focused on business platforms and business ecosystems to explore the concepts and features of symbiotic relationships in business ecosystems. We set the search period to range from 1993 to 2021, considering that James F. Moore first introduced the term “business ecosystem” in 1993. We retrieved documents using four keywords: business, platform, ecosystem, and symbiosis. To ensure the documents we retrieved were as relevant as possible, we separated the search keywords with commas. This allowed us to retrieve documents that contained at least one of the given keywords. Finally, we applied the keyword search and snowball sampling to include documents not extracted from databases such as WoS and Scopus. Snowball sampling is widely used in qualitative research such as SLRs and content analysis to derive data fits for research [53,58,59]. Snowball sampling is helpful for the purpose of sampling of data in the absence of a well-known data source for such data because the mechanism of snowball sampling is that desirable data can be located using the initial set of data as a clue [58]. As indicated in Table 1, we collected 826 documents from the five data sources listed below.
After data collection, we screened the documents to delete irrelevant documents and refine the raw data before conducting the data analysis. We refined documents based on two criteria: whether a document discussed business platforms and ecosystems and whether a document focused on the symbiotic features of a business ecosystem. We conducted two stages of screening. We first screened documents by reviewing the title and abstract, and then we screened documents while reviewing the full text while conducting qualitative coding. After the screening process, 67 documents were left for data analysis.
In this study, we used Atlas.ti 9 (Berlin, Germany), part of CAQDAS (Computer-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software), for data analysis. Atlas.ti 9 is influential for qualitative coding as it provides useful features such as document groups, networks, and code co-occurrence tables [53,60]. We conducted qualitative coding for the analysis of collected documents. Qualitative coding is one way of analyzing qualitative data and allows a researcher to extract meanings from data by assigning codes to a word, phrase, or paragraph [58,61]. We coded data with open coding and then categorized codes through axial coding. Open coding is an initial phase of coding that helps researchers break down data into small parts to interpret their meaning [58,62]. After open coding, we reassembled and grouped codes according to their meaning, a process called “axial coding” [58]. Based on the axial coding result, we synthesized concepts and features of business ecosystems and investigated details of symbiotic relationships in business ecosystems.

4. Systematic Review of Symbiotic Relationships in the Business Ecosystem

Section 4 is divided into three parts: descriptive analysis, symbiosis in business ecosystems, and the typology of symbiotic relationships in business ecosystems. In the first part of Section 4, we present descriptive analysis results such as the publication status, including major target journals, publication year, and research methods [63]. Next, in Section 4.2, we suggest the typology of symbiotic relationships in business ecosystems and look into the details of each symbiotic relationship. Finally, Section 4.3 provides an overview of symbiosis in business ecosystems regarding how and why a business ecosystem is formed based on the extant studies.

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

We collected various types of documents from five data sources using a keyword search and snowball sampling. As indicated in Figure 2, research regarding business ecosystems has gradually increased year by year since Moore introduced the term “business ecosystem” in 1993. As shown in Figure 2, three moments show significant increases in research focusing on the business ecosystem: the years 2003, 2011, and 2016 [6,64,65]. Firstly, the increase in the mobile network business, which was leveraged by the wide usage of cellular phones, seemed to facilitate more research interest in business ecosystems in 2003. Mobile network business is an independent business network organized as a business ecosystem between a network provider and mobile device manufacturer to provide mobile communication [66,67]. Secondly, the expansion of the smartphone business promoted by Apple’s introduction of its business ecosystem with the iPhone seemed to drive the second flow of the increase in the amount of research on business ecosystems.
Moreover, Google’s Android built a smartphone business ecosystem with the smartphone manufacturer, providing the Android operating system and application marketplace [5,6,33,68,69,70,71]. Lastly, since 2015, big tech such as Facebook and Amazon have facilitated academic interest in interpreting their business ecosystem over the business platform. As a result, studies regarding business ecosystems have developed explosively as the source of business cases has widened [72,73,74].
Table 2 briefly summarizes data from the SLR according to data type and source. ScienceDirect and snowball sampling were the dominant sources in terms of data source, accounting for 81 percent of the total data, while the other three sources, Springer (Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany), WoS (Philadelphia, PA, USA), and Scopus (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), consisted of 19 percent of the total data. Our data ranged from peer-reviewed journal articles to working papers in terms of data type. Journal articles accounted for 76 percent of the data, and other documents such as books and conference proceedings made up the rest of the data. Different types of data help embrace multiple researchers’ diverse perspectives on business ecosystems.
Concerning the top-ranked journals, such as Technology Forecasting and Social Change, accounted for the most significant portion of the subjected documents (See Table 3). Following Technology Forecasting and Social Change was the Journal of Cleaner Production, Technovation, the Technology Innovation Management Review, Industrial Marketing Management, Asian Business and Management, and the Journal of Systems and Software. Contrary to our expectations, the scope of top-ranked journals mainly focused on the technology-related field. For example, Technovation focuses on technological innovations and the management of technology.
Concerning research methodology, most articles were based on qualitative research, only 14 percent were based on quantitative research, and two percent were based on a mixed method. As we highlighted in Table 4, case studies were the dominant research method among the various qualitative research methods, and SLR, which we also applied in this study, was the second most dominant research method. A striking difference between the portion of qualitative and quantitative research seems to be due to the current status of research regarding business ecosystems, which is still in an early stage [34].

4.2. Typology of Symbiotic Relationships in a Business Ecosystem

In terms of a business ecosystem, symbiosis, which is a relationship between participants such as prey and predator, can be interpreted as value creation and capture of symbionts [14]. As shown in Table 5, each symbiotic relationship shows different relational properties and features.
Mutualism, a primary relationship in business cooperation, represents a successful business relationship [75,76]. Platform providers who set their own business within a business ecosystem set their goal to co-create value with participants in the business ecosystem [2,34,77]. This leads to the co-evolution of participants in a business ecosystem to gain a competitive edge in the market through the network effects of the business platform. Participants in a mutualistic relationship fully cooperate to gain value from shared customers or confront other business ecosystems [78]. Mutualism aims to evolve current participants in a business ecosystem while improving an ecosystem’s overall health, which would attract new participants and attain a competitive edge through open innovation [78,79]. In terms of business platforms, mutualism is frequently seen in contemporary platform-based ecosystems such as Airbnb and Uber, in which individuals simultaneously act as providers and consumers [19]. The value created from a mutualistic relationship between consumers and product or service providers draws more participants to such an ecosystem, eventually leading to the platform’s success [26]. Therefore, a keystone species’ role in facilitating cooperation between participants is essential for the platform’s success by allowing value co-creation with participants while increasing the overall health of the business ecosystem [16].
Commensalism is a relationship based on the unconscious transactions of positive influences to the beneficiary since keystone species are unaffected by the beneficiary [80]. Concerning cooperation between participants, commensalism can be viewed as benefitting from the residual outcome of keystone species [78,81]. When commensalism emerges in the cooperation between participants, the value can be partially overlapped between participants [78,82]. For example, in terms of the video game industry, game companies such as Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft struggle to build their own business ecosystem with game software producers to provide various game content for consumers. In order to do so, game companies need to invest in game software producers to resolve the deficiency in game content at an early stage of business [51].
Parasitism is deemed to hardly belong to the “symbiotic relationship” category as one participant harms the other [83]. Instead, parasite participants rely on a parasitic relationship to keep their survival activities and be competitive in the market [34]. The parasitism can result in an unexpected outcome such as the death of participants or co-evolution if all participants survive from such a relationship. For example, many internet service providers (hereafter ISPs) may benefit from the increase in average revenue per user as each user’s data usage amount increases thanks to various content provided from content providers such as YouTube and Netflix. However, as the amount of content usage increases, the maintenance expenses also increase to provide a stable service to users; in other words, a host (i.e., content providers) may harm parasites (i.e., ISPs) [84].

