Skip to Content
EncyclopediaEncyclopedia
  • Entry
  • Open Access

25 June 2025

From Digital Twins to Digital Triplets in Economics and Financial Decision-Making

Department of Business Administration and Tourism, Hellenic Mediterranean University, GR71410 Heraklion, Greece
This article belongs to the Section Social Sciences

Definition

This entry reviews the evolution from Digital Twins (DT) to Predictive Digital Twins (PDT) and Digital Triplets (DTr), culminating in Predictive Digital Ecosystems, which focus on economic and financial decision-making. It discusses historical developments, technical foundations, practical applications, ethical and regulatory challenges, and future directions. The overview integrates mature knowledge from engineering, data science, and economic domains to provide a structured reference framework for understanding and deploying Predictive Digital Ecosystems.

1. History

The emergence of Digital Twins (DTs) represents a transformative development in the application of digital technologies across various sectors, including manufacturing, engineering, healthcare, and increasingly, economic, and financial decision-making [1,2,3,4,5,6]. A DT is traditionally understood as a real-time, dynamic digital representation of a physical asset, system, or process [2]. Initially developed to enhance monitoring and maintenance operations by replicating physical objects within a virtual environment, DTs evolved considerably with advances in Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data, artificial intelligence (AI), and cloud computing technologies [2,7,8]. With the integration of predictive modeling, DTs gave rise to Predictive Digital Twins (PDTs), which go beyond descriptive capabilities to offer foresight into future system behaviors based on current and historical data [9,10]. The increasing complexity and interdependence of systems have led to the concept of DTr [11,12,13], where multiple PDTs are interconnected within a holistic framework known as a Predictive Digital Ecosystem (PDE) [9,14]. These interconnected systems provide comprehensive predictive analytics capabilities and support proactive decision-making processes, particularly in the highly dynamic and interconnected fields of economics and finance [15]. This entry provides a comprehensive review of the development, conceptual foundations, technological infrastructures, applications, ethical considerations, and future directions of DTs, PDTs, and DTrs within the context of Predictive Digital Ecosystems.
The conceptual roots of Digital Twins can be traced back to the early simulation models developed for aerospace engineering [16,17,18]. The idea matured significantly during NASA’s Apollo program in the 1960s, where exact physical replicas of spacecraft were maintained on Earth to simulate and troubleshoot conditions encountered during missions [18,19]. However, it was not until 2005 that Dr. Michael Grieves formally introduced the term “Digital Twin” in the context of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) [20,21]. The original framework proposed the integration of physical products, virtual products, and the connections between them to enable enhanced design, manufacturing, and operational processes. The subsequent development of IoT technologies provided the infrastructure necessary for real-time data flow between the physical and digital realms, making the realization of true Digital Twins feasible. Over time, the role of DTs expanded from static models to dynamic, real-time systems capable of supporting complex decision-making processes [22,23]. Integrating predictive analytics methodologies, including machine learning algorithms and advanced simulation techniques, further evolved DTs into Predictive Digital Twins, enabling organizations to anticipate future states and optimize operational and strategic responses [24]. The growing interconnectedness of economic activities and the increasing need for holistic system representations have prompted the emergence of DTrs and PDEs, which conceptualize entire ecosystems of interconnected predictive models capable of collaborative learning, adaptation, and decision-making.
A key trajectory in digital transformation involves the transition from Digital Twins (DTs) to Predictive Digital Ecosystems (PDEs), which encapsulate real-time situational awareness, machine learning foresight, and ecosystemic optimization. DTs initially emerged in industrial settings as digital replicas of physical assets, enabling diagnostics and performance monitoring.
To further clarify the architectural variety of Digital Twins and how this progression informs PDEs, Table 1 presents a typology of DT architectures. The typology identifies four major categories—Basic Replicative DTs, Monitoring Twins, Predictive Twins, and autonomous PDEs—each with increasing levels of integration, real-time responsiveness, and decision-making autonomy.
Table 1. Typology of Digital Twin architectures: from simulation to autonomy.
This typology elucidates the transformation from object-centric monitoring to ecosystemic prediction and governance. Basic DTs rely on batch data and serve as visual diagnostics tools. Monitoring Twins incorporate real-time telemetry but remain reactive. Predictive Twins, by contrast, leverage machine learning for forecasting system states. Finally, autonomous PDEs represent the apex of architectural complexity, integrating decentralized AI, federated learning, and blockchain-enabled traceability to support autonomous optimization across sectors like urban mobility, finance, and supply chains.

2. Conceptual Framework and Applications

DT, PDT, and DTrs form a conceptual continuum of increasing complexity and capability [23,24,25,26]. A Digital Twin is a digital replica of a physical entity, continuously updated through bidirectional data flows that reflect the real-time state of the asset or system [27]. It typically incorporates a physical model, a virtual model, and a set of data exchange protocols that ensure synchronization between the two. Predictive Digital Twins extend this model by incorporating predictive analytics, enabling the simulation of future scenarios and optimizing processes before issues arise [9,28,29]. They are characterized by the ability to forecast potential failures, recommend preventive measures, and optimize performance dynamically. The concept of DTrs advances this further by interlinking multiple PDTs across different domains or system components, creating a Predictive Digital Ecosystem [11]. PDEs are defined by their ability to manage, analyze, and simulate complex interdependent systems, supporting decision-making across entire organizations or economic sectors. A PDE integrates data streams, predictive models, and decision-support mechanisms into a unified environment, fostering collaboration between digital agents representing various physical or organizational entities, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Evolution from Digital Twins to Digital Triplets.
DTs, PDTs, and DTrs are realized through the convergence of several key technologies [24]. IoT devices and networks provide the sensory inputs necessary for real-time monitoring of physical systems, capturing a wide range of operational data, including environmental conditions, performance metrics, and system statuses. Cloud computing offers the scalable computational and storage infrastructure needed to process and manage the massive volumes of data generated by these systems. AI and machine learning algorithms are critical in analyzing data, identifying patterns, forecasting future conditions, and optimizing decision-making processes [13,30]. Big Data analytics frameworks enable the handling of high-volume, high-velocity, and high-variety data inputs, ensuring that insights can be derived promptly and effectively [37]. Blockchain technologies contribute to ensuring the integrity, security, and traceability of data transactions within PDEs, addressing critical concerns related to trust and compliance [31,35]. Additionally, advances in edge computing enable real-time analytics that are closer to the source of data generation, reducing latency and enhancing the responsiveness of predictive models. Collectively, these technologies form the backbone of modern Predictive Digital Ecosystems, allowing for the seamless integration of physical and digital worlds, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Key technologies enabling Predictive Digital Ecosystems.

Applications in Economic and Financial Decision-Making

The application of PDEs in economic and financial decision-making has introduced a paradigm shift in how organizations model, predict, and respond to market dynamics. DTrs are employed in the financial services sector for risk management, fraud detection, asset management, and regulatory compliance [11,12,13,32,33,36,38,39,40,41,42]. Predictive models enable institutions to simulate market conditions, forecast asset performance, detect anomalies in transaction patterns indicative of fraudulent activities, and ensure adherence to evolving regulatory standards [43]. For example, the European Central Bank (ECB) has explored the deployment of AI-enhanced Digital Twin models to simulate monetary policy transmissions and stress-test banking systems under various macroeconomic scenarios. Similarly, large insurance groups such as AXA (a global insurance and asset management firm headquartered in France) and Munich Re are developing Predictive Digital Ecosystems to recalibrate risk models in response to climate-related catastrophe data dynamically. In the logistics domain, Maersk has implemented Digital Twin infrastructure across its global operations, integrating real-time vessel telemetry and port conditions into PDEs to optimize routing, reduce fuel consumption, and forecast disruptions. In supply chain management, PDEs are utilized to optimize logistics operations, forecast demand, manage inventory, and provide supply network resilience against disruptions [44]. By continuously monitoring and predicting supply chain dynamics, organizations can proactively adjust operations to mitigate risks and capitalize on emerging opportunities. DTrs contribute to infrastructure management, resource allocation, and sustainability planning in smart city initiatives [45,46,47,48]. They enable city planners to simulate the impact of policy decisions on traffic patterns, energy consumption, and environmental sustainability, facilitating data-driven governance [49,50]. Public sector examples include Singapore’s “Virtual Singapore” platform, a comprehensive urban Digital Twin that facilitates predictive planning in traffic flow, energy needs, and emergency preparedness. In the EU, several municipalities are collaborating through the “Living-in.EU” initiative to standardize city-level PDEs for citizen-centric services, integrating mobility, environmental, and socio-economic data into real-time governance dashboards. Moreover, in broader economic modeling, PDEs help policymakers and analysts simulate the impacts of fiscal and monetary policies, project economic trends, and design interventions that promote stability and growth.
This timeline, in Table 4, captures the conceptual and technological progression from early simulation models to fully integrated Predictive Digital Ecosystems. It illustrates the transition from single-entity monitoring (DTs) to dynamic forecasting (PDTs), and finally to systemic modeling and collaborative decision-making (DTrs/PDEs). Technological layers, including IoT, AI, blockchain, and edge computing, underlie the capabilities and applications of each stage.
Table 4. Evolution of digital constructs in economic and financial decision-making.

4. Current Challenges

Despite the significant advancements and transformative potential of DT, PDT, and PDE, several critical challenges impede their widespread adoption and effective deployment. One of the foremost issues is interoperability [73,74]. The lack of standardized frameworks, protocols, and data formats across industries, platforms, and technological providers results in substantial barriers to integrating heterogeneous Digital Twin systems [52]. Without common ontologies and interoperable architectures, the seamless interaction between various PDTs within a DT ecosystem becomes increasingly difficult, limiting the realization of system-wide predictive capabilities.
Another major challenge lies in data management and quality assurance [75]. The effectiveness of predictive digital models inherently depends on the quality, consistency, and completeness of the data they ingest. Inaccurate, outdated, or biased data can lead to erroneous predictions, undermining the reliability and credibility of PDEs. Furthermore, model drift, where predictive models lose accuracy over time due to underlying system dynamics or external environment changes, poses ongoing risks to system performance and necessitates continual model monitoring, validation, and recalibration [75].
Computational complexity and scalability represent additional hurdles [76]. The real-time processing of massive, high-dimensional datasets and the need for dynamic simulation and predictive modeling demands considerable computational power and specialized infrastructure [50,54,77,78,79]. These requirements are especially burdensome for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and public sector organizations, which often operate under resource constraints, rigid procurement cycles, and limited digital maturity. The capital expenditures associated with PDE deployment—including IoT infrastructure, AI training, cybersecurity, and cloud services—may not be economically justifiable without a clear short-term return on investment. Furthermore, many SMEs lack in-house expertise in data science or systems integration, rendering them dependent on costly external vendors or limited-functionality off-the-shelf solutions.
Public sector agencies face similar feasibility constraints. Budgetary limitations, fragmented legacy systems, and complex regulatory oversight can delay PDE implementation, even when long-term societal benefits are evident. Consequently, there is a pressing need for affordable, scalable, and modular PDE architectures—ideally supported by open-source frameworks and inter-municipal consortia that promote shared digital infrastructure and collective expertise. This requirement may be particularly challenging for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) or public sector entities with limited resources. Additionally, cybersecurity threats, such as data breaches, ransomware attacks, and adversarial machine learning techniques, could compromise the integrity and confidentiality of PDEs, further complicating their deployment in sensitive economic and financial contexts [80,81].
Organizational and cultural resistance is another critical factor that can hinder the adoption of Predictive Digital Ecosystems [82]. Transitioning to a data-driven, predictive decision-making model often requires significant changes in corporate culture, leadership approaches, operational workflows, and employee competencies [83]. Organizations must invest in training, change management, and governance structures to facilitate this transition effectively.
Lastly, as mentioned, ethical and regulatory considerations present ongoing challenges. Ensuring that PDEs operate transparently, fairly, and in compliance with relevant data protection and financial regulations is essential to build and maintain stakeholder trust [84,85,86]. The absence of clear legal standards for AI-driven predictive decision-making, particularly regarding accountability for automated outcomes, remains a substantial barrier that necessitates coordinated efforts among technologists, policymakers, and regulatory bodies.
Addressing economic feasibility and democratizing access to PDE capabilities will be essential for ensuring that their transformative potential does not remain limited to large multinational corporations or tech-centric states. Governments and international bodies could consider developing targeted funding schemes, regulatory sandboxes, and public-private partnerships to encourage experimentation and safe adoption among underserved sectors.
Delivering these multifaceted challenges is crucial for the sustainable development, deployment, and societal acceptance of PDEs. Continued research, cross-sector collaboration, and regulatory innovation will be crucial to overcoming these barriers and fully harnessing the transformative potential of DTrs in economic and financial decision-making.

5. Future Directions

The future of PDEs is poised for significant advancements driven by technological innovation, regulatory evolution, and growing societal demands for transparency and accountability. Developments in quantum computing, such as those by Rigetti Computing Inc., D-Wave Quantum, and IONQ Inc., among others, can significantly enhance the processing capabilities of predictive models, enabling more accurate and comprehensive simulations of complex systems [82,83]. Advances in federated learning and privacy-preserving machine learning techniques will facilitate collaborative modeling without compromising data confidentiality. The emergence of decentralized and self-organizing PDEs, powered by blockchain and edge computing technologies, may enable more resilient, scalable, and autonomous digital ecosystems. Standardization initiatives, such as those led by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and industry consortia, will promote interoperability and facilitate broader adoption. Research into the socio-economic impacts of PDEs will guide the development of frameworks that ensure their ethical and equitable deployment. As the complexity and interconnectedness of global economic systems continue to grow, PDEs will play an increasingly vital role in enabling adaptive, resilient, and sustainable decision-making across sectors.
Moreover, while the expansion of Digital Twins into predictive and autonomous domains suggests a positive technological trajectory, this evolution is not without complications. The deployment of PDEs in high-stakes environments, such as public policy, finance, and urban governance, introduces epistemological challenges that extend beyond technical design. Unlike traditional simulations, which are bounded by fixed parameters, PDEs often operate within open-ended systems, where the future is continuously predicted, shaped, and acted upon. This process, sometimes referred to as anticipatory governance, may subtly reinforce feedback loops that lead to the normalization of prediction-driven interventions, raising questions about the autonomy of human decision-making. As Ai [55] points out, responsible Digital Twins must grapple with the implications of recursive system design and algorithmic agency.
The need to retain interpretability and participatory oversight becomes especially urgent in settings where predictive mechanisms replace deliberative ones, potentially narrowing the scope of alternatives considered. From a regulatory standpoint, the distinction between predictive suggestion and prescriptive automation remains largely undefined, creating a grey zone in accountability structures. This blurring of predictive and normative functions warrants further inquiry, particularly as Digital Triplets and ecosystem-scale twins become embedded in critical societal infrastructures.

6. Conclusions and Prospects

The evolution from Digital Twins to Predictive Digital Twins and, ultimately, to Digital Triplets embedded within Predictive Digital Ecosystems has fundamentally reshaped economic and financial decision-making approaches. DTs originally enabled the real-time replication and monitoring of physical systems, while Predictive DTs advanced this capability by incorporating forecasting, simulation, and proactive optimization strategies. Digital Triplets extend this paradigm by connecting multiple PDTs, and facilitating system-wide modeling, collaborative forecasting, and comprehensive decision support.
Predictive Digital Ecosystems integrate diverse data sources, predictive models, and decision-making processes, allowing organizations to navigate complex, dynamic environments with greater agility, foresight, and resilience. Their growing applications across financial services, supply chain management, and urban governance demonstrate their potential to enhance operational efficiency, strategic planning, and systemic sustainability.
However, developing and deploying PDEs introduce significant challenges, including the need for robust data privacy protections, mitigation of algorithmic biases, regulatory compliance, and transparent and ethical governance. Addressing these concerns will be crucial to maintaining trust and maximizing the societal benefits of these technologies.
Future advancements in edge computing, blockchain, AI, and quantum computing are expected to further enhance PDEs’ capabilities and scalability. The maturation of interoperability standards and ethical frameworks will also be vital for broader adoption and sustainable development. As Predictive Digital Ecosystems become increasingly integral to modern economic and financial infrastructures, their continued evolution will enable informed, transparent, and resilient decision-making in an increasingly complex global landscape.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mrugalska, B.; Wyrwicka, M.K. Towards lean production in industry 4.0. Procedia Eng. 2017, 182, 466–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Batty, M. Digital twins. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2018, 45, 817–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jiang, Y.; Yin, S.; Li, K.; Luo, H.; Kaynak, O. Industrial applications of digital twins. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2021, 379, 20200360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mane, S.; Dhote, R.R.; Sinha, A.; Thirumalaiswamy, R. Digital twin in the chemical industry: A review. Digit. Twins Appl. 2024, 1, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Guzmán-Torres, J.A.; Domínguez-Mota, F.J.; Alonso Guzmán, E.M.; Tinoco-Guerrero, G.; Tinoco-Ruíz, J.G. A digital twin approach based method in civil engineering for classification of salt damage in building evaluation. Math. Comput. Simul. 2025, 233, 433–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Guo, J.; Lv, Z. Application of Digital Twins in multiple fields. Multimed Tools Appl. 2022, 81, 26941–26967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Al-Sartawi, A.M.A.M.; Hussainey, K.; Razzaque, A. The role of artificial intelligence in sustainable finance. J. Sustain. Financ. Investig. 2022, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Paiola, M.; Schiavone, F.; Grandinetti, R.; Chen, J. Digital servitization and sustainability through networking: Some evidences from IoT-based business models. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 132, 507–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. van Dinter, R.; Tekinerdogan, B.; Catal, C. Predictive maintenance using digital twins: A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2022, 151, 107008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Flammini, F. Digital twins as run-time predictive models for the resilience of cyber-physical systems: A conceptual framework. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2021, 379, 20200369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, H.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, S.; Qiu, L.; Wang, Y.; Xiang, F.; Pan, Z.; Zhu, L.; Tan, J. Digital-Triplet: A new three entities digital-twin paradigm for equipment fault diagnosis. J. Intell. Manuf. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Umeda, Y.; Ota, J.; Kojima, F.; Saito, M.; Matsuzawa, H.; Sukekawa, T.; Takeuchi, A.; Makida, K.; Shirafuji, S. Development of an education program for digital manufacturing system engineers based on ’Digital Triplet’concept. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 31, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Alimam, H.; Mazzuto, G.; Ortenzi, M.; Ciarapica, F.E.; Bevilacqua, M. Intelligent Retrofitting Paradigm for Conventional Machines towards the Digital Triplet Hierarchy. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Suleykin, A.; Bakhtadze, N. Digital ecosystems control based on predictive Real-Time situational models. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 605–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kshetri, N. The economics of digital twins. Computer 2021, 54, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bostrom, N. Are we living in a computer simulation? Philos. Q. 2003, 53, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Grieves, M.W. Digital Twins: Past, present, and future. In Digital Twin; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 97–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, L.; Aslam, S.; Wileman, A.; Perinpanayagam, S. Digital twin in Aerospace industry: A gentle Introduction. IEEE Access 2021, 10, 9543–9562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Glaessgen, E.H.; Stargel, D.S. The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles. In Proceedings of 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 23–26 April 2012. [Google Scholar]
  20. Stark, J. Product Lifecycle Management; Springer: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  21. Grieves, M.W. Product lifecycle management: The new paradigm for enterprises. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 2005, 2, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Braniff, A.; Akundi, S.S.; Liu, Y.; Dantas, B.; Niknezhad, S.S.; Khan, F.; Pistikopoulos, E.N.; Tian, Y. Real-time process safety and systems decision-making toward safe and smart chemical manufacturing. Digit. Chem. Eng. 2025, 15, 100227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tao, F.; Zhang, H.; Liu, A.; Nee, A.Y.C. Digital twin in industry: State-of-the-Art. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019, 15, 2405–2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fuller, A.; Fan, Z.; Day, C.; Barlow, C. Digital Twin: Enabling technologies, challenges and open research. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 108952–108971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Grieves, M.W. Virtually intelligent product systems: Digital and physical twins. In Complex Systems Engineering: Theory and Practice; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.: Reston, VA, USA, 2019; pp. 175–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nagy, M.; Figura, M.; Valaskova, K.; Lăzăroiu, G. Predictive maintenance algorithms, artificial intelligence digital twin technologies, and internet of robotic things in Big Data-Driven Industry 4.0 manufacturing systems. Mathematics 2025, 13, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Crespi, N.; Drobot, A.T.; Minerva, R. The Digital Twin; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  28. Aydin, G.; Tezcan, M.; Ozgen, B.; Özkan, T.N. Digital twin and predictive quality solution for insulated glass line. J. Intell. Manuf. 2024, 36, 3543–3567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Suleykin, A.; Bakhtadze, N. Control Systems Architecture with a Predictive Identification Model in Digital Ecosystems. In Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pratap, A.; Vi, T.K.; Lee, Y.W.; Sardana, N.; Hsiung, P.A.; Kao, Y.C. A DT framework integrating human and artificial intelligence for power consumption prediction in CNC machining. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2024, 135, 915–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bamakan, S.M.H.; Far, S.B. Distributed and trustworthy Digital Twin platform based on blockchain and Web3 technologies. Cyber Secur. Appl. 2024, 3, 100064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Passas, I. Accounting for Integrity: ESG and Financial Disclosures: The Challenge of Internal Fraud in Management Decision-Making; Hellenic Mediterranean University: Heraklion, Greece, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kagias, P.; Garefalakis, A.; Passas, I.; Kyriakogkonas, P.; Sariannidis, N. Whistleblowing based on the three lines model. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kalaboukas, K.; Kiritsis, D.; Arampatzis, G. Governance framework for autonomous and cognitive digital twins in agile supply chains. Comput. Ind. 2023, 146, 103857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Huang, C.; Liu, S. Securing the future of industrial operations: A blockchain-enhanced trust mechanism for digital twins in the industrial Internet of Things. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2024, 46, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ragazou, K.; Passas, I.; Garefalakis, A.; Zopounidis, C. ESG in Construction Risk Management: A Strategic Roadmap for Controlling Risks and Maximizing Profits. In Financial Evaluation and Risk Management of Infrastructure Projects; Advances in public policy and administration (APPA) book series; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 58–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ragazou, K.; Passas, I.; Garefalakis, A.; Galariotis, E.; Zopounidis, C. Big Data Analytics Applications in Information Management Driving Operational Efficiencies and Decision-Making: Mapping the Field of Knowledge with Bibliometric Analysis Using, R. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2023, 7, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gichane, M.M.; Byiringiro, J.B.; Chesang, A.K.; Nyaga, P.M.; Langat, R.K.; Smajic, H.; Kiiru, C.W. Digital Triplet approach for Real-Time monitoring and control of an elevator security system. Designs 2020, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Maravelaki, A.; Zopounidis, C.; Lemonakis, C.; Passas, I. Corporate governance as a tool for fraud mitigation. In Machine Learning Applications for Accounting Disclosure and Fraud Detection; Advances in finance, accounting, and economics book series; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cheliatsidou, A.; Sariannidis, N.; Garefalakis, A.; Passas, I.; Spinthiropoulos, K. Exploring Attitudes towards Whistleblowing in Relation to Sustainable Municipalities. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kagias, P.; Sariannidis, N.; Garefalakis, A.; Passas, I.; Kyriakogkonas, P. Validating the whistleblowing maturity model using the Delphi method. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yiannoulis, Y.; Vortelinos, D.; Passas, I. Exploring Audit Opinions: A Deep Dive into Ratios and Fraud Variables in the Athens Exchange. Account. Audit. 2025, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tiwari, S.; Wee, H.M.; Daryanto, Y. Big data analytics in supply chain management between 2010 and 2016: Insights to industries. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 115, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Papademetriou, C.; Ragazou, K.; Garefalakis, A.; Passas, I. Green Human Resource Management: Mapping the Research Trends for Sustainable and Agile Human Resources in SMEs. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stufano Melone, M.R.; Borgo, S.; Camarda, D. Digital Twins Facing the Complexity of the City: Some Critical Remarks. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shahat, E.; Hyun, C.T.; Yeom, C. City Digital Twin Potentials: A Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Okonta, E.D.; Israel, G.C.; Okeke, F.O. Scientometric review and visualisation of City Information Modeling (CIM) trends and future directions. Discov. Cities 2025, 2, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vardopoulos, I.; Papoui-Evangelou, M.; Nosova, B.; Salvati, L. Smart ‘Tourist Cities’ Revisited: Culture-Led Urban Sustainability and the Global Real Estate Market. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zopounidis, C.; Garefalakis, A.; Lemonakis, C.; Passas, I. Environmental, social and corporate governance framework for corporate disclosure: A multicriteria dimension analysis approach. Manag. Decis. 2020, 58, 2473–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Modgil, S.; Gupta, S.; Sivarajah, U.; Bhushan, B. Big data-enabled large-scale group decision making for circular economy: An emerging market context. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 166, 120607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fakhraian, E.; Semanjski, I.; Semanjski, S.; Aghezzaf, E.-H. Towards safe and efficient unmanned aircraft system operations: Literature review of digital twins’ applications and European Union regulatory compliance. Drones 2023, 7, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. André, P.; Azzi, F.; Cardin, O. Heterogeneous communication middleware for digital twin based cyber manufacturing systems. In Studies in Computational Intelligence; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Albrecht, J.P. How the GDPR Will Change the World. Eur. Data Prot. Law Rev. 2016, 2, 287–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Awan, U.; Shamim, S.; Khan, Z.; Zia, N.U.; Shariq, S.M.; Khan, M.N. Big data analytics capability and decision-making: The role of data-driven insight on circular economy performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 168, 120766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ai, L.; Laxman, K.C.; Elbatanouny, E.; Henderson, A.; Ziehl, P. Assisting Load Rating Testing of Precast Reinforced Concrete Bridge Slab through Digital Twins and Field Monitoring Data. J. Test. Eval. 2024, 52, 1926–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Roco, M.C. Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2007, 10, 11–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Shokri, R.; Shmatikov, V. Privacy-preserving deep learning. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 12 October 2015; pp. 1310–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Huang, P.H.; Kim, K.H.; Schermer, M. Ethical Issues of Digital Twins for Personalized Health Care Service: Preliminary Mapping Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 24, e33081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tikkinen-Piri, C.; Rohunen, A.; Markkula, J. EU General Data Protection Regulation: Changes and implications for personal data collecting companies. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2017, 34, 134–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Voigt, P.; Von Dem Bussche, A. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Caruccio, L.; Desiato, D.; Polese, G.; Tortora, G.; Zannone, N. A decision-support framework for data anonymization with application to machine learning processes. Inf. Sci. 2022, 613, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Talati, N.D.V. Artificial Intelligence and unintended bias: A call for responsible innovation. Int. J. Sci. Res. Arch. 2021, 2, 298–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tollenaar, N.; Van Der Heijden, P.G.M. Which method predicts recidivism best?: A comparison of statistical, machine learning and data mining predictive models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A (Stat. Soc.) 2012, 176, 565–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rudin, C.; Radin, J. Why are we using black box models in AI when we don’t need to? A lesson from an explainable AI competition. Harv. Data Sci. Rev. 2019, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Milosevic, Z.; Van Schalkwyk, P. Towards responsible digital twins. In Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kauffman, M.; Soares, M.N.; Long, T.; Harris, L.; Cugula, J.R.G.; Manzato, W.; Zhang, K. Enhancing Intellectual Property Identification and Valuation in Manufacturing Through Digital Twins. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, K.J.; Lee, T.L.; Hsu, Y. Revolution on digital twin technology—A patent research approach. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2020, 107, 4687–4704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ashouri, S.; Mention, A.-L.; Smyrnios, K.X. Anticipation and analysis of industry convergence using patent-level indicators. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5727–5758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Teller, M. Legal aspects related to digital twin. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2021, 379, 20210023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gudiño-Rosero, J.; Grandi, U.; Hidalgo, C.A. Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy. Comput. Soc. 2024, 382, 20240100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. De Kerckhove, D. The personal digital twin, ethical considerations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2021, 379, 20200367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Abraham, R.; Schneider, J.; Brocke, J.V. Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 49, 424–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Piroumian, V. Digital Twins: Universal Interoperability for the Digital Age. Computer 2021, 54, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Klar, R.; Arvidsson, N.; Angelakis, V. Digital twins’ maturity: The need for interoperability. IEEE Syst. J. 2023, 18, 713–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Eriksson, K.; Markussen, C. Quality Assurance of Digital Twins. In Proceedings of the ASME 2023 42nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Volume 1: Offshore Technology, Melbourne, Australia, 11–16 June 2023; V001T01A020. ASME: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jia, W.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Z. From simple digital twin to complex digital twin Part I: A novel modeling method for multi-scale and multi-scenario digital twin. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2022, 53, 101706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Nobar, M.; Keller, J.; Rupenyan, A.; Khosravi, M.; Lygeros, J. Guided Bayesian Optimization: Data-Efficient controller tuning with digital Twin. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2024, 22, 11304–11317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Su, M.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Zha, D. Data-Driven Natural Gas Spot Price Forecasting with Least Squares Regression Boosting Algorithm. Energies 2019, 12, 1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Machchhar, R.J.; Toller, C.N.K.; Bertoni, A.; Bertoni, M. Data-driven value creation in Smart Product-Service System design: State-of-the-art and research directions. Comput. Ind. 2022, 137, 103606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Dietz, M.; Vielberth, M.; Pernul, G. Integrating digital twin security simulations in the security operations center. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Vienna, Austria, 23–26 August 2022; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. De Azambuja, A.J.G.; Giese, T.; Schützer, K.; Anderl, R.; Schleich, B.; Almeida, V.R. Digital Twins in Industry 4.0—Opportunities and challenges related to Cyber Security. Procedia CIRP 2024, 121, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lyytinen, K.; Weber, B.; Becker, M.C.; Pentland, B.T. Digital twins of organization: Implications for organization design. J. Organ. Des. 2023, 13, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Broo, D.G.; Schooling, J. Digital twins in infrastructure: Definitions, current practices, challenges and strategies. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021, 23, 1254–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Clark, G.L.; Feiner, A.; Viehs, M. From the stockholder to the stakeholder: How sustainability can Drive financial Outperformance. SSRN Electron. J. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. De Araujo Góes, H.A.; Fatima, G.; De Oliveira Santos Jhunior, R.; Boaventura, J.M.G. Managing for stakeholders towards corporate environmental sustainability. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 1561–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Harrison, J.S.; Wicks, A.C. Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Bus. Ethics Q. 2013, 23, 97–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.