Bioindustrialization by native people: A systemic management approach to foster coevolution

Bioindustrialization by native people: A systemic management approach to foster coevolution | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Bioindustrialization by native people: A systemic management approach to foster coevolution Raizza Miranda, Markus Schwaninger, Mischel Carmen Neyra Belderrain, and 7 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5925869/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 28 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Systemic Practice and Action Research → Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This article proposes a systemic management model tailored for biofactories operating within the Amazon rainforest. The model aims to empower indigenous populations by enhancing their control over local development and a sustainable innovation ecosystem. Leveraging the Model of Systemic Control and the Viable System Model, we employed a qualitative methodology based on interviews with key stakeholders, including Indigenous leaders and community representatives, to incorporate local perspectives and values into the proposed redesign. Our analysis of management structures in community-based social enterprises guided the redesign, grounded in the principles of organizational cybernetics. The study was conducted at the Amazon Creative Lab (ACL), a biofactory situated within the Amazon rainforest that serves as a platform for innovative experimentation and capacity building, showcasing the potential of the forest and local communities. By prioritizing cultural appreciation and addressing exclusionary and colonialist practices, the ACL highlights the importance of integrating cultural values and respecting local traditions. The proposed management model enhances organizational self-determination while balancing the interaction between traditional communities and Western perspectives, reinforcing the role of community organizations within their territories. Amazon Forest Industry 4.0 Systems Thinking Sustainability Viable System Model Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Introduction The transition to a sustainable economy reveals significant opportunities associated with the use of renewable, bio-based resources, within what has come to be known as the bioeconomy. However, bioeconomy is a broad concept, subject to various interpretations. In this context, three main perspectives are highlighted in the literature, according to (Bugge, Hansen and Klitkou, 2016 ): the "Biotechnology Perspective," which focuses on the commercialization of biotechnological research and technologies aimed at economic growth; the "Bioresources Perspective," which links value generation to technological progress, promoting the development of new value chains; and the "Bioecological Perspective," which prioritizes biodiversity conservation and ecosystem sustainability, advocating for a circular and self-sustaining model. The implementation of the bioeconomy requires a deep understanding of the various factors and agents involved in local contexts, incorporating social, ecological, economic (Zeug et al., 2019 ), and cultural aspects. In this sense, systemic approaches are fundamental, as they consider environments as complex, dynamic, and interconnected systems, demanding a holistic view of the multiple factors and actors involved. These considerations are crucial when exploring the bioeconomy as an alternative for the conservation and valorization of biomes, such as tropical forests. When applied to areas of high biodiversity, such as tropical forests, the bioeconomy is considered a solution for sustainable development, especially for traditional populations, such as Amazonian communities (WRI, 2022 ). However, it is essential that the bioeconomy is not imposed unilaterally but integrated with the cultural values and the right to self-determination of traditional populations, as established by the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" (ONU, 2006 ). In Brazil, the bioeconomy that focuses on the preservation of forests and rivers and on commercial production that recognizes and values the rich biodiversity and associated cultures is defined as socio-bioeconomy (Garrett et al. , no date), and more specifically as “socio-bioeconomy of healthy standing forests and flowing rivers”. In this scenario, the following research question arises: RQ. How can the success and viability of community-based enterprises operated in the forest be ensured while strengthening the right to self-determination of traditional communities and peoples? The objective of this study is to develop a systemic management model aimed at community-based enterprises, empowering traditional populations to achieve autonomy in their development through viable and sustainable organizations. This research seeks to balance economic development with cultural preservation, proposing the creation of a specific systemic management tool for community-based entrepreneurship. The focus is to enable solid and adaptive governance that respects and integrates the cultural values and knowledge of traditional populations. In the current context, where traditional populations face increasing exposure to Western cultural practices, this research aims to protect and strengthen their cultures and knowledge while exploring opportunities in the contemporary world. The proposal presented in this study aims to enable a balanced interaction between community-based organizations and those with Western perspectives, reinforcing the role of traditional populations in building constructive relationships within their territories. The practical application of this study was carried out in the Brazilian Amazon, specifically in the operational model of the future biofactories of the Amazon Creative Laboratory, an initiative of the Amazonia 4.0 Institute. This research is expected to offer traditional communities and peoples a management model that allows them to direct and develop their enterprises. This implies incorporating the right to self-determination and creating an organizational identity that strengthens and revives cultural and ancestral values and knowledge. To achieve this objective, the study is based on solid principles of organizational cybernetics, focusing on sustainability, resilience, and the adaptability of traditional communities in their transition to a socio-bioeconomy that reflects their own values, knowledge and needs. Theorical Reference Socio-Bioeconomy and Native People When A differentiation of bioeconomy practices in the Amazon region is crucial for sustainable development, particularly considering the historical context of deforestation and exploitation of ecosystem services. A significant challenge lies in the disparity between the communities that protect these services and produce sociobiodiversity-based products and those that benefit the most from the current Amazonian economies. The development of a socio-bioeconomy must prioritize the benefits for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), who act as guardians of biodiversity and the forest, enabling an economy focused on restoration, with standing forests and flowing rivers (Garrett et al. , no date). While community-based entrepreneurship (CBE) benefits traditional populations and combats social exclusion, a critical challenge is balancing cultural preservation with adaptation to global changes (Tapsell and Woods, 2010 ). Traditional peoples who are striving to preserve their cultural values have a unique conception of existence and connection with the environment, distinct from the predominant Western culture. Currently, they face the challenge of becoming protagonists in a technological process that often does not reflect their core beliefs and values. For these communities, nature is intrinsically linked to their cultural and spiritual identity (Simon, 2022 ), whereas Western culture often adopts a utilitarian and exploitative approach. Smith (Smith Tuhiwai, 2021 ) argues for the need to rethink paradigms in social sciences, advocating for a research agenda that includes the cultural values, knowledge and self-determination of Indigenous Peoples. The ancestral wisdom and the intrinsic relationship these peoples have with the environment can offer innovative and resilient approaches to contemporary challenges. Integrating this perspective into the construction of the socio-bioeconomy ensures that decisions consider economic, social, environmental, and cultural aspects, avoiding the pitfalls of technological colonialism. Many development initiatives have ignored or suppressed traditional ways of life, resulting in significant negative impacts, such as environmental degradation and social disintegration. When promoting local entrepreneurship, it is essential to understand the context in which the bioeconomy will be developed and to manage these organizations in a way that fulfills their purposes. The Indigenous worldview recognizes the interconnectedness with the Earth and its cycles, establishing norms for the relationship with all living beings. Despite ethnic diversity, Indigenous Peoples generally share a strong identity based on territorial knowledge and respect for the ecological calendar, which is crucial for the preservation of regional biodiversity (Espinosa and Duque, 2017 ). According to Schwaninger (Schwaninger, 2011 ), wisdom represents a quality beyond knowledge, encompassing ethical and aesthetic dimensions that contribute to the creation of the good, the true, and the beautiful. Indigenous knowledge in the Amazon, deeply rooted in millennia of interaction with the natural world, closely aligns with this concept of wisdom. It not only preserves biodiversity but also embodies ethical principles that promote balance and reciprocity with the environment. As such, Indigenous knowledge stands as one of the clearest examples of true wisdom, capable of guiding the development of a socio-bioeconomy that harmonizes cultural values with sustainable progress. Krenak (Krenak, 2022 ), Munduruku (Munduruku, 2012 ), and Baniwa(Baniwa, 2019 ) emphasize the need to rebuild and strengthen Indigenous identity, making it visible within the social context. Indigenous traditions carry a systemic view of constant interaction with nature, but preserving this heritage requires specific capabilities (Widjojo and Gunawan, 2019 ). Strengthening self-determination is essential, as contact with other cultures influences Indigenous cultural identity. Morales(Morales et al., 2020 ) highlights the need to establish a framework that guides Indigenous organizations based on their values and pillars, avoiding the emulation of Western practices that might compromise their identity. The systemic perspective of Indigenous Peoples opens possibilities for mutual benefit between nature and human beings, promoting lasting sustainability (Espinosa and Duque, 2017 ). Similarly, the quilombola and ribeirinho communities of the Amazon have also learned from Indigenous wisdom, adopting sustainable practices that have helped maintain the forest standing, thus contributing to the current biodiversity (Neves et al., 2021 ). In this context, a symbiotic approach with the environment is encouraged. Local practices must align with global dynamics, promoting a mutually beneficial relationship between organizations and the environment, ensuring systemic viability and reconnecting intrinsically with nature (Espinosa and Guzmán, 2015 ). This vision aligns with the indigenous conception of an inseparable relationship with origin, as highlighted by Krenak (Krenak, 2022 ). Systemic Management and Coevolution A Systemic Management emerges as an essential approach to addressing the complexity of organizational and social systems. The General Systems Theory, proposed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1950), introduced the idea that systems, whether physical, biological, or social, are composed of interconnected elements that influence each other and the environment in which they are embedded (Espinosa and Jackson, 2002 ). Systemic management, therefore, recognizes the need for continuous adaptation in response to both internal and external changes. Understanding and managing the growing complexity in social and organizational interactions requires a management approach that integrates these variables, promoting coevolution between systems and their environments. Co-evolution refers to the ongoing process of mutual adaptation between a system and the environment around it. In management, this means that organizations and their environments are in constant interaction, influencing one another. Organizational cybernetics, as proposed by Norbert Wiener, explores this interaction by focusing on communication and control within complex systems (Espinosa and Jackson, 2002 ). In this context, co-evolution is not just a passive adaptation but an active process of change, where the system shapes and is shaped by the environment. In highly complex settings, such as modern organizations, this approach enables systemic management to be more effective than rigid and traditional hierarchical structures. In first-order cybernetics, as proposed by Wiener, the focus is on feedback and control to ensure the system's viability. In second-order cybernetics, originally introduced by Heinz von Foerster and later developed by Maturana and Varela, the observer is also part of the system. This perspective emphasizes the importance of self-reflection and autopoiesis—the ability of a system to self-organize and maintain its identity amidst external disturbances (Maturana and Varela, 1995 ). This paradigm introduces a humanistic perspective, where cognition and systemic organization are seen as essential for adaptation and co-evolution in complex environments. Co-evolution involves the capacity of social and organizational systems to continuously learn and innovate in response to environmental changes. This requires structural and organizational flexibility, allowing organizations to adjust their internal processes as external pressures arise. The outcome of any organizational process depends on the quality of the underlying management model (Schwaninger, 2009 ), making it essential to develop and maintain effective governance to ensure long-term success. The Viable System Model (VSM), developed by Stafford Beer (Beer, 1979 , 1981 , 1984 ), provides a robust framework for addressing organizational complexity. It emphasizes the importance of integrating five interrelated systems, each with a specific function to ensure adaptability and viability: System 1 (Operational units); System 2 (Coordination); System 3 (Day-to-day management); System 3* (Audit); System 4 (Strategic management); and System 5 (Ethos). The model also highlights the critical role of systemic balance and recursive structures in ensuring the organization’s survival in dynamic environments. Complementing this perspective, the Systemic Control Model (SCM) proposes three management levels—Operational, Strategic, and Normative—which, when integrated, specify the control variables necessary and sufficient to deal with complexity (Schwaninger, 2011 ). Organizational intelligence should be distributed throughout the system, as argued by Schwaninger (Schwaninger, 2000 , 2011 ). This means that leadership and management functions should not be centralized but must be integrated at all levels of the organization. Distributed intelligence enables the system to respond more effectively and agilely to environmental changes. This distribution of functions facilitates co-evolution, as the system can process information and adjust its strategy as needed, promoting continuous innovation and adaptation. Espinosa and Walker (Espinosa and Walker, 2006 ) reinforce this view by demonstrating that the success of cybernetic interventions is directly related to the creation of collaborative networks at different levels of recursion, from local communities to national governments. These networks ensure that solutions emerge cohesively and are adapted to the local reality, promoting integration across the various levels of the system. In the example of Colombia's National Environmental System, the VSM was used to align institutions and communities within a sustainable management, enabling greater responsiveness and adaptability to environmental and social changes. Another important aspect is the emergence of new behavioral patterns, a phenomenon that can occur in complex and interconnected systems. According to Jackson (Jackson, 2019 ), systems are capable of displaying emergent behaviors, that is, new forms of interaction that arise from the interactions between the system's components. This emergence of patterns is essential for co-evolution, as it allows systems to adapt to the environment and develop new ways of operating in response to external changes. Thus, the approach goes beyond merely managing complexity; it proposes ways to create a sustainable future through co-evolution. By aligning management with the principles of co-evolution, organizations can not only adapt to current conditions but also influence the environment to create better conditions in the future. This approach allows systems to grow together with their environment, promoting a continuous cycle of learning, innovation, and adaptation that is essential for long-term sustainability (Schwaninger, 2001 ; Meadows, 2009 ; Jackson, 2019 ). Amazon Creative Laboratory The redesign proposal for the Amazon region is based on creating a scenario where value is added directly within the forest through the concept of socio-bioeconomy. In this context, the implementation of sustainable biofactories, grounded in the principles of Industry 4.0, emerges as a crucial strategy for the efficient and ecological production of goods from the Amazon’s abundant natural potential. The Amazon Creative Laboratories (ACLs) originate from an innovative initiative that promotes sustainable development in the region, integrating Industry 4.0 technologies into mobile and sustainable biofactories. These laboratories enable local experimentation, training, and high value-added production, while encouraging entrepreneurship within communities, respecting their knowledge, environment and cultural traditions, transforming biodiversity into a valuable asset, and strengthening the regional economy (Nobre, 2020 ; Amazon Assessment Report 2021. C. Nobre, A. Encalada, E. Anderson, F.H. Roca Alcazar, M. Bustamante, C. Mena, M. Peña-Claros, G. Poveda, J.P. Rodriguez, S. Saleska, S. Trumbore, A.L. Val, L. Villa Nova, R. Abramovay, A. Alencar, A.C.R. Alzza, D. Armentera, 2021). Structured as mobile laboratories, the ACLs enable experimentation, training, and demonstration of the forests and communities’ potential. The geodesic domes[1] the ACLs, as illustrated in Fig. 01 , are designed to minimize environmental impact and maximize energy efficiency through the use of solar power, while also ensuring connectivity. Additionally, the ACLs incorporate circular economy principles, implementing processing methods that generate no pollutants and achieve near-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Equipped with advanced technology, the ACLs utilize various tools for prototyping and processing local raw materials, transforming them into high-value-added products, thereby boosting the local economy.[2] The Amazonia 4.0 Institute, responsible for the conception and implementation of the ACLs, develops projects such as the ACL Cupuaçu-Cacao, ACL Brazil Nut, ACL Açaí, ACL Amazon Specialty Oils, and ACL Genomics. These projects are committed to sustainable production at every stage of the supply chain, from the utilization and processing of natural resources to the commercialization of products (Instituto Amazônia 4.0, 2023). They contribute to environmental restoration and value the cultures, knowledge and wisdom of traditional communities, ensuring environmentally healthy production practices and the comprehensive conservation of the Amazon biomes. In the future, these efforts will connect with the new Amazon Institute of Technology (AmIT), currently in the process of being established, which aims to become a global reference in sustainable education, science, technology, and innovation. Operating through a decentralized network across the Pan-Amazon region, AmIT promotes the conservation and appreciation of the forest and rivers by transforming scientific knowledge and the wisdom of Indigenous peoples and local communities[3] into technological innovation that benefits both the Amazon and the world (AmIT, 2022 ). Therefore, the Amazon Creative Laboratories represent an innovative and effective initiative to promote socio-bioeconomy in the region. The ACL concept was used to design the organizational redesign of future biofactories within community-based organizations, ensuring that they are sustainable and aligned with the principles of environmental and cultural valorization. Methodology This research employs a qualitative methodology based on systems thinking and organizational cybernetics. The choice of the Viable System Model (VSM) and the Model of Systemic Control (MSC) as the methodological foundation for this research was motivated by their ability to address the inherent complexity of organizational systems. The VSM provides a robust framework to ensure the viability of organizations in dynamic environments, promoting adaptation and resilience through multiple levels of recursion(Beer, 1979 , 1981 , 1984 ). The MSC, in turn, complements the VSM by establishing control variables that connect the different levels of the organization, facilitating coordination and alignment of actions (Schwaninger, 2000 , 2011 ; Schwaninger, Ambroz and Olaya, 2006 ). These approaches were chosen because they are particularly suitable for addressing system complexity, providing integrated and effective management. Hence, they are the proper vehicles for the design of the ecosystem pursued in this study. The structuring of the study is suggested in five main stages, each designed to address a specific aspect of the development of the systemic management model, as described in Fig. 2 . Step 1: Understanding The Problematic Situation The first step aims to understand the cultural, social, and environmental peculiarities that shape local dynamics, focusing on the challenges faced by traditional communities. Kusumastuti(Kusumastuti et al., 2022 ) highlight that Indigenous knowledge of natural resources can drive economic innovations, while Valdés and Reyes-Alvarado emphasize the need for detailed analysis. Given the uniqueness of the solutions, it was necessary to involve a wide range of key stakeholders, such as experts, NGOs, and community leaders. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants (quilombolas), and bioeconomy experts, selected for their experience and direct involvement in community entrepreneurship in the Amazon. These interviews provided insights into the socio-cultural dynamics of the communities, traditional knowledge related to natural resources, barriers to economic development, and practical examples of successful local initiatives. This information was critical for identifying challenges and co-creating tailored solutions that align with the values and realities of these communities. Step 2: Unfolding Complexity Equations In Step 2, the focus is on outlining the organization’s identity to understand the complexity of the system. Based on the literature, an outline of the organizational identity and the complexity of dynamics with key stakeholders is presented. The identity must enable the system to fulfill its purpose and be desirable (Meadows, 2009 ). Defining the identity and purpose allows for a better understanding of the organization, its environment, and the complexity involved (Pérez-Riíos, 2012 ). Unfolding complexity helps in understanding the distribution of complexity within the system (Pérez-Riíos, 2012 ). After establishing a comprehensive recursive analysis diagram, it is essential to identify the “system in focus” for targeted analyses (Espinosa, 2022 ). Step 3: Diagnosis In the Diagnosis stage, through the VSM (Viable System Model) diagram, strengths of the organizations and management are highlighted, and the deficiencies that compromise the organization’s viability are mapped, such as missing functions and communication failures. This process structures the understanding of the failures in the current structure, based on insights from the interviews. Structural issues in Systems 1 to 5 and relationship failures are diagrammed separately at each level. Espinosa (Espinosa, 2022 ) notes that mapping all problems in the VSM diagram can be complex, often encoding them as diagnostic points. Information collection from each key actor generates a continuous learning cycle. Group dynamics, designed to promote interaction, communication, and learning, are essential in this process. Step 4: Redesign In the Redesign Dynamics stage, the main problems are presented, and information is gathered to guide the redesign process, which aims to define functions for a sustainable organization. The knowledge-seeking dynamic creates learning cycles geared towards redesign, where the organization’s ability to fulfill its purpose is evaluated, or it is designed if it is a new organization (Pérez-Riíos, 2012 ). The process begins at the lowest recursion level, ascending to the intermediate level, and finally, to the highest level. At each level, the organization strives for viability and possesses its own management systems, in addition to the relationship channels. Guided by essential principles such as sustainability, ancestry, and viability, this structure enables the realization of systemic viability. Step 5: Systemic Management This stage marks the beginning of the model’s elaboration. The information gathered in the learning cycles is synthesized to structure concepts and connect the ideas of interviewees, ensuring decision-making quality. At this stage, the constructed models are integrated: the Model of Systemic Control (MSC) and the Viable System Model (VSM), providing greater clarity and compatibility between them. The VSM, with its five key systems previously described, ensures organizational viability by balancing autonomy and control in dynamic environments. Together, the VSM and MSC define the minimum functional criteria for an organization to exist independently or maintain its identity. Results This chapter presents the findings from the application in the Brazilian Amazon, emphasizing the importance of this biome for maintaining global biodiversity, combating the climate emergency due to global warming and the urgent need for sustainable management of natural resources. Currently, local communities rely on the commercialization of raw materials, such as seeds and fruit pulps, often with little or no added value. The redesign proposal aims to change this scenario by promoting value addition directly in the region through the principles of value-added socio-bioeconomy. The goal is to transform the current organizational structure and create an environment that fosters sustainable socioeconomic development, respecting biodiversity and traditional knowledge. Step 1: Understanding the Problematic Situation – Amazon Forest A comprehensive understanding all elements of the bioeconomy context in the Brazilian Amazon is essential for developing sustainable and innovative solutions. The study relied on several important reports and webinars, which reflect the ongoing impacts of European colonization on the exploitation of natural resources and the marginalization of Indigenous Peoples. It highlights the need for a systemic approach that recognizes the interdependence between sociocultural and biological diversity to ensure environmental justice and sustainability. The research emphasizes the importance of preserving and transmitting traditional knowledge as a means of cultural valorization and financial autonomy for Indigenous and local communities. Additionally, it underscores the role of community social entrepreneurship in promoting sustainable development and improving the livelihoods of local populations. For such initiatives to be effective, they require public policy support, strategic partnerships, access to financial resources, and capacity-building efforts. Step 2: Unfolding Complexity The System in focus – Biofactory A system's identity is composed of enduring characteristics that differentiate it from other systems (François, 1997 ), and a clear understanding of its purpose or function is essential to ensure its sustainable and effective growth, even in complex environments. Every system has a purpose that needs to be achieved, and its effectiveness is measured by its ability to fulfill this function, regardless of environmental variables and uncertainties (Espinosa and Guzmán, 2015 ). In the Amazonian context, where biodiversity and cultural heritage are rich, enterprises must adopt a conscious organizational purpose that promotes coevolution with the local environment and sustainable development. The socio-bioeconomy in the Amazon seeks to generate value through the concept of a “standing forest and flowing rivers,” valuing traditional wisdom and promoting innovations that emerge from the forest ecosystems themselves. The valorization of nature, circular economy, and governance are fundamental elements to avoid negative impacts, such as environmental degradation and biopiracy. Principles such as the well-being of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, the non-use of toxic materials or substances, animal welfare, and the protection of genetic and cultural heritage are essential to ensure a sustainable economy that respects local biodiversity. The absence of these principles can generate harmful externalities in multiple spheres—social, environmental, cultural, and economic. Moreover, the co-creation of value with the environment is vital to ensure that organizations evolve in harmony with their ecosystems. The concept of co-creation encompasses both environmental and social levels, promoting continuous transformation that integrates the needs of life and society, as noted by Capra and Luisi (Capra, 2014 ). Espinosa (Espinosa, 2022 ) emphasizes the importance of developing a culture of continuous adaptation, promoting an effective organization that coevolves with its environment while remaining true to its original purpose. Therefore, the purpose of the socio-bioeconomy in the Amazon should be to generate value from the forest, driving the local economy and preserving traditional wisdom and knowledge, coevolving with the environment toward a prosperous and balanced future. In the specific context of this study, an approach was adopted that focuses on a territorial vision for the socio-bioeconomy in the Amazon. Figure 3 clearly illustrates how this approach unfolds the complexity of the system into four levels of recursion. Level 0 – BIOMAS 4.0 Represents macro-level cooperation between all bioregions surrounding the Amazon rainforest, strengthening cooperation around the biome, fostering sustainable development, and protecting the Amazon. This ensures synergy and complementarity, larger scales of impact, access to sustainable markets, stimulation of innovation, political influence, and the promotion of responsible practices. It strengthens corporate image and value co-creation at the macro level with the biome. Level 1 – BIOREGIONS Composed of Biofactories within a region, strengthening regional operations, creating competitive advantages, and minimizing conflicts of interest between Bioenterprises. It creates competitive advantages, overcomes regional barriers, formulates strategies, and ensures the well-being of local communities in a regional dynamic of coevolution with their ecological niche. Level 2 – BIOFACTORIES Consisting of various individual organizations, potentially organized into networks, that collectively produce high-value-added products through knowledge and technology. These organizations can range from solo enterprises to collaborative groups, producing inputs such as biomaterials, food, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. The networked structure enables knowledge sharing and scalability while maintaining individual organizational autonomy. Level 3 – SOLO ORGANIZATIONS Consisting of individual organizations. After the development of a comprehensive recursive analysis diagram, it is essential to define the “system in focus” to conduct more targeted and precise analyses. In this study, Level 2 – Biofactories was selected, as shown in Fig. 3 . This choice aims to adopt a bottom-up approach, promoting a culture of participation and collaboration. Unlike a hierarchical diagram, the recursive analysis diagram shows that organizations at higher levels do not direct those at the next level but rather incorporate them. As Espinosa ( 2022 ) suggests, this means providing meta-systemic support to ensure that all other levels have the resources, information, and knowledge necessary to carry out their tasks and organizational objectives coherently. Step 3: Diagnosis Organizational diagnosis reveals crucial insights into the dynamics of community organizations in the Amazon, considering both the organism and the environment as interdependent survival units. As Gregory Bateson states, "the unit of survival is the organism along with the environment; we are living through a bitter experience in realizing that an organism that destroys its environment is, in fact, destroying itself." Thus, the first step was to understand the environment in which these organizations are embedded. The qualitative analysis, using Causal Loop Diagrams (CLD), provides a detailed view of the behavioral patterns and complex interactions these organizations face. According to Miranda (Miranda et al., 2023 ), the investigation into traditional populations in the Amazon indicates the presence of pathological system behavior that amplifies economic vulnerability and promotes forest unsustainability. The identified traps include forest appropriation, biodiversity loss, “savannization”, and challenges in social development and innovation. These factors compromise the organizations' ability to manage their operations and ensure viability. Illegal forest appropriation establishes an informal value chain based on unsustainable practices, while the lack of an innovative environment restricts the creation of new businesses and solutions. Biodiversity loss and “savannization” affect natural cycles, compromising the availability of inputs and the sustainability of economic activities. In the organizational diagnosis, eight dysfunction points affecting the viability and capacity of the communities to add value to their products and services were mapped, as shown in Fig. 4 . The first dysfunction is the relationship between the specific environment and System 1 (where the organizational purpose is implemented). Adapted from Lassl (2019) The dysfunction D1 between the specific environment and System 1 is characterized by: Failure to promote the value of standing forests. Inability to deal with environmental pathologies. Need for competency enhancement. Little or no added value to raw materials. Lack of Homeostat A between operations and the ecological niche. Lack of homeostats A between operations and niche. This dysfunction shows that the organization lacks adequate mechanisms to mitigate fluctuations and amplify eigen-variety in response to environmental uncertainties. The lack of technical knowledge and access to technologies limits the ability to transform natural resources into higher value-added products. Moreover, the absence of sustainable infrastructure—such as reliable electricity, eco-friendly transportation, and adequate storage facilities—further hampers production, distribution, and storage of products, making them less competitive. The scarcity of financial resources also limits the necessary investments for improvements and innovations. The absence of Homeostat A negatively affects operational efficiency, relevance, and the organizations' adaptability, compromising long-term sustainability. Dysfunction D2 is related to System 1 and is characterized by: Poor internal infrastructure within the organization. Difficulty in adding value to traditional wisdom. Low production autonomy. Limited access to professional training. Inability of System 1 to achieve self-governance, resilience, adaptation, and sustainability within its niche. These dysfunctions reflect how inadequate infrastructure, lack of autonomy, and limited professional training hinder the organizations' ability to implement efficient and innovative practices. The difficulty in adding value to traditional, knowledge and wisdom and the lack of production autonomy result in dependence on third parties and limitations in controlling their own businesses. The lack of training hinders innovation and sustainable development, while the inability to achieve self-governance impedes the necessary adaptation to face a constantly changing environment. Dysfunction D3, the relationship between System 1 and System 3, is characterized by: Lack of communication and alignment Limited resources Lack of Synergy Low management training Lack of experience with entrepreneurship Absence of homeostat between management and the meta-system and operations. The dysfunction between System 1 and System 3 in community-based organizations is manifested by a lack of communication and alignment in organizational management, resource constraints, absence of synergy, and low management training. System 3, responsible for integrative management, does not efficiently communicate with System 1, which handles local operations, resulting in uncoordinated decisions and inefficient use of resources. The lack of experience with entrepreneurship and the absence of a regulator to ensure balance between strategic management and operations hinder sustainable self-governance. To mitigate these issues, it is essential that System 3 prioritize clear communication, management training, and synergy between sectors, ensuring adequate support for the growth and sustainability of community-based entrepreneurship. Dysfunction D4 is the relationship between System 1 and System 2, characterized by: Difficulty in aligning processes with traditional cultural aspects. Inability to foster a culture of self-organization. This dysfunction highlights the difficulty community-based organizations face in reconciling the standardization required for certifications with the preservation of their cultural traditions. The pursuit of certifications can conflict with specific rituals and cultural practices, leading to a homogenization that compromises the identity of the communities. Finding a balance between obtaining certifications and preserving cultural traditions is essential to ensure sustainable development. Dysfunction D5 is the relationship between System 2 and System 3, characterized by: Need for external support for guidance. The lack of alignment between the standards and guidelines of System 2 and the practical actions of System 3 can lead to poorly informed decisions and ineffective management. The need for external support, such as NGOs and specialized institutes, is crucial to ensure that strategic guidelines are effectively implemented. Cooperation and dialogue between the systems are essential to align actions with the established goals and values. Dysfunction D6 refers to the absence of System 3* Lack of efficient collection of operational information. Work overload and difficulty in separating execution from evaluation. The absence of System 3* affects the ability to conduct effective audits and operational oversight. The lack of dedicated channels for collecting information and the work overload on small teams’ complicate management and data collection. Partnerships and specialized guidance can help overcome these challenges, promoting more effective management and a positive impact on the communities. Dysfunction D7 is related to the absence of System 4, characterized by: Lack of integration between strategic objectives and operations. Difficulty in implementing strategic guidelines. Insufficient feedback and strategy review. The absence of System 4 hinders the efficient integration of long-term strategies with daily operations. Without a clear strategic vision and a system to continuously monitor and review these strategies, the organization faces challenges in adapting and aligning its operations with strategic objectives. This results in difficulty implementing the necessary guidelines to achieve long-term goals and a lack of effective feedback to adjust strategies as conditions change. Finally, dysfunction D8 in the relationship between System 5 and System 3, and between System 5 and System 4, as shown in Table 15, is identified by: Variety imbalance. Short-term focus. Ineffective management. Lack of homeostat. System 5, responsible for moderating the interaction between System 3 and System 4, plays a crucial role in harmonizing day-to-day management with the long-term strategic vision. When this function is inadequate, conflicts may arise between immediate demands and the long-term vision, leading to poorly coordinated decisions and ineffective management. The lack of a homeostat impairs System 5's ability to maintain balance and adapt to changes. In conclusion, the dysfunctions identified in the various management systems of community-based organizations in the Amazon highlight the urgent need to promote the development of technical and technological capacities, invest in infrastructure and logistics, facilitate access to markets and financial resources, and value traditional wisdom. Government support, partnerships with organizations, and the creation of collaborative networks are fundamental to overcoming these challenges and strengthening community-based social organizations, enabling them to face the complex environment and achieve sustainable and successful development. The diagnosis reveals that these organizations require restructuring to adapt to a new scenario that relies on added-value processes and operates within a network, addressing the identified dysfunctions and promoting sustainability and socioeconomic development in the region. Step 4 Redesign Among the many potential resources of Amazonian biodiversity, cacao (Theobroma cacao) and cupuaçu (Theobroma Grandiflorum) stand out in this application, as they are transformed into products that create new markets and generate demand, continuously promoting the valorization of biodiversity. However, as with any production process, by-products are generated, which, at first, might be discarded. Instead, in the ACL, these by-products undergo a process of revalorization, where they are repurposed to add even more value, as outlined in Appendix 1. If the potential of these by-products is already known, they go directly into the technological value-adding process in the ACLs, being transformed into new products. Meanwhile, by-products with less explored or unknown value are directed to research and development, where they are studied and, if viable, also undergo the technological value-adding process until they become new products. Figure 5 illustrates the value-adding processes, with arrows representing the flows that connect each stage of this process. Figure 5. Value-Adding Process in the Cacao-Cupuaçu ACL The central concept behind the ACLs is to transform the economic model in the Amazon from one dependent on the extraction and export of raw materials to one focused on creating and adding local value. This model aligns with the principles of the circular economy, which emphasize waste reduction, product circularity, and the regeneration of natural systems. By incorporating these principles into the biofactories, the ACLs ensure that local communities directly benefit from the economic value-generated by their natural resources, promoting both social equity and environmental sustainability. Collective Intelligence – Collaborative Networks The resilience of biofactories in the Amazon is significantly enhanced by collective intelligence, which plays a central role in the proposed redesign. By integrating the traditional knowledge of Indigenous communities with modern technological advancements, biofactories become capable of quickly adapting to socioeconomic and ecological changes. This collective intelligence is facilitated by collaborative networks that connect local communities with external stakeholders, such as researchers, NGOs, and governmental agencies. These collaborative networks function as interconnected systems, in which each organization contributes its unique capabilities, forming a resilient and adaptable ecosystem. Resilience emerges from the process of collective learning, where organizations within the network continuously exchange knowledge, adjust their internal processes, and co-evolve with the external environment. Stefano Mancuso’s research on plant intelligence provides an insightful analogy: just as plants function in decentralized yet highly coordinated systems, the Amazon biofactories thrive on distributed intelligence and flexible leadership structures (Mancuso, 2015 ). Within these collaborative networks, heterarchy[4] allows for a fluid distribution of leadership and authority for decision-making. While leadership is flexible and shifts according to needs, it does not eliminate the presence of strategic guidance. This distributed leadership model promotes innovation and adaptability while maintaining cohesion and alignment with the broader objectives of the network. Inspired by decentralized plant intelligence, biofactories operate similarly: leadership roles emerge in response to specific challenges, ensuring that the network remains responsive to internal and external pressures. In the context of biofactories, adopting the concept of heterarchy allows for a flexible distribution of responsibility. However, this distribution does not exclude the presence of leadership, which continues to play essential roles in coordination and strategic guidance. Leadership in a heterarchical system is fluid, with different members assuming leadership as needed by the context. This model, inspired by Mancuso, where leadership is emergent rather than centralized, fosters continuous innovation and adaptability while maintaining cohesion and focus on organizational objectives. For community-based entrepreneurship in the Amazon to reach its full potential and promote sustainable transformation, community organizations must redesign themselves to function as collaborative networks capable of overcoming social pathologies and ensuring their viability. The Amazon Creative Laboratory (ACL) can address these pathologies through strategies such as the development of high-value-added products, integrating the value of the forest into a strong and sustainable economy. To combat the misappropriation of the forest, the ACL’s collaborative network can adopt technologies such as blockchain and tracking systems to ensure authenticity and transparency, fighting illegal practices like land grabbing. Additionally, by functioning as an innovation hub, the ACL can foster local creativity, promoting original solutions to the region's challenges. In this context, the Viable System Model (VSM) serves as an adaptive organizational structure, where each organizational network within the ACL is autonomous and capable of continuous learning, promoting the sustainability of both its operations and the network as a whole. Each network, illustrated in Fig. 6 , is coordinated in an integrated manner by the meta-system, which acts as an "organizational body" to ensure cohesion and strategic alignment within a sustainable innovation ecosystem. Source: Adapted from Schwaninger ( 2009 ) This flexible arrangement, illustrated in the Viable System Model (VSM) in Fig. 6 , is designed to adjust to the constantly evolving needs and demands of a complex and dynamic organization. Each of the Organizational Networks is coordinated in an integrated manner by the meta-system. Step 5: Systemic Management Model In the complex landscape of organizational development, the pursuit of risk mitigation plays an extremely important role. History has been marked by numerous development actions that often neglected a systemic understanding of the risks involved. This negligence resulted in reinforcing relationships, which amplified negative impacts, or weakening relationships, which undermined fundamental systems for long-term prosperity on our planet. The value creation control process emerges as a response to this need for risk mitigation