From Silos to Synergies: A Nexus Framework for Innovation-Driven Sustainability Ecosystems

Abstract

Organizing sustainability through innovation-driven ecosystem platforms is the core focus of this study. We aim to explore the attributes, practices, and participatory architecture of innovation-driven platforms designed to address grand challenges in sustainable development. A longitudinal study of an innovation platform’s organization enables us to capture major developments in the evolution of these platforms. Employing a comparative analysis of innovation-driven platforms managed by the Israel Innovation Institute (III), we review their activities in three main platform areas: Climate-related challenges, unmet mobility needs, and agricultural technology. The research questions guiding this study are: What specific attributes define each innovation-driven platform, and how can the strategies implemented by the III inform innovation practices across different domains? Further, we observe recent strategic changes and characterize the “nexus” concept to explore the novel integration of critical infrastructure components of innovation-driven platforms into a new institutional model. This model is designed to innovate while addressing higher-order societal challenges such as climate change. We introduce this model as a framework that may inform approaches to advancing sustainability across different regional or ecosystem contexts.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the study of innovation, sustainable development, and the resolution of societal grand challenges has gained prominence within the organizational literature [1,2,3,4,5] as well as in related fields such as sustainability transition, transformation, systems thinking [6,7], and environmental studies [8]. The central term, sustainable development, originates from the Brundtland Report (1987) [9] (p. 41), formally titled Our Common Future, published by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). It is defined as: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This definition emphasizes the balance between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity—often referred to as the three pillars of sustainability. This definition is criticized by Lozano and Lozano (2024) [10], who claim that the definition is insufficient when not translated into sector-specific strategies.

This shift in the interest of organizational research reflects a growing awareness of innovation’s pivotal role in driving progress and economic prosperity within and between organizations, industries, and nations. However, the organizational literature should pay greater attention to the challenges of organizing sustainability across different societal spheres and sectors [10]. Thus, the concept of organizing sustainability is of great value, and it is defined as “seeking organizational forms and practices of coordination in and between organizations that shape the economic production process so that it contributes to social and ecological thriving” [3] (p. 9). This is achieved by developing social dialogue with internal and external stakeholders to define and negotiate organizational goals that align with societal expectations [11] in local and broader socio-economic contexts, with the aim of regenerating and reproducing resources [3].

This research acknowledges that the impact of innovation on sustainable development [12] is not uniform across countries and regions [13]. It is influenced by several factors, including the presence of advanced academic knowledge, network characteristics, entrepreneurial culture, and institutional frameworks designed to bolster innovation. Recent work has also emphasized the role of digital transformation and governance mechanisms in shaping sustainable innovation practices across supply chains and ecosystems [12]. While this study focuses on the Israeli context—a setting characterized by a robust innovation culture and centralized institutional support—the findings are intended to offer insights that may be adapted to other geopolitical, economic, or regulatory environments. We position the Nexus model as a context-sensitive framework, acknowledging that institutional arrangements vary globally and may shape the model’s applicability and outcomes.

Building on previous work by Oliver and Rittblat [14], this paper aims to develop an organizing perspective on climate sustainability [3]. This includes the problem of climate change, defined as a ‘super wicked problem’ due to its scale, scope, and time horizon of evolution [5] (p. 1886) [15]. Climate change is marked by nonlinear dynamics with multiple associations and interactions; radical uncertainty; difficulty of forecasting the future; and multiple criteria of worth [4].

While the term “climate sustainability” typically falls within the broader field of sustainability management— encompassing various conceptual definitions in business studies [16]—this paper adopts the definition of climate sustainability, following Wittneben et al. [17]. They define climate sustainability as “not just an environmental problem requiring technical and managerial solutions; it is a political issue where a variety of organizations—state agencies, firms, industry associations, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and multilateral organizations—engage in contestation as well as collaboration over the issue” [17] (p. 1431). In this context, the development of the Nexus model serves as a core contribution, offering a cross-sectoral and scalable framework to address the structural and coordination challenges inherent in ‘super wicked problems’ like climate change.

Moreover, studying climate sustainability from an institutional perspective highlights the opportunities for change that emerge at ‘the intersection of conflicting fields and logics’ [4] (p. 364), which demands a unique set of tools and a participatory architecture that enables coordination and dialogue between multiple stakeholders such as community platforms [5] or innovation-driven platforms. The institutional theory emphasizes the key role that organizational structure and institutional environments play in shaping innovative processes [18]. It highlights how organizations are embedded within systems of meanings, rules, and practices operating at multiple levels—global, occupational, organizational, industrial, and interpersonal [18,19]. Innovation, in this view, both emerges from and reshapes institutional contexts. A key concept in this framework [20] is institutional logic—defined as “the organizing principles that shape the behavior of field participants… a set of belief systems and associated practices” [21] (p. 631). These logics may coexist and compete within the same field, shaping what is considered rational or legitimate [22]. Moreover, institutional logics are not static but evolve over time [23]. Institutional logic functions both as a meta-theoretical lens and a method for understanding how goals and coherence emerge in organizational fields [24].

Innovation-driven platforms catalyze ecosystem development by fostering knowledge exchange and addressing societal grand challenges through broad stakeholder engagement [25]. Through a bottom-up process—encompassing partnerships, exchanges, and collaboration among actors on national and international levels—innovation platforms foster continuous learning and interaction of diverse stakeholders.

Similarly, Seddon et al. [26] advocate for a multidimensional approach to addressing climate change challenges. A clear example of such challenges is evident in agriculture, where conventional farming practices, such as the excessive use of fertilizers, substantially contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation [15]. Likewise, Malhi et al. [27] emphasize the need for improved models to implement adaptive ecosystem management amid the uncertainties of climate change.

Following these calls for developing an integrated perspective on climate sustainability [28], we examine the dynamics of three innovation-driven platforms through an in-depth case study of the Israel Innovation Institute (III) [29], where national and international innovation ecosystems are being managed and cultivated, extending beyond individual organizational boundaries. In examining the participatory architecture of these platforms, we seek to assess whether the strategies employed by the management of these three innovation-driven platforms are consistent or vary across different ecosystems. Our central research questions are: What specific attributes define each innovation-driven platform, and how can the strategies implemented by the III inform innovation practices across different domains? In mapping the attributes of each innovation platform and the key strategies implemented by the III, we show how their procedural stages lead to the creation of the Nexus model. While this model is grounded in the Israeli innovation context, its design features may offer transferable insights, provided they are adapted to local governance and ecosystem dynamics.

Through the lens of this longitudinal study, we map a conceptual transition—from innovation communities to innovation platforms, to the Nexus model—which enables an analytical departure from national institutional boundaries toward global network integration and the dynamic diffusion of knowledge and practice. The Nexus model is defined as an integrative, multi-platform framework that merges an ecological–economic systems perspective with organizational innovation theory to address complex sustainability challenges. Rooted in the view of human societies as embedded within a web of interdependent natural and institutional systems [30], the model responds to “wicked problems”, such as climate change, by facilitating cross-sectoral coordination, resource interlinkage, and adaptive governance [31,32].

This paper adopts a mixed approach—conceptually introducing the Nexus model as a novel framework for organizing sustainability-focused innovation platforms, and empirically analyzing its emergence and early-stage application. The purpose is twofold: (1) to articulate the theoretical underpinnings and institutional logic shift from siloed to integrative innovation, and (2) to examine whether the model provides observable benefits in practice, including improved collaboration, resource visibility, and alignment around complex sustainability challenges.

Metaphorically, the nexus represents the mutual dependency and interwoven mechanisms of diverse actors and infrastructures [33] and is operationalized here through the integration of distinct innovation platforms—mainly focused on agriculture, climate, and mobility—into a shared digital and organizational architecture. The Nexus model is based on a multi-platform integration approach as the next stage in the development of innovation-driven platforms, where resource interdependence is leveraged to address the societal grand challenges [32].

By examining the advanced forms of organizing sustainability, particularly the emerging concept of the Nexus model, this paper makes several key contributions. First, it elucidates the critical role of the institutional dimension of climate change in addressing societal grand challenges by investigating the emergence of new institutional forms and structures designed to tackle these issues. Second, it explores the strategies employed by III and deepens our understanding of the participatory architecture required for how nongovernmental organizations) NGOs (manage sustainability. Third, this research bridges a gap by integrating cross-disciplinary insights between organizational studies and sustainability research [3]. It contributes to the development of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #17, which emphasizes the importance of building partnerships for sustainable development and their role in addressing complex societal grand challenges [34]. Specifically, SDG #17 highlights the need to advance global partnerships by mobilizing and sharing knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources to achieve sustainable development goals (https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/sdg-17-review-of-research-needs-171219.pdf, accessed on 2 July 2025).

The paper is structured as follows: We begin by presenting the theoretical framework and outlining the focus of our research. We then detail the case study methodology used to collect data. In Section 4, we analyze the key components of the three innovation-driven platforms established by the III over the past five years. Next, we introduce the Nexus model of innovation-driven platforms based on various types of integrations and resources. Finally, Section 5 examines the Nexus model and critically explores its potential to address grand sustainability challenges.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Framings and Conceptualizations of Innovation-Driven Platforms

The search for potential solutions for grand challenges requires robust action. Ferraro et al. [4] described robust action as a distributed process that includes multiple actors with different interests and agendas. The robust action model they propose includes three dimensions: establishing a participatory architecture, designing and diffusing multivocal inscriptions, and pursuing distributed experimentation. The participatory architecture necessary is described as ‘a structure and rules of engagement that allow diverse and heterogeneous actors to interact constructively over prolonged timespans’ [4] (p. 374). This architecture is built upon the concept of a platform that facilitates participation, fostering a space for engagement among multiple actors.

Various innovation concepts have been adopted for conceptualizing innovation-related systems since the 1990s, with changing focuses on institution, policy, management, and strategy [35,36,37]. In a recent study, Oliver and Rittblat [14] distinguish between innovation ecosystems, innovation communities, and innovation platforms. The innovation ecosystem is the most encompassing concept, depicting a network of actors and their interactions within a dynamic, multi-level environment that fosters innovation [37]. It is an analogy drawn from ecology, explaining the flow of material and energy [35,38], and is defined as “the collaborative arrangements through which firms combine their individual offerings into a coherent, customer-facing solution” [39] (p. 2). The innovation ecosystem relies on two dual functions: a generative function, which follows exploration and creativity [36]; and exploitation, which focuses on maximizing value creation. As Davidson et al. [40] stated, when referring to the added mutual value of business ecosystems, “the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts” (p. 2).

Innovation ecosystems can be described as communities [37]. Innovation communities are deeply rooted in the sociological understanding of ‘community,’ which redefines the relationship between individuals and the collective. Durkheim [41] introduced the notion of ‘organic solidarity,’ which arises from the interdependence of individuals fulfilling different roles within modern society. Organic solidarity develops from a “spontaneously arising consensus between individual actors who, because they are engaged in different roles and tasks, become dependent on one another” [41] (p. 16). This interdependence influences the closeness between individuals and their communities. Thus, the community is understood as an integration of shared commitments, resources, and mutual history. Members of a community combine their resources with a shared goal of creating innovative results [37], establishing boundaries that are maintained through shared language, rituals, and other collective practices. These boundaries foster closeness within the community [42].

Innovation communities represent a novel mode of facilitating interactions, where experts in various technological domains and related stakeholders with shared interests in addressing societal grand challenges gather together. These communities can be understood as platforms for collaboration and knowledge exchange with the explicit aim of fostering innovation [43]. Thus, innovation communities facilitate “network-based forms of business interactions” aimed at advancing sustainable development goals [11] (p. 2). The concept of a sustainable development has gained many interpretations but in our study context, it refers to a “process of economic growth without environmental destruction” [44] (p. 144).

Implementing community strategies and processes can help address evolving needs and challenges by fostering unique synergies and connecting people and organizations in new ways. This transition shifts value creation from an individual effort to a multi-actor, co-creation approach [38]. In other words, when organizations and individuals collaborate, they generate more value collectively than they would by acting independently [11,17]. Innovation communities defy straightforward categorization, embodying a blend of open innovation (external ideas contributing to internal, firm level innovation), epistemic knowledge sharing, and competitive dynamics [45]. To better understand the processes governing these communities, theories of open innovation and innovation communities illuminate the practices integral to innovation platforms.

Innovation communities are characterized by a flexible, formal or informal membership structure designed to foster networks, interactions, and learning among stakeholders within a specific innovation ecosystem [46,47,48]. Community members collaborate to establish technological partnerships that address significant societal grand challenges and generate innovative solutions, whether in the form of products, services, or processes. The “relational” aspect of these communities is critical, referring to the human interactions that take place in either physical or virtual spaces. Consequently, these communities serve as venues where a diverse set of stakeholders—including entrepreneurs, technology experts, corporations, government institutions, policymakers, academics, investors, and users—can come together to form partnerships aimed at addressing common challenges.

Innovation communities are frequently hosted by innovation platforms, which are versatile structures incorporating both physical and digital elements. These platforms are designed to facilitate resource sharing [13] and ongoing knowledge and technology exchange among stakeholders, encouraging continuous collaboration. Commonly, such platforms support “open source” interactions, enabling open partnerships that drive collective innovation [49]. The notion of innovation-driven platforms is reflected in the concept of ‘nation-wide platforms’ [37] (p. 136). In these platforms, the public and private sectors build tools for fostering innovation within ecosystems through joint work and dialogue. These platforms are viewed as ‘building blocks for developing regional and national innovation ecosystems’ [37] (p. 136). By bringing together compatible stakeholders from across sectors, innovation communities advance participation centered on shared innovation objectives. This structure allows for the pooling of resources, knowledge, and expertise to tackle complex problems.

Recent research has increasingly emphasized the critical role of digital platforms as hubs for innovation, value creation, the delivery of services and products [34], and collaborative economy [50]. While we acknowledge the significant role of digital platforms, we emphasize the importance of face-to-face innovation-driven platforms as critical enablers of innovation, particularly through the creation, maintenance, and advancement of multi-stakeholder interactions.

2.2. The Nexus

A range of ecosystem-based and analytical frameworks have been developed to support thinking about sustainable development and innovation across complex systems. Among these, the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), Panarchy framework, and the broader nexus approach offer valuable insights into how socio-technical and ecological systems evolve, adapt, and interact. In this section, we briefly outline the key assumptions and contributions of each framework and clarify how the Nexus model presented in this paper draws from, differs from, and builds upon these approaches to offer a distinct institutional and design-oriented perspective.

The Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), developed by Geels (2011) [6], is a theoretical framework that explains how large-scale changes occur in socio-technical systems—such as energy, mobility, or agriculture. These systems are composed of both technological components (e.g., infrastructure, tools) and social elements (e.g., institutions, regulations, user practices). The MLP views transitions as long-term, nonlinear processes resulting from the interaction of three analytical levels: niches, where radical innovations are developed and protected; socio-technical regimes, which represent the dominant ways of organizing and stabilizing existing systems; and the landscape, which includes broader external trends such as climate change, political shifts, or economic crises. Change occurs when innovations from niches align with landscape pressures and destabilize the existing regime. While the MLP provides a robust explanation for how past transitions unfold, its perspective is primarily descriptive, emphasizing the structural evolution of systems over time.

The Panarchy framework, developed by Gunderson and Holling (2002) [8], draws from ecological and social theory to explain how complex systems—such as ecosystems, communities, or institutions—change and adapt over time. It describes adaptive cycles of growth, conservation, collapse, and reorganization, and highlights how systems operate at multiple levels (local to global). These levels are interconnected: disruption or transformation at one scale can cascade into others—a dynamic known as cross-scale interaction. Panarchy is especially useful for understanding resilience, showing how systems absorb shocks and evolve through adaptive renewal.

The nexus concept originates from an ecological–economic perspective that views the world as an “interconnected complex system of humanity embedded in the rest of nature” [30] (p. 79). Over the past decade, this concept has gained multiple definitions and led to vivid discussion in academic discourse [31], climate change, energy, and food security, offering a novel framework for addressing “wicked problems”. A nexus is defined as a ”process for integrating and managing different sectors, largely through joint coordination to promote sustainable development” [31] (p 44). Metaphorically, the nexus represents the mutual dependency and interwoven mechanisms of multiple elements within interconnected chains [33] (p. 1). Another perspective on the nexus introduces the ‘resource nexus’, describing it as a “set of contexts- specific critical interlinkages between two or more natural resources used in delivery chains towards systems of provision for water, energy, food, land and materials”, while also considering their broader systemic functions [32] (pp. 737–738). By bringing together stakeholders from diverse fields, the nexus enhances resource efficiency and promotes sustainable solutions [38,51], while also encouraging the creation of new knowledge regarding scale integration and context-specific applications [32]. The nexus concept fosters a holistic, ecosystem-wide view of infrastructure, standing in contrast to traditional, siloed approaches to sustainability challenges. Specifically, in the context of water and energy, the nexus concept underscores the interactions among environmental resources, competing interests, and the distribution of associated risks [28].

The water–energy–food nexus (WEF), in particular, has emerged as a crucial component in sustainable development discussions [38,52]. It reflects that connectivity and interdependency of various systems—such as water, energy, and food—are essential to advancing sustainable development. This framework emphasizes that isolating one system from another detracts from a comprehensive, inclusive approach, which is crucial “when looking at resilience in the context of increasing resource scarcity, competition among sectors, and resource security” [28] (p. 3). In other words, unlike the traditional silo approach, where specialized institutions and actors operate independently to address interconnected challenges, the nexus concept fosters a holistic understanding of these challenges. It achieves this by identifying and enhancing connections, synergies, and trade-offs across multiple sectors [25]. Accordingly, the Nexus model is designed to leverage the interdependencies between various resource systems within the innovation platforms, thereby enhancing various sources of combinations between ecosystems.

These interdependencies highlight the nexus as a multidimensional tool for policy development and governance across different sectors. For instance, within the water–energy–food (WEF (nexus, digital platforms help analyze and quantify the interconnections between these sectors. They also integrate comprehensive and holistic management strategies to optimize the future allocation of essential resources while fostering collaboration among key stakeholders [52]. However, the complexity of implementing the nexus concept lies in its engagement with institutional and environmental risks and the involvement of multiple stakeholders across various sectors. For instance, within the WEF nexus, several barriers hinder its effective implementation in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These include rigid policy frameworks, entrenched institutional interests, bureaucratic planning and execution processes, and lack of robust information tools for informed decision making. To address these challenges, further research is needed to explore coordination and cooperation mechanisms among various sectors and stakeholders at the political, ecological, and technical scales [52].

While the MLP, Panarchy, and the broader nexus frameworks provide important lenses for understanding how change emerges in complex systems—whether through multi-level interactions, adaptive cycles, or resource interdependencies—they remain largely explanatory in nature. In contrast, the Nexus model developed in this study is explicitly action oriented. It focuses on how systemic change can be strategically designed and managed through mechanisms such as coordinated stakeholder engagement, shared digital infrastructure, and cross-platform knowledge integration. Rather than observing transitions as emergent or reactive, the model provides a scalable structure for organizing real-time, cross-sector innovation aimed at addressing complex societal challenges—particularly those related to climate change. In this way, it advances a participatory and institutional framework for deliberate orchestration and adaptive collaboration across innovation ecosystems.

To further clarify how the Nexus model differs from other prominent innovation frameworks,

Table 1. Comparative table: Innovation models.

Model	Definition	Key Characteristics	Related References
Open-Innovation Hubs	Collaborative physical or virtual spaces that connect startups, corporates, academia, and public actors to accelerate idea exchange and joint innovation.	Multi-stakeholder engagement: - Open access or semi-curated participation - Often privately or hybrid funded - Emphasis on co-creation and matchmaking	Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., & Moedas, C. (2018). Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies. California Management Review, 60(2), 5–16. [49] Salter, A., Criscuolo, P., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2014). Coping with open innovation: Responding to the challenges of external engagement. Research Policy, 43(2), 272–282 [53]
Triple Helix Model	A conceptual framework describing innovation as the outcome of dynamic interactions between university, industry, and government sectors.	Institutional interplay: - Focus on systemic innovation capacity - Common in national/regional policy discourse - Often used to guide governance structures	Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). The Triple Helix: University–industry–government innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge. [54] Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442 [55]
Innovation Labs	Structured organizational units or dedicated spaces created to experiment with new ideas, often using design thinking and rapid prototyping within or across firms.	Agile, small-team environments: - Focus on experimentation and iteration - Often corporate-sponsored - May operate internally or externally	Björk, J., Boccardelli, P., & Magnusson, M. (2010). Ideation capabilities for continuous innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(3), 385–396 [56] Werker, C., & Ahmed, M. U. (2022). Innovation labs in organizations: An integrative framework and research agenda. Organization Studies, 43(3), 375–397 [57]

provides a comparative overview of established models, including open-innovation hubs, the Triple Helix model, and innovation labs. This comparison highlights the distinctive characteristics of the Nexus model and its relevance for addressing systemic, multi-stakeholder challenges such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and climate adaptation crises.

As indicated above, the MLP, Panarchy, and broader nexus frameworks offer explanatory perspectives on how sustainability transitions unfold across complex systems. However, they do not focus on how innovation processes can be strategically designed and managed across multiple platforms and stakeholders. To address this gap, we compare the Nexus model with established models used to organize and operationalize innovation—namely, open-innovation hubs, the Triple Helix model, and innovation labs. These models, while influential in their own right, typically emphasize specific institutional arrangements or bounded environments for innovation. In contrast, the Nexus model integrates systemic coordination, real-time knowledge flows, and multi-stakeholder governance to tackle challenges that are both ecological and institutional in nature.

3. Methods

In this section, we present the Israeli innovation context, detailing the unique characteristics and dynamics that influence innovation practices in the region. We then outline our research approach, including the criteria for selecting specific cases, followed by a discussion of our data sources and the data analysis process.

3.1. Research Context

The context of our study is important for examining innovation ecosystem processes. Israel has been characterized as Start-Up Nation [58], thus providing a unique context for studying innovation ecosystems. Israel consistently ranks as highly innovative in the Global Innovation Index [59], and this recognition underscores the nation’s commitment to fostering innovation across various sectors. In the recent report of the GII index [60], Israel was ranked #1 in innovation in its region. It is listed among the high-income group and in countries with performance above expectation (along with Switzerland, Sweden, USA, Singapore, United Kingdom, S. Korea, Finland, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, France, Japan, and Canada) [60] (p. 19). Another finding shows that Japan, Israel, Hong Kong, China, and Luxembourg tie in the fifth place on innovation indicators, ranking first in the following indicators: public research–industry co-publications, GERD (gross expenditure on R&D), performance by business, high-tech imports, and knowledge-intensive employment, respectively [60] (p. 52). In addition, Israel is ranked #7 on knowledge and technology outputs [60] (p. 64). Finally, Israel ranked #7 on knowledge creation and knowledge diffusion worldwide [60] (p. 172).

This current study is part of an ongoing, longitudinal research project examining the key strategies, activities, and processes of the Israel Innovation Institute (III), a nonprofit organization dedicated to establishing ecosystems and platforms to enhance innovative solutions to societal challenges. To achieve our research objectives and conceptual advancements, we study three innovation-driven platforms of the III. The III has established numerous innovation platforms spanning areas such as education, transportation, agriculture, food, and health for advancing knowledge, collaborations, and innovative technologies [29]. For our comparative analysis, we selected the three most prominent platforms within the III: EcoMotion, GrowingIL, and PLANETech. We selected these platforms since they share a focus on innovation advances with regard to preserving resources and advancing sustainability. Moreover, among these domains are transportation and agrifood, ebullient empirical domains with various stakeholders, actors, and capabilities, providing a strong basis to develop environmental innovation where sustainability transitions are essential [11].

3.2. Research Approach

We apply the qualitative case study approach [61], which is common among academic studies that address organizational action focused on tackling grand challenges [4]. The case study strategy uses several empirical cases to inductively develop theoretical constructs or mid-range theory [62]. Thus, the emerging theory is situated in, and developed by, the natural context in which a phenomenon occurs [62,63].

In this study, each innovation community platform was studied as a single case study platform inquiry [62,64]. As our study aimed for conceptual clarification and theory building, this approach allowed us to observe and document the shifts from single independent platforms to the Nexus model. In addition, the article’s empirical purpose is to verify the model’s usefulness and the benefits it provides for enhancing innovation in other contexts. Our examination of the platforms aimed at revealing key elements of commonalities and differences, which is the major opportunity in multiple-case research [62]. Based on the comparative analysis and our interviews with key actors in the organization, we further characterize the novel synergistic model of the nexus and discuss its advantages for innovation-driven sustainability ecosystems.

The case study design, conducted over a sustained period, allowed us to capture how the Nexus model emerged from the integration of three initially independent innovation-driven platforms. Our approach follows an inductive logic consistent with theory-building research and enables us to derive insights into how cross-sectoral collaboration structures and stakeholder practices contributed to the formation of this integrative model.

3.3. Cases

The three innovation platforms represent innovative efforts to preserve resources and advance sustainability-related and advanced solutions. In the following we provide initial background characteristics of the three community platforms.

3.3.1. Case 1: EcoMotion

EcoMotion, defined as a “mobility ecosystem”, is a joint venture of the III, the Ministry of Economy and Industry and the Ministry of Transport and Road Safety in Israel. Established in 2012, its primary mission is to “support the growth of the Israeli Smart Mobility sector, and enhance the implementation of innovation in the field, while simultaneously, positioning Israel as a global innovation center for Smart Mobility”. Currently, EcoMotion provides a platform for interaction, knowledge sharing, and synergy exploration by bringing together startups, entrepreneurs, global companies, investors, innovation hubs, municipalities, government officials, and more. This platform has had a significant impact, supporting over 800 startups and a community of more than 16,000 members. As shown in Figure 1, the platform maps the mobility industry, categorizing investors, service providers, innovation representatives, innovation hubs, public sector companies, and available funding options. Similarly, it maps startups, classifying them into various sectors such as electrification and energy, autonomous technology, mobility services, supply chain, drones, and aviation. These reports are available and accessible on the III website. Moreover, the website provides in-depth reports on mobility challenges, investment trends, and industry developments while also organizing meetups and events.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the EcoMotion platform provides a comprehensive industry map that visualizes the interconnected actors in the smart mobility sector. This visual tool supports the platform’s goal of fostering innovation through ecosystem transparency and strategic alignment. By categorizing startups and stakeholders into thematic areas (e.g., electrification, autonomous tech, supply chain), the figure demonstrates how the platform facilitates knowledge diffusion and targeted stakeholder engagement. This mapping capability is essential for enabling collaborations among actors with complementary capabilities—an early signal of the participatory architecture later formalized in the Nexus model.

3.3.2. Case 2: GrowingIL

The GrowingIL platform aims to achieve several goals: developing the Israeli Ag-Tech ecosystem, positioning Israel as a global hub for Ag-Tech innovation, and facilitating the implementation of groundbreaking technologies within Israel. It is a government initiative supported by the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Israel Innovation Authority, and the Israel Innovation Institute. The platform was established in 2018 and has shown an increasing number of investments and investor engagement in this sector, as shown in Figure 2:

As illustrated in Figure 2, the agricultural sector has recently experienced a notable increase in Ag-Tech investments, reflecting growing trust in ecosystem startups’ capacity to deliver innovative solutions. This trend aligns with observations by Fairbairn, Kish, and Guthman (2022) [65], who note that agri-food tech ventures often present themselves as transformative while operating within established institutional boundaries. It is important to recognize the distinction between agri-food tech startups, which address both food system innovations and post-harvest technologies, and more traditional agricultural startups, which tend to focus on farm-level production and inputs.

Figure 2 captures the broader trajectory of Ag-Tech investments in Israel, reflecting an increasing financial interest in sustainable agricultural innovation. While these trends cannot be attributed solely to the GrowingIL platform, they coincide with its establishment and growing visibility. This alignment suggests that innovation-driven platforms like GrowingIL may contribute to sectoral legitimacy by convening stakeholders, enhancing ecosystem visibility, and facilitating investor–startup engagement. In this sense, such platforms may serve as enablers or amplifiers of financial flows within sustainability ecosystems, even if not their direct source.

Similar to the EcoMotion platform, the GrowingIL platform has mapped the Agrifood Tech industry (https://www.growingil.org/agrifoodtechmap2025, accessed on 1 June 2024), offering interactive maps of startups and investors on its website. Additionally, the platform provides a tool to help navigate governmental funding programs (https://www.growingil.org/government-funding-tool, accessed on 1 June 2024).

3.3.3. Case 3: PLANETech

The PLANETech platform was established in 2020. It aims to address climate-related challenges such as clean energy systems, low carbon buildings, and green construction by operating across three main goals. The first goal is education, which includes knowledge sharing and the discovery of opportunities through workshops and working groups focused on cross-sector challenges and featuring speakers from leading organizations. The second goal is forming connections, and it aims at creating collaboration with global stakeholders by engaging with climate leaders, connecting with global organizations, and addressing funding opportunities. The third goal relates to implementation, and it encompasses the validation of knowledge in living labs, challenge competitions aimed at solving real-life issues, and fostering open innovation. Since its establishment in 2020, PLANETech has pushed this emerging sector forward, as shown in Figure 3.

Similar to the other examined platforms, PLANETech has mapped the Climate-Tech industry by developing a digital information exchange platform titled “Market Square.” This platform includes 371 startups, 78 climate challenges, 47 investors, and 16 corporations (https://planetech.themarketsquare.org, accessed on 1 June 2024) and provides valuable information for the ecosystem members on potential collaborations and knowledge exchanges. Figure 3 presents a summary of the annual number of startups founded across the three innovation communities.

As shown in Figure 3, the number of startups founded within each innovation community platform’s domain has generally increased over time. While this trend cannot be directly attributed to the platforms themselves, it reflects the broader momentum within their respective ecosystems. The differential growth patterns among EcoMotion, GrowingIL, and PLANETech correspond to their evolving sectoral focus and maturity levels. Importantly, this data includes the period following the COVID-19 pandemic and the outbreak of war in Israel in 2023—a context that has introduced major uncertainty and disruption. The inclusion of this temporal frame adds important nuance to our analysis and underscores the challenges faced by innovation ecosystems operating under crisis conditions.

3.4. Data-Gathering Tools

The data-gathering tools in this study involved participant observations in board meetings, community managers’ meetings and discussions in community main events, personal interviews with key actors, and a review of archived data and existing materials of the III. These sources, collected over a span of 10 years, between the years 2014 and 2024, form the basis of our study.

Observations: We employed active participant observation [66] at 12 key community events hosted by the III, conducted by the principal investigators (PIs). During these events, we collected field notes regarding the community’s formation and development. These events allowed us to observe different settings including lectures of key world experts, dynamic group discussions, in-person interactions, knowledge and data gathering during visiting the exhibits of different technology related to the ecosystem, and presentations of success stories.

Interviews: Following Garud et al. [67], we study the processes in innovation-driven platforms as experienced by key actors, utilizing ethnographic methods to follow their narratives. This methodological approach enables a comparative analysis of the main themes emerging from interviews with leaders of the III platforms. Based on an informed convenience sampling procedure, which is the most common procedure in organizational research, we sampled key actors on the board and among the community leaders [68]. We conducted 18 interviews, including with two board members; two members of each community that started participating in the community events from the initial community events, who were members of large technological organizations involved in the community; and ten managers of the three communities based on a snowball sample with key community experts.

We also conducted random occasional interviews with participants in the community events regarding their impressions, takeaways, and future plans for participating in the ecosystem. These speedy interviews were conducted during coffee breaks, while waiting for the beginning of lectures, or in front of exhibits of startups who presented their products during the events. The community events were based on multiple sessions with diverse activities, including lectures, group discussions, and problem-solving interactions about emerging needs within the ecosystem, presentations of successful collaborations, and personal meetings rooms. These allowed us to observe different types of interests and interactions.

In the 18 formal interviews, we asked the interviewees to describe the platform’s goals and vision (the board members were asked about all three platforms, while the participants and managers were asked about their own platform), their accounts of the involved participants and their expectations from the platforms, the primary processes they lead, the complexities they encountered, their view of the growth of the community, and their understanding of the next stage of the III in terms of global activities, higher-order knowledge exchange, and the potential to create synergies between the platforms for solving new types of complex societal problems. Not all data we gathered in these interviews were used here. The interviews lasted between 60 min and 120 min. The short random interviews during the communities’ events lasted between 5 and 10 min. All interviews were transcribed, and notes of the short interviews were taken immediately after the interviews.

