Next Article in Journal
The Impact of AI-Personalized Recommendations on Clicking Intentions: Evidence from Chinese E-Commerce
Next Article in Special Issue
Blockchain Adoption in Green Supply Chains: Analyzing Key Drivers, Green Innovation, and Expected Benefits
Previous Article in Journal
How Does the Relevance of Firm-Generated Content to Products Affect Consumer Brand Attitudes?
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Enterprise Digital Capability on Supply Chain Digitalization—From the Perspective of Supply Chain Cooperation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JTAER
Volume 20
Issue 1
10.3390/jtaer20010020
jtaer-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of SMEs’ Digitalization on Supply Chain Financing Performance: Based on the Resource Orchestration Theory

by
Qiang Lu
1,
Wangzhe Qin
1,
Rui Yan
1,
Songbo Zhang
2,* and
Lianyao Ma
3
1
School of Business, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing 100048, China
2
School of Business, Capital University of Economics and Business; Beijing 100070, China
3
School of Economics and Management, Nankai University, Tianjin 300110, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20(1), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20010020
Submission received: 11 November 2024 / Revised: 16 January 2025 / Accepted: 22 January 2025 / Published: 4 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digitalization and Sustainable Supply Chain)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to use resource orchestration theory (ROT) to investigate how small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) digitalization affects supply chain financing performance (SCFP) by examining the mediation effect of ambidextrous innovations. It also investigates the moderating role of environmental competitiveness on the relationship between SME digitalization and SCFP, and ambidextrous innovations, respectively. A valid representative sample for this study was drawn from 343 Chinese SMEs through a questionnaire survey. Multiple regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. The study revealed a positive impact of SMEs’ digitalization on SCFP. Meanwhile, exploitative innovation, not exploratory innovation, plays a partial mediating role between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP. Environmental competitiveness strengthens the positive relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP. Moreover, environmental competitiveness strengthens the positive relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and exploratory innovation. This study is one of the first to identify digitalization as a key antecedent of SCFP and the mediating role of ambidextrous innovations on the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP. Also, this is the first study to explore the moderating role of environmental competitiveness in the context of digitalization.

1. Introduction

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) play an irreplaceable role in promoting economic growth and technological innovation and increasing employment [1]. However, SMEs find it difficult to obtain financing through traditional financing channels because of their characteristics of short operating years, small scale, and low credit qualifications. Supply chain finance, as an innovative financing method, can optimize financial flow between organizations, alleviating the information asymmetry between SMEs and lending institutions, and has gradually become the preferred choice for SMEs to solve their financial problems [2]. The ultimate goal of supply chain finance is to align financial flow with product and information flows within the supply chain, thereby improving cash flow management from the perspective of the supply chain [3]. Because the supply chain is mainly finance-oriented and supply chain-oriented [4], the enterprises within its scope are mainly operational enterprises embedded in the industry chain or supply chain, particularly manufacturing SMEs. Unfortunately, limited by their own independent innovation abilities, not all SMEs can obtain supply chain financing. In addition, poor supply chain finance management mechanisms, poor corporate governance, and low corporate credit awareness among SMEs can all affect SCFP. With the wