Economic success and sustainability: Two sides of the same coin
Why boards must reframe sustainability as a mechanism for long-term survival....
Sustainability
Why whisky isle’s digital ecosystem is a golden blend
Trust and governance, not data and technology, will separate winners from losers in the race to build ecosystems that sustain value. A remote Scottish island offers a few clues to the way ahead, explain Michael Wade, Mark Greeven, and Konstantinos Trantopoulos.
The whisky-producing Scottish island of Islay (population 3,200) is not the first place that springs to mind when we think of cutting-edge data strategy. Yet the Islay Energy Trust, a community-owned organization that manages the island’s energy infrastructure, sets the standard for industrial ecosystems.
Rather than relying solely on data and machines to manage power supplies, it blends automated sensor data from wind turbines and whisky distilleries with observations and insights from humans: local engineers, meteorologists, and residents reporting power anomalies via mobile apps. Unusually, Islay’s energy ecosystem is governed by the community. As community-owned generation is sold at cost, residents and local businesses gain price stability. They also reduce their dependence on imported energy and benefit from economic multipliers as energy revenue is reinvested in housing and education.
The biggest challenge is the governance of data sovereignty and ownership, privacy, and trust between stakeholders. If you don’t get governance right in a digital ecosystem, all the data and technology in the world cannot save you. Our research shows that competitive advantage lies with those who build the most trusted ecosystems. Digital ecosystems must be treated as governance systems first and technical systems second.
Three-part harmony
A digital ecosystem coordinates multiple autonomous actors around a shared problem, under conditions of data interdependence and partial control. To build successful ecosystems, the principal actors must address the challenges of managing diverse data and governing the whole system. Digital ecosystems operate on three data levels:
- Automated telemetry: the granular, high-velocity data streaming from hardware, such as IoT sensors and industrial machinery.
- Operational data: information from industrial enterprise systems containing human operational decisions encoded as process flows.
- Human-generated context: qualitative insights, anomaly observations, and tacit expertise often overlooked by structured databases but now unlockable by AI.
Orchestrating these data streams is central to value creation, but it poses an integration and coordination challenge across unequal layers of control: automated data is typically governed by asset owners or vendors and optimized for efficiency; operational data reflects internal organizational processes and managerial choices; and the human context originates from individuals and communities whose knowledge is situational and hard to transfer or replicate.
Friction emerges when authority over these layers is misaligned. This happens, for example, when machine data is centralized and human judgment marginalized, or when operational systems prioritize process compliance over contextual insight. Effective digital ecosystems rely on mechanisms that align ownership, decision rights, and incentives across each layer of data, allowing machine precision and human judgment to inform each other.
Effective digital ecosystems rely on mechanisms that align ownership, decision rights, and incentives across each layer of data.
The five models of ecosystem governance
Our research has identified five archetypes that can serve as a guide for the management and convergence of these different layers of data in digital ecosystems.
1 – The federated state
Perhaps the most mature government digital ecosystem, Estonia’s X-Road platform, was launched in 2001 and connects over 929 institutions. X-Road is a secure data exchange that allows government agencies and private-sector partners to share information while retaining sovereignty over their servers.
It operates as a federated data exchange layer rather than a central database: each participating agency retains ownership and control over its data and infrastructure, while standardized protocols and cryptographic identity verification enable secure, point-to-point exchange.
2 – The community trust
The Argyll Renewables Communities Consortium showcases a model for hyper-local governance. Formed by the Islay Energy Trust and trusts from two neighboring islands, this ecosystem pools data from community-owned wind assets, grid infrastructure, and demand profiles to optimize energy distribution across Scotland’s remote western isles.
Each trust retains sovereignty over its operational data while voluntarily pooling insights for collective optimization. Automated telemetry from turbines and grid assets informs maintenance and load balancing, but decision rights remain with locally accountable trustees. Technology providers are granted usage rights rather than ownership.
3 – The industrial precinct
For heavy industry clustered in specific geographies, the Kwinana Industrial Precinct in Western Australia offers a blueprint for how rival operators can share infrastructure data without surrendering competitive advantage. This ecosystem connects critical industrial assets across multiple operators, creating industrial intelligence communities that share safety data, emissions metrics, and logistics information.
The Kwinana Industrial Precinct employs a tiered governance architecture. At the asset level, firms retain strict control over operational data. At the precinct level, anonymized and aggregated data is shared to enable coordinated risk management, emergency response, and infrastructure optimization. Regulators only access aggregate indicators for compliance.
4 – The competitive consortium
Scaling beyond geographic precincts to sector-wide coordination, the Catena-X Automotive Network offers a template for cross-border industrial collaboration. Founded by BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Bosch, SAP, and Siemens, Catena-X is a federated data ecosystem enabling competitors to share supply chain data for sustainability tracking, quality assurance, and regulatory compliance.
Competitors share anonymized carbon footprint data and supply chain transparency metrics that are critical for meeting EU Battery Passport regulations, while keeping production processes secret. A recalled component can be traced to 14 vehicles rather than 1.4 million, but participating suppliers reveal only the data necessary for safety.
The Catena-X Automotive Network is governed through data sovereignty-by-design. Each participant retains its own data storage while standardized interfaces enable secure, purpose-specific exchange. Shared registries define what data must be disclosed, while firewalls protect pricing, production parameters, and IP.
5 – The unified operations model
In Nagaland, India, the city of Kohima has deployed an Integrated Command and Control Centre (ICCC) as part of the national Smart Cities Mission, integrating automated IoT sensors for street lighting, traffic, and environmental monitoring.
Automated IoT data from traffic, lighting, and environmental sensors is given real-world relevance through human input: administrators receive curated alerts, maintenance crews report asset conditions, and citizens contribute real-time feedback through grievance portals. The result has been a 20% reduction in civic energy consumption.
Mapping the governance labyrinth
While designed for different scenarios, these five archetypes share common governance dilemmas that technical architecture alone cannot solve. These dilemmas must be addressed to reduce the risks of failure or loss of trust.
The ownership question. Traditional IT assumes data ownership is binary – you own it, or you don’t. This is also the case for many commercial platforms. Ecosystems complicate the situation. When Kwinana’s refineries share safety alerts, for example, who owns the transaction record?
The X-Road and Catena-X models suggest a third way: participants can retain sovereignty while pooling insights. In Estonia, citizens own their data, government agencies hold it in stewardship, and X-Road provides the transport mechanism. For corporations, this translates into consortium models in which “data compartments” can allow specific data (safety incidents, emissions) to be shared under strict agreements while commercial secrets remain firewalled.
The control question. Ecosystems require a tiered control architecture. Individual assets require tight operational control, communities require shared governance, and national optimization requires centralized coordination. The challenge is preventing the top layer from cannibalizing the bottom.
Estonia’s solution is “federated control”: an automated system handles routine data routing while human administrators retain veto power over anomalous requests. When Finland and Estonia share cross-border healthcare data, for example, algorithms handle the transfer logistics, but human data protection officers approve each query type.
The privacy question. Smart city ecosystems face privacy trade-offs. For example, the CCTV feeds that optimize traffic flows enable behavioral tracking. Research warns us that even anonymized data can be re-identified when aggregated across sources, creating surveillance risks.
The federated approach offers a partial solution: a privacy-by-design architecture in which only algorithmic insights travel across the network. Helsinki’s MyData initiative implements “consent management” where citizens authenticate themselves to city services and can revoke data permissions dynamically.
The human-AI balance question. How do we ensure AI augments rather than overrides human judgment? The nature of trust varies from sector to sector. Healthcare requires transparency around diagnostic thresholds; manufacturing demands predictability and shared workflow routines. Ecosystems that embed AI without explicit governance around explainability, override permissions, and accountability risk eroding trust.
The competitive question. The Catena-X ecosystem demonstrates that data sharing among competitors requires formalized “co-opetition” governance. Without rules, ecosystems collapse into mutual suspicion where participants fear that shared operational data will reveal competitive weaknesses.
Successful ecosystems establish formal data-sharing tiers. In Catena-X, a Digital Twin Registry allows participants to register product metadata for traceability while keeping detailed production parameters private.
The architecture of trust
As digital ecosystems mature, they emerge as critical architectures of trust. The most effective ecosystems are built on distributed, federated designs that keep data sovereign yet interoperable, and human-in-the-loop governance that allows machine precision to inform rather than override human judgment.
The winners of the next decade will be those who can secure trust by aligning ownership, decision rights, and incentives so that competitors can share what is necessary without surrendering what is strategic.
- This article is part of an ongoing research collaboration between IMD and AVEVA focused on digital ecosystems and industrial intelligence.
Authors
Related
Sustainability 2.0
Innovation, value creation, and improved performance should replace ‘virtue signaling’ and ill-defined ‘purpose’, argue Goutam Challagalla and Frédéric Dalsace...
Audio available
Ecosystem Inc: How the nature of competition is evolving
Ecosystems promise a new way to compete, yet most squander the opportunity by bolting them onto old strategic logic. Mark Greeven makes the case for putting ecosystem thinking at the heart of...
- Audio available
Prescribing a new future for healthcare: How Roche is rewriting what corporate leadership looks like
André Hoffmann has reshaped a 125-year legacy by redefining Roche’s identity, modernizing its governance, and anchoring the company in a renewed sense of purpose....
Learn Brain Circuits
Join us for daily exercises focusing on issues from team building to developing an actionable sustainability plan to personal development. Go on - they only take five minutes.
Explore Leadership
What makes a great leader? Do you need charisma? How do you inspire your team? Our experts offer actionable insights through first-person narratives, behind-the-scenes interviews and The Help Desk.
Join Membership
Log in here to join in the conversation with the I by IMD community. Your subscription grants you access to the quarterly magazine plus daily articles, videos, podcasts and learning exercises.