It's better if all the stakeholders are taken into consideration. shareholders cannot operate or gain more profits if the clients are dissatisfied, then the platform should focus on solving or providing a solution to the problems first, then shareholders can negotiate on the profits done afterwards

Sustainability research has multiple applications such as Sustainable development and Islamic finance...

See the attached.

This is a crucial and timely question. As digital platforms continue to reshape entire industries, the discussion around sustainability must extend far beyond short-term financial metrics. In my research on digital transformation in structurally weak municipalities and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), I’ve found that platform sustainability hinges not merely on profitability, but on a platform’s ability to generate distributed, long-term value across its ecosystem—including users, public institutions, regional partners, and local economies.

Drawing on institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), platform sustainability should be understood as institutionally embedded, shaped by social expectations, regulatory pressures, and normative shifts. Platforms that focus narrowly on shareholder returns often face legitimacy risks—especially as public scrutiny increases regarding data governance, market power, and social responsibility. A growing body of research suggests that platform longevity depends on their capacity to:

• Foster inclusive participation and fair value redistribution among users and suppliers (Kenney & Zysman, 2016);
• Adapt to changing institutional logics, such as demands for transparency, environmental responsibility, and digital sovereignty (Patalon & Wyczisk, 2024);
• Co-create public value, especially when platforms intersect with municipalities, public service delivery, or regional innovation ecosystems (Ansell & Gash, 2008).

In my work with rural municipalities in South Westphalia, we see platforms not only as commercial tools but as infrastructure for enabling digital public services, local entrepreneurship, and cross-sector innovation. These platforms must create relational and civic value—for instance, by improving service accessibility, supporting local SMEs through predictive analytics, or integrating with sustainable procurement systems. Thus, short-term financial stability is necessary but insufficient. Enduring platforms design for ecosystem resilience, institutional alignment, and shared value creation. They navigate not only market competition, but also public legitimacy, ethical accountability, and multi-stakeholder governance.

This reflects a broader shift: from extractive platform capitalism to generative, place-based digital ecosystems. The future belongs to platforms that act not as extractive intermediaries but as adaptive socio-technical infrastructures—especially when anchored in public-private-academic collaboration.

• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
• Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2016). The rise of the platform economy. Issues in Science and Technology, 32(3), 61–69.
• Patalon, M., & Wyczisk, A. (2024). Mapping Digital Transformation of Municipalities through the Lens of Institutional Isomorphism. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES).
• Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.