4.3. Symbiosis in a Business Ecosystem

This section discusses the overall picture of symbiosis in the business ecosystem. We first discuss the relational characteristics of each symbiosis type and then highlight the dynamic nature of symbiosis in the business ecosystem. After that, we discuss the significant role of keystone species (i.e., platform providers) in the business ecosystem.
Firstly, mutualism is a relationship between participants who positively influence each other [78,85,86]. Under mutualism, each participant is eager to cooperate for value co-creation. Mutualism occurs not only in a relationship between participants but also in a business ecosystem when mutualistic relationships facilitate the co-evolution of participants in a business ecosystem [34]. In comparison with other types of symbiotic relationships, mutualism is the ideal type of relationship in a business ecosystem.
Secondly, commensalism is a one-way relationship between participants because the relationship does not guarantee mutual benefits [86,87]. This kind of relationship tends to be formulated in a business growth stage to incubate other participants in the ecosystem [34]. From a business platform perspective, a keystone species can leverage commensalism for its own advantage. In other words, a keystone species invests in its counterpart to expand its own platform business. By investing in promising participants in a business ecosystem, keystone species can identify and seize new opportunities for their own secondary business [15,34].
Thirdly, parasitism is an ironic relationship in a business ecosystem with negative influences [34,83,86]. In the case of parasitism, one participant negatively influences its counterpart, while its counterpart positively influences them. The one receiving a positive influence in the parasitic relationship evolves as a result of the parasitism; however, the negative influence of the symbiont not only harms its direct counterpart in the parasitic relationship but harms other participants in the business ecosystem [88,89]. Unlike other symbiotic relationships, parasitism sometimes triggers the co-evolution of keystone species and other participants as a defense mechanism in response to being harmed by a parasitic relationship.
Extant studies highlighted the dynamic nature of symbiosis in a business ecosystem. The symbiotic relationships in a business ecosystem are not static; they transition into different symbiosis types as the relationship between symbionts continuously changes [6,34]. For example, parasitic relationships can transition into other types of symbiotic relationships as a parasite (i.e., beneficiary symbiont) is being pulled out of its parasitic position [34]. In the case of commensalism, when the beneficiary symbiont matures, commensalism can transition into mutualism by co-evolving with keystone species [34].
In terms of the role of keystone species in the business ecosystem, as we can see in Figure 3, keystones are located in the center of symbiosis in a business ecosystem. Considering that a business ecosystem is based on relationships between independent networks constructed around a keystone species, as the leading actors in a business ecosystem, keystone species act as a business cornerstone, such as a platform provider in a business ecosystem [18]. In a business ecosystem, the size and the relationship between participants (i.e., symbionts) influence a business ecosystem’s survival and death [90]. The network effect is essential for the success of a business ecosystem because it enhances competitiveness and increases the participants’ basis of a business ecosystem. A business platform’s network effects show that participants’ relationships are core elements of a business ecosystem [77,91]. For this reason, keystone species need to make strategic decisions on symbiotic relationships with symbionts based on two points: whether the harm they received from the parasitic relationships threatens their core business and whether the cost of handling parasites is higher than the benefits of the resolution of such a relationship [18,31].

5. Conclusions

The findings showed unique motives and features of the three symbiotic relationships in the business ecosystem. Exploring symbiotic relationships in the business ecosystem allowed us to answer who, how, and why questions regarding the participants in a business ecosystem, for example, who participates in a business ecosystem, how participants are interrelated, and why they form symbiotic relationships. By answering these questions, we expanded the existing theoretical basis while establishing a theoretical foundation for further research. As Yao and Zhou highlighted the dynamic nature of a business ecosystem, symbiotic relationships are not static; they transition into different types as participants’ relationships change over time. Therefore, it is essential to understand the dynamics between keystones and symbionts [34,42]. Because leveraging the dynamics of symbiotic relationships can help companies in various ways, such as access to other companies’ resources and capabilities, strengthening business ecosystems, and utilizing network effects for their own interests. Mutualism is the ideal type of relationship because every participant is benefitting from the relationship. For this reason, other types of symbiosis, such as commensalism and parasitism, eventually lead to mutualism through the co-evolution of symbionts to pursue the mutual benefits from such a relationship [34,35]. Symbiotic relationships contribute to the business ecosystem by positively influencing every participant in the form of co-evolution since the health of symbiosis affects each symbiont’s business performance [6,43,78,79].
By examining symbiotic relationships in business ecosystems, we contributed to the relevant research field with two points: introducing a new research agenda and the typology of symbiotic relationships in the business ecosystem. Firstly, we provided the big picture of symbiosis in the business ecosystem and brought attention to such an agenda based on findings from SLR. It is meaningful especially considering that extant studies regarding business ecosystems tended to focus on partial aspects, such as the roles and activities of keystone species; symbiotic relationships did not receive much attention from academics. Secondly, we suggested the typology of symbiotic relationships in the business ecosystem and described each type’s relational characteristics and distinctive features based on extant discussions on symbiotic relationships.
This study provided managerial implications to platform providers regarding the strategic importance of leveraging symbiotic relationships in business ecosystems with two points: the spin-off from nurturing symbionts’ capabilities and the facilitation of co-evolution. Firstly, platform providers can enhance a platform’s health while improving the overall outcome of a business ecosystem by cultivating a symbiont’s capabilities and providing indirect assistance. As the border between competition and cooperation is becoming blurred, the relationship between a business platform and its participants has become the core competency for survival [92]. Due to the dynamic nature of symbiotic relationships, symbionts can contribute to the prosperity of a business ecosystem by attracting new participants as they evolve based on direct and indirect assistance received from platform providers. Secondly, platform providers can manage their relationships with symbionts for their own benefits by facilitating co-evolution [34]. As symbiotic relationships continuously change over time, a platform provider can strategically induce the transition of symbiotic relationships into other symbiosis types. For example, a platform provider can facilitate the transition of parasitism into mutualism or commensalism by assisting the evolution of parasitic participants. By doing so, platform providers can obtain positive influences from having relationships with other symbionts in the business ecosystem. The dynamic nature of symbiotic relationships implies that how platform providers operate makes a difference to the value of such relationships, and thereby the role of platform providers is critical for the success of business ecosystems [92].
Although we introduced the typology of symbiotic relationships in business ecosystems, this study has limitations mainly due to its research methodology. The limitations of this study can be summarized with two points: data limitation and lacking verification of the analysis results. In terms of data source, we conducted the SLR using a limited number of data sources such as ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Springer, and snowball sampling. We tried to overcome this data limitation by adopting snowball sampling. However, this study did not consider additional data sources and gray literature. In terms of the research method, an SLR only provides a general view of a specific topic; therefore, it does not provide an in-depth analysis of a given topic. In terms of the research approach, we only examined symbiotic relationships in business ecosystems at a conceptual level, as our research is an exploratory study on symbiosis in business ecosystems.
