Biodiversity loss is increasingly recognized as a grand challenge requiring new forms of innovation, coordination, and knowledge integration across organizational and institutional boundaries. While digital technologies have substantially advanced how biodiversity is monitored, measured, and managed, less is known about how digital platforms and their underlying infrastructures can support innovation processes aimed at biodiversity protection and regeneration. This paper offers a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of research connecting digital platforms, their infrastructural foundations, and biodiversity, based on a dataset of 528 scientific publications. Using co‐citation and keyword co‐occurrence analyses, the study maps the intellectual structure and evolution of this emerging field and identifies five promising research frontiers: platform governance for collective action, biodiversity data infrastructures, innovation for biodiversity, digital platforms as innovation intermediaries, and the orchestration of scalable nature‐based solutions. Building on these findings, the paper develops an integrative framework explaining how platform design and governance shape organizational coordination, knowledge integration, and innovation mechanisms, ultimately influencing biodiversity outcomes. The findings reveal that existing research remains largely technology‐driven, with a strong emphasis on monitoring and biodiversity data generation, while questions related to platform governance, ecosystem orchestration, and biodiversity valorization remain comparatively underdeveloped. By repositioning digital platforms as organizational infrastructures for biodiversity‐oriented innovation, rather than merely technological tools for ecological monitoring, this study contributes to the literature on digital innovation, platform ecosystems, and R&D management, while outlining a future research agenda for designing innovation ecosystems capable of supporting biodiversity‐positive transformation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ottolenghi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: