Some ideas appear suddenly to become popular and an example, in some economic circles, is the concept of an ‘ecosystem’ as way of thinking about the environment of businesses, writes Prof Simon Bridge.

Obviously this view comes from ecological studies where, according to one dictionary definition, an ecosystem refers to ‘all the plants and animals that live in a particular area together with the complex relationship that exists between them and their environment.’ Applying that to the business environment would appear to be helpful as it acknowledges that businesses potentially have a number of different relationships and are subject to a wide variety of influences. Therefore this complexity needs to be considered when seeking to encourage business start-up and growth – instead of thinking that the offer of official support will itself be sufficient.

Therefore there could be some useful thinking in the ecosystem concept and, when it becomes apparent that older ideas are not working, such a new approach can appear attractive. But, if its meaning and implications are not really appreciated, the label for a new concept can become a buzz word which is fashionable to use to appear to be familiar with new thinking without making an effort actually to understand it.

Business ecosystem

In ecology the concept of an ecosystem has proved to be helpful and our knowledge of such environments is still improving. Take forests where, not long ago, views of the relevant components of the ecosystems of trees stopped more or less at ground level: as if trees had no significant underground relationships. Of course trees had roots which accessed nutrients in the earth but their interactions with other organisms all seemed to be above ground – such as protection from the wind by the presence of other trees, pollination by wind and insects, distribution of seeds by birds and animals, parasitic use by some plants and insects, competition from other growing plants and predation by animals.

But those who have looked closely have found that over 90% of the plants growing on land have a relationship with mycorrhizal fungi – and that usually happens below ground. Peter Wohlleben has described trees as ‘social beings’ because of the way they support and nurture each other by connecting through underground fungi which envelope their roots and transmit signals between trees and exchange nutrients for their mutual benefit. Merlin Sheldrake has also described this ‘wood-wide-web’ and illustrated its wide-ranging effects.

But, before this underground network was discovered, the simpler overground view of a forest had supported efforts to farm trees and the fungal world did not feature in the way foresters had viewed things. In an effort to increase production of particular crops, farmers and foresters have tried to grow them intensively out of their normal surroundings – moving animals into fields and transplanting young tress into new plantations.

Then the farmer or forester has to do all the things that nature did – such as provide food and water, care in times of hardship, protection from predators, and even assistance with reproduction. That is why farming breeds dependence because no plant or animal, once thus bred for intensive farming, can then support itself unaided – whereas in a natural ecosystem evolution has provided the interrelationships, the checks and balances, which facilitate self-sustainability.

But the underground fungal network is hidden from the view of most of us – and has consequently not been recognised and considered. In a similar fashion, business ecosystem diagrams often show a network of the easily identified and purposely created organisations, agencies and programmes which exist to help new, small and growing businesses.

It can, of course, be convenient to limit one’s perception of a business ecosystem in this way, as it then supports attempts to ‘build’ an ecosystem where the existing support structure is thought to be weak or lacking. So could that be why such views are embraced: apparently up-to-date thinking which supports continuation of accustomed practice – what’s not to like?

However a suggestion made in 35 years ago by Allen Gibb of the layers of influence on a small business is interesting because it puts the ‘purposive’ support network in the outermost, and least influential, layer. It is friends and family who are the closest and most influential, then trusted business acquaintances and after them professional advisers (such as accountants) and then commercial contacts.

Thus, of the five layers of influence suggested by Gibb, only the least influential one features in many ecosystem pictures. Is that not like describing a forest ecosystem without looking below the surface of the forest floor – and therefor missing the most pervasive relationships?

So next time you see an ecosystem diagram, take a close look. Does it show all the influences on its central subject, or just the obvious and/or official provided and sanctioned ones? And if businesses do indeed come to rely on the institutionally provided support, do they, like farmed animals, lose their ability to operate without it? Are the providers of that official support in effect trying to farm businesses instead of endeavouring to understand what actually influences them in order to ensure that it is allowed to work properly?