Considering that research focusing on symbiosis in business ecosystems is still lacking, further research focusing on symbiosis in business ecosystems is much needed. This study only provided a primary theoretical foundation for further research based on SLR results. To develop the findings from this study, further developments for the theoretical foundation of symbiotic relationships in the business ecosystem are necessary. Further research based on an inductive theory building approach is recommended to build hypotheses and a theoretical framework. Furthermore, cases from heterogeneous industries need to be investigated to verify the findings from this study. For example, investigating the differences between established and emerging business ecosystems in terms of symbiosis types will broaden our understanding of symbiotic relationship dynamics and industry-specific features.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.Y.; methodology, S.M.; software, C.Y.; validation, S.M. and H.L.; formal analysis, C.Y.; investigation, C.Y.; resources, C.Y.; data curation, C.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, C.Y. and S.M.; writing—review and editing, S.M. and H.L.; visualization, C.Y. and S.M.; supervision, H.L.; project administration, S.M.; funding acquisition, H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by National Research Foundation Korea (NRF) grants funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) of Korea, grant numbers 2021R1F1A1063690 and 2021R2A1A1103435.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Clarysse, B.; Wright, M.; Bruneel, J.; Mahajan, A. Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 1164–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, Y.-R. The technological roadmap of Cisco’s business ecosystem. Technovation 2009, 29, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gupta, R.; Mejia, C.; Kajikawa, Y. Business, innovation and digital ecosystems landscape survey and knowledge cross sharing. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 147, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schneider, S.; Leyer, M.; Tate, M. The transformational impact of blockchain technology on business models and ecosystems: A symbiosis of human and technology agents. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2020, 67, 1184–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Senyo, P.K.; Liu, K.; Effah, J. Digital business ecosystem: Literature review and a framework for future research. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 47, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Basole, R.C. Visualization of interfirm relations in a converging mobile ecosystem. J. Inf. Technol. 2009, 24, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Peltoniemi, M. Preliminary theoretical framework for the study of business ecosystems. Emerg. Complex. Organ. 2006, 8, 10–19. [Google Scholar]
  8. Basole, R.C.; Karla, J. On the evolution of mobile platform ecosystem structure and strategy. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2011, 3, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Awano, H.; Tsujimoto, M. The Mechanisms for Business Ecosystem Members to Capture Part of a Business Ecosystem’s Joint Created Value. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zarakas, W.P. Two-sided markets and the utility of the future: How services and transactions can shape the utility platform. Electr. J. 2017, 30, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yoon, C.H.; Costello, F.J.; Kim, C. Assisting sustainable entrepreneurial activities through the analysis of mobile IT services’ success and failure factors. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Weber, M.L.; Hine, M.J. Who Inhabits a Business Ecosystem? The Technospecies as a Unifying Concept. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2015, 5, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Peltoniemi, M.; Vuori, E. Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments. Proc. Ebus. Res. Forum 2004, 2, 267–281. [Google Scholar]
  14. Moore, J.F. Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1993, 71, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. de Vasconcelos Gomes, L.A.; Facin, A.L.F.; Salerno, M.S.; Ikenami, R.K. Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 136, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Karhiniemi, M. Creating and Sustaining Successful Business Ecosystems. Master’s Thesis, Aalto University School of Business, Espoo, Finland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  17. Tsujimoto, M.; Kajikawa, Y.; Tomita, J.; Matsumoto, Y. A review of the ecosystem concept—Towards coherent ecosystem design. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 136, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Iansiti, M.; Levien, R. Keystones and dominators: Framing operating and technology strategy in a business ecosystem. Harvard Bus. Sch. Work. Pap. 2004, 03-061, 1–82. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dedehayir, O.; Mäkinen, S.J.; Roland Ortt, J. Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 136, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Walton, N. Ecosystems Thinking and Modern Platform-Based Ecosystem Theory. In The Internet as a Technology-Based Ecosystem; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 85–117. [Google Scholar]
  21. Galateanu-Avram, E.; Avasilcai, S. Business Ecosystems Arhitecture. Ann. ORADEA Univ. Fascicle Manag. Technol. Eng. 2013, XXII, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Verna, A. Mapping Business Ecosystems. Partneringresources 2016, 1, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bocken, N.; Boons, F.; Baldassarre, B. Sustainable business model experimentation by understanding ecologies of business models. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 1498–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aarikka-Stenroos, L.; Ritala, P. Network management in the era of ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2017, 67, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, J. The Platform Business Model and Strategy: A Dynamic Analysis of the Value Chain and Platform Business; The University of Manchester (United Kingdom): Manchester, UK, 2016; ISBN 1073914879. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ehrenhard, M.; Kijl, B.; Nieuwenhuis, L. Market adoption barriers of multi-stakeholder technology: Smart homes for the aging population. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 89, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Manikas, K.; Hansen, K.M. Software ecosystems—A systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 2013, 86, 1294–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nachira, F.; Dini, P.; Nicolai, A. A network of digital business ecosystems for Europe: Roots, processes and perspectives. Eur. Comm. Bruxelles Introd. Pap. 2007, 106. [Google Scholar]
  29. Nambisan, S.; Baron, R.A. Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: Entrepreneurs’ self-regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2013, 37, 1071–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Moore, J.F. The Death of Competition; Harper Business: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 1–297. [Google Scholar]
  31. Chen, M.-K.; Wu, C.-M.; Chen, L.-S.; Huang, Y.-P. The Influential Factors of Taiwan SMEs’ Clustering Keystone Business Strategy—The Perspective of Business Ecosystem Using FAHP. Sustainability 2021, 13, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bosch-Sijtsema, P.M.; Bosch, J. Plays nice with others? Multiple ecosystems, various roles and divergent engagement models. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2015, 27, 960–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Veugelers, R. Eco-systems for young digital innovators. J. Technol. Transf. 2018, 43, 1449–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yao, Y.; Zhou, H. The dynamic equilibrium and simulation of mobile internet platform innovation ecosystem: A symbiotic evolution model. Kybernetes 2016, 45, 1406–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rong, K.; Lin, Y.; Li, B.; Burström, T.; Butel, L.; Yu, J. Business ecosystem research agenda: More dynamic, more embedded, and more internationalized. Asian Bus. Manag. 2018, 17, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Volberda, H.W.; Lewin, A.Y. Co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms: From evolution to co-evolution. J. Manag. Stud. 2003, 40, 2111–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wei, F.; Feng, N.; Yang, S.; Zhao, Q. A conceptual framework of two-stage partner selection in platform-based innovation ecosystems for servitization. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sarma, S.; Sun, S.L. The Genesis of Fabless Business Model: Institutional Entrepreneurs in an Adaptive Ecosystem. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2017, 34, 587–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nieuwenhuis, L.J.M.M.; Ehrenhard, M.L.; Prause, L. The shift to Cloud Computing: The impact of disruptive technology on the enterprise software business ecosystem. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 129, 308–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sun, Q.; Wang, C.; Zhou, Y.; Zuo, L.; Tang, J. Dominant platform capability, symbiotic strategy and the construction of “Internet + WEEE collection” business ecosystem: A comparative study of two typical cases in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Peltoniemi, M. Business Ecosystem: A Conceptual Model of an Organisation Population from the Perspectives of Complexity and Evolution; Tampere University of Technology: Tampere, Finland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  42. Iansiti, M.; Levien, R. The Keystone Advantage: What the New dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability; Harvard Business Press: Brighton, MA, USA, 2004; ISBN 1591393078. [Google Scholar]
  43. Iansiti, M.; Levien, R. The New Operational Dynamics of Business Ecosystems: Implications for Policy, Operations and Technology Strategy; Citeseer: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hyeyoung, K.I.M.; Jae-Nam, L.E.E.; Jaemin, H.A.N. The Role of IT in Business Ecosystems 2010. Commun. ACM 2010, 53, 151–156. [Google Scholar]
  45. Williams, P.H.; Burgess, N.D.; Rahbek, C. Flagship species, ecological complementarity and conserving the diversity of mammals and birds in sub-Saharan Africa. Anim. Conserv. 2000, 3, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Song, M. A Study on Platform’s New Strategy in Media 2.0 Era-Based on “Keystone” Concept & Google Case. In Proceedings of the 21st European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS), Copenhagen, Denmark, 13–15 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
  47. Pagano, U. The Origin of Organizational Species; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 1315011077. [Google Scholar]
  48. Potter, J.D.; Crawford, S.E.S. Organizational ecology and the movement of nonprofit organizations. State Local Gov. Rev. 2008, 40, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Evans, P.C.; Gawer, A. The Rise of the Platform Enterprise A Global Survey; The Center for Global Enterprise: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lee, C.; Lee, D.; Hwang, J. Platform openness and the productivity of content providers: A meta-frontier analysis. Telecomm. Policy 2015, 39, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Inoue, Y. Winner-takes-all or co-evolution among platform ecosystems: A look at the competitive and symbiotic actions of complementors. Sustainability 2019, 11, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Dobson, P.W. Competing, countervailing, and coalescing forces: The economics of intra-and inter-business system competition. Antitrust Bull. 2006, 51, 175–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Moon, S.; Lee, H. The Primary Actors of Technology Standardization in the Manufacturing Industry. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 101886–101901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pati, D.; Lorusso, L.N. How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2018, 11, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Lewis-Beck, M.; Bryman, A.E.; Liao, T.F. The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003; ISBN 1452261458. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ali, S.; Hongqi, L.; Khan, S.U.; Zhongguo, Y.; Liping, Z. Success factors for software outsourcing partnership management: An exploratory study using systematic literature review. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 23589–23612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Agarwal, N.; Grottke, M.; Mishra, S.; Brem, A. A systematic literature review of constraint-based innovations: State of the art and future perspectives. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2016, 64, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Given, L.M. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; ISBN 1452265895. [Google Scholar]
  59. Moon, S.; Lee, H. Shaping a Circular Economy in the Digital TV Industry: Focusing on Ecopreneurship through the Lens of Dynamic Capability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chowdhury, M.F. Coding, sorting and sifting of qualitative data analysis: Debates and discussion. Qual. Quant. 2015, 49, 1135–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Basit, T. Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educ. Res. 2003, 45, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Saldaña, J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2021; ISBN 1529755999. [Google Scholar]
  63. Garza-Reyes, J.A. Lean and green-a systematic review of the state of the art literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 102, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Benitez, G.B.; Ayala, N.F.; Frank, A.G. Industry 4.0 innovation ecosystems: An evolutionary perspective on value co-creation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 228, 107735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gatautis, R. The rise of the platforms: Business model innovation perspectives. Eng. Econ. 2017, 28, 585–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Peppard, J.; Rylander, A. From value chain to value network:: Insights for mobile operators. Eur. Manag. J. 2006, 24, 128–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Saunders, S.R.; Carlaw, S.; Giustina, A.; Bhat, R.R.; Rao, V.S.; Siegberg, R. Femtocells: Opportunities and Challenges for Business and Technology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  68. Rong, K.; Lin, Y.; Shi, Y.; Yu, J. Linking business ecosystem lifecycle with platform strategy: A triple view of technology, application and organisation. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2013, 62, 75–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Owyang, B.J. Collaborative Economy. Encycl. Creat. Invent. Innov. Entrep. 2020, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oh, J.; Koh, B.; Raghunathan, S. Value appropriation between the platform provider and app developers in mobile platform mediated networks. J. Inf. Technol. 2015, 30, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Carnahan, S.; Agarwal, R.; Campbell, B. The Effect of Firm Compensation Structures on the Mobility and Entrepreneurship of Extreme Performers. Business 2010, 1154, 1–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lsckia, T. Amazon’s evolving ecosystem: A cyber-bookstore and application service provider. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 2009, 26, 332–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ritala, P.; Golnam, A.; Wegmann, A. Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon.com. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 236–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Isckia, T.; Lescop, D. Open Innovation within Business Ecosystems: A Tale from Amazon.com: Open innovation. Commun. Strateg. 2009, 1, 37–54. [Google Scholar]
  75. Boons, F.; Bocken, N. Towards a sharing economy—Innovating ecologies of business models. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 137, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Yin, D.; Ming, X.; Zhang, X. Sustainable and smart product innovation ecosystem: An integrative status review and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 123005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jin, D.Y.; Zhao, S.; Elesh, D.; Davies, A.; Simon, J.; Deiglmeier, K.; Miller, D.T.D.; Phills, J.; Deiglmeier, K.; Miller, D.T.D.; et al. Platform Strategy & Open Business Models. Int. J. Commun. 2014, 5, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  78. Khanagha, S.; Ansari, S.; Paroutis, S.; Oviedo, L. Mutualism and the dynamics of new platform creation: A study of cisco and fog computing. Strateg. Manag. J. 2022, 43, 476–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Rai, B.; Freedman, H.I.; Addicott, J.F. Analysis of three species models of mutualism in predator-prey and competitive systems. Math. Biosci. 1983, 65, 13–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Xie, X.; Wang, H. How to bridge the gap between innovation niches and exploratory and exploitative innovations in open innovation ecosystems. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 124, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Roma, P.; Perrone, G. Cooperation among competitors: A comparison of cost-sharing mechanisms. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 180, 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Majava, J.; Isoherranen, V.; Kess, P. Business Collaboration Concepts and Implications for Companies. Int. J. Synerg. Res. 2013, 2, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Leung, T.L.F.; Poulin, R. Parasitism, commensalism, mutualism, exploring the many shades of symbioses. Vie Et Milieu/Life Environ. 2008, 58, 107–115. [Google Scholar]
  84. Crawley, S. Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back. Intellect. Prop. J. 2012, 24, 315. [Google Scholar]
  85. Ding, L.; Ye, R.M.; Wu, J. Platform strategies for innovation ecosystem: Double-case study of Chinese automobile manufactures. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 1564–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Gakkhar, S.; Gupta, K. A three species dynamical system involving prey–predation, competition and commensalism. Appl. Math. Comput. 2016, 273, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hulme-Beaman, A.; Dobney, K.; Cucchi, T.; Searle, J.B. An ecological and evolutionary framework for commensalism in anthropogenic environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016, 31, 633–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Galvão, G.D.A.; Homrich, A.S.; Geissdoerfer, M.; Evans, S.; Scoleze Ferrer, P.S.; Carvalho, M.M. Towards a value stream perspective of circular business models. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 162, 105060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Coccia, M.; Watts, J. A theory of the evolution of technology: Technological parasitism and the implications for innovation magement. J. Eng. Technol. Manag.—JET-M 2020, 55, 101552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Scaringella, L.; Radziwon, A. Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems: Old wine in new bottles? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 136, 59–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pellinen, A.; Ritala, P.; Järvi, K.; Sainio, L.M. Taking initiative in market creation—A business ecosystem actor perspective. Int. J. Bus. Environ. 2012, 5, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tiwana, A. Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy; Newnes: Oxford, UK, 2013; ISBN 0124080545. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 02252 g001 550
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Sustainability 14 02252 g001
Sustainability 14 02252 g002 550
Figure 2. Increasing amount of research on business ecosystems.
Figure 2. Increasing amount of research on business ecosystems.
Sustainability 14 02252 g002
Sustainability 14 02252 g003 550
Figure 3. Symbiosis in a business ecosystem.
Figure 3. Symbiosis in a business ecosystem.
Sustainability 14 02252 g003
Table
Table 1. Data sources.
Table 1. Data sources.
Data SourceDescriptionNumber of Documents
ScienceDirectA database for academic journals with scientific and medical publications published by Elsevier. 499
SpringerOnline subscription-based academic journal publisher provides scientific indexing services. 246
Web of ScienceProvides comprehensive citation data from multiple databases by Clarivate. 10
ScopusDatabase of abstracts and citations from book series and journals launched by Elsevier in 2004.9
Snowball samplingSnowball sampling is a purposive sampling method used to collect data using the initial data set as a lead.62
Sum826
Table
Table 2. Data type per source.
Table 2. Data type per source.
Data TypeSourceSum
Science DirectScopusSpringerWoSSnowball Sampling
Article263521450
Book--2-13
Conference proceeding--1-23
Dissertation----33
Editorial perspective1---12
Magazine----11
Report----33
Working paper----22
Sum273822767
Table
Table 3. Top-ranked journals.
Table 3. Top-ranked journals.
JournalNumber of Articles
Technology Forecasting and Social Change9
Journal of Cleaner Production5
Technovation2
Technology Innovation Management Review2
Industrial Marketing Management2
Asian Business and Management2
Journal of Systems and Software2
Others43
Table
Table 4. Major research methods of journal articles.
Table 4. Major research methods of journal articles.
Research MethodsA Proportion of Each Method
Qualitative/Quantitative/MixedDetailed Methods
Qualitative
(84%)		Case study34%
SLR26%
Narrative review20%
Content analysis2%
Integrative review2%
Quantitative
(14%)		Survey2%
Logistic model2%
Network analysis2%
Regression2%
Others6%
Mixed
(2%)		Comparative historical
Analysis + regression		2%
Table
Table 5. Types of symbiotic relationships.
Table 5. Types of symbiotic relationships.
CategoryMutualismCommensalismParasitism
Definition
  • Mutualistic co-evolution for cooperation and complementation [41].
  • Participants gain mutual benefits from the relationship [34].
  • One is benefiting while the other is being unaffected [27].
  • While one is benefitting, the other is being harmed [27].
Relationship
  • A participant can strengthen the other by sharing benefits (and vice versa) [27,75].
  • Participants depend on each other for mutual survival [22].
  • Commensalism can be observed between competitors [78].
  • Supporting participants rely on keystone species to survive [34].
Features
  • Fundamental mechanisms exist across different participants in the business ecosystem [27].
  • Participants with mutualism can have value co-creation and business sustainability [37].
  • Mutualism can promote a business ecosystem’s expansion by drawing in new participants, increasing species diversity [40].
  • Commensalism can include cooperation; thus, the value between participants can be partially overlapped [78].
  • The keystone species’ growth is hindered because they support participants’ resource consumption [34].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yoon, C.; Moon, S.; Lee, H. Symbiotic Relationships in Business Ecosystem: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042252

AMA Style

Yoon C, Moon S, Lee H. Symbiotic Relationships in Business Ecosystem: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(4):2252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042252

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yoon, Changhee, Seungyeon Moon, and Heesang Lee. 2022. "Symbiotic Relationships in Business Ecosystem: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 14, no. 4: 2252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042252

APA Style

Yoon, C., Moon, S., & Lee, H. (2022). Symbiotic Relationships in Business Ecosystem: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 14(4), 2252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042252

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop