Keywords

What are cooperative ecosystems, why do they arise, and what are their associated challenges? On the surface, a combination of cooperatives and ecosystems may seem surprising. While cooperatives look back to a long tradition, ecosystems have only recently become a topic of analysis. However, they have more in common than is generally recognized. Both types of organizations are entrepreneurial answers to disruptive developments of their times. Both of them put cooperation into their focus: Legally independent enterprises or other economic actors work together to accomplish goals they could not have achieved individually. Nevertheless, despite these common characteristics, there are differences that have to be identified and analyzed. To sum up: Cooperatives are usually ecosystems, while ecosystems may be cooperatives.

This will lead to the following reasoning: First, the relevant characteristics of collaborative economic activities will be outlined (1). Then two chapters introducing and analyzing the economic characteristics of ecosystems (2) and cooperatives (3) will follow. The focus will be on the governance and implementation of collaboration. The fourth chapter (4) will describe connections between these two types of cooperation, the current developments and perspectives of cooperative ecosystems, and will point to their challenges.

1 Cooperation as a Business Model

The temporary or continuous cooperation of enterprises that remain independent themselves is no new development. It is deeply rooted in economic history. There is and has been cooperation in multiple ways. Cooperation means joint value creation and to subdivide these activities. Several companies are involved, which collaborate with each other beyond their corporate boundaries. The organizational alternatives to such hybrid arrangements with mutual and overlapping communication and transaction relations (Powell, 1990) are integrated companies or transactions of specialized companies on markets (Williamson, 2005). The following reflections will mainly be based on microeconomic cooperation decisions but also on the cooperation itself. There will be no consideration of macroeconomic or social effects that cooperation may have since cooperation may affect individuals not actively participating in the cooperation (e.g., competitors or customers). Cooperation may also affect regions and industries in which they operate. However, external developments may also impact the cooperation decision and cooperation performance (e.g., expectations of society or the governmental regulation of cooperation). This macro-level analysis will not be part of this text, but should generally be considered.

1.1 Cooperation Rents as a Corporate Target

Any cooperation decision of a company is a strategic decision of the corporate development having highly important consequences. After considering relevant alternatives of corporate development (i.e., integration or acquisition and market procurement), the cooperation decision thoroughly weighs the advantages, disadvantages, and risks (Theurl, 2010). These effects, which mainly arise in the future, have to be discounted to the moment of decision-making. There are numerous advantages for cooperation that are usually derived from the cooperation targets like cost advantages, time advantages, access to resources, knowledge, technology, or market access. Such advantages could be measured by corporate performance indicators related to these cooperation targets. Disadvantages arise as costs are caused for example due to cooperation efforts, the decision-making process, new dependencies, conflicts, and concessions. A cooperation decision produces microeconomic results that cannot be achieved by individual activities (Holm et al., 1999).

Cooperation rents can also arise from project results that are not primarily expressed in the usual economic categories but, for example, in social developments that benefit the cooperation partners. Cooperation rents are also relevant, if there is a focus on new or superior value creation for customers. By its very nature, cooperation is the basis for any cooperation rent, which may exhibit numerous manifestations and is created by applying various mechanisms. Costs of cooperation reduce or eliminate the cooperation rent. Cooperation rarely produces only advantages. Thus, cooperation emerges if the net result is positive. Moreover, the distribution of the cooperation rent is relevant.

There are numerous mechanisms producing such a cooperation rent that may work simultaneously. Highly relevant are economies of scale and economies of scope as well as network effects. Economies of skills allow cooperation partners to share knowledge and use complementary competences. In times of reduced product life cycles economies of speed (i.e., acceleration due to access to others’ competences or know-how) and innovativeness (“economies of innovation”) become more and more relevant. This also applies to economies of risks to reduce entrepreneurial risks. These mechanisms apply to all cooperation projects but in different ways and varying degrees.

Economic history shows that cooperation strategies became relevant in times of uncertainty or radical technological and social change (see Chap. 5). This is especially observed for small and medium-sized enterprises, freelancers, and people with precarious economic backgrounds. In addition, it applies to economic actors intending to enter markets and to victims of structural change. Therefore, cooperation strategies also serve as a device to transform business activities.

1.2 Governance and Institutionalization of Networks

Terms like alliances and partnerships are frequently used synonymously with cooperation or networks of enterprises. Networks themselves often describe multilateral cooperation projects with more than two constituting partners. There is a wide diversity of arrangements for implementing cooperation, which aligns with the variety of cooperation targets and sources generating a cooperation rent (Theurl, 2010; Sydow, 1992). Cooperative arrangements can be rigidly or flexibly configured leaving much leeway for their implementation. Networks can be horizontal (on one or more steps of the value chain), vertical along the value chain, diagonal (between industries), or consist of a combination of directions. Enterprises can cooperate with other enterprises or with public institutions, with non-profit organizations, with start-ups, with suppliers, with customers, with competitors. Cooperation can take place with firms from their sector or those from other sectors. The enterprises can collaborate regionally (e.g., regional innovation clusters), nationally, or internationally. They can target joint production, joint innovation, or the increase of efficiency. The partners can be similar in their resource profiles, but they can also be heterogeneous in this respect. Partners may cooperate with equal rights or forward some rights to a dominant partner.

Collaboration can be for individual projects or permanent. Companies decide whether to participate in one or several networks, i.e., build up a network portfolio for their value creation. In a networking process, there can be a shortening or an extension of one’s own value chain, parts can be outsourced or integrated. The cooperation changes the own value creation and its organization. Deep and complex cooperation can lead to a complete dissolution of one’s value chain up to a complete communitization in the network. Correspondingly, the virtual boundaries of the cooperating companies change. The world of networks is colorful. Thus, the underlying business development strategies are correspondingly diverse.

Not only does the focus of collaboration and its design differ but also the actual institutionalization (Theurl & Schweinsberg, 2004, pp. 19–32). This can be more or less binding, which corresponds to the legal protection and has consequences for the exit options as well as for the exit costs. Informal cooperation can be terminated easily and with low prices. Signing a cooperation agreement, on the other hand, increases the partners’ protection and the binding nature of their contracts. Equity investments further increase the commitments. If the cooperation partners set up their own legal entity—a cooperation company as a joint venture—the exit options are further reduced, and the costs of dissolution or withdrawal, or exclusion are further increased. When setting up a company, it is necessary to decide in which legal form this should be done. For example, legal stipulations for some forms of cooperation restrict the freedom for cooperation (e.g., cooperatives and franchising networks).

1.3 Governance Decisions for Collaboration in Networks

Already in the run-up to the cooperation and then in the negotiations, fundamental decisions are necessary with respect to the rules, the leeways, and obligations. However, each of the determinations can lead to dilemma situations.

  • Stringency or freedom: The more stringent and binding the commitments, the less freedom the individual players (companies, cooperation management, employees) will have. Strong commitments facilitate the stabilization of expectations about the partners’ behavior. However, the presence of leeway facilitates the use of new information, which improves decisions and increases incentives to take responsibility. Courage and curiosity can lead to trying for something new. However, behavioral freedom can also lead to opportunistic behavior that harms the network partners: (Commitment dilemma).

  • Participation or dominance: The more important it is for partners to cooperate on a level playing field, the more they will value their influence, the contribution of their interests, and participation in decisions. However, power can also be distributed asymmetrically between partners, e.g., if dominant partners contribute important infrastructure or patents or other assets. Even then, entry incentives may exist for less successful partners. For example, superior infrastructure, complementarities, and the opening up of new customer groups can also lead to entry if the existing power deficits are recognized: (Power dilemma).

  • Formal rules or soft factors: Successful cooperation requires rules. These are all the more effective, the better they are integrated into a trustful relationship (Faems et al., 2008). Shared values, the reliability of the partners, a positive cooperation reputation, intensive communication, and a consistent business model create inner workings of a network that can reduce information asymmetries and build-up trust (Das & Teng, 1998; Blumberg, 2001). The better the cooperation works, the more the soft factors allow formal rules to fade (Lumineau, 2017): (Rule dilemma).

  • Complex relationships or simple structures: The larger the scope of activities, the larger the number and the heterogeneity of the partners become, the more complex the cooperation gets. Complexity can be reduced or accepted. In the first case, rigid, even hierarchical, relationships have to be defined and standardized. In the second case, the diversity of relationships is promoted, overlapping super- and subordinations as well as spontaneous developments are allowed, and reciprocal relationships are used (Colombo, 2003), but this also increases the openness to results: (Complexity dilemma).

  • Homogeneous or heterogeneous requirements of cooperation partners: Similar cooperation partners facilitate the cooperation management. However, the more the cooperation partners differ in their requirements, preferences, structures, and value contributions, the greater the challenges for the management in terms of orchestrating the cooperation partners. This is associated with transaction costs. However, it is precisely the heterogeneity of the partners that can generate new outcomes that increase the cooperation rent in times of uncertainty and change. An important differentiation is whether heterogeneity is at the same time complementarity and how pronounced the complementarity is. Similar partners tend to rely on the size and cost relevance of networks (additive networks), in contrast, heterogeneous partners (complementary networks) will focus on innovations: (Horizontal dilemma).

  • Emphasis on joint (centralized) or on partner-individual (decentralized) tasks: Networks require individual competences of the partners as well as common competencies and services within the network. The latter can be better achieved together than by each of the partners individually (infrastructures, management, lobbying, network development, etc.). This leads to a partial and gradual centralization of resources, competences, and responsibilities, as well as of power. Figuratively, two levels emerge: value creation is decentralized, and the organization, coordination, and production of collective goods is centralized. Networks are characterized by different degrees of centralization. A high degree of centralization can have a negative effect on the partners’ incentives to participate, a low degree can be associated with the neglect of synergies: (Vertical dilemma).

  • Stability or flexibility: Networks evolve after their establishment, with paths not strictly predetermined but influenced by behavioral and environmental uncertainty. The behavior of the partners, the external influences, and the fundamental decisions contribute to the development. The stability of cooperation is in latent conflict with flexibility or agility, i.e., rapid adaptation to a changing environment that places high demands on management. Ex ante agreements on rules for shaping the network development process are therefore necessary as well as exit and entry rules: (Dynamics dilemma).

Taking together all the different expressions of the above criteria and all their possible combinations, it becomes obvious how many options for designing networks exist. A very rough division differentiates between networks that tend to be stability-oriented and those that tend to be flexibility-oriented (Theurl, 2010).

1.4 Managing Networks

The preceding remarks prove the need for effective management of networks (Theurl & Meyer, 2018). The institutionalization of management structures can also take place in different ways. It can be located in a separate company or in one or more or all of the cooperating companies. However, a mode of decision-making and participation always has to be defined. In most cases, the management tasks are delegated by the cooperation partners as the principals of the network to a specialized agent (Iristay, 2007). The cooperation partners assign tasks, rights, and resources to the agent implying the typical problems of principal-agent relationships. Awareness of these challenges and appropriate precautions should limit the problems as far as possible.

While the strategic decision of the partner companies to cooperate, as well as the choice of partners is made based on their individual cooperation expectations and the cooperation target within the partner companies, the management of the network then becomes a joint task. Like in an ecosystem, all relevant stakeholders are considered, directly or indirectly. It comprises (1) the negotiation process, which includes a definition of the common cooperation target and the mechanisms of distributing the jointly created cooperation rent, the division of tasks and internal communication, as well as the design and institutionalization following the dimensions already outlined. In the second step (2), the implementation of the negotiation results including the creation of the network infrastructures, follows. Step three (3) implements the operational management. The continuous and accompanying evaluation of the results, their distribution, and the comparison with the network goals is the fourth management task, with the aim of developing the network (4). Depending on the evaluation results necessary adjustments can be made to the objectives, the distribution of results, governance, and institutionalization, the division of labor, the network infrastructures, the partner structure, or the operational management.

Network management is dynamic and enables a continuous learning process that leads to adjustments. It can be more or less participatory, stabilizing, or adaptation-oriented. In the life of a network, the internal value creation, the cooperation between the partners and their network, possibly also the partner structure, as well as the external relationships will change. This will be more pronounced the more the technological, social, economic, and regulatory conditions change. Not all networks are successful.

2 Value Creating Networks as Ecosystems

Just three decades ago, it was uncommon to use the term ecosystems in economics, as it originated in the natural sciences. This has changed significantly. Therefore, questions arise as to how to define such “economic” ecosystems, how they relate to enterprise networks, and what their economic characteristics are.

2.1 Content and Characteristics of Ecosystems

In biology, ecosystems are defined as interactions between living organisms of different species with each other and with their environment. They are shaped by the nature of the habitat, by the type and composition of the living beings as well as their spatial distribution. The habitat has boundaries that separate the active inner life from the outer world. However, the boundaries are not rigid. They can expand and accommodate new elements. Changes occur through the interaction of organisms (food exchange, energetic relationships) as well as through long-term developmental processes triggered by reactions to external forces. It appears that the stability of an ecosystem increases with its complexity, whereas simply structured ecosystems can become functional again more quickly than complex ones when disturbed.

The term “ecosystem” with its concept borrowed from nature found its way into economic organization theory just before the turn of the millennium by James F. Moore (1996). He addressed the increasing importance of the cooperative economy through the rise of ecosystems as modified value creation models. An adoption, concretization, and application of the concept (Teece, 2012, 2016; Adner, 2012) and a wide diffusion of the term as a new structure of economic relationships (Jacobides et al., 2018) followed. Ecosystems are not only widely used in the start-up environment and in the collaborative economy today, but also beyond. More specifically, the term ecosystems is used for the phenomena presented in Sect. 10.1: Value creating networks in their various types, but with an emphasis on flexibility-focussed design, multilateral relationships, responsive to environmental influences, cross-industry, participatory, inclusive of all stakeholders and innovation-oriented. However, this line of connection to business networks is rarely mentioned, and hardly elaborated.

The starting point for value creation in an ecosystem is the analysis of whether the enterprise will be able to provide a superior value proposition from within the company given the framework conditions or whether complementary competencies, resources, industries, and relationships are required for this purpose (Jacobides et al., 2018; Adner, 2017). In the first case, a company-centered business model can be maintained, relying on internal development processes. In the second case, an ecosystem-centered business model is proposed. Turning the focus from the customer to the company, the question of cooperation rent becomes obvious.

One possible trigger for ecosystems are products that offer additional benefits, provided they can be integrated into broader solutions to problems. This requires complementarities for development, production, and exchange, e.g., the combination with smart services (Theurl & Meyer, 2022). The relationships between platforms and IT components and their customers in an ecosystem are a second starting point. A third approach emphasizes the ecosystem as a space of social and reciprocal exchange relationships and addresses decision-making processes as well as the modalities of collaboration. The focus is usually on dispensing with strict rules and formal contracts and on using indirect and informal links (Jacobides et al., 2018; Adner, 2017). The formation of a community through adequate incentives is seen as an important constituent feature.

Consequently, the characteristics of an ecosystem are the multilateral cooperation of several actors, the different intensities of their relationships, their specific complementarities, and the absence of fully hierarchical control (Teece, 2012; Tsujimotoa et al., 2018; Jacobides et al., 2018). Based on these defining features, three aspects of ecosystems in the economy can be highlighted:

  • The association with ecosystems in nature is obvious.

  • The similarities with business networks are obvious and apply especially to a subgroup that exhibits the design features mentioned.

  • They leave a lot of leeway for their actual governance and institutionalization.

The current discussion of ecosystems takes place primarily in three contexts, which will now be discussed: Business ecosystems, platform-based ecosystems, and data-based ecosystems.

2.2 Business Ecosystems

Business ecosystems are the most general description of ecosystems. Their main economic characteristics can be summarized as follows (Moore, 1996, 1999; Teece, 2012):

  • Orientation to thematic worlds (e.g., mobility and education) enables new value propositions.

  • Value propositions require complementary: knowledge, data, and technologies.

  • A long-term collaboration with a broad partner portfolio can jointly provide an offer that each company could not provide on its own.

  • Players from different groups, markets, sectors, also competitors (competing), suppliers, buyers, production partners, public institutions, start-ups, and non-profit organizations are suitable partners.

  • Special attention is paid to start-ups as partners, as they in particular enable new synergies.

  • Prerequisites for participation are positive results of the partners’ cooperation plans, taking into account the risks.

  • Delimited value chains are transformed into a value network of partners.

  • The focus is on creating innovations.

  • The cooperation of the partners largely operates on a level playing field, and participation in the systems governance is considered very important.

  • A mutual influence of the partners through cooperation further develops the ecosystem.

  • One player—usually referred to as a network orchestrator—is responsible for network management and organization of community tasks, avoiding hierarchical elements as much as possible.

  • To avoid risks of dependency, failure or high coordination costs, participation in multiple ecosystems is considered useful.

There are various targets that can be pursued with business ecosystems. Their content as well as their founding contexts are strongly reminiscent of business networks. Their establishment is triggered by a changed business environment, that requires adaptation as well as the enabling of new developments. Technological developments that not only suggest the digital transformation of the companies themselves but also allow the merging of products and services as well as the breaking up of boundaries, are dominating reasons for ecosystems. The integration of start-ups and partners from other industries is seen as particularly important.

It is true that business ecosystems can also have a real (or analog) content. However, their focus and anchoring is in the digital economy with its newly created services, the new value creation models, the Internet of Things, the changed transaction cost structures, and numerous new start-ups. Even business ecosystems that are still analog will increasingly make use of new communication and information technologies and take the path of digital transformation. The focus of interest is on digital ecosystems that place both platforms and data at the center of value creation. Business ecosystems can thus also be seen as the foundation for platform-based ecosystems and data ecosystems. The economic characteristics and mechanisms outlined here can also be found there. It is not uncommon for the necessary complementary element to be a platform.

2.3 Platform-Based Ecosystems

Platform-based ecosystems implement the general design features of business ecosystems in the digital space and derive their value proposition primarily from the existence of a platform (Cusumano & Gawer, 2002; Jacobides et al., 2018; Schössler, 2018; Petit & Teece, 2020). With the emergence of transaction platforms, their merits of digitally bringing together the two sides of the market and later on offering additional services were appreciated. Platform owners quickly became very successful. The use of economies of scale and multiple network effects resulted in dominant market positions as well as in the occupation of customer interfaces in many markets. This was complemented by the siphoning off of value contributions from customers, partners, and locations (Vallas & Schor, 2020). Being dependent on these pioneering platforms did not only lead to the disillusionment of players in the sharing economy. Providers of IT services or of goods whose production or distribution require platform services also criticized “platform capitalism” with its asymmetrical distribution of power and large potentials for exploitation (Gawer, & Cusumano, 2008; Gillespie, 2010; Staab, 2019). The large platforms have long since built their own ecosystems, which further raise the barriers to entry and leave little room for maneuvering for the smaller partner companies.

Different types of platforms (Gawer, 2014; Chen et al., 2022) are at the core of many ecosystems (Srnicek, 2016): Product platforms (e.g., Ebay), service platforms (e.g., Uber), and advertising platforms (e.g., Google Search) constitute transaction platforms. Moreover, there are industry platforms (e.g., Siemens Mindsphere and Bosch IoT Suite) as well as cloud platforms (e.g., Microsoft Azure) as innovation platforms. All these types of platforms have in common the provision of the technical infrastructure by a platform provider in order to develop and create digital services and process data (van Dijck et al., 2018). Many platform-based ecosystems today strive to go beyond isolated transactional systems and enable innovation on the platform (Cusumano et al., 2019).

In the meantime, numerous platform-based ecosystems have been built that are independent of the large platform companies. Often it is start-ups that develop new platforms. In addition to the platforms, the ecosystems consist of the companies that need this platform to offer their services, as well as their end customers and those of the platforms. The orchestrator is also part of the ecosystem. Together, they create the coordinated value of the ecosystem and are the providers of the value proposition. If the platform provider is also the orchestrator of the ecosystem, it has a dominant position as a lead firm with exploitation potential (Schössler, 2018). If the management function is delegated to a separate player, the latter becomes the agent of the ecosystem principals.

The complementary companies are often the developers, providers, and producers of IT services (e.g., enterprise software, applications, functions, and interfaces) or they are providers of goods that contribute to the common offer of comprehensive products. If the ecosystem does not have adequate governance, it runs the known risks: (partial) loss of the customer interface, exploitation by a dominant platform provider (owner, coordinator, information owner, power on determining rules), insufficient legal protection without contractually regulated cooperation, as well as excessive revenue shares, etc. With a cooperative governance of the ecosystem, on the other hand, they can benefit from important advantages. They can forego building their own platforms with high investment costs and transforming their own structures, thus concentrating on using their competences.

The opportunities for platform and complementary companies to work together have evolved over the past decades (Hosseini, 2019), which is related to both the evolution of platforms and the associated business models. Simple transactional platforms were followed by the platforms of multi-sided markets with the inclusion of different groups of customers and partners and the sharing of associated data. The complete monetization of information and the use of multidimensional network effects, AI, and data analysis ensued. The definition and use of API interfaces (Application Programming Interface) is currently of increasing importance. Complementary companies can implement new features and microservices via such interfaces of the platforms. This allows players in the ecosystem (complementary companies, end customers) to further develop the platform with their own solutions to problems and without involving the platform owners. Through shared development, unilateral dependency can transform into mutual dependency. Although such governance mechanisms started to emerge, the dependence of complementary companies on the platform remains. Only indirect access to many customers, as well as single-homing, reinforces this dependency.

The orchestrator has a large portfolio of tasks to finish. In addition to the partner management of the complementary companies and the end customer management, there are joint tasks to ensure effective cooperation: App management to support the complementary companies, platform development, business development, innovation management as well as various administrative tasks, e.g., personnel and finance (Porschen-Hueck & Rachlitz, 2022). The orchestrator should ensure that the platform provider is prevented from opportunistic behavior and exploitation of individual partners, that cooperation is in the common interest and that the cooperation rent is not threatened by participants’ or the platform provider’s misbehavior. This presupposes adequate incentives and requires a clearly defined task profile for the orchestrator with rights delegated to him. The alternative is extensive self-direction of the system or institutionalization of the ecosystem that contains suitable trust anchors or credible rules. Different types of institutionalization can be derived from this.

2.4 Data-Based Ecosystems

The need and the possibilities to exchange and use data, combined with a common data management, are another starting point for the establishment of ecosystems (Bitkom, 2022). There are numerous connections to platform ecosystems. Data is also exchanged and processed in these ecosystems. It is also a digital ecosystem. Nevertheless, the starting point is different because a shared data space with a trustworthy data infrastructure requires a specific institutionalization. This institutionalization is needed, because firstly the knowledge that the sharing of data of the most diverse kinds, as well as the use of previously unused data, brings benefits to the participants, i.e., a cooperation rent via the known mechanisms. Secondly, there is the desire to protect one’s own data, the wish for self-determination of data usage, the decreasing acceptance of monetization by other players, and the insistence on digital sovereignty. Data ecosystems also have the economic characteristics of Business ecosystems. They are also meant to be a counter-model against the large platform corporations that have a strong attraction for data.

There are several reasons for setting up data ecosystems. First of all, there are regulatory reasons. For example, there are efforts in the European Union to create a competitive, decentralized European data space, which will enable a cooperation rent (European Commission, 2022). However, the data space should also ensure people’s data sovereignty and additional rights to use their data and access information collected about them by third parties. In this way, a fair and innovative data economy should be created, also by defining who can profitably use and access non-personal data. Furthermore, rules for data exchange and requirements for data intermediaries are defined or proposed. The relevant EU documents are the Data Governance Act (European Union, 2022a) and the Data Act (European Union, 2022b).

However, the intention is not only to have a common data space, but a data-based ecosystem that also enables decentralized data use. In addition to the exchange processes that are the content of the data room, this also includes upstream and downstream processes for obtaining and processing data. (Bitkom, 2022). But how should this data-based ecosystem be institutionalized under concrete legal requirements?

A second reason follows immediately. The legal acts allow private parties to organize themselves in order to protect the rights to their data that arise from digital transactions and are not protected by the rules of the GDPR. For this purpose, they can enter into a cooperation and/or jointly establish intermediaries. These can also be designed as data-based ecosystems. To be effective adequate institutionalization is necessary. A third reason is when companies or private individuals establish data-based ecosystems for joint data management through the combination, evaluation, and provision of personal or supply relevant data. Fourthly, data clouds of companies or research institutions or scientific communities are also data-based ecosystems that are set up jointly. They should create the necessary infrastructures, ensure the required services, and jointly define standards for data management while complying with regulatory requirements (Pols & Heidkamp, 2020). The resulting services can be used exclusively by the ecosystem itself or sold to third-party customers (Venters & Whitley, 2012), who then also become part of the ecosystem (Lipsky, 2013; Münzl et al., 2015).

Finally, craftsmen, tradespeople, and other SMEs are realizing the potential of smart services, the Internet of Things, the abundance of data, and the associated digital networking possibilities. Technical devices produce countless data. They are generated in the individual production steps and at the transaction interfaces. First and foremost, this is construction and production data. Cross-company data use allows a cooperation rent to emerge if it is possible to better coordinate production processes and create new value from the use of data. Such data spaces can result in cooperation decisions.

In summary, it can be seen that in this sensitive area of sharing and common use of personal or corporate data, microeconomic and macroeconomic benefits can be achieved. However, there are risks of data misuse and unauthorized monetization, which makes digital sovereignty increasingly important. Against this background, the question of an adequate institutionalization of data-based ecosystems, which includes incentives to share one’s own data in a protected way, arises again. The requirement for institutionalization now consists primarily of the availability of credible rules that can be perceived as commitments for all partners. In contrast to platform-based ecosystems, informality and flexibility are less relevant.

2.5 Balancing Flexibility and Stability

The three types of ecosystems presented here can also be interpreted as networks. Their configuration is based on flexibility and agility as well as a low degree of formalization. However, the implied advantage of adaptability tends to be associated with deficits in stabilizing cooperation. In the case of data-based ecosystems, it is obvious from the outset to institutionalize reliable rules that enable security and protection for the sharing of one’s own data. The convergence and interdependence of platform-based ecosystems and data-based ecosystems are obvious. The two cannot operate in isolation from each other. Therefore, the existence of suitable stabilization mechanisms that simultaneously ensure the participation of the actors becomes more important.

Joint success usually has a stabilizing effect. But for this to occur, governance must contain appropriate incentives for the players to decide in the common interest in dilemma situations, which in the longer term also works in their own interests. Do adequate forms of institutionalization of ecosystems exist? It can be assumed that such forms will entail a reduction in informality but can stabilize expectations and behavior.

3 Cooperatives and Their Networks

Cooperatives are the oldest institutionalized form of cooperation. In networks with a dense system of relationships, the cooperation of the actors (i.e., the cooperatives’ members) and their development follows clearly defined rules.

3.1 Institutional Innovation in Disruptive Times

Cooperatives emerged in the nineteenth century as an institutional innovation that diffused quickly and widely (Theurl, 2018) (see Chap. 5 for a detailed discussion of the historical emergence of cooperatives). Cooperatives as collective self-help took place primarily in local and regional areas. An environment without hope for people’s economic and social participation thus became a space in which infrastructures emerged, economy could develop and society could consolidate. Reduced to the essentials, the emergence of cooperatives corresponds to the emergence of ecosystems. The following explanations contain the rationale for the interpretation of cooperatives as a network as well as an ecosystem.

The bleak conditions in agriculture, crafts, and trades made people take their fate into their own hands by entering into cooperative agreements, the core of which was the establishment of a joint enterprise with special governance. This idea of creating a rent from cooperating and its constituent features has survived largely unchanged to the present day. In the cooperatives’ development institutionalization and differentiation increased. Many cooperatives became larger, and their cooperation more complex. Cooperative groups were formed, such as the cooperative banking group. Some cooperatives have existed for more than one and a half centuries. The economic sectors and fields of activity in which cooperatives are mainly active today have changed, as have the contemporary challenges they are used to tackling. Today, cooperatives are founded for socially important challenges and forward-looking economic activities (Theurl & Schweinsberg, 2004). Cooperatives are mainly founded in times of major changes with uncertainty for the people. They are cooperation models that prove themselves, especially in disruptive phases (such as during the Corona pandemic, as explored in Chap. 7).

3.2 Partner-Oriented Business Model

The value creation model of cooperatives and their networks has special features that make their governance unique (Theurl, 2001, 2005b). People or companies cooperate horizontally in order to enable them to carry out economic activities that cannot be expected to be economically successful when implemented alone. Today, these members in cooperatives (i.e., the cooperating partners) are mostly small or medium-sized enterprises or individuals. The cooperation partners are united by the need to create the pre-conditions for their own entrepreneurial, freelance or consumer activities (e.g., the organization of orders and the creation of digital infrastructures, ). They cooperate through a joint enterprise, called a cooperative, which organizes or provides joint services for them, which they could not do alone.

Cooperation in the cooperative enterprise can be upstream or downstream of the members’ own activities, which acts like an extension of the value chain into the cooperative enterprise. Cooperation in cooperatives can also take place on the basis of a common value proposition, for which the cooperative coordinates the value creation. The members of the cooperative, who remain independent, are the cooperation partners with their information advantage about customer wishes, with their own deficits as well as the possibilities to develop individual solutions. The joint enterprise supplements the missing elements for them by using economies of scale and scope, as well as risk, competence, and knowledge advantages. Combining the high-powered incentives of decentralized members with the possibility of efficient value creation in a network (i.e., the cooperative) based on the division of labor is the value creation logic of cooperatives. The special combination of these two levels of activity not only demonstrates the network structure of partnerships established as cooperatives, but also creates mutual control relationships and special behavioral incentives (Theurl, 2013).

3.3 Member-Value as a Strategy

The purpose of cooperatives—at least in Germany required and protected by law—has to be determined by the partners in order to create value for the partners (= members), a Member-Value. It corresponds to the cooperation rent. This objective forms the core of the cooperative’s governance, which reflects the multiple functions of the members. They are not only owners and thus, decision makers who also provide the equity for the cooperative. They are at the same time the customers or suppliers or parts in the value creation process. These multiple functions of the members result in the cooperative’s special characteristic of simultaneous owner control and individual corporate strategy.

The Member-Value is the value of the cooperation to its members (Theurl, 2002, 2005a). Unlike, for example, the unidimensional shareholder value of a listed company, it consists of three components. The direct Member-Value is based on the service relationships between the member and the cooperative enterprise and is directly derived from the purpose of the cooperative. It operationalizes the joint purchase or sale of services that support the members in their own value creation and have been outsourced by them (to the cooperative). The indirect Member-Value derives from the members’ ownership function. Its components are partly financial in the form of interest and dividends and partly decision-making and design rights as well as advisory and control rights. The sustainable Member-Value corresponds to the investment relationship, which corresponds to the long-term elements of the service and ownership functions. It represents an option value that results from the future existence and performance of the cooperative. Its basis is an investment in people, products, processes, and institutions. The focus is on the long-term existence of the cooperative through its ability to adapt and innovate. It is necessary because the cooperative is part of value creation of the individual member’s economic activities.

The three components of Member-Value, which flow exclusively to the members through several channels, are interdependent. A major difference from other types of cooperation is the optimization of the cooperative’s value by interacting with its members (as its customers) and for the members (as its owners). What is jointly created remains in the network and does not flow away to external investors. The identity of owner (investor) and user creates an incentive compatibility that is hard to copy.

In most countries, cooperative shares are not quoted on the stock market. Thus, hostile takeovers are excluded. The equity capital is raised by the members when they join the cooperative and through the retention of profits as part of the sustainable Member-Value. Since most cooperatives have no (direct) access to the capital market, there is no direct influence of financial market developments on the cooperative’s entrepreneurial decisions. Cooperation in cooperatives is participatory. With few exceptions, the principle of “One man, one vote” applies. Voting rights are independent of the number of cooperative shares and thus independent of the contributed capital. The operationalization of the Member-Value, its integration into the network strategy as well as other strategic decisions is made by the cooperation partners (i.e., the cooperative members). The admission of new partners is uncomplicated and managed by the cooperative itself. This flexibility and openness enables the scaling of activities and partner networks, which facilitates the cooperative’s development.

3.4 Stability Through Consistent Governance

Cooperatives and their networks are made up of actors whose interaction with each other and whose interaction with the conditions of their economic and social environment follow rules that are laid down in their governance and in laws on cooperatives. Nevertheless, the cooperative’s members remain independent. Thus, cooperatives with their network of relationships can be classified as ecosystems. Their governance shows an extraordinary consistency: The cooperative value creation model corresponds to the strategic orientation toward Member-Value. The direct Member-Value corresponds to anchoring of value creation in the real economy. The indirect Member-Value reflects the willingness of the cooperation partners to assume entrepreneurial responsibility for the common tasks. The sustainable Member-Value expresses the long-term orientation of the business model. In all decisions, future development is inherently taken into account via the Member-Value correlations. The consistency of the business model, strategic orientation, and value framework influences the identity of any organization. It acts as an anchor of trust both internally and externally. The cooperation partners, as well as actors in the cooperative’s environment, can form stable expectations about the behavior of the partners and the strategy of the network.

3.5 Characteristics of Cooperative Institutionalization

In summary, the special characteristics of the institutionalization of cooperative networks can now be listed:

  • The cooperation of partners enables a cooperation rent that not only increases the economic and social participation of the partners but also implements internal solidarity and fairness.

  • Cooperation in cooperatives enables similar as well as heterogeneous partners to contribute complementary competences and activities and/or to achieve virtual size.

  • The legal basis provides a reliable and transparent framework for institutionalization that nevertheless provides sufficient design options for creating the cooperative’s business model.

  • Rules, as credible commitments, enable a reduction of uncertainty about the behavior of the partners as well as of the management of the cooperative.

  • The cooperative value system consists of its anchoring in the real economy, readiness for entrepreneurial responsibility and control as well as sustainable management. This value system especially encompasses the sense of cooperation that corresponds to its social responsibility.

  • The consistency of the business model, strategic orientation, and value framework, which is anchored in the Member-Value context, also contributes to the stabilization of expectations and behavior.

  • The identity of owners and users (customers/suppliers) guarantees the orientation toward the partners. What is jointly generated always remains in the cooperative, which provides protection against exploitation by external parties.

  • The partners decide together on the continuous development as well as on the creation of innovation-promoting conditions, e.g., platform infrastructures.

  • The capital relationships between partners (i.e., members) and the joint network (i.e., cooperative) provide protection against hostile takeovers.

  • Participation in strategic decisions as well as in the control of the joint enterprise with one vote of each partner ensures the partners’ influence on the development of the network. The governance of the cooperative is a participatory one in which transparently and safely allocates property rights, thus providing protection against exploitation by other network partners.

  • Partners remain autonomous but gain a share of the cooperation rent through cooperation, which enables their economic participation, sometimes even their economic existence, and increases empowerment for their activities.

  • The mostly local or regional scope of activity of cooperatives and their networks enables positive locational effects, which can include additional value creation, infrastructures, and jobs for the members of society not directly involved in the cooperation. They can reduce a loss of economic activities and a negative development spiral, especially in rural areas.

  • A change in value creation made possible by digitalization can also bring about a new balance of locations for people to work and live. This is linked to the fact that regional anchoring does not necessarily limit the relevant economic area for the network, which opens up additional areas of activity through digitalization.

All in all, these features, together with the credible rules, stabilize the cooperatives. They can be interpreted as an anchor of trust that provides protection against exploitation by individual partners, including management. It is obvious that the more similar the members’ ideas about the purpose and development of the network are, the better these stabilizing services will be. The participatory structure can complicate decision-making processes if there are incompatible ideas about the future strategic directions Therefore, it is important for the network that the democratic decision-making, which is always emphasized, is organized efficiently and transparently. This can also promote a responsible discussion of development perspectives, which can lead to better-informed decisions and prevent short-termism. This also applies as a counter-argument to the fear that adaptations to a changing environment are too slow in cooperatives and their networks. It should have become clear that this is by no means inevitable. The stabilizing effect of the cooperative’s governance does not exclude adaptability and speed of development, although it is subject to some pre-conditions.

4 Cooperative Ecosystems

Today networks are mostly called ecosystems. This is especially true if they have a low level of formalization and the results are delivered with complementary elements and digitally. These are digital ecosystems. However, this delimitation is not mandatory based on the conceptual content of ecosystems. It will increasingly lose importance because, firstly, analog networks and companies have also begun their digital transformation. Secondly, some ecosystems are in search of a stabilizing and participatory institutionalization. It is supposed to protect the contributions of the partners so that innovation incentives are created. Cooperative collaboration can provide a stabilizing offer. Therefore, it is now necessary to look at the contexts in which cooperative institutionalized ecosystems exist.

4.1 Institutionalization of Ecosystems

Referring to oneself as an ecosystem does not mean that the concrete institutionalization is also predefined with it, which, in addition to informal cooperation, can also be contractually structured or implemented through a separate company in various legal forms. Institutionalization has consequences for the concrete cooperation of the partners as well as for the orchestrator with its management tasks. It is especially important when innovations are sought that need to be protected and when the exploitation of individual partners is to be prevented. Developments in the digital economy show that these are relevant endeavors. It is, therefore, obvious to consider a stabilizing institutionalization for ecosystems. The stabilization potential of institutionalization as a cooperative was shown. It was also emphasized that cooperatives are ecosystems with specific governance. However, not every ecosystem is a cooperative or plans to institutionalize itself in this way. Therefore, it is obvious to explore whether and in which areas cooperative ecosystems exist or are being discussed. Interest in them has increased with the rise of digital processes, services, and things. Large amounts of data and the increased possibilities to analyze and transfer them, as well as the application fields of artificial intelligence, also contribute to the increased interest.

4.2 Digital Transformation of Existing Cooperative Ecosystems

Digitalization with its many facets as a trigger of change in the cooperative economy, works through several channels (a detailed discussion of digitalization and cooperatives can be found in Chap. 6). These are, above all, the possibilities of scaling and generation of network effects as well as the necessity of standardizing digital processes. In addition, there are the advantages of bundling data-based information, the increased possibility of data analysis, and the consideration of changed customer preferences. These influencing factors lead to a review of cooperation in already existing cooperatives. The result is not seldom a deepening or widening of cooperative ecosystems or the creation of new ecosystems. There is both a change in shared value creation through its partial shift to platforms and the joint organization of digital services that support such processes as well as the organization of data.

Cooperative ecosystems with a long tradition in Germany, e.g., the cooperative financial group or large trade networks, are currently making extensive investments to digitalize their cooperation along the value chain and at the customer interface. This corresponds to a deepening of their ecosystems, which should improve the efficiency of joint value creation and the fulfillment of customer preferences. In this process, service organizations are established as well as partial cooperations for individual digitalization steps within the ecosystem, but also the acquisition of platform companies. For example, a consortium from the cooperative financial group has already acquired FinCompare, a digital platform for SME financing, at the end of 2021 (Klotz, 2021). These steps are also a reaction to intense competition from digitally oriented FinTechs and BigTechs.

These efforts should help to keep value creation, revenues, and innovations in the ecosystem. It is about defending the customer interface, which is particularly attractive and vulnerable to digitalized competitors. Some cooperatives and sectors are better prepared for this than others because they started early with the digital transformation or because their value creation was based on the exchange of information and data and the development of digital services from the outset. Convincing examples are the IT service provider for tax consultants (DATEV) or picture and video agencies as well as press agencies such as APA and other information service providers. They are all cooperative institutionalized ecosystems.

In parallel, the enlargement of existing cooperative ecosystems is taking place through the expansion of their service portfolio. This is done, for example, through the digital networking of cooperative banks and housing cooperatives (Noelle, 2016) or of housing cooperatives and energy cooperatives as well as for larger projects. The aim is to offer service bundles that cover thematic worlds. “Beyond Banking” is an effort of the cooperative finance group, which plans to identify near- and far-banking services outside its core business and develop them into group-wide solutions. An ecosystem is to be created around the areas of health, care, and living. In this ecosystem, scalable digital business models are to be established and coordinated by the newly formed company “Amberra.” It is to act as an “innovation accelerator.”

4.3 Cooperative Platform-Based Ecosystems

Criticism of the large platform corporations with their ecosystems has led to numerous proposals that other owners should build competing platforms, e.g., as cooperative institutionalized companies (Meyer & Theurl, 2017). However, it has quickly become apparent that the size and lead of the BigTechs makes this endeavor unpromising. In this context, however, three developments have given rise to cooperative platform ecosystems. First, the development of regional or sector-specific platform ecosystems with cooperative institutionalization has been successful. Examples are Booking Südtirol, the streaming platform Resonate, or other online marketplaces. Either start-ups initiate cooperation with complementary companies or vice versa. Secondly, existing cooperatives increasingly see a starting point in using their regional anchoring to build platforms that are open to regional suppliers and demanders. The cooperative ecosystem also integrates non-cooperative agents to develop regional economic cycles that keep value creation, infrastructures, and population in the region. The desired effects are directly felt by the initiators in the individual economy and indirectly through the macroeconomic and societal effects.

Thirdly, in the course of these developments of regional cooperation, cooperatives have been formed that develop and offer digital services together but go beyond their regional core. This usually requires access to development platforms. This suggests developing one themselves or joining existing platform ecosystems. In doing so, they can negotiate better terms for joint projects as a cooperative than any individual. Such players are consultants, developers, or data analysts. They offer their end customers entire digital concepts or individual elements, e.g., data analyses, algorithms, digital technologies, infrastructures, and concepts for data security. In this way, new platform ecosystems are created or existing ones are scaled up. Service providers and platforms typically bring in complementary competences. This category of platform ecosystems includes, for example, the govdigital eG founded in 2021. Here, public sector IT service providers work together with other experts to develop platform-based, nationwide public IT services. Interestingly, especially start-ups that develop platform-based ecosystems or design concepts for them intensively discuss cooperative institutionalization in order to endorse it because of its participatory and rule-based governance but then do not choose it because of the fear of long decision-making processes, too little adaptive flexibility, and weak innovation orientation. It is equally interesting that a cooperative-oriented joint-stock company or limited liability company is then founded or proposed (Porschen-Hueck & Rachlitz, 2022).

4.4 Cooperative Data-Based Ecosystems

Data as well as its storage, evaluation, bundling, complex analyses and analysis methods, artificial intelligence procedures, and applications have gained great importance. In connection with the efforts to create an EU data space, cooperative activities are emerging both in the business sector and among private individuals. With the Gaia-X project (Gaia-X, 2021), for example, representatives from business, science, and administration from Germany, France, and other EU states are planning to build a competitive secure, and trustworthy data infrastructure. Gaia-X is to become a unified data and service space, a digital ecosystem that connects a platform-based ecosystem with a data-based ecosystem. On this basis, sovereign decisions on data-based business models are to be made possible. Common models and rules for data monetization are to be developed, and cross-sectoral cooperation is promoted in the data economy. Numerous definition and standardization tasks must be completed in advance. The institutionalization of the preliminary work for such a combined data- and platform-based ecosystem is not carried out by a cooperative. However, an international non-profit organization based in Brussels was founded to achieve the project goals in 2021. This non-profit association has cooperative-like characteristics.

Activities by private individuals address data sovereignty. A European data cooperative called polypoly has emerged from a start-up. Technical precautions are intended to enable members to keep their own data on their end devices and only surrender rights of disposal voluntarily in the future for a fee. In this way, an extensive cooperative ecosystem of European citizens is to emerge as the core of a decentralized data economy on the basis of data sovereignty.

The Data Governance Act (European Union, 2022a) aims to provide a framework to increase trust in voluntary data sharing for the benefit of businesses and citizens. Within this framework, data cooperatives may operate to provide data intermediation services (Art. 2, 10, and 12). Such cooperative intermediation services are to be provided between data holders and potential data users and include personal (taking into account the GDPR requirements) and non-personal data. Art. 2 (15) defines “services of ‘data cooperatives’ means data intermediation services offered by an organizational structure constituted by data subjects, one-person undertakings or SMEs who are members of that structure, having as its main objectives to support its members in the exercise of their rights with respect to certain data, including with regard to making informed choices before they consent to data processing, to exchange views on data processing purposes and conditions that would best represent the interests of its members in relation to their data, and to negotiate terms and conditions for data processing on behalf of its members before giving permission to the processing of non-personal data or before they consent to the processing of personal data.”

Cooperative institutionalizations for data-based ecosystems are also proposed by the Enquete Commission Artificial Intelligence—Social Responsibility and Economic, Social, and Ecological Potentials of the German Bundestag. To promote the use of AI for small and medium-sized enterprises, the sharing and common use of anonymized data is proposed in order to generate added value “e.g. through trust centers for data exchange or the creation of interdisciplinary data cooperatives” (Deutscher Bundestag, 2020, p. 37). Today, it is not possible to assess how simple or complicated the establishment and activities of such data cooperatives will be. Nevertheless, their anchoring in the regulatory documents of the EU data space is to be welcomed.

Already today, cooperative institutionalized data-based ecosystems are being founded to collect personal (e.g., health-related) data from members in a GDPR-compatible manner and to make it available for research. All rights of disposal remain with the members as data owners. Only they authorize the use of the data for individual projects. The cooperative acts as a data trustee. For example, the Swiss Midata as an open innovation system is a combined platform- and data-based ecosystem. The platform is used for data storage. IT service providers and scientists can develop data applications, e.g., apps, in strictly separate use and offer them to the members. The cooperative Data NatuRe eG—Daten Naturkost & Reformwaren has developed a data ecosystem for the natural food, natural goods, and health food industry, which it has been operating since 2017. Against the background of the importance of reliable master data along the value chain and increasing demands on data management, the aim is to ensure electronic data exchange via standardized formats and to minimize the susceptibility to errors in the area of data maintenance. In this case, too, the members remain the owners of their data and determine to whom it is passed on.

Cooperative institutionalization is not only suitable for the organization of data clouds and data pools for the purposes mentioned but also for networks of medium-sized companies, craftsmen, freelancers of all sectors, or especially for self-employed IT entrepreneurs. The purpose is always the efficient and secure organization of their data. Accordingly, there are numerous examples, most of which are a combination of platform- and data-based ecosystem. Hostsharing eG, for example, was founded as early as 2000. It claims to have been the first cooperatively organized web hoster and describes its offer as cooperative cloud computing. Community hosting is supposed to enable digital sovereignty, sustainability, and excellence for the members.

Another application area is based on the Internet of Things. Data-based ecosystems institutionalize physical objects equipped with sensors, software, and other technologies to connect them to other devices and systems via the Internet so that data can be exchanged between the objects. Concrete value creation decisions require data analyses that enable the basis for linking digital images of the value creation process and can thus restructure it, also by means of a digital infrastructure. The question of concrete cooperation between data owners also arises in this context. This question has been answered several times in recent years with the establishment of data cooperatives (Baars et al., 2021), for which the foundations were developed as part of a joint project of the Ferdinand Steinbeis Institute, the Baden-Württemberg Cooperative Association (BWGV) and the chairs of Business Informatics 1 and Controlling at the University of Stuttgart. The data owners become the members of the cooperative, which has the responsibility for data management and collaboration, while the data analytics are provided by external providers on a contractual basis. They are part of the data ecosystem, but not of the cooperative. The pre-conditions for cooperation include clear rules on how, by whom, and under what conditions individual data may be used.

This category of cooperative ecosystems also expresses how closely connected platform- and data-based ecosystems are. It has been shown how multifaceted the contexts are in which agents choose cooperative institutionalization. Digital ecosystems can be cooperatives or choose other forms of institutionalization. However, cooperatives are always ecosystems, regardless of whether they have already started the process of their digital transformation or not. Finally, the question must be asked what perspectives cooperative ecosystems have and what challenges they face.

4.5 Perspectives and Challenges

The technological, economic, and social environment suggest that business collaboration will continue and increase. Digitalization, data management, and value creation via platforms suggest larger organizational units. Cooperative business models form a suitable foundation for this. The European Union’s goal is to create an integrated data space where competition between infrastructures will end the power position of the large platform companies. However, this presupposes that it leaves room for strategic decisions in the economy and society in order to be able to use technological developments as progress and to generate further innovations.

It can be assumed that digital ecosystems will continue to grow in order to exploit the potential for innovation. The individual economic choice between different institutionalizations will be decisive for the share of cooperative ecosystems. There are some strong arguments in their favor. The focus is on the partners’ right to participate, i.e., assured participation in strategic decisions and sharing in the results of value creation. The fact that no minimum capital is required for the company makes it easier to set up, as does the possibility of limiting liability. Many agents consider the concrete structuring of voting rights to be positive. It prevents dominance by individual members and significantly reduces the potential for exploitation. Both security against hostile takeovers and a convincing resistance to insolvency contribute to the long-term, real economy and innovation-oriented orientation of decisions.

Transparent and credible rules of cooperation are viewed very positively by many agents. In addition, cooperative institutionalization offers more flexibility in design than is often assumed. This makes it possible to combine legal entities and natural persons as partners, which can also be important for regional ecosystems. Subsidiaries, funds, and participations are possible. The Member-Value orientation neither allows for unlimited and isolated profit maximization nor permits the outflow of jointly generated profits. Nevertheless, cooperative ecosystems can expand. They can and may realize profits and also need them for their development. It is also easier to expand the partner network than, for example, in the institutionalization of a limited liability company. When joining or changing partners, there is no need to change the articles of association and no company valuation.

The fact that the focus is not on maximizing shareholder value but on Member-Value is in line with social developments. It is seen as positive at a time when the social responsibility of companies is rigorously demanded and also regulated within the framework of ESG requirements. Cooperative ecosystems are recognized as having a comparative advantage in meeting these requirements. Their owners can demonstrate the purpose of their cooperation with their individual economic actions as well as with the subsequent positive societal effects for a long period of time. Their ownership is literally “responsible ownership.” The young generation of founders thinks and works participatively in communities, digitally, and in projects. They are convinced of swarm intelligence and value sharing. Against this background, the perspectives for cooperative ecosystems can be assessed positively.

Nevertheless, there is no guarantee. There are also challenges and differing weightings of the cooperative characteristics. The assessment of some observers that cooperative institutionalization would rob agility, flexibility, and innovation orientation has already been mentioned. This cannot be completely ruled out, especially with heterogeneous members, and there are examples of this. But this is not necessarily the case. Compared to other institutionalizations, the cooperative characteristics are usually less well known, and this also applies to founding consultants. Sometimes the long history of cooperatives leads to the assessment that they are no longer up to date today. Still, others are subject to the false assessment that profits are not possible and not permissible. Even cooperatives that declare themselves to be non-profit, however, have to finance their development from their own resources and will need a surplus of income to do so.

The fact that cooperative shares are not tradable is an obstacle to the sale of successful start-ups. That the increase in value cannot be taken away by members when they leave the cooperative is sometimes viewed critically by founders. However, this is an important characteristic of cooperatives: Ownership is tied to the cooperative and not to the individual partners. The latter two criticisms weigh heavily, especially if the partners do not take a long-term activity period as a basis from the outset. Then the sustainable approach also becomes less important for them, which entails that part of the cooperation rent necessarily becomes available only in the future.

One challenge for cooperative ecosystems is competition law. It favors transactions within hierarchically organized companies compared to transactions between partners. This poses major challenges for cooperative groups, in particular, if they want to implement joint digitization strategies or if the data distributed in the network is to be shared. This is particularly relevant for customer data. This disadvantage hinders small and medium-sized companies in their digitization strategies. This drawback applies to all ecosystems.

Data sharing opportunities will continue to grow. At the same time, credible rules are desired to ensure the security and transparency of data spaces as well as individual data sovereignty. This is the prerequisite for the desired cooperation rents to emerge. This will likely encourage the cooperative institutionalization of ecosystems. It is therefore important that the framework currently created by EU law for the property rights of data supports these developments and creates appropriate incentives. Whether this will be the case is difficult to assess at present. In summary, we can expect both positive prospects and some hurdles for cooperative ecosystems.