and to ensure sustainable organizational development. This process is meticulously managed through feedback and influence mechanisms, which act as a quality control system. This ensures that organizational development proceeds in accordance with established goals and guidelines, taking into account not only economic aspects but also ethical and aesthetic ones. Figure 7 illustrates the directed value creation process, based on the integration of the MSC and VSM models. The integration of the MSC (Model of Systemic Control) and VSM (Viable System Model) provides a comprehensive and effective approach to guiding organizational evolution, aligning with the worldview of Indigenous Peoples. This synergy enhances the understanding of organizational complexity and supports decision-making. The combination of these models broadens the perspective of organizational evolution; while also considering organizational viability and systemic control to guide development and sustainability, it also seeks to mitigate potential environmental, economic, cultural, social, and environmental impacts. This integration not only directs the organization's evolutionary process but also strengthens its resilience in the face of future transformations and challenges, ensuring its continuity and alignment with long-term vision. By incorporating these models, the organization remains capable of growing in an authentic and sustainable way, preserving its identity and promoting a positive impact on the surrounding ecosystem. Figure 8 illustrates the integration of the Model of Systemic Control (MSC) and the Viable System Model (VSM). The MSC defines three levels—normative (System 5), strategic (System 4), and operative (Systems 1, 2, 3). Feedback loops between management, regulation, and operations enable adaptability. Fig 8. Detailed Integration of VSM and MSC Adapted from Lassl (2019) The following describes the integrations that detail the abstract and philosophical processes involved, providing a clearer view of how these concepts are applied in practice to strengthen the organization and its relationship with the environment in which it operates. Operative Level and System 1 The integration of the Operative Level of the MSC and System 1 of the VSM is illustrated in Fig. 9 . System 1 is responsible for managing the units within the Amazon Creative Laboratory network, and it is through this system that the organization's purpose is implemented and consequently strengthened in a tangible way within its niche. While the goal at the operative level is value creation, the union between the MSC and VSM aims to create the necessary conditions, in line with the characteristics of System 1, for the realization of this value. Thus, the three crucial dimensions—Operation, Management, and Regulation—are outlined. Regarding Operation, this includes the process of receiving demands from the environment, processing sales and orders, executing production, and finally, the delivery stage. As for the Management dimension within System 1, the central goal is to establish efficient operational control and promote a management approach conducive to coevolution, accompanied by strong systemic control. This systemic control encompasses a wide range of factors, such as the intrinsic value of the company, the benefits provided to customers, economic gains, social impacts, cultural expressions, and environmental considerations, including the mitigation of operational risks. The Regulation dimension of System 1, in turn, focuses on guiding the processes that cover aspects such as technical data sheets and procedures that culminate in value creation for the company. This includes benefits offered to customers, economic gains, positive social impacts, cultural enrichment, and environmental contributions. Additionally, this stage incorporates a constant search for improvements, which draw inspiration from biological principles and biomimetic processes. These improvements cover both products and solutions, including technological innovations and advancements in training. Within the scope of System 1 regulation, there are also considerations related to specific internal standards and protocols, which direct the operation in question. These considerations include, for example, proper waste management, equipment maintenance, and guidelines related to the environment, social sphere, and cultural context. Operative Level and System 2 The integration between the Operative Level of the MSC and System 2 of the VSM is illustrated in Fig. 10 . System 2 provides the necessary tools to manage conflicts in the operations of the Amazon Creative Laboratory (ACL), whether interpersonal or intergroup, including the establishment of clear rules, the incorporation of organizational values and principles into practice, the implementation of protocols and standards systems, as well as the management of information and communications. While the goal at the operative level is value creation, the integration between the MSC and VSM aims to provide the necessary conditions, in line with the characteristics of System 2, to ensure that this value is generated. In this way, Standards and Guidelines, Training, and Information and Communications Management are established. Within Standards and Guidelines, rituals, protocols, rules, and quality standards are incorporated. Regarding Training, both organizational and cultural aspects are addressed. Additionally, Information and Communications Management promotes collaboration among stakeholders, the effective dissemination of knowledge, and quality management, as well as the management of network partners. Thus, the interconnection between System 2 of the VSM and the Operative Level of the MSC drives efficiency, collaboration, and sustainable value creation. This includes everything from generating tangible benefits for the company to enriching customers, with added value in the economic, social, cultural, and environmental spheres. Operative Level and System 3 The integration between the Operative Level of the MSC and System 2 of the VSM is illustrated in Fig. 11. System 3 provides the tools for managing the day-to-day operations of the Amazon Creative Lab (ACL) network, ensuring collaboration and cohesion among System 1 units. While the primary goal at the operative level is value creation, the integration of the MSC and VSM aims to establish the necessary conditions, aligned with the characteristics of System 3, to enable this value generation. Figure 11. System 3 and Operative MSC System 3 assumes a crucial role within the organizational structure, focusing on the efficient management of resources and the promotion of synergies that encompass everything from labor to inputs and financial aspects. In addition to optimizing the allocation of these resources, this system plays a fundamental role in maintaining transparency and accountability to stakeholders. In this context, corporate legal and regulatory requirements, including applicable legislation, are meticulously considered and complied with, reflecting the organization’s unwavering commitment to compliance. However, the scope of System 3 is not limited to compliance with external requirements; it also encompasses the sphere of constant monitoring and the pursuit of continuous improvement. Adaptability and agility are key principles in this context, allowing the organization to stay aligned with the evolving business landscape and emerging market demands. An essential dimension of System 3 is the ability to negotiate and justify decisions. This involves effectively communicating the underlying reasons for decisions and directions, considering both internal needs and external demands. The ability to articulate these choices not only facilitates collaboration with external stakeholders but also fosters internal cohesion and the building of solid consensus. On the other hand, Systemic Control Management, focused on the operational level, aims to ensure that the responsible committee continuously seeks value creation while mitigating the inherent risks of the network’s operations, which implies adopting a holistic approach to evaluating operations. Thus, System 3 plays a fundamental role in the organizational context, acting not only as an executor of operational tasks but also as a strategic guide aiming for optimization, compliance, continuous adaptation, and the relentless pursuit of sustainable value. Operative Level and System 3* The integration of the Operative Level of the MSC and System 3* of the VSM is illustrated in Fig. 12. System 3*, playing a central role in this dynamic, focuses its efforts on establishing alternative channels for the direct collection of information. In addition to promoting transparency and accountability within the organization, System 3* helps mitigate risks related to misconduct, lack of accountability, and inadequate decision-making. Figure 12. System 3* and Operative MSC Its broad scope transcends mere data collection, extending to embrace the creation of a holistic overview of critical information. By establishing alternative channels for direct data collection, System 3* enables a deeper immersion into the operational domain, allowing for a more precise and comprehensive understanding of the fundamental variables that shape organizational viability. System 3* plays a crucial role in the pursuit of value creation and operational risk mitigation. It performs systematic checks to ensure that the value reported by System 1 is, in fact, being realized and evaluates whether the risks System 1 claims to be mitigating are actually being addressed. Additionally, System 3* offers a mechanism for continuous monitoring and adaptation, facilitating the balance between value generation and risk management. Through its critical inspection and oversight functions, System 3* contributes to organizational efficiency, sustainability, and success in an ever-evolving business environment. Thus, the integration between System 3 of the VSM* and the Operative Level of the MSC represents a notable example of synergy between systemic and operational approaches. This union not only strengthens organizational cohesion but also illustrates the relentless pursuit of a detailed, responsible, and comprehensive understanding of the internal and external dynamics driving the organization's sustainability and long-term success. Strategic Level and System 4 The integration of the Strategic Level of the MSC and System 4 of the VSM is illustrated in Fig. 13 . System 4 plays a prominent role by acting as an essential bridge between the organization and its environment, fostering a proactive and innovative approach. In addition to ensuring long-term viability, this approach promotes an adaptive and resilient posture, essential for navigating a constantly evolving world. While the goal at the strategic level is the creation of value potentials and new value opportunities, the integration between the MSC and VSM aims to provide the necessary conditions, in line with the characteristics of System 4, to ensure that this value is generated. The guidance of System 4 is grounded in a strategic and systemic control approach, where objectives and value potentials are pursued through the cultivation of core competencies, solving customer problems, developing solutions, adopting substitute technologies, focusing on critical success factors, evaluating competitive position, and establishing strategic collaborations. This integration aims to deepen the forward-looking vision of the future, encompassing actions such as fighting biopiracy of formulated products, addressing the impacts of climate change on operations, supporting and promoting public policies, as well as mitigating risks in all dimensions: social, cultural, economic, and environmental. System 4 also engages with coevolution strategies, constantly seeking inspiration from nature and establishing symbiotic connections. Additionally, it emphasizes innovation and raising both internal and external awareness of the intrinsic value of products, especially in the face of competition from dominant companies whose primary focus is profit maximization. This strategic approach is complemented by a commitment to continuous improvement, encompassing both internal processes and the development of the teams involved. Through this relentless pursuit of excellence, System 4 not only enhances the interaction between the organization and its environment but also strengthens its adaptive capacity, promoting a cycle of continuous success. Normative Level and System 5 The integration of the Normative Level of the MSC and System 5 of the VSM is illustrated in Fig. 14. System 5 plays a role of paramount importance, serving as an essential element in the comprehensive consolidation of the organization’s ethos, values, and unwavering purpose. While the goal at the normative level is sustainability and viability, the integration between the MSC and VSM aims to provide the necessary conditions, in line with the characteristics of System 5, to ensure that this value is generated. Figure 14. System 5 and Normative MSC Within the scope of systemic control at the normative level, the relentless pursuit of viability and development materializes through the establishment of system ethics, the solidification of identity and vision, a deep understanding of organizational dynamics, cohesive corporate structuring, and the cultivation of a strong corporate culture. These efforts culminate in the robust consolidation of the organization’s identity, values, and purpose, while also clearly defining its culture and management philosophy. Additionally, System 5 plays a crucial role in providing medium- and long-term strategic guidance, taking a prominent position in steering the organization’s strategic trajectory. In this context, the reflective process plays a fundamental and strategic role, creating an environment conducive to second-order learning. This type of learning is of paramount importance for organizations, offering a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the organization’s development process. This deep analysis allows for the absorption of valuable insights and the implementation of substantial adjustments, thereby contributing to a solid and effective evolution of the organization as it progresses toward its goals. In summary, the connection between System 5 of the VSM and the Normative Level of the MSC not only strengthens internal cohesion but also provides a clear and adaptive strategic vision, fueling the organization’s continuous growth and improvement. Analysis The analysis of the systemic management model for biofactories in the Amazon focuses on evaluating the central elements of the model’s viability, adaptability, and sustainability. This section critically assesses the outcomes of applying the principles of organizational and systemic cybernetics to the unique socio-environmental challenges of the region. By focusing on elements such as value creation, organizational identity, and collaborative networks, this analysis explores how these concepts promote the coevolution of biofactories with their local ecosystems. Socioeconomic And Environmental One of the most prominent findings of the case study is the significant impact of biofactories on the local socioeconomic and environmental landscape. Communities that previously relied on selling low-value raw seeds are now positioned to create high-value products directly in the forest, generating sustainable income while preserving the region’s biodiversity. This transformation aligns with the core principles of socio-bioeconomy, which emphasize the importance of local value creation as a driver of sustainable development. The incorporation of indigenous knowledge into the innovation ecosystem has proven to be a key factor in enhancing the resilience of biofactories. Local knowledge, particularly in biodiversity management, has allowed biofactories to develop processes that are not only economically viable but also ecologically responsible. This synthesis of traditional knowledge with modern management practices aligns with the goal of the systemic management approach, which aims to create a balanced interaction between human activity and the environment. Organizational Identity and Adaptability The role of organizational identity in biofactories is vital for ensuring their long-term sustainability. The analysis reveals that biofactories need a clear organizational identity that encapsulates their purpose, values, and socio-environmental responsibilities. This identity acts as a foundation for decision-making and helps maintain coherence across various operational levels. According to Schwaninger (Schwaninger, 2011), identity is fundamental to distinguishing an organization in complex environments, and biofactories are no exception. The Amazon Creative Laboratories (ACLs) have provided an ideal platform to examine how biofactories can adapt to dynamic socio-environmental conditions. Through the creation of collaborative networks, biofactories can share knowledge and resources, enhancing their ability to respond to external challenges, such as market fluctuations or environmental changes. This adaptability, driven by collective intelligence, is essential for maintaining the viability of these organizations. Systemic Management and Distributed Leadership An essential component of the proposed model is the systemic management approach, which integrates leadership and management across various organizational levels. The heterarchical structure observed in the ACLs, where leadership is distributed rather than centralized, has proven to be an effective means of promoting innovation and resilience. The presence of decentralized leadership did not negate the need for strong governance but, rather, enhanced the organization’s ability to adapt and coevolve with the local ecosystem. This approach aligns with Stefano Mancuso’s concept of plant intelligence, where decentralized systems respond more flexibly to external stimuli. What appears as an analogy here may also point to a universal principle: the virtue of decentralization, which enhances adaptability and resilience in both natural and organizational systems. Challenges in Implementation Despite the success of the systemic management model, several challenges were identified during implementation. One of the main challenges is the lack of infrastructure, which limits the scalability of biofactories. Many communities struggle to access the tools, resources, and knowledge needed to fully operationalize the model. Additionally, inconsistent political support for bioindustrialization in the Amazon has hindered the widespread adoption of the model. The analysis also highlighted gaps in the technical capacity of local populations. While indigenous knowledge plays a crucial role in promoting sustainability, there is a need for additional training and capacity-building initiatives to ensure that communities can effectively manage and operate biofactories. This challenge underscores the importance of integrating modern technologies and management practices with traditional knowledge systems. Viable System Model (VSM) in Biofactories The Viable System Model (VSM) played a crucial role in diagnosing and restructuring the biofactories to ensure their long-term viability. The analysis revealed that biofactories operating within the ACLs exhibited signs of misalignment between their operational levels and their strategic objectives. The application of the VSM allowed for a more coherent integration of biofactory operations with their overall goals. Specifically, the VSM helped identify key points of dysfunction, such as communication failures between operational units and strategic management. By restructuring the biofactories according to the VSM framework, these organizations became better equipped to respond to internal and external challenges. This alignment between the organization’s purpose and its operational activities ensured that the biofactories could adapt to changes in their environment while maintaining a clear focus on their long-term objectives. The Way Forward: Strengthening Collaboration And Innovation To further expand the success of biofactories, the analysis recommends strengthening collaborative networks between local communities, researchers, and policymakers. These networks will foster knowledge exchange and innovation, enabling biofactories to continuously evolve. Collaborative networks also provide a mechanism to address common challenges, such as infrastructure deficits and regulatory barriers. The proposed system design promotes the coevolution of biofactories with the local ecosystem, emphasizing the importance of adaptive management. This approach aligns with Capra and Luisi’s(Capra, 2014) vision of sustainability, where systems are in a constant state of transformation, coevolving with their environment. Final Considerations The conclusion of this study highlights the transformative potential of redesigning biofactories in the Amazon, based on the principles of socio-bioeconomy and systemic management. By integrating traditional knowledge from local communities with advanced technologies, biofactories become effective tools for adding value to the natural resources of the Amazon, while preserving its biodiversity and promoting sustainable and inclusive development. The operational autonomy, built on the local valorization of natural resources, reinforces the leading role of Indigenous communities in the production process. These approaches to development must consider regional specificities and local perspectives, with an emphasis on sustainability, ancestry, knowledge and viability. Sustainability must be guided by the "worldview" of local peoples and their ancestral values and knowledge, who perceive the environment in a holistic and systemic manner. Ancestral wisdom, as the foundation for future innovations, needs to be revitalized and integrated into development strategies. This ensures that progress respects age-old traditions and wisdom, expanding the potential for innovation from its cultural roots. The Amazon Creative Laboratories (ACLs) stand out as innovation hubs that not only drive local economic growth but also ensure cultural and environmental preservation. The ability of ACLs to transform by-products into new goods illustrates the practical application of circular economy principles, promoting the responsible and regenerative use of natural resources. The viability of biofactories and other social enterprises in the region depends on collective intelligence, which is developed through learning and interaction among communities. This collective intelligence is essential for tackling challenges and maintaining the adaptability needed to respond to socioeconomic and ecological changes. By connecting traditional knowledge with external stakeholders, such as researchers and NGOs, biofactories become resilient and agile, ready to adjust to both internal and external pressures. The concept of collective intelligence, applied through collaborative networks, further enhances the resilience of these biofactories. These networks, inspired by Stefano Mancuso’s analogy of plant intelligence, allow for a fluid distribution of leadership and authority, fostering innovation and adaptability without compromising strategic guidance. However, the study also highlights challenges, such as the lack of infrastructure and the need for greater technical capacity to ensure the full operationalization of biofactories. These challenges require a coordinated effort between communities, researchers, and policymakers to expand the implementation of the bioindustrialization model in the Amazon. Thus, the systemic management model for biofactories in the Amazon offers an innovative solution that promotes sustainable economic development, preserves biodiversity, and strengthens the autonomy of local populations. This approach, rooted in the integration of traditional and modern knowledge, has the potential to transform the Amazon into a hub of sustainable innovation, aligned with the principles of the circular economy and coevolution with nature, while respecting the cultural particularities and ancestry of the region. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Work The research has some limitations that may guide future studies. First, the scope of the system architectures focused on the Amazon bioeconomy, limiting the generalization to other biomes, such as the Tropical Savanna (Cerrado), Atlantic Rainforest, Pantanal, Caatinga, and Pampas. Future investigations could explore different system architectures in other biomes, considering their particularities. Second, a more detailed organizational diagnosis could offer additional insights into the specific needs and challenges of community organizations, enabling more tailored management strategies. The adaptation of the management model to biome-specific contexts should also be explored, adjusting the model to the environmental, cultural, and economic characteristics of each biome. Additionally, the feasibility of the proposed changes should be evaluated, considering the acceptance and capacity of local communities to implement them. The research also did not fully detail cooperation among stakeholders. Future studies could develop participatory approaches to strengthen collaboration between researchers, communities, and community organizations. In summary, the research provides a solid foundation for understanding systemic management in the bioeconomy but suggests areas for further exploration, including the investigation of other biomes, more detailed diagnostics, model adaptation, and the evaluation of the feasibility of proposed changes. A robust approach to stakeholder engagement could enrich the implementation of these management strategies. Declarations Ethical Approval Data collection is contingent upon approval by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), in accordance with the guidelines established by CNS Resolution No. 304 of 2000, under the CAAE number: 67269723.7.0000.5505. Funding This work was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)– Finance Code 001 and FAPESP Research Project 2018/23097-3. References Amazon Assessment Report 2021. C. Nobre, A. Encalada, E. Anderson, F.H. Roca Alcazar, M. Bustamante, C. Mena, M. Peña-Claros, G. Poveda, J.P. Rodriguez, S. Saleska, S. Trumbore, A.L. Val, L. Villa Nova, R. Abramovay, A. Alencar, A.C.R. Alzza, D. Armentera, G.Z.-R. et al. (eds. ) (2021) ‘Science Panel for the Amazon (2021) (Part III)’, p. 41. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/. AmIT (2022) executive summary version 1.2 . Available at: www.amazonia4.org. Baniwa, A.F. (2019) Bem viver e viver bem: segundo o povo Baniwa no noroeste amazônico brasileiro . 1 a edição. Edited by UFPR. Curitiba, Paraná. Beer, S. (1979) The Heart of Enterprise . Chichester, UK: Wiley. Beer, S. (1981) Brain of the Firm . 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Beer, S. (1984) ‘The Viable System Model: Its Provenance, Development, Methodology and Pathology’, : Journal of the Operational Research Society , 35, pp. 7–25. Bugge, M.M., Hansen, T. and Klitkou, A. (2016) ‘What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature’, Sustainability (Switzerland) , 8(7). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070691. Capra, F., & L.P.L. (2014) ‘The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision’, Cambridge University Press. [Preprint]. Espinosa, A. (2022) Sustainable self-governance in businesses and society: The viable system model in action , Sustainable Self-Governance in Businesses and Society: The Viable System Model in Action . Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429490835. Espinosa, A. and Duque, C. (2017) ‘Complexity management and multi-scale governance: A case study in an Amazonian indigenous association’, European Journal of Operational Research , 268(3), pp. 1006–1020. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.07.049. Espinosa, A. and Guzmán, D. (2015) ‘Self-governance and symbiosis: A systemic approach to socio ecological systems resilience’, pp. 1–17. Espinosa, A. and Jackson, M.C. (2002) ‘A systemic look at educational development programs: Two perspectives on a recent Colombian experience’, Kybernetes , 31(9–10), pp. 1324–1335. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920210443536. Espinosa, A. and Walker, J. (2006) ‘Environmental management revisited: Lessons from a cybernetic intervention in Colombia’, Cybernetics and Systems , 37(1), pp. 75–92. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01969720591008724. François, C. (1997) International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics . Munich: K. G. Saur. Garrett, R. et al. (no date) Supporting Socio-bioeconomies of healthy standing forests and flowing rivers in the amazon . Available at: https://www.theamazonwewant.org/spa_publication/policy-brief-supporting-socio-bioeconomies-of-healthy-standing-forests-and-flowing-rivers-in-the-amazon/. Jackson, M.C. (2019) Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity . Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Krenak, A. (2022) Futuro Ancestral . 1 a ed. Edited by C. das Letras. São Paulo. Kusumastuti, R. et al. (2022) ‘Finding the context indigenous innovation in village enterprise knowledge structure: a topic modeling’, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 11(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00220-9. Mancuso, S., & V. (2015) Brilliant Green: The Surprising History and Science of Plant Intelligence . A. Washington, DC: Island Press. Maturana, H. and Varela, Francisco. (1995) A árvore do conhecimento . Meadows, D. (2009) Thinking in Systems: a primer . Chelsea Green Publishing. Miranda, R. et al. (2023) ‘Sustainable Amazon : A systemic inquiry with native populations’. Morales, A. et al. (2020) ‘Hybrid forms of business: Understanding the development of indigenous social entrepreneurship practices’, Journal of Business Research , 124(May 2020), pp. 212–222. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.060. Munduruku, D. (2012) O caráter educativo do movimento indígena brasileiro (1970-1990) . Edited by Paulinas. São Paulo. Neves, E.G. et al. (2021) Chapter 8: Peoples of the Amazon before European Colonization , Amazon Assessment Report 2021 . Available at: https://doi.org/10.55161/lxit5573. Nobre, C. (2020) ‘Amazônia 4.0 e o Futuro da Sociobioeconomia’, Boletim Amazônia Sustentável , pp. 45–48. ONU (2006) ‘Declaração das Nações Unidas sobre os Direitos dos Povos Indígenas’, pp. 1–12. Pérez-Riíos, J. (2012) Design and Diagnosis for Sustainable Organizations , Paper Knowledge . Toward a Media History of Documents . Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22318-1. Schwaninger, M. (2000) ‘Managing Complexity - The Path Toward Intelligent Organizations’, Systemic Practice and Action Research , 13(2), pp. 207–241. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009546721353. Schwaninger, M. (2001) ‘Intelligent organizations: An integrative framework’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science , 18(2), pp. 137–158. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.408. Schwaninger, M. (2009) ‘Complex versus complicated: The how of coping with complexity’, Kybernetes , 38(1), pp. 83–92. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920910930286. Schwaninger, M. (2011) Intelligent Organizations , Adaptive Technologies and Business Integration . Available at: https://doi.org/10.4018/9781599040486.ch012.ch000. Schwaninger, M., Ambroz, K. and Olaya, C. (2006) ‘A model for systemic control’, AIP Conference Proceedings , 839, pp. 549–559. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2216666. Simon, F. (2022) Como a cosmovisão indígena pode contribuir na construção de uma sociedade mais sustentável . Available at: https://vogue.globo.com/Vogue-Negocios/noticia/2022/02/cosmovisao-indigena.html. Smith Tuhiwai, L. (2021) ‘Descolonizando metodologias: pesquisas e povos indígenas’. Tapsell, P. and Woods, C. (2010) ‘Social entrepreneurship and innovation: Self-organization in an indigenous context’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , 22(6), pp. 535–556. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2010.488403. Widjojo, H. and Gunawan, S. (2019) ‘Indigenous Tradition: An Overlooked Encompassing-Factor in Social Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship , 11(1), pp. 88–110. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2019.1579752. WRI (2022) Bioeconomia: o que é e como se aplica à Amazônia , WRI Brasil . Available at: https://www.wribrasil.org.br/noticias/bioeconomia-o-que-significa-e-como-se-aplica-amazonia. Zeug, W. et al. (2019) ‘Stakeholders’ interests and perceptions of bioeconomy monitoring using a sustainable development goal framework’, Sustainability (Switzerland) , 11(6). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061511. Footnotes Geodesic domes are spherical structures composed of a network of triangles, designed to function as mobile and self-sufficient laboratories in the heart of the Amazon rainforest. https://amazonia4.org/ Indigenous peoples are groups with ancestral ties to specific territories, distinct cultural identities, and traditional governance systems recognized From the Latin heteros , meaning 'government of multiples,' where there is no fixed hierarchy, and authority and leadership are distributed flexibly. Table 15 Table 15 is not available with this version. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix1ValueAddingProcessintheLCACacauCupuau.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 28 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Systemic Practice and Action Research → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 22 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 10 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 06 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 01 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 Mar, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 03 Mar, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 04 Feb, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 31 Jan, 2025 First submitted to journal 29 Jan, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5925869","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":409550252,"identity":"e93d688c-ca31-4e25-8ac9-d1a43e2746b7","order_by":0,"name":"Raizza Miranda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Raizza","middleName":"","lastName":"Miranda","suffix":""},{"id":409550253,"identity":"af117335-11ca-430e-b142-1adcadb74e88","order_by":1,"name":"Markus Schwaninger","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of St. Gallen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Markus","middleName":"","lastName":"Schwaninger","suffix":""},{"id":409550254,"identity":"7a2e0781-5c98-44de-bbd8-36bcce8b3263","order_by":2,"name":"Mischel Carmen Neyra Belderrain","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mischel","middleName":"Carmen Neyra","lastName":"Belderrain","suffix":""},{"id":409550255,"identity":"0faeefa2-3c7c-4a4b-8496-923f4d0e1a49","order_by":3,"name":"André Baniwa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Brasília","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"André","middleName":"","lastName":"Baniwa","suffix":""},{"id":409550256,"identity":"e58d4129-d4dc-475a-9bae-47f52abb053e","order_by":4,"name":"Carlos Nobre","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidade de São Paulo","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carlos","middleName":"","lastName":"Nobre","suffix":""},{"id":409550257,"identity":"872ba678-262c-4ccd-995f-13f51476dcb6","order_by":5,"name":"Tereza Carvalho","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidade de São Paulo","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tereza","middleName":"","lastName":"Carvalho","suffix":""},{"id":409550258,"identity":"d5ff998b-5dcb-4872-b0d3-a6658e80818e","order_by":6,"name":"Alejandro Ochoa-Arias","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Austral University of Chile","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alejandro","middleName":"","lastName":"Ochoa-Arias","suffix":""},{"id":409550259,"identity":"4076bda2-aa37-492a-a2e0-31820af8ea67","order_by":7,"name":"Renato Sato","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federal University of São Paulo","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Renato","middleName":"","lastName":"Sato","suffix":""},{"id":409550260,"identity":"7465aa53-56a6-418e-b6c8-b3c2d67fcf65","order_by":8,"name":"Ismael Nobre","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Instituto Amazônia 4.0","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ismael","middleName":"","lastName":"Nobre","suffix":""},{"id":409550261,"identity":"6757fc74-3430-4187-9311-4ee5bcbbb06c","order_by":9,"name":"Paulo Nobre","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Institute for Space Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Paulo","middleName":"","lastName":"Nobre","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-01-29 17:38:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5925869/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5925869/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-026-09761-6","type":"published","date":"2026-03-28T16:10:52+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":75584821,"identity":"a387dd7a-f044-423d-9d9d-0487a6503813","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:21:05","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":99903,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eACL (Amazon Creative Laboratory)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/9cb4e42bbc3b9d1102d77aaf.png"},{"id":75584869,"identity":"88a7ea7b-1a26-4fa1-ace6-cf6ded95c705","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:21:07","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":45544,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMethodological Process\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/5db8e0f84c1ea226f48599c3.png"},{"id":75586217,"identity":"6eb09516-8a68-4898-bd6f-4716e84b99a8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:29:08","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29940,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSystem in Focus: Biofactories\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/2964780be59bc7691797d116.png"},{"id":75587700,"identity":"03e9ea9b-ccc6-49db-b4f3-646c8339dfbd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:45:06","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40456,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOrganizational System Dysfunctions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/f7f45a4be05012b74280823e.png"},{"id":75584822,"identity":"ffa648ee-c8b1-4564-a336-3d2901ac7d4c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:21:05","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":47976,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eValue-Adding Process in the Cacao-Cupuaçu ACL\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/8698d7d3ff1445b12cb09b65.png"},{"id":75584872,"identity":"1036e864-9a0e-4d3c-8df4-8e0644b46b9d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:21:11","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48166,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNetwork in Focus\u003cbr\u003e\nSource: Adapted from Schwaninger (2009)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/1cd41ecc97da360c15251d0b.png"},{"id":75586195,"identity":"d32ff1af-2497-4039-91eb-f9006c6aa83b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:29:06","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26349,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eValue Creation Process\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/2ac7d146595de231289e073b.png"},{"id":75584824,"identity":"25539d86-dc43-436f-b5a7-37e6aeba1df4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:21:06","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":70955,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDetailed Integration of VSM and MSC\u003cbr\u003e\n Adapted from Lassl (2019)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/ecb576a7ae86c2a2686a511a.png"},{"id":75586206,"identity":"1b9d8f06-c1dd-4ef3-a0cf-87837deeab52","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:29:06","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":85082,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSystem 1 and Operative MSC\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/d3977ae5e19b26a5489985c0.png"},{"id":75584835,"identity":"6a861d9c-d646-4450-b293-9ebd74ff0a8f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:21:06","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55570,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSystem 2 and Operative MSC\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/2952233342e7453420ab55e6.png"},{"id":75584856,"identity":"8171f21e-6370-4493-ba82-fb67832f8dae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:21:06","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":44968,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSystem 3 and Operative MSC\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/b16b58e4227fa6545b6a1231.png"},{"id":75584836,"identity":"659e0997-e870-448a-b695-675af65cff5b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:21:06","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33538,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSystem 3* and Operative MSC\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage12.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/525703c6005e982d2b3c8852.png"},{"id":75586197,"identity":"cf28dc54-6f7d-4407-a391-b4562799354c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:29:06","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"Figure 13","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":57549,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSystem 4 and Operative MSC\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage13.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/dca4af3ecffc6a31113707d6.png"},{"id":75584854,"identity":"91136d58-2ab3-4cd0-86f4-e35354b9e45a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:21:06","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"Figure 14","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48149,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSystem 5 and Normative MSC\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage14.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/3e941de64295455fb99836f8.png"},{"id":105755717,"identity":"299a5257-42e9-41be-9624-80eb2be11bfe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-30 16:29:52","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1833434,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/371e1666-2f06-4953-b0d5-0a7f14ab6895.pdf"},{"id":75587698,"identity":"d7cec701-54ba-4e49-86ce-b30d95ef4e05","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-06 06:45:05","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":181699,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix1ValueAddingProcessintheLCACacauCupuau.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5925869/v1/d07aa4f4cd996f346fc0f7f9.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Bioindustrialization by native people: A systemic management approach to foster coevolution","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe transition to a sustainable economy reveals significant opportunities associated with the use of renewable, bio-based resources, within what has come to be known as the bioeconomy. However, bioeconomy is a broad concept, subject to various interpretations. In this context, three main perspectives are highlighted in the literature, according to (Bugge, Hansen and Klitkou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e): the \"Biotechnology Perspective,\" which focuses on the commercialization of biotechnological research and technologies aimed at economic growth; the \"Bioresources Perspective,\" which links value generation to technological progress, promoting the development of new value chains; and the \"Bioecological Perspective,\" which prioritizes biodiversity conservation and ecosystem sustainability, advocating for a circular and self-sustaining model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe implementation of the bioeconomy requires a deep understanding of the various factors and agents involved in local contexts, incorporating social, ecological, economic (Zeug et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and cultural aspects. In this sense, systemic approaches are fundamental, as they consider environments as complex, dynamic, and interconnected systems, demanding a holistic view of the multiple factors and actors involved. These considerations are crucial when exploring the bioeconomy as an alternative for the conservation and valorization of biomes, such as tropical forests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen applied to areas of high biodiversity, such as tropical forests, the bioeconomy is considered a solution for sustainable development, especially for traditional populations, such as Amazonian communities (WRI, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). However, it is essential that the bioeconomy is not imposed unilaterally but integrated with the cultural values and the right to self-determination of traditional populations, as established by the \"United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples\" (ONU, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). In Brazil, the bioeconomy that focuses on the preservation of forests and rivers and on commercial production that recognizes and values the rich biodiversity and associated cultures is defined as socio-bioeconomy (Garrett \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, no date), and more specifically as \u0026ldquo;socio-bioeconomy of healthy standing forests and flowing rivers\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this scenario, the following research question arises:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRQ.\u003c/b\u003e How can the success and viability of community-based enterprises operated in the forest be ensured while strengthening the right to self-determination of traditional communities and peoples?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe objective of this study is to develop a systemic management model aimed at community-based enterprises, empowering traditional populations to achieve autonomy in their development through viable and sustainable organizations. This research seeks to balance economic development with cultural preservation, proposing the creation of a specific systemic management tool for community-based entrepreneurship. The focus is to enable solid and adaptive governance that respects and integrates the cultural values and knowledge of traditional populations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the current context, where traditional populations face increasing exposure to Western cultural practices, this research aims to protect and strengthen their cultures and knowledge while exploring opportunities in the contemporary world. The proposal presented in this study aims to enable a balanced interaction between community-based organizations and those with Western perspectives, reinforcing the role of traditional populations in building constructive relationships within their territories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe practical application of this study was carried out in the Brazilian Amazon, specifically in the operational model of the future biofactories of the Amazon Creative Laboratory, an initiative of the Amazonia 4.0 Institute. This research is expected to offer traditional communities and peoples a management model that allows them to direct and develop their enterprises. This implies incorporating the right to self-determination and creating an organizational identity that strengthens and revives cultural and ancestral values and knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo achieve this objective, the study is based on solid principles of organizational cybernetics, focusing on sustainability, resilience, and the adaptability of traditional communities in their transition to a socio-bioeconomy that reflects their own values, knowledge and needs.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Theorical Reference","content":"\u003ch3\u003eSocio-Bioeconomy and Native People\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen A differentiation of bioeconomy practices in the Amazon region is crucial for sustainable development, particularly considering the historical context of deforestation and exploitation of ecosystem services. A significant challenge lies in the disparity between the communities that protect these services and produce sociobiodiversity-based products and those that benefit the most from the current Amazonian economies. The development of a socio-bioeconomy must prioritize the benefits for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), who act as guardians of biodiversity and the forest, enabling an economy focused on restoration, with standing forests and flowing rivers (Garrett \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, no date).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile community-based entrepreneurship (CBE) benefits traditional populations and combats social exclusion, a critical challenge is balancing cultural preservation with adaptation to global changes (Tapsell and Woods, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Traditional peoples who are striving to preserve their cultural values have a unique conception of existence and connection with the environment, distinct from the predominant Western culture. Currently, they face the challenge of becoming protagonists in a technological process that often does not reflect their core beliefs and values. For these communities, nature is intrinsically linked to their cultural and spiritual identity (Simon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), whereas Western culture often adopts a utilitarian and exploitative approach.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmith (Smith Tuhiwai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) argues for the need to rethink paradigms in social sciences, advocating for a research agenda that includes the cultural values, knowledge and self-determination of Indigenous Peoples. The ancestral wisdom and the intrinsic relationship these peoples have with the environment can offer innovative and resilient approaches to contemporary challenges. Integrating this perspective into the construction of the socio-bioeconomy ensures that decisions consider economic, social, environmental, and cultural aspects, avoiding the pitfalls of technological colonialism. Many development initiatives have ignored or suppressed traditional ways of life, resulting in significant negative impacts, such as environmental degradation and social disintegration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen promoting local entrepreneurship, it is essential to understand the context in which the bioeconomy will be developed and to manage these organizations in a way that fulfills their purposes. The Indigenous worldview recognizes the interconnectedness with the Earth and its cycles, establishing norms for the relationship with all living beings. Despite ethnic diversity, Indigenous Peoples generally share a strong identity based on territorial knowledge and respect for the ecological calendar, which is crucial for the preservation of regional biodiversity (Espinosa and Duque, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Schwaninger (Schwaninger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), wisdom represents a quality beyond knowledge, encompassing ethical and aesthetic dimensions that contribute to the creation of the good, the true, and the beautiful. Indigenous knowledge in the Amazon, deeply rooted in millennia of interaction with the natural world, closely aligns with this concept of wisdom. It not only preserves biodiversity but also embodies ethical principles that promote balance and reciprocity with the environment. As such, Indigenous knowledge stands as one of the clearest examples of true wisdom, capable of guiding the development of a socio-bioeconomy that harmonizes cultural values with sustainable progress.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKrenak (Krenak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), Munduruku (Munduruku, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), and Baniwa(Baniwa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize the need to rebuild and strengthen Indigenous identity, making it visible within the social context. Indigenous traditions carry a systemic view of constant interaction with nature, but preserving this heritage requires specific capabilities (Widjojo and Gunawan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Strengthening self-determination is essential, as contact with other cultures influences Indigenous cultural identity. Morales(Morales et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) highlights the need to establish a framework that guides Indigenous organizations based on their values and pillars, avoiding the emulation of Western practices that might compromise their identity. The systemic perspective of Indigenous Peoples opens possibilities for mutual benefit between nature and human beings, promoting lasting sustainability (Espinosa and Duque, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, the quilombola and ribeirinho communities of the Amazon have also learned from Indigenous wisdom, adopting sustainable practices that have helped maintain the forest standing, thus contributing to the current biodiversity (Neves et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, a symbiotic approach with the environment is encouraged. Local practices must align with global dynamics, promoting a mutually beneficial relationship between organizations and the environment, ensuring systemic viability and reconnecting intrinsically with nature (Espinosa and Guzmán, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This vision aligns with the indigenous conception of an inseparable relationship with origin, as highlighted by Krenak (Krenak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSystemic Management and Coevolution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA Systemic Management emerges as an essential approach to addressing the complexity of organizational and social systems. The General Systems Theory, proposed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1950), introduced the idea that systems, whether physical, biological, or social, are composed of interconnected elements that influence each other and the environment in which they are embedded (Espinosa and Jackson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Systemic management, therefore, recognizes the need for continuous adaptation in response to both internal and external changes. Understanding and managing the growing complexity in social and organizational interactions requires a management approach that integrates these variables, promoting coevolution between systems and their environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCo-evolution refers to the ongoing process of mutual adaptation between a system and the environment around it. In management, this means that organizations and their environments are in constant interaction, influencing one another. Organizational cybernetics, as proposed by Norbert Wiener, explores this interaction by focusing on communication and control within complex systems (Espinosa and Jackson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, co-evolution is not just a passive adaptation but an active process of change, where the system shapes and is shaped by the environment. In highly complex settings, such as modern organizations, this approach enables systemic management to be more effective than rigid and traditional hierarchical structures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn first-order cybernetics, as proposed by Wiener, the focus is on feedback and control to ensure the system's viability. In second-order cybernetics, originally introduced by Heinz von Foerster and later developed by Maturana and Varela, the observer is also part of the system. This perspective emphasizes the importance of self-reflection and autopoiesis—the ability of a system to self-organize and maintain its identity amidst external disturbances (Maturana and Varela, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). This paradigm introduces a humanistic perspective, where cognition and systemic organization are seen as essential for adaptation and co-evolution in complex environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCo-evolution involves the capacity of social and organizational systems to continuously learn and innovate in response to environmental changes. This requires structural and organizational flexibility, allowing organizations to adjust their internal processes as external pressures arise. The outcome of any organizational process depends on the quality of the underlying management model (Schwaninger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), making it essential to develop and maintain effective governance to ensure long-term success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Viable System Model (VSM), developed by Stafford Beer (Beer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e), provides a robust framework for addressing organizational complexity. It emphasizes the importance of integrating five interrelated systems, each with a specific function to ensure adaptability and viability: System 1 (Operational units); System 2 (Coordination); System 3 (Day-to-day management); System 3* (Audit); System 4 (Strategic management); and System 5 (Ethos). The model also highlights the critical role of systemic balance and recursive structures in ensuring the organization’s survival in dynamic environments. Complementing this perspective, the Systemic Control Model (SCM) proposes three management levels—Operational, Strategic, and Normative—which, when integrated, specify the control variables necessary and sufficient to deal with complexity (Schwaninger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganizational intelligence should be distributed throughout the system, as argued by Schwaninger (Schwaninger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This means that leadership and management functions should not be centralized but must be integrated at all levels of the organization. Distributed intelligence enables the system to respond more effectively and agilely to environmental changes. This distribution of functions facilitates co-evolution, as the system can process information and adjust its strategy as needed, promoting continuous innovation and adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEspinosa and Walker (Espinosa and Walker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) reinforce this view by demonstrating that the success of cybernetic interventions is directly related to the creation of collaborative networks at different levels of recursion, from local communities to national governments. These networks ensure that solutions emerge cohesively and are adapted to the local reality, promoting integration across the various levels of the system. In the example of Colombia's National Environmental System, the VSM was used to align institutions and communities within a sustainable management, enabling greater responsiveness and adaptability to environmental and social changes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother important aspect is the emergence of new behavioral patterns, a phenomenon that can occur in complex and interconnected systems. According to Jackson (Jackson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), systems are capable of displaying emergent behaviors, that is, new forms of interaction that arise from the interactions between the system's components. This emergence of patterns is essential for co-evolution, as it allows systems to adapt to the environment and develop new ways of operating in response to external changes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the approach goes beyond merely managing complexity; it proposes ways to create a sustainable future through co-evolution. By aligning management with the principles of co-evolution, organizations can not only adapt to current conditions but also influence the environment to create better conditions in the future. This approach allows systems to grow together with their environment, promoting a continuous cycle of learning, innovation, and adaptation that is essential for long-term sustainability (Schwaninger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Meadows, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Jackson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAmazon Creative Laboratory\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe redesign proposal for the Amazon region is based on creating a scenario where value is added directly within the forest through the concept of socio-bioeconomy. In this context, the implementation of sustainable biofactories, grounded in the principles of Industry 4.0, emerges as a crucial strategy for the efficient and ecological production of goods from the Amazon’s abundant natural potential. The Amazon Creative Laboratories (ACLs) originate from an innovative initiative that promotes sustainable development in the region, integrating Industry 4.0 technologies into mobile and sustainable biofactories. These laboratories enable local experimentation, training, and high value-added production, while encouraging entrepreneurship within communities, respecting their knowledge, environment and cultural traditions, transforming biodiversity into a valuable asset, and strengthening the regional economy (Nobre, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Amazon Assessment Report 2021. C. Nobre, A. Encalada, E. Anderson, F.H. Roca Alcazar, M. Bustamante, C. Mena, M. Peña-Claros, G. Poveda, J.P. Rodriguez, S. Saleska, S. Trumbore, A.L. Val, L. Villa Nova, R. Abramovay, A. Alencar, A.C.R. Alzza, D. Armentera, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructured as mobile laboratories, the ACLs enable experimentation, training, and demonstration of the forests and communities’ potential. The geodesic domes[1]\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn1\" id=\"#FNLinkFn1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e the ACLs, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e01\u003c/span\u003e, are designed to minimize environmental impact and maximize energy efficiency through the use of solar power, while also ensuring connectivity. Additionally, the ACLs incorporate circular economy principles, implementing processing methods that generate no pollutants and achieve near-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Equipped with advanced technology, the ACLs utilize various tools for prototyping and processing local raw materials, transforming them into high-value-added products, thereby boosting the local economy.[2]\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn2\" id=\"#FNLinkFn2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Amazonia 4.0 Institute, responsible for the conception and implementation of the ACLs, develops projects such as the ACL Cupuaçu-Cacao, ACL Brazil Nut, ACL Açaí, ACL Amazon Specialty Oils, and ACL Genomics. These projects are committed to sustainable production at every stage of the supply chain, from the utilization and processing of natural resources to the commercialization of products (Instituto Amazônia 4.0, 2023). They contribute to environmental restoration and value the cultures, knowledge and wisdom of traditional communities, ensuring environmentally healthy production practices and the comprehensive conservation of the Amazon biomes. In the future, these efforts will connect with the new Amazon Institute of Technology (AmIT), currently in the process of being established, which aims to become a global reference in sustainable education, science, technology, and innovation. Operating through a decentralized network across the Pan-Amazon region, AmIT promotes the conservation and appreciation of the forest and rivers by transforming scientific knowledge and the wisdom of Indigenous peoples and local communities[3]\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn3\" id=\"#FNLinkFn3\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e into technological innovation that benefits both the Amazon and the world (AmIT, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, the Amazon Creative Laboratories represent an innovative and effective initiative to promote socio-bioeconomy in the region. The ACL concept was used to design the organizational redesign of future biofactories within community-based organizations, ensuring that they are sustainable and aligned with the principles of environmental and cultural valorization.\u003c/p\u003e \n \n\n"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research employs a qualitative methodology based on systems thinking and organizational cybernetics. The choice of the Viable System Model (VSM) and the Model of Systemic Control (MSC) as the methodological foundation for this research was motivated by their ability to address the inherent complexity of organizational systems. The VSM provides a robust framework to ensure the viability of organizations in dynamic environments, promoting adaptation and resilience through multiple levels of recursion(Beer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e). The MSC, in turn, complements the VSM by establishing control variables that connect the different levels of the organization, facilitating coordination and alignment of actions (Schwaninger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Schwaninger, Ambroz and Olaya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). These approaches were chosen because they are particularly suitable for addressing system complexity, providing integrated and effective management. Hence, they are the proper vehicles for the design of the ecosystem pursued in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe structuring of the study is suggested in five main stages, each designed to address a specific aspect of the development of the systemic management model, as described in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eStep 1: Understanding The Problematic Situation\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first step aims to understand the cultural, social, and environmental peculiarities that shape local dynamics, focusing on the challenges faced by traditional communities. Kusumastuti(Kusumastuti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that Indigenous knowledge of natural resources can drive economic innovations, while Valdés and Reyes-Alvarado emphasize the need for detailed analysis. Given the uniqueness of the solutions, it was necessary to involve a wide range of key stakeholders, such as experts, NGOs, and community leaders. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants (quilombolas), and bioeconomy experts, selected for their experience and direct involvement in community entrepreneurship in the Amazon. These interviews provided insights into the socio-cultural dynamics of the communities, traditional knowledge related to natural resources, barriers to economic development, and practical examples of successful local initiatives. This information was critical for identifying challenges and co-creating tailored solutions that align with the values and realities of these communities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eStep 2: Unfolding Complexity Equations\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Step 2, the focus is on outlining the organization’s identity to understand the complexity of the system. Based on the literature, an outline of the organizational identity and the complexity of dynamics with key stakeholders is presented. The identity must enable the system to fulfill its purpose and be desirable (Meadows, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Defining the identity and purpose allows for a better understanding of the organization, its environment, and the complexity involved (Pérez-Riíos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Unfolding complexity helps in understanding the distribution of complexity within the system (Pérez-Riíos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). After establishing a comprehensive recursive analysis diagram, it is essential to identify the “system in focus” for targeted analyses (Espinosa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eStep 3: Diagnosis\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Diagnosis stage, through the VSM (Viable System Model) diagram, strengths of the organizations and management are highlighted, and the deficiencies that compromise the organization’s viability are mapped, such as missing functions and communication failures. This process structures the understanding of the failures in the current structure, based on insights from the interviews. Structural issues in Systems 1 to 5 and relationship failures are diagrammed separately at each level. Espinosa (Espinosa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) notes that mapping all problems in the VSM diagram can be complex, often encoding them as diagnostic points. Information collection from each key actor generates a continuous learning cycle. Group dynamics, designed to promote interaction, communication, and learning, are essential in this process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStep 4: Redesign\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Redesign Dynamics stage, the main problems are presented, and information is gathered to guide the redesign process, which aims to define functions for a sustainable organization. The knowledge-seeking dynamic creates learning cycles geared towards redesign, where the organization’s ability to fulfill its purpose is evaluated, or it is designed if it is a new organization (Pérez-Riíos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The process begins at the lowest recursion level, ascending to the intermediate level, and finally, to the highest level. At each level, the organization strives for viability and possesses its own management systems, in addition to the relationship channels. Guided by essential principles such as sustainability, ancestry, and viability, this structure enables the realization of systemic viability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eStep 5: Systemic Management\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis stage marks the beginning of the model’s elaboration. The information gathered in the learning cycles is synthesized to structure concepts and connect the ideas of interviewees, ensuring decision-making quality. At this stage, the constructed models are integrated: the Model of Systemic Control (MSC) and the Viable System Model (VSM), providing greater clarity and compatibility between them. The VSM, with its five key systems previously described, ensures organizational viability by balancing autonomy and control in dynamic environments. Together, the VSM and MSC define the minimum functional criteria for an organization to exist independently or maintain its identity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis chapter presents the findings from the application in the Brazilian Amazon, emphasizing the importance of this biome for maintaining global biodiversity, combating the climate emergency due to global warming and the urgent need for sustainable management of natural resources. Currently, local communities rely on the commercialization of raw materials, such as seeds and fruit pulps, often with little or no added value. The redesign proposal aims to change this scenario by promoting value addition directly in the region through the principles of value-added socio-bioeconomy. The goal is to transform the current organizational structure and create an environment that fosters sustainable socioeconomic development, respecting biodiversity and traditional knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStep 1: Understanding the Problematic Situation \u0026ndash; Amazon Forest\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA comprehensive understanding all elements of the bioeconomy context in the Brazilian Amazon is essential for developing sustainable and innovative solutions. The study relied on several important reports and webinars, which reflect the ongoing impacts of European colonization on the exploitation of natural resources and the marginalization of Indigenous Peoples. It highlights the need for a systemic approach that recognizes the interdependence between sociocultural and biological diversity to ensure environmental justice and sustainability. The research emphasizes the importance of preserving and transmitting traditional knowledge as a means of cultural valorization and financial autonomy for Indigenous and local communities. Additionally, it underscores the role of community social entrepreneurship in promoting sustainable development and improving the livelihoods of local populations. For such initiatives to be effective, they require public policy support, strategic partnerships, access to financial resources, and capacity-building efforts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStep 2: Unfolding Complexity The System in focus \u0026ndash; Biofactory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA system's identity is composed of enduring characteristics that differentiate it from other systems (Fran\u0026ccedil;ois, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), and a clear understanding of its purpose or function is essential to ensure its sustainable and effective growth, even in complex environments. Every system has a purpose that needs to be achieved, and its effectiveness is measured by its ability to fulfill this function, regardless of environmental variables and uncertainties (Espinosa and Guzm\u0026aacute;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In the Amazonian context, where biodiversity and cultural heritage are rich, enterprises must adopt a conscious organizational purpose that promotes coevolution with the local environment and sustainable development. The socio-bioeconomy in the Amazon seeks to generate value through the concept of a \u0026ldquo;standing forest and flowing rivers,\u0026rdquo; valuing traditional wisdom and promoting innovations that emerge from the forest ecosystems themselves.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe valorization of nature, circular economy, and governance are fundamental elements to avoid negative impacts, such as environmental degradation and biopiracy. Principles such as the well-being of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, the non-use of toxic materials or substances, animal welfare, and the protection of genetic and cultural heritage are essential to ensure a sustainable economy that respects local biodiversity. The absence of these principles can generate harmful externalities in multiple spheres\u0026mdash;social, environmental, cultural, and economic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the co-creation of value with the environment is vital to ensure that organizations evolve in harmony with their ecosystems. The concept of co-creation encompasses both environmental and social levels, promoting continuous transformation that integrates the needs of life and society, as noted by Capra and Luisi (Capra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Espinosa (Espinosa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) emphasizes the importance of developing a culture of continuous adaptation, promoting an effective organization that coevolves with its environment while remaining true to its original purpose.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, the purpose of the socio-bioeconomy in the Amazon should be to generate value from the forest, driving the local economy and preserving traditional wisdom and knowledge, coevolving with the environment toward a prosperous and balanced future. In the specific context of this study, an approach was adopted that focuses on a territorial vision for the socio-bioeconomy in the Amazon. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e clearly illustrates how this approach unfolds the complexity of the system into four levels of recursion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eLevel 0 \u0026ndash; BIOMAS 4.0\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eRepresents macro-level cooperation between all bioregions surrounding the Amazon rainforest, strengthening cooperation around the biome, fostering sustainable development, and protecting the Amazon. This ensures synergy and complementarity, larger scales of impact, access to sustainable markets, stimulation of innovation, political influence, and the promotion of responsible practices. It strengthens corporate image and value co-creation at the macro level with the biome.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eLevel 1 \u0026ndash; BIOREGIONS\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eComposed of Biofactories within a region, strengthening regional operations, creating competitive advantages, and minimizing conflicts of interest between Bioenterprises. It creates competitive advantages, overcomes regional barriers, formulates strategies, and ensures the well-being of local communities in a regional dynamic of coevolution with their ecological niche.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eLevel 2 \u0026ndash; BIOFACTORIES\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsisting of various individual organizations, potentially organized into networks, that collectively produce high-value-added products through knowledge and technology. These organizations can range from solo enterprises to collaborative groups, producing inputs such as biomaterials, food, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. The networked structure enables knowledge sharing and scalability while maintaining individual organizational autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eLevel 3 \u0026ndash; SOLO ORGANIZATIONS\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsisting of individual organizations. After the development of a comprehensive recursive analysis diagram, it is essential to define the \u0026ldquo;system in focus\u0026rdquo; to conduct more targeted and precise analyses. In this study, Level 2 \u0026ndash; Biofactories was selected, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. This choice aims to adopt a bottom-up approach, promoting a culture of participation and collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnlike a hierarchical diagram, the recursive analysis diagram shows that organizations at higher levels do not direct those at the next level but rather incorporate them. As Espinosa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) suggests, this means providing meta-systemic support to ensure that all other levels have the resources, information, and knowledge necessary to carry out their tasks and organizational objectives coherently.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStep 3: Diagnosis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganizational diagnosis reveals crucial insights into the dynamics of community organizations in the Amazon, considering both the organism and the environment as interdependent survival units. As Gregory Bateson states, \"the unit of survival is the organism along with the environment; we are living through a bitter experience in realizing that an organism that destroys its environment is, in fact, destroying itself.\" Thus, the first step was to understand the environment in which these organizations are embedded. The qualitative analysis, using Causal Loop Diagrams (CLD), provides a detailed view of the behavioral patterns and complex interactions these organizations face.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Miranda (Miranda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), the investigation into traditional populations in the Amazon indicates the presence of pathological system behavior that amplifies economic vulnerability and promotes forest unsustainability. The identified traps include forest appropriation, biodiversity loss, \u0026ldquo;savannization\u0026rdquo;, and challenges in social development and innovation. These factors compromise the organizations' ability to manage their operations and ensure viability. Illegal forest appropriation establishes an informal value chain based on unsustainable practices, while the lack of an innovative environment restricts the creation of new businesses and solutions. Biodiversity loss and \u0026ldquo;savannization\u0026rdquo; affect natural cycles, compromising the availability of inputs and the sustainability of economic activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the organizational diagnosis, eight dysfunction points affecting the viability and capacity of the communities to add value to their products and services were mapped, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. The first dysfunction is the relationship between the specific environment and System 1 (where the organizational purpose is implemented).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdapted from Lassl (2019)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dysfunction D1 between the specific environment and System 1 is characterized by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFailure to promote the value of standing forests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eInability to deal with environmental pathologies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eNeed for competency enhancement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLittle or no added value to raw materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of Homeostat A between operations and the ecological niche.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of homeostats A between operations and niche.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis dysfunction shows that the organization lacks adequate mechanisms to mitigate fluctuations and amplify eigen-variety in response to environmental uncertainties. The lack of technical knowledge and access to technologies limits the ability to transform natural resources into higher value-added products. Moreover, the absence of sustainable infrastructure\u0026mdash;such as reliable electricity, eco-friendly transportation, and adequate storage facilities\u0026mdash;further hampers production, distribution, and storage of products, making them less competitive. The scarcity of financial resources also limits the necessary investments for improvements and innovations. The absence of Homeostat A negatively affects operational efficiency, relevance, and the organizations' adaptability, compromising long-term sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDysfunction D2 is related to System 1 and is characterized by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor internal infrastructure within the organization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficulty in adding value to traditional wisdom.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow production autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited access to professional training.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eInability of System 1 to achieve self-governance, resilience, adaptation, and sustainability within its niche.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese dysfunctions reflect how inadequate infrastructure, lack of autonomy, and limited professional training hinder the organizations' ability to implement efficient and innovative practices. The difficulty in adding value to traditional, knowledge and wisdom and the lack of production autonomy result in dependence on third parties and limitations in controlling their own businesses. The lack of training hinders innovation and sustainable development, while the inability to achieve self-governance impedes the necessary adaptation to face a constantly changing environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDysfunction D3, the relationship between System 1 and System 3, is characterized by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of communication and alignment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited resources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of Synergy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow management training\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of experience with entrepreneurship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbsence of homeostat between management and the meta-system and operations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dysfunction between System 1 and System 3 in community-based organizations is manifested by a lack of communication and alignment in organizational management, resource constraints, absence of synergy, and low management training. System 3, responsible for integrative management, does not efficiently communicate with System 1, which handles local operations, resulting in uncoordinated decisions and inefficient use of resources. The lack of experience with entrepreneurship and the absence of a regulator to ensure balance between strategic management and operations hinder sustainable self-governance. To mitigate these issues, it is essential that System 3 prioritize clear communication, management training, and synergy between sectors, ensuring adequate support for the growth and sustainability of community-based entrepreneurship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDysfunction D4 is the relationship between System 1 and System 2, characterized by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficulty in aligning processes with traditional cultural aspects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInability to foster a culture of self-organization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis dysfunction highlights the difficulty community-based organizations face in reconciling the standardization required for certifications with the preservation of their cultural traditions. The pursuit of certifications can conflict with specific rituals and cultural practices, leading to a homogenization that compromises the identity of the communities. Finding a balance between obtaining certifications and preserving cultural traditions is essential to ensure sustainable development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDysfunction D5 is the relationship between System 2 and System 3, characterized by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eNeed for external support for guidance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe lack of alignment between the standards and guidelines of System 2 and the practical actions of System 3 can lead to poorly informed decisions and ineffective management. The need for external support, such as NGOs and specialized institutes, is crucial to ensure that strategic guidelines are effectively implemented. Cooperation and dialogue between the systems are essential to align actions with the established goals and values.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDysfunction D6 refers to the absence of System 3*\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of efficient collection of operational information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWork overload and difficulty in separating execution from evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe absence of System 3* affects the ability to conduct effective audits and operational oversight. The lack of dedicated channels for collecting information and the work overload on small teams\u0026rsquo; complicate management and data collection. Partnerships and specialized guidance can help overcome these challenges, promoting more effective management and a positive impact on the communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDysfunction D7 is related to the absence of System 4, characterized by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of integration between strategic objectives and operations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficulty in implementing strategic guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsufficient feedback and strategy review.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe absence of System 4 hinders the efficient integration of long-term strategies with daily operations. Without a clear strategic vision and a system to continuously monitor and review these strategies, the organization faces challenges in adapting and aligning its operations with strategic objectives. This results in difficulty implementing the necessary guidelines to achieve long-term goals and a lack of effective feedback to adjust strategies as conditions change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, dysfunction D8 in the relationship between System 5 and System 3, and between System 5 and System 4, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;15, is identified by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariety imbalance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eShort-term focus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIneffective management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of homeostat.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystem 5, responsible for moderating the interaction between System 3 and System 4, plays a crucial role in harmonizing day-to-day management with the long-term strategic vision. When this function is inadequate, conflicts may arise between immediate demands and the long-term vision, leading to poorly coordinated decisions and ineffective management. The lack of a homeostat impairs System 5's ability to maintain balance and adapt to changes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the dysfunctions identified in the various management systems of community-based organizations in the Amazon highlight the urgent need to promote the development of technical and technological capacities, invest in infrastructure and logistics, facilitate access to markets and financial resources, and value traditional wisdom. Government support, partnerships with organizations, and the creation of collaborative networks are fundamental to overcoming these challenges and strengthening community-based social organizations, enabling them to face the complex environment and achieve sustainable and successful development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe diagnosis reveals that these organizations require restructuring to adapt to a new scenario that relies on added-value processes and operates within a network, addressing the identified dysfunctions and promoting sustainability and socioeconomic development in the region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStep 4 Redesign\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong the many potential resources of Amazonian biodiversity, cacao (Theobroma cacao) and cupua\u0026ccedil;u (Theobroma Grandiflorum) stand out in this application, as they are transformed into products that create new markets and generate demand, continuously promoting the valorization of biodiversity. However, as with any production process, by-products are generated, which, at first, might be discarded. Instead, in the ACL, these by-products undergo a process of revalorization, where they are repurposed to add even more value, as outlined in Appendix 1. If the potential of these by-products is already known, they go directly into the technological value-adding process in the ACLs, being transformed into new products. Meanwhile, by-products with less explored or unknown value are directed to research and development, where they are studied and, if viable, also undergo the technological value-adding process until they become new products. Figure\u0026nbsp;5 illustrates the value-adding processes, with arrows representing the flows that connect each stage of this process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;5.\u003c/b\u003e Value-Adding Process in the Cacao-Cupua\u0026ccedil;u ACL\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe central concept behind the ACLs is to transform the economic model in the Amazon from one dependent on the extraction and export of raw materials to one focused on creating and adding local value. This model aligns with the principles of the circular economy, which emphasize waste reduction, product circularity, and the regeneration of natural systems. By incorporating these principles into the biofactories, the ACLs ensure that local communities directly benefit from the economic value-generated by their natural resources, promoting both social equity and environmental sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCollective Intelligence \u0026ndash; Collaborative Networks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe resilience of biofactories in the Amazon is significantly enhanced by collective intelligence, which plays a central role in the proposed redesign. By integrating the traditional knowledge of Indigenous communities with modern technological advancements, biofactories become capable of quickly adapting to socioeconomic and ecological changes. This collective intelligence is facilitated by collaborative networks that connect local communities with external stakeholders, such as researchers, NGOs, and governmental agencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese collaborative networks function as interconnected systems, in which each organization contributes its unique capabilities, forming a resilient and adaptable ecosystem. Resilience emerges from the process of collective learning, where organizations within the network continuously exchange knowledge, adjust their internal processes, and co-evolve with the external environment. Stefano Mancuso\u0026rsquo;s research on plant intelligence provides an insightful analogy: just as plants function in decentralized yet highly coordinated systems, the Amazon biofactories thrive on distributed intelligence and flexible leadership structures (Mancuso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin these collaborative networks, heterarchy[4]\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn4\" id=\"#FNLinkFn4\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e allows for a fluid distribution of leadership and authority for decision-making. While leadership is flexible and shifts according to needs, it does not eliminate the presence of strategic guidance. This distributed leadership model promotes innovation and adaptability while maintaining cohesion and alignment with the broader objectives of the network. Inspired by decentralized plant intelligence, biofactories operate similarly: leadership roles emerge in response to specific challenges, ensuring that the network remains responsive to internal and external pressures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of biofactories, adopting the concept of heterarchy allows for a flexible distribution of responsibility. However, this distribution does not exclude the presence of leadership, which continues to play essential roles in coordination and strategic guidance. Leadership in a heterarchical system is fluid, with different members assuming leadership as needed by the context. This model, inspired by Mancuso, where leadership is emergent rather than centralized, fosters continuous innovation and adaptability while maintaining cohesion and focus on organizational objectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor community-based entrepreneurship in the Amazon to reach its full potential and promote sustainable transformation, community organizations must redesign themselves to function as collaborative networks capable of overcoming social pathologies and ensuring their viability. The Amazon Creative Laboratory (ACL) can address these pathologies through strategies such as the development of high-value-added products, integrating the value of the forest into a strong and sustainable economy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo combat the misappropriation of the forest, the ACL\u0026rsquo;s collaborative network can adopt technologies such as blockchain and tracking systems to ensure authenticity and transparency, fighting illegal practices like land grabbing. Additionally, by functioning as an innovation hub, the ACL can foster local creativity, promoting original solutions to the region's challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, the Viable System Model (VSM) serves as an adaptive organizational structure, where each organizational network within the ACL is autonomous and capable of continuous learning, promoting the sustainability of both its operations and the network as a whole. Each network, illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, is coordinated in an integrated manner by the meta-system, which acts as an \"organizational body\" to ensure cohesion and strategic alignment within a sustainable innovation ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: Adapted from Schwaninger (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis flexible arrangement, illustrated in the Viable System Model (VSM) in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, is designed to adjust to the constantly evolving needs and demands of a complex and dynamic organization. Each of the Organizational Networks is coordinated in an integrated manner by the meta-system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStep 5: Systemic Management Model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the complex landscape of organizational development, the pursuit of risk mitigation plays an extremely important role. History has been marked by numerous development actions that often neglected a systemic understanding of the risks involved. This negligence resulted in reinforcing relationships, which amplified negative impacts, or weakening relationships, which undermined fundamental systems for long-term prosperity on our planet. The value creation control process emerges as a response to this need for risk mitigation and to ensure sustainable organizational development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis process is meticulously managed through feedback and influence mechanisms, which act as a quality control system. This ensures that organizational development proceeds in accordance with established goals and guidelines, taking into account not only economic aspects but also ethical and aesthetic ones. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the directed value creation process, based on the integration of the MSC and VSM models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration of the MSC (Model of Systemic Control) and VSM (Viable System Model) provides a comprehensive and effective approach to guiding organizational evolution, aligning with the worldview of Indigenous Peoples. This synergy enhances the understanding of organizational complexity and supports decision-making. The combination of these models broadens the perspective of organizational evolution; while also considering organizational viability and systemic control to guide development and sustainability, it also seeks to mitigate potential environmental, economic, cultural, social, and environmental impacts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis integration not only directs the organization's evolutionary process but also strengthens its resilience in the face of future transformations and challenges, ensuring its continuity and alignment with long-term vision. By incorporating these models, the organization remains capable of growing in an authentic and sustainable way, preserving its identity and promoting a positive impact on the surrounding ecosystem. Figure\u0026nbsp;8 illustrates the integration of the Model of Systemic Control (MSC) and the Viable System Model (VSM). The MSC defines three levels\u0026mdash;normative (System 5), strategic (System 4), and operative (Systems 1, 2, 3). Feedback loops between management, regulation, and operations enable adaptability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFig 8.\u003c/b\u003e Detailed Integration of VSM and MSC\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdapted from Lassl (2019)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe following describes the integrations that detail the abstract and philosophical processes involved, providing a clearer view of how these concepts are applied in practice to strengthen the organization and its relationship with the environment in which it operates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eOperative Level and System 1\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration of the Operative Level of the MSC and System 1 of the VSM is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e. System 1 is responsible for managing the units within the Amazon Creative Laboratory network, and it is through this system that the organization's purpose is implemented and consequently strengthened in a tangible way within its niche. While the goal at the operative level is value creation, the union between the MSC and VSM aims to create the necessary conditions, in line with the characteristics of System 1, for the realization of this value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the three crucial dimensions\u0026mdash;Operation, Management, and Regulation\u0026mdash;are outlined. Regarding Operation, this includes the process of receiving demands from the environment, processing sales and orders, executing production, and finally, the delivery stage. As for the Management dimension within System 1, the central goal is to establish efficient operational control and promote a management approach conducive to coevolution, accompanied by strong systemic control.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis systemic control encompasses a wide range of factors, such as the intrinsic value of the company, the benefits provided to customers, economic gains, social impacts, cultural expressions, and environmental considerations, including the mitigation of operational risks. The Regulation dimension of System 1, in turn, focuses on guiding the processes that cover aspects such as technical data sheets and procedures that culminate in value creation for the company.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis includes benefits offered to customers, economic gains, positive social impacts, cultural enrichment, and environmental contributions. Additionally, this stage incorporates a constant search for improvements, which draw inspiration from biological principles and biomimetic processes. These improvements cover both products and solutions, including technological innovations and advancements in training.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin the scope of System 1 regulation, there are also considerations related to specific internal standards and protocols, which direct the operation in question. These considerations include, for example, proper waste management, equipment maintenance, and guidelines related to the environment, social sphere, and cultural context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eOperative Level and System 2\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration between the Operative Level of the MSC and System 2 of the VSM is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e. System 2 provides the necessary tools to manage conflicts in the operations of the Amazon Creative Laboratory (ACL), whether interpersonal or intergroup, including the establishment of clear rules, the incorporation of organizational values and principles into practice, the implementation of protocols and standards systems, as well as the management of information and communications. While the goal at the operative level is value creation, the integration between the MSC and VSM aims to provide the necessary conditions, in line with the characteristics of System 2, to ensure that this value is generated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this way, Standards and Guidelines, Training, and Information and Communications Management are established. Within Standards and Guidelines, rituals, protocols, rules, and quality standards are incorporated. Regarding Training, both organizational and cultural aspects are addressed. Additionally, Information and Communications Management promotes collaboration among stakeholders, the effective dissemination of knowledge, and quality management, as well as the management of network partners.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the interconnection between System 2 of the VSM and the Operative Level of the MSC drives efficiency, collaboration, and sustainable value creation. This includes everything from generating tangible benefits for the company to enriching customers, with added value in the economic, social, cultural, and environmental spheres.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eOperative Level and System 3\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration between the Operative Level of the MSC and System 2 of the VSM is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;11. System 3 provides the tools for managing the day-to-day operations of the Amazon Creative Lab (ACL) network, ensuring collaboration and cohesion among System 1 units. While the primary goal at the operative level is value creation, the integration of the MSC and VSM aims to establish the necessary conditions, aligned with the characteristics of System 3, to enable this value generation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;11.\u003c/b\u003e System 3 and Operative MSC\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystem 3 assumes a crucial role within the organizational structure, focusing on the efficient management of resources and the promotion of synergies that encompass everything from labor to inputs and financial aspects. In addition to optimizing the allocation of these resources, this system plays a fundamental role in maintaining transparency and accountability to stakeholders. In this context, corporate legal and regulatory requirements, including applicable legislation, are meticulously considered and complied with, reflecting the organization\u0026rsquo;s unwavering commitment to compliance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the scope of System 3 is not limited to compliance with external requirements; it also encompasses the sphere of constant monitoring and the pursuit of continuous improvement. Adaptability and agility are key principles in this context, allowing the organization to stay aligned with the evolving business landscape and emerging market demands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn essential dimension of System 3 is the ability to negotiate and justify decisions. This involves effectively communicating the underlying reasons for decisions and directions, considering both internal needs and external demands. The ability to articulate these choices not only facilitates collaboration with external stakeholders but also fosters internal cohesion and the building of solid consensus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, Systemic Control Management, focused on the operational level, aims to ensure that the responsible committee continuously seeks value creation while mitigating the inherent risks of the network\u0026rsquo;s operations, which implies adopting a holistic approach to evaluating operations. Thus, System 3 plays a fundamental role in the organizational context, acting not only as an executor of operational tasks but also as a strategic guide aiming for optimization, compliance, continuous adaptation, and the relentless pursuit of sustainable value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eOperative Level and System 3*\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration of the Operative Level of the MSC and System 3* of the VSM is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;12. System 3*, playing a central role in this dynamic, focuses its efforts on establishing alternative channels for the direct collection of information. In addition to promoting transparency and accountability within the organization, System 3* helps mitigate risks related to misconduct, lack of accountability, and inadequate decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;12.\u003c/b\u003e System 3* and Operative MSC\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIts broad scope transcends mere data collection, extending to embrace the creation of a holistic overview of critical information. By establishing alternative channels for direct data collection, System 3* enables a deeper immersion into the operational domain, allowing for a more precise and comprehensive understanding of the fundamental variables that shape organizational viability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystem 3* plays a crucial role in the pursuit of value creation and operational risk mitigation. It performs systematic checks to ensure that the value reported by System 1 is, in fact, being realized and evaluates whether the risks System 1 claims to be mitigating are actually being addressed. Additionally, System 3* offers a mechanism for continuous monitoring and adaptation, facilitating the balance between value generation and risk management. Through its critical inspection and oversight functions, System 3* contributes to organizational efficiency, sustainability, and success in an ever-evolving business environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the integration between System 3 of the VSM* and the Operative Level of the MSC represents a notable example of synergy between systemic and operational approaches. This union not only strengthens organizational cohesion but also illustrates the relentless pursuit of a detailed, responsible, and comprehensive understanding of the internal and external dynamics driving the organization's sustainability and long-term success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStrategic Level and System 4\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration of the Strategic Level of the MSC and System 4 of the VSM is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e. System 4 plays a prominent role by acting as an essential bridge between the organization and its environment, fostering a proactive and innovative approach. In addition to ensuring long-term viability, this approach promotes an adaptive and resilient posture, essential for navigating a constantly evolving world. While the goal at the strategic level is the creation of value potentials and new value opportunities, the integration between the MSC and VSM aims to provide the necessary conditions, in line with the characteristics of System 4, to ensure that this value is generated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe guidance of System 4 is grounded in a strategic and systemic control approach, where objectives and value potentials are pursued through the cultivation of core competencies, solving customer problems, developing solutions, adopting substitute technologies, focusing on critical success factors, evaluating competitive position, and establishing strategic collaborations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis integration aims to deepen the forward-looking vision of the future, encompassing actions such as fighting biopiracy of formulated products, addressing the impacts of climate change on operations, supporting and promoting public policies, as well as mitigating risks in all dimensions: social, cultural, economic, and environmental. System 4 also engages with coevolution strategies, constantly seeking inspiration from nature and establishing symbiotic connections. Additionally, it emphasizes innovation and raising both internal and external awareness of the intrinsic value of products, especially in the face of competition from dominant companies whose primary focus is profit maximization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis strategic approach is complemented by a commitment to continuous improvement, encompassing both internal processes and the development of the teams involved. Through this relentless pursuit of excellence, System 4 not only enhances the interaction between the organization and its environment but also strengthens its adaptive capacity, promoting a cycle of continuous success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eNormative Level and System 5\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration of the Normative Level of the MSC and System 5 of the VSM is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;14. System 5 plays a role of paramount importance, serving as an essential element in the comprehensive consolidation of the organization\u0026rsquo;s ethos, values, and unwavering purpose. While the goal at the normative level is sustainability and viability, the integration between the MSC and VSM aims to provide the necessary conditions, in line with the characteristics of System 5, to ensure that this value is generated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;14.\u003c/b\u003e System 5 and Normative MSC\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin the scope of systemic control at the normative level, the relentless pursuit of viability and development materializes through the establishment of system ethics, the solidification of identity and vision, a deep understanding of organizational dynamics, cohesive corporate structuring, and the cultivation of a strong corporate culture. These efforts culminate in the robust consolidation of the organization\u0026rsquo;s identity, values, and purpose, while also clearly defining its culture and management philosophy. Additionally, System 5 plays a crucial role in providing medium- and long-term strategic guidance, taking a prominent position in steering the organization\u0026rsquo;s strategic trajectory.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, the reflective process plays a fundamental and strategic role, creating an environment conducive to second-order learning. This type of learning is of paramount importance for organizations, offering a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the organization\u0026rsquo;s development process. This deep analysis allows for the absorption of valuable insights and the implementation of substantial adjustments, thereby contributing to a solid and effective evolution of the organization as it progresses toward its goals. In summary, the connection between System 5 of the VSM and the Normative Level of the MSC not only strengthens internal cohesion but also provides a clear and adaptive strategic vision, fueling the organization\u0026rsquo;s continuous growth and improvement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the systemic management model for biofactories in the Amazon focuses on evaluating the central elements of the model’s viability, adaptability, and sustainability. This section critically assesses the outcomes of applying the principles of organizational and systemic cybernetics to the unique socio-environmental challenges of the region. By focusing on elements such as value creation, organizational identity, and collaborative networks, this analysis explores how these concepts promote the coevolution of biofactories with their local ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSocioeconomic And Environmental\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne of the most prominent findings of the case study is the significant impact of biofactories on the local socioeconomic and environmental landscape. Communities that previously relied on selling low-value raw seeds are now positioned to create high-value products directly in the forest, generating sustainable income while preserving the region’s biodiversity. This transformation aligns with the core principles of socio-bioeconomy, which emphasize the importance of local value creation as a driver of sustainable development.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe incorporation of indigenous knowledge into the innovation ecosystem has proven to be a key factor in enhancing the resilience of biofactories. Local knowledge, particularly in biodiversity management, has allowed biofactories to develop processes that are not only economically viable but also ecologically responsible. This synthesis of traditional knowledge with modern management practices aligns with the goal of the systemic management approach, which aims to create a balanced interaction between human activity and the environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eOrganizational Identity and Adaptability\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe role of organizational identity in biofactories is vital for ensuring their long-term sustainability. The analysis reveals that biofactories need a clear organizational identity that encapsulates their purpose, values, and socio-environmental responsibilities. This identity acts as a foundation for decision-making and helps maintain coherence across various operational levels. According to Schwaninger (Schwaninger, 2011), identity is fundamental to distinguishing an organization in complex environments, and biofactories are no exception.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Amazon Creative Laboratories (ACLs) have provided an ideal platform to examine how biofactories can adapt to dynamic socio-environmental conditions. Through the creation of collaborative networks, biofactories can share knowledge and resources, enhancing their ability to respond to external challenges, such as market fluctuations or environmental changes. This adaptability, driven by collective intelligence, is essential for maintaining the viability of these organizations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSystemic Management and Distributed Leadership\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAn essential component of the proposed model is the systemic management approach, which integrates leadership and management across various organizational levels. The heterarchical structure observed in the ACLs, where leadership is distributed rather than centralized, has proven to be an effective means of promoting innovation and resilience. The presence of decentralized leadership did not negate the need for strong governance but, rather, enhanced the organization’s ability to adapt and coevolve with the local ecosystem. This approach aligns with Stefano Mancuso’s concept of plant intelligence, where decentralized systems respond more flexibly to external stimuli. What appears as an analogy here may also point to a universal principle: the virtue of decentralization, which enhances adaptability and resilience in both natural and organizational systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eChallenges in Implementation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDespite the success of the systemic management model, several challenges were identified during implementation. One of the main challenges is the lack of infrastructure, which limits the scalability of biofactories. Many communities struggle to access the tools, resources, and knowledge needed to fully operationalize the model. Additionally, inconsistent political support for bioindustrialization in the Amazon has hindered the widespread adoption of the model.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe analysis also highlighted gaps in the technical capacity of local populations. While indigenous knowledge plays a crucial role in promoting sustainability, there is a need for additional training and capacity-building initiatives to ensure that communities can effectively manage and operate biofactories. This challenge underscores the importance of integrating modern technologies and management practices with traditional knowledge systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eViable System Model (VSM) in Biofactories\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Viable System Model (VSM) played a crucial role in diagnosing and restructuring the biofactories to ensure their long-term viability. The analysis revealed that biofactories operating within the ACLs exhibited signs of misalignment between their operational levels and their strategic objectives. The application of the VSM allowed for a more coherent integration of biofactory operations with their overall goals. Specifically, the VSM helped identify key points of dysfunction, such as communication failures between operational units and strategic management.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBy restructuring the biofactories according to the VSM framework, these organizations became better equipped to respond to internal and external challenges. This alignment between the organization’s purpose and its operational activities ensured that the biofactories could adapt to changes in their environment while maintaining a clear focus on their long-term objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eThe Way Forward: Strengthening Collaboration And Innovation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo further expand the success of biofactories, the analysis recommends strengthening collaborative networks between local communities, researchers, and policymakers. These networks will foster knowledge exchange and innovation, enabling biofactories to continuously evolve. Collaborative networks also provide a mechanism to address common challenges, such as infrastructure deficits and regulatory barriers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe proposed system design promotes the coevolution of biofactories with the local ecosystem, emphasizing the importance of adaptive management. This approach aligns with Capra and Luisi’s(Capra, 2014) vision of sustainability, where systems are in a constant state of transformation, coevolving with their environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinal Considerations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe conclusion of this study highlights the transformative potential of redesigning biofactories in the Amazon, based on the principles of socio-bioeconomy and systemic management. By integrating traditional knowledge from local communities with advanced technologies, biofactories become effective tools for adding value to the natural resources of the Amazon, while preserving its biodiversity and promoting sustainable and inclusive development. The operational autonomy, built on the local valorization of natural resources, reinforces the leading role of Indigenous communities in the production process.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese approaches to development must consider regional specificities and local perspectives, with an emphasis on sustainability, ancestry, knowledge and viability. Sustainability must be guided by the \"worldview\" of local peoples and their ancestral values and knowledge, who perceive the environment in a holistic and systemic manner. Ancestral wisdom, as the foundation for future innovations, needs to be revitalized and integrated into development strategies. This ensures that progress respects age-old traditions and wisdom, expanding the potential for innovation from its cultural roots.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Amazon Creative Laboratories (ACLs) stand out as innovation hubs that not only drive local economic growth but also ensure cultural and environmental preservation. The ability of ACLs to transform by-products into new goods illustrates the practical application of circular economy principles, promoting the responsible and regenerative use of natural resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe viability of biofactories and other social enterprises in the region depends on collective intelligence, which is developed through learning and interaction among communities. This collective intelligence is essential for tackling challenges and maintaining the adaptability needed to respond to socioeconomic and ecological changes. By connecting traditional knowledge with external stakeholders, such as researchers and NGOs, biofactories become resilient and agile, ready to adjust to both internal and external pressures.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe concept of collective intelligence, applied through collaborative networks, further enhances the resilience of these biofactories. These networks, inspired by Stefano Mancuso’s analogy of plant intelligence, allow for a fluid distribution of leadership and authority, fostering innovation and adaptability without compromising strategic guidance.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHowever, the study also highlights challenges, such as the lack of infrastructure and the need for greater technical capacity to ensure the full operationalization of biofactories. These challenges require a coordinated effort between communities, researchers, and policymakers to expand the implementation of the bioindustrialization model in the Amazon.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThus, the systemic management model for biofactories in the Amazon offers an innovative solution that promotes sustainable economic development, preserves biodiversity, and strengthens the autonomy of local populations. This approach, rooted in the integration of traditional and modern knowledge, has the potential to transform the Amazon into a hub of sustainable innovation, aligned with the principles of the circular economy and coevolution with nature, while respecting the cultural particularities and ancestry of the region.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLimitations and Suggestions for Future Work\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe research has some limitations that may guide future studies. First, the scope of the system architectures focused on the Amazon bioeconomy, limiting the generalization to other biomes, such as the Tropical Savanna (Cerrado), Atlantic Rainforest, Pantanal, Caatinga, and Pampas. Future investigations could explore different system architectures in other biomes, considering their particularities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSecond, a more detailed organizational diagnosis could offer additional insights into the specific needs and challenges of community organizations, enabling more tailored management strategies. The adaptation of the management model to biome-specific contexts should also be explored, adjusting the model to the environmental, cultural, and economic characteristics of each biome.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the feasibility of the proposed changes should be evaluated, considering the acceptance and capacity of local communities to implement them. The research also did not fully detail cooperation among stakeholders. Future studies could develop participatory approaches to strengthen collaboration between researchers, communities, and community organizations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the research provides a solid foundation for understanding systemic management in the bioeconomy but suggests areas for further exploration, including the investigation of other biomes, more detailed diagnostics, model adaptation, and the evaluation of the feasibility of proposed changes. A robust approach to stakeholder engagement could enrich the implementation of these management strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData collection is contingent upon approval by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), in accordance with the guidelines established by CNS Resolution No. 304 of 2000, under the CAAE number: 67269723.7.0000.5505.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Funding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Coordena\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de Aperfei\u0026ccedil;oamento de Pessoal de N\u0026iacute;vel Superior\u0026mdash;Brasil (CAPES)\u0026ndash; Finance Code 001 and FAPESP Research Project 2018/23097-3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmazon Assessment Report 2021. C. Nobre, A. Encalada, E. Anderson, F.H. Roca Alcazar, M. Bustamante, C. Mena, M. Pe\u0026ntilde;a-Claros, G. Poveda, J.P. Rodriguez, S. Saleska, S. Trumbore, A.L. Val, L. Villa Nova, R. Abramovay, A. Alencar, A.C.R. Alzza, D. Armentera, G.Z.-R. et al. (eds. ) (2021) \u0026lsquo;Science Panel for the Amazon (2021) (Part III)\u0026rsquo;, p. 41. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmIT (2022) \u003cem\u003eexecutive summary version 1.2\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: www.amazonia4.org.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaniwa, A.F. (2019) \u003cem\u003eBem viver e viver bem: segundo o povo Baniwa no noroeste amaz\u0026ocirc;nico brasileiro\u003c/em\u003e. 1\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e edi\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o. Edited by UFPR. Curitiba, Paran\u0026aacute;.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeer, S. (1979) \u003cem\u003eThe Heart of Enterprise\u003c/em\u003e. Chichester, UK: Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeer, S. (1981) \u003cem\u003eBrain of the Firm\u003c/em\u003e. 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeer, S. (1984) \u0026lsquo;The Viable System Model: Its Provenance, Development, Methodology and Pathology\u0026rsquo;, : \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Operational Research Society\u003c/em\u003e, 35, pp. 7\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBugge, M.M., Hansen, T. and Klitkou, A. (2016) \u0026lsquo;What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eSustainability (Switzerland)\u003c/em\u003e, 8(7). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070691.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCapra, F., \u0026amp; L.P.L. (2014) \u0026lsquo;The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eCambridge University Press.\u003c/em\u003e [Preprint].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEspinosa, A. (2022) \u003cem\u003eSustainable self-governance in businesses and society: The viable system model in action\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSustainable Self-Governance in Businesses and Society: The Viable System Model in Action\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429490835.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEspinosa, A. and Duque, C. (2017) \u0026lsquo;Complexity management and multi-scale governance: A case study in an Amazonian indigenous association\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Operational Research\u003c/em\u003e, 268(3), pp. 1006\u0026ndash;1020. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.07.049.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEspinosa, A. and Guzm\u0026aacute;n, D. (2015) \u0026lsquo;Self-governance and symbiosis: A systemic approach to socio ecological systems resilience\u0026rsquo;, pp. 1\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEspinosa, A. and Jackson, M.C. (2002) \u0026lsquo;A systemic look at educational development programs: Two perspectives on a recent Colombian experience\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eKybernetes\u003c/em\u003e, 31(9\u0026ndash;10), pp. 1324\u0026ndash;1335. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920210443536.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEspinosa, A. and Walker, J. (2006) \u0026lsquo;Environmental management revisited: Lessons from a cybernetic intervention in Colombia\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eCybernetics and Systems\u003c/em\u003e, 37(1), pp. 75\u0026ndash;92. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01969720591008724.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFran\u0026ccedil;ois, C. (1997) \u003cem\u003eInternational Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics\u003c/em\u003e. Munich: K. G. Saur.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarrett, R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (no date) \u003cem\u003eSupporting Socio-bioeconomies of healthy standing forests and flowing rivers in the amazon\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.theamazonwewant.org/spa_publication/policy-brief-supporting-socio-bioeconomies-of-healthy-standing-forests-and-flowing-rivers-in-the-amazon/.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJackson, M.C. (2019) \u003cem\u003eCritical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford, UK: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrenak, A. (2022) \u003cem\u003eFuturo Ancestral\u003c/em\u003e. 1\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e ed. Edited by C. das Letras. S\u0026atilde;o Paulo.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKusumastuti, R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2022) \u0026lsquo;Finding the context indigenous innovation in village enterprise knowledge structure: a topic modeling\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship\u003c/em\u003e, 11(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00220-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMancuso, S., \u0026amp; V. (2015) \u003cem\u003eBrilliant Green: The Surprising History and Science of Plant Intelligence\u003c/em\u003e. A. Washington, DC: Island Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaturana, H. and Varela, Francisco. (1995) \u003cem\u003eA \u0026aacute;rvore do conhecimento\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeadows, D. (2009) \u003cem\u003eThinking in Systems: a primer\u003c/em\u003e. Chelsea Green Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiranda, R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2023) \u0026lsquo;Sustainable Amazon : A systemic inquiry with native populations\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorales, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2020) \u0026lsquo;Hybrid forms of business: Understanding the development of indigenous social entrepreneurship practices\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, 124(May 2020), pp. 212\u0026ndash;222. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.060.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMunduruku, D. (2012) \u003cem\u003eO car\u0026aacute;ter educativo do movimento ind\u0026iacute;gena brasileiro (1970-1990)\u003c/em\u003e. Edited by Paulinas. S\u0026atilde;o Paulo.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeves, E.G. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2021) \u003cem\u003eChapter 8: Peoples of the Amazon before European Colonization\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAmazon Assessment Report 2021\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://doi.org/10.55161/lxit5573.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNobre, C. (2020) \u0026lsquo;Amaz\u0026ocirc;nia 4.0 e o Futuro da Sociobioeconomia\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eBoletim Amaz\u0026ocirc;nia Sustent\u0026aacute;vel\u003c/em\u003e, pp. 45\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eONU (2006) \u0026lsquo;Declara\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o das Na\u0026ccedil;\u0026otilde;es Unidas sobre os Direitos dos Povos Ind\u0026iacute;genas\u0026rsquo;, pp. 1\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eP\u0026eacute;rez-Ri\u0026iacute;os, J. (2012) \u003cem\u003eDesign and Diagnosis for Sustainable Organizations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePaper Knowledge . Toward a Media History of Documents\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22318-1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwaninger, M. (2000) \u0026lsquo;Managing Complexity - The Path Toward Intelligent Organizations\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eSystemic Practice and Action Research\u003c/em\u003e, 13(2), pp. 207\u0026ndash;241. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009546721353.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwaninger, M. (2001) \u0026lsquo;Intelligent organizations: An integrative framework\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eSystems Research and Behavioral Science\u003c/em\u003e, 18(2), pp. 137\u0026ndash;158. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.408.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwaninger, M. (2009) \u0026lsquo;Complex versus complicated: The how of coping with complexity\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eKybernetes\u003c/em\u003e, 38(1), pp. 83\u0026ndash;92. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920910930286.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwaninger, M. (2011) \u003cem\u003eIntelligent Organizations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAdaptive Technologies and Business Integration\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4018/9781599040486.ch012.ch000.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwaninger, M., Ambroz, K. and Olaya, C. (2006) \u0026lsquo;A model for systemic control\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eAIP Conference Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e, 839, pp. 549\u0026ndash;559. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2216666.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimon, F. (2022) \u003cem\u003eComo a cosmovis\u0026atilde;o ind\u0026iacute;gena pode contribuir na constru\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de uma sociedade mais sustent\u0026aacute;vel\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://vogue.globo.com/Vogue-Negocios/noticia/2022/02/cosmovisao-indigena.html.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith Tuhiwai, L. (2021) \u0026lsquo;Descolonizando metodologias: pesquisas e povos ind\u0026iacute;genas\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTapsell, P. and Woods, C. (2010) \u0026lsquo;Social entrepreneurship and innovation: Self-organization in an indigenous context\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship and Regional Development\u003c/em\u003e, 22(6), pp. 535\u0026ndash;556. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2010.488403.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWidjojo, H. and Gunawan, S. (2019) \u0026lsquo;Indigenous Tradition: An Overlooked Encompassing-Factor in Social Entrepreneurship\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Entrepreneurship\u003c/em\u003e, 11(1), pp. 88\u0026ndash;110. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2019.1579752.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWRI (2022) \u003cem\u003eBioeconomia: o que \u0026eacute; e como se aplica \u0026agrave; Amaz\u0026ocirc;nia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eWRI Brasil\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.wribrasil.org.br/noticias/bioeconomia-o-que-significa-e-como-se-aplica-amazonia.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeug, W. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2019) \u0026lsquo;Stakeholders\u0026rsquo; interests and perceptions of bioeconomy monitoring using a sustainable development goal framework\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eSustainability (Switzerland)\u003c/em\u003e, 11(6). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061511.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Geodesic domes are spherical structures composed of a network of triangles, designed to function as mobile and self-sufficient laboratories in the heart of the Amazon rainforest.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://amazonia4.org/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://amazonia4.org/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Indigenous peoples are groups with ancestral ties to specific territories, distinct cultural identities, and traditional governance systems recognized\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e From the Latin \u003cem\u003eheteros\u003c/em\u003e, meaning 'government of multiples,' where there is no fixed hierarchy, and authority and leadership are distributed flexibly.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table 15","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 15 is not available with this version.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"systemic-practice-and-action-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"spaa","sideBox":"Learn more about [Systemic Practice and Action Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/11213)","snPcode":"11213","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11213/3","title":"Systemic Practice and Action Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Amazon Forest, Industry 4.0, Systems Thinking, Sustainability, Viable System Model","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5925869/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5925869/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis article proposes a systemic management model tailored for biofactories operating within the Amazon rainforest. The model aims to empower indigenous populations by enhancing their control over local development and a sustainable innovation ecosystem. Leveraging the Model of Systemic Control and the Viable System Model, we employed a qualitative methodology based on interviews with key stakeholders, including Indigenous leaders and community representatives, to incorporate local perspectives and values into the proposed redesign. Our analysis of management structures in community-based social enterprises guided the redesign, grounded in the principles of organizational cybernetics. The study was conducted at the Amazon Creative Lab (ACL), a biofactory situated within the Amazon rainforest that serves as a platform for innovative experimentation and capacity building, showcasing the potential of the forest and local communities. By prioritizing cultural appreciation and addressing exclusionary and colonialist practices, the ACL highlights the importance of integrating cultural values and respecting local traditions. The proposed management model enhances organizational self-determination while balancing the interaction between traditional communities and Western perspectives, reinforcing the role of community organizations within their territories.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Bioindustrialization by native people: A systemic management approach to foster coevolution","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-02-06 06:21:00","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5925869/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-05-22T11:34:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-10T22:31:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-06T11:17:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-01T09:46:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"243448118691871987485431955061317803804","date":"2025-04-10T22:36:39+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"326924742933012253000742890258210870770","date":"2025-04-10T11:14:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"276722681114032524768917288552807974929","date":"2025-04-10T09:35:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"13887829533022095431574536546393302450","date":"2025-03-03T22:22:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-03-03T11:41:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-02-04T08:24:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-01-31T12:45:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Systemic Practice and Action Research","date":"2025-01-29T17:29:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"systemic-practice-and-action-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"spaa","sideBox":"Learn more about [Systemic Practice and Action Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/11213)","snPcode":"11213","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11213/3","title":"Systemic Practice and Action Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7ad2f9a3-7b2f-4fdb-a6f2-4bbd980e9c34","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-30T16:24:48+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5925869","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-026-09761-6","journal":{"identity":"systemic-practice-and-action-research","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Systemic Practice and Action Research"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-28 16:10:52","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 28th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-02-06 06:21:00","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s11213-026-09761-6","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-026-09761-6","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5925869","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5925869","identity":"rs-5925869","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}