By using two complementary data sources—observations and interviews—we presented the interviewees with questions arising from our participation in key platform events [69]. This combination of methods allowed for an integrative understanding of the key processes within each platform.

Archived data: Archived data (archived data are defined as the “natural data, meaning that the texts were produced without any connection to the investigation, and the researcher was not involved in creating them” [70] (p. 380)) were collected [70], including field materials related to each platform, such as mission statements, vision documents, published materials retrieved from the platform’s websites, the institute’s general materials used for board meetings, and presentations at the different III community events. We also received access to internal research documents created by the III managers for decision making and further policy and strategy development of each community platform. The use of all these mixed data sources allowed for data triangulations and deep understanding of the three community platforms [71,72].

Table 2. Data-gathering tools.

Data-Gathering Tools	Content	Details
Participant Observations	Community events	12 events observed
Interviews	Board members, community members, and community managers.	18 interviews
Archived Data	Mission statements, vision documents, the platform’s websites, presentations, internal documents of the III.	Field material from various sources reviewed and analyzed based on inter-judge reliability.

provides a summary of the data-gathering instruments employed in the study.

3.5. The Data-Analysis Process

Out data analysis aimed to categorize the different community platforms. To advance this goal, we build upon the argument of Grodal, Anteby, and Holm [73], suggesting that the qualitative analysis process mirrors processes identified in categorization theory to explain how qualitative data is analyzed. Categorization is defined as “the process through which individuals group elements together to generate an understanding of their world” [73] (p. 592). Researchers actively move from data to theory in an iterative process by selecting various strategies to make sense of the data. In this process, categorization—ways of organizing the data—emerges from the “knowledge, goals, and contexts” associated with the data [73] (p. 595). Categories can be organized hierarchically, starting from an overarching category that encompasses various subsets and develops into a meta-category, or they can be organized contextually and goal-dependently. There are various paths for approaching qualitative data to develop theory [73].

Although most interviews were conducted by the first two authors jointly, we were aware of reliability issues regarding our analysis. Therefore, we conducted several joint discussions on insights from the interviews and aimed for high inter-judge reliability [74,75] in our understanding of the research constructs (e.g., attributes of the innovation-driven platforms and the strategies for cross-domain practices). The analytical process involved three main phases: (1) creating initial categories for each community platform, (2) refining tentative categories, and (3) stabilizing categories based on our triangulation of the different data sources. In each phase, specific analytical moves were relevant [73]. In this process, we employed several analytical moves based on the framework proposed by Grodal et al. [73], such as asking questions that drew on existing categories to craft initial categories through field engagement; identifying categories that acted as mechanisms or concepts for explaining the phenomenon while discarding less relevant ones; and defining the meaning of categories by identifying interrelations between them.

To support transparency and conceptual clarity, Figure 4 presents the model development pathway. It visualizes the iterative process through which our Nexus model was developed, aligning with the categorization theory approach. The figure maps how empirical patterns identified through coding and cross-platform comparison were synthesized with institutional theory insights. This interaction enabled the abstraction of the Nexus model, grounded in observed dynamics and theoretical framing.

4. Findings

Below are the findings related to the main research questions: What specific attributes define each innovation-driven platform, and how can the strategies implemented by the III inform innovation practices across different domains? First, we introduce the management stages of the III’s innovation-driven platforms as part of their participatory architecture. Then, we describe the three platforms and the emergence of the Nexus model.

4.1. The Participatory Architecture: Management Stages of the III Platforms

Based on the different data collection sources, we illustrate the key characteristics and practices of the participatory architecture across the three innovation-driven platforms. Structured around three management stages, this architecture includes (1) defining platform operational routines, (2) stakeholder engagement, and (3) re-evaluating and refining strategies (see Appendix A).

4.1.1. Stage 1: Defining Platform Operational Routines

The first stage focuses on identifying the needs, scale, scope, market failures, and complex challenges of each platform. This includes identifying key stakeholders in a specialized field of sustainable development—those most relevant to the platform’s goal. Following this, initial platform events are facilitated to foster collaboration within the platform’s area. Finally, participant feedback from these events is collected and reviewed.

4.1.2. Stage 2: Stakeholder Engagement

The second stage aims to bring multiple stakeholders into platform events, while establishing a digital platform that provides access to a global database. These databases allow participants to search for collaboration partners by topic, knowledge base, or technology. Additionally, this stage helps participants explore state and industry funding opportunities and open-innovation collaborations. Platform events further foster innovation through in-person interactions, information sharing, and prototype/model presentations within the ecosystem. For instance, the GrowingIL platform provides a tool to help navigate governmental funding programs (https://www.growingil.org/about, accessed on 1 June 2024).

4.1.3. Stage 3: Re-Evaluating and Refining Strategies

In the final stage, platform events are refined to address specific needs within specialized fields of sustainable development. Experts are engaged to generate interest, present options, and facilitate connections. This stage also focuses on integrating innovation within organizations, educating them on open-innovation collaborations, and ensuring the ongoing maintenance and updating of the platform database for continued support.

Feedback loops between these stages create mutual influences that enhance the overall process. Figure 5 illustrates the platform-based management stages implemented across the III’s innovation-driven platforms. It visually represents the shared participatory architecture that underlies the management of all three platforms—EcoMotion, GrowingIL, and PLANETech. The figure synthesizes the recurring operational stages: defining routines, engaging stakeholders, and refining strategies. By structuring these elements side by side, the figure reveals a common institutional logic despite each platform’s sector-specific goals. This shared structure, made visually explicit, supports our argument that the III already operates with a latent integrative framework. However, as the platforms currently apply these stages independently, the visual also highlights the lack of horizontal coordination between them. This observation directly informs the rationale for the proposed Nexus model, which seeks to integrate these shared elements into a cohesive, cross-platform system for innovation in sustainability ecosystems.

The stages described within the III platforms are built upon similar elements, such as the definition of operational routines, engagement and reaction of stakeholders, and the re-evaluation of operational routines. However, these stages are based on different characteristics in each innovation-driven platform, based on their specific goals, and thus result in a siloed structure with no overlapping knowledge/capability/technology exchanges.

Feedback loops between these stages create mutual influences that enhance the overall process. Figure 5 illustrates the platform-based management stages implemented across the III’s innovation-driven platforms. It visually represents the shared participatory architecture that underlies the management of all three platforms—EcoMotion, GrowingIL, and PLANETech. Importantly, we also observed increased collaborative activities and stakeholder engagement across platforms—including new joint initiatives and exploratory interactions. These emerging patterns support our view that integration across innovation platforms can foster broader, more coordinated responses to complex sustainability challenges. However, as the platforms currently apply these stages independently, the visual also highlights the lack of horizontal coordination between them. This observation directly informs the rationale for the proposed Nexus model, which seeks to integrate these shared elements into a cohesive, cross-platform system for innovation in sustainability ecosystems.

4.2. Moving from Three Established Innovation-Driven Platforms to the Nexus Model

The three platforms we reviewed clearly have few common structures and process denominators. They were developed to focus on emerging topics, guided by specific missions and goals, grounded in defined areas of knowledge and expertise, and targeted toward various stakeholders within their designed ecosystems. These platforms operate under a governmental and corporate sponsorship model.

All three were designed to facilitate the architecture of collaboration and technology transfer within a distinct field of knowledge/capabilities/technologies. Their operations are confined to specific temporal and spatial contexts, which hinders the speed and breadth of interactions. For the III, it was essential that each platform possessed unique characteristics aligned with its mission, though some overlap existed among their goals. For instance, one of the tools offered by the GrowingIL platform is a “mentoring program” (https://www.growingil.org/theregenagchallenge, accessed on 1 June 2024) that connects early-stage startups with mentors from various sectors. This initiative reflects an understanding of the commonalities between platform goals and a shift toward a more advanced approach in addressing Ag-Tech’s grand challenges. In a similar vein, the PLANETech platform has introduced a “challenges map,” outlining five key areas of activity: environment building, land use, materials and manufacturing, digital solutions, and nature. This map explores “78 interconnected climate challenges.” (https://planetech.themarketsquare.org, accessed on 1 June 2024). However, the identification of these interconnections among ecosystem challenges is specific and limited to the particular ecosystem. Moreover, knowledge production and facilitation within these platforms are primarily driven by the platforms’ managers.

To complement these findings, Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 provide visual evidence of how the platforms operate within and influence their respective ecosystems. Figure 1 highlights EcoMotion’s role in mapping stakeholder landscapes; Figure 2 illustrates increased Ag-Tech investment coinciding with GrowingIL’s emergence; and Figure 3 captures platform activity amid national disruption post-2023. While not causal, these visuals underscore the platforms’ enabling roles within sustainability ecosystems and support the analytical basis for the Nexus model.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This study offers both conceptual and empirical contributions. Conceptually, it introduces the Nexus model as a new institutional framework for cross-sector innovation. Empirically, it draws on a longitudinal case study of three innovation platforms managed by the Israel Innovation Institute (III), illustrating how this model emerges from practice—highlighting its potential benefits, limitations, and challenges. This conceptual–empirical integration aims to bridge the cross-disciplinary gap between innovation-oriented organizational studies and sustainability research, thereby contributing to the understanding of how to address complex, high-order societal problems.

By analyzing the micro-level activities and management stages of three platforms—EcoMotion, GrowingIL, and PLANETech—we observed siloed operations shaped by distinct institutional logics [21,22,23]. However, rising environmental complexity and interdependent societal challenges call for more integrated systems. Our findings support this transition, revealing increasing collaborative activity and thematic convergence, especially in Ag-Tech and mobility, suggesting the early emergence of a hybrid model.

The Nexus model captures this transition by integrating overlapping elements—stakeholder-centered dialogue, digital infrastructure, and participatory governance—into an interdependent innovation ecosystem. The novelty of III’s strategic process introduces a two-dimensional change. First, it expands the ecosystem by refocusing efforts on climate innovation challenges and identifying dimensions of market failure common across platforms—uncovering entrepreneurial opportunities, redirecting investors, and integrating overlapping expertise. Unlike the previous siloed model, the current effort pursues an integrated platform spanning ecosystems.

Second, it addresses complex interdependencies through a multi-sector knowledge/capability/technology platform that connects stakeholders across academia, business, and government—locally and globally. The Nexus model also provides free digital assets to boost open innovation and cross-sector collaboration. This integrated approach encourages serendipity, and generates potential solutions for wicked climate-related problems. We outline its dimensions below:

• Stakeholder-centered dialogue: It places greater emphasis on engaging with stakeholders, prioritizing the challenges they identify within the broader ecosystem.
• Cross-Sectoral and global reach: It expands beyond individual sectors and national boundaries to stimulate the exchange of novel ideas, capabilities, and knowledge.
• Centralized digital infrastructure: It relies on a digitized platform that serves as a central hub, offering accessible information about all stakeholders involved in the climate space.
• Open and self-linking functionality: The platform is designed to allow stakeholders to actively connect and share their own information and knowledge, fostering real-time collaboration and transparency.
• Sustainable economic model: It introduces new financial mechanisms to support the operations of the platform, such as membership fees, consulting and scouting services, and targeted data analytics provided by III experts.

The Nexus model goes beyond single ecosystems, forming an extensive network of individuals and organizations united to address grand societal challenges. However, it faces implementation challenges: Sustaining participant commitment at both the platform and nexus levels; motivating engagement across platforms and the nexus; and ensuring financial sustainability via clear economic value and long-term viability.

The Nexus model aligns with institutional theory by illustrating a transition from fragmented to hybrid institutional logics [22,24]. These platforms—focused on agriculture, climate, and mobility—were originally governed by distinct institutional logics and operational architectures. From a micro-level perspective, each platform initially functioned within a siloed framework. Each platform operated according to its own institutional logic, goals, and practices, reflecting a fragmented field. Over time, evolving challenges and shared pressures often give rise to new, hybrid logics and collaborative structures [21,22,24,37]. Thus, the lack of integration marks a transitional phase, laying the groundwork for the more coordinated and cross-sectoral Nexus model [28,30,33]. The Nexus model is not merely a sum of its parts but a synergistic platform, where knowledge, capabilities, and technologies intersect to co-create solutions.

We observed increased joint initiatives and stakeholder engagement across the platforms, supporting the model’s foundational assumption: integration facilitates coordinated responses to complex, systemic challenges.

We outlined the key elements and resources of each platform that converge to create a Nexus model. Empirically, we observed increased collaborative activities and stakeholder engagement across platforms, including new joint initiatives and cross-sector interactions. These patterns indicate emerging synergies that support the model’s foundational assumption: that integration across innovation platforms can facilitate broader and more coordinated responses to complex challenges. These developments led to the planning for the initiation of a novel, integrated Nexus model, which leverages this overlap by drawing on diverse knowledge/capabilities/technologies related to potential synergies among the three platforms.

This model is structured around the management elements of the individual independent platforms. Innovatively, the Nexus model draws on the overlap between these core elements, harnessing resources from each to create a synergistic platform [28,30]. This model is inherently interdependent, meaning that it cannot function independently but relies on the creation of co-learning and collaborative dynamics—reflecting the presence of hybrid institutional logics that blend entrepreneurial, scientific, and governance rationalities [21,22,23]. The integration of these platforms is essential for fostering a comprehensive and adaptable approach to addressing complex societal challenges (wicked problems), such as climate change [33].

We argue that the Nexus model embodies an evolving hybrid logic, combining elements of entrepreneurial, scientific, and collaborative governance logics. These interwoven logics facilitate the formation of new institutional arrangements capable of addressing complex societal problems such as climate change. Understanding this dynamic helps explain not only the structural features of the Nexus model but also its potential for institutional legitimacy and diffusion across varied ecosystems.

In sum, unlike the siloed framing of the three innovation platforms, which specialize in and contribute to specific ecosystems, the Nexus model is grounded in a holistic premise [28]. It builds upon interconnections between platforms and allows for cross platform access to various resources. Following the concept of organizing sustainability [3], and the identification of similar attributes and connections among the three innovation-driven [25], we argue that the Nexus model must encompass a diverse array of technologies, knowledge bases, stakeholders, financial resources, and global networks. Therefore, we highlight the importance of chaotic, self-organizing environments [76], that allow solutions to emerge from various sources through serendipitous encounters. In this regard, the Nexus model builds on the principles of open innovation [49] by applying them beyond the firm level to the ecosystem level. Open innovation emphasizes the importance of external knowledge flows, partnerships, and co-creation with diverse actors. In our model, these principles are realized through the integration of distinct innovation platforms—operating in agriculture, climate, and mobility—into a shared digital and organizational architecture. This participatory structure enables real-time collaboration, knowledge exchange, and collective experimentation across sectors, aligning with institutional theory’s emphasis on the evolving role of institutional logics in shaping cross-sector collaboration [18,19,22]. By extending open innovation into a multi-platform, cross-sectoral context, the Nexus model offers a potentially scalable and action-oriented framework. The strength and uniqueness of the Nexus model lie in its ability to represent the combination of these different innovation-driven platforms, creating unique synergies and generating more value than the three platforms could achieve independently [39].

The key factors associated with the Nexus model are as follows: First, while each of the three platforms possesses siloed knowledge/capabilities/technologies, addressing complex challenges demands a broader foundation that includes diverse, sometimes unrelated, areas. Second, capabilities vary across these platforms and their respective ecosystems; by integrating these strengths, Nexus can amplify the reach and effectiveness of climate solutions. Lastly, tackling high-level climate challenges requires an openness to exploratory learning and adaptive processes, supported by a tolerance for unpredictable, cross-functional interactions [76]. The Nexus model will facilitate these dynamic, often unexpected, exchanges, fostering the development of new knowledge/capabilities/technologies essential for addressing the complexities of climate change. However, as scholars have critically claimed, the impact of innovation on sustainable development [12] is not uniform across different countries [13], constructing such a model is inherently complex and must be examined through the lens of distinctive innovation regions.

Regarding the context, Israel is regarded as a global leader in innovation, with a strong institutional commitment to advancing technological innovation [58,60]. These attributes provide a “real-world testing environment” (https://www.growingil.org/theregenagchallenge, accessed on 1 June 2024), and a robust foundation for establishing a localized institutional platform model for organizing sustainability. Moreover, the development of an advanced participatory architecture is paramount to accelerating solutions for grand challenges, ensuring inclusive and effective problem-solving mechanisms.

While the Nexus model is rooted in the case of Israel—a country with a strong innovation culture [58] and centralized support for technological advancement—we recognize that its transferability to other contexts is not automatic. The model’s success depends on a range of enabling conditions, including institutional flexibility, inter-platform governance capacity, and the presence of innovation intermediaries capable of bridging sectors. Therefore, the Nexus model should be viewed as a context-sensitive framework that can inform innovation ecosystem design in other regions, provided it is adapted to local dynamics. Future research could explore how this model performs in different geopolitical, economic, or regulatory environments, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where institutional architectures may differ substantially.

This need for contextual adaptation aligns with recent findings by Alkaraan et al. (2025) [7], who emphasize the role of governance mechanisms and digital capabilities (e.g., Industry 4.0) in shaping sustainable innovation models across supply chains and ecosystems. Their work on green servitization-oriented (as defined by Alkaraan et al. (2025) [7], green servitization-oriented business models (GS-OBMs) integrate product–service innovation with green supply chain practices, governance, and Industry 4.0 technologies to advance ESG goals through digitally enabled, sustainability-focused services) business models reinforces our view that institutional and technological configurations must be tailored to the specific dynamics of local innovation regions.

Through a longitudinal study enabling us to capture major developments in the evolution of these platforms, we contribute to the understanding of how innovation-driven platforms can be integrated into a Nexus model to enhance climate change solutions. Our study, based on a case study analysis of three innovation-driven platforms managed by the III (focused on agriculture, climate related challenges, and mobility needs), describes the process of merging these platforms into a single, unified Nexus model. We outline the specific elements and resources of each platform that converge to create the Nexus model demonstrating how it functions by drawing on the core elements of existing platforms and combining their resources to form a stronger solution-oriented structure.

By examining the creation of new forms of organizing sustainability, particularly through the design of the Nexus model, our work expands the organizational understanding of institutional responses to grand challenges, drawing on institutional theory, which explains how such innovations emerge within and reshape complex institutional environments [18,26]. We introduce and analyze the Nexus climate platform model as an advanced model for fostering innovation and as a new form of participatory architecture designed to address climate change [4]. Additionally, our work underscores the importance of creating synergies across multiple platforms, contributing cross-disciplinary insights that bridge organizational studies and sustainability research [3]. Building on previous calls by [26,27], this study deepens the understanding of the processes and mechanisms behind the emergence of novel solutions to climate sustainability challenges.

6. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

Our study is limited to one illustrative case study of three related innovation platforms that uniquely became the infrastructure of the higher-order Nexus model. It will be valuable to examine other examples of innovation platforms operating in different contexts, such as different nations, fields, and challenges. Further studies should assess how the Nexus model might perform in less centralized or lower-resource innovation ecosystems, including those in the Global South. Further research is needed to develop solutions for additional grand challenges and to explore how similar Nexus models can be applied from a process perspective. This raises an important question: What are the basic conditions or participatory architecture required to create a strong, effective, and productive innovation platform, and how do chaotic structures and synergistic goals contribute to its success? Our observation is that innovation platforms experience ongoing development while adapting to new needs and environmental changes. Further research should explore the observations we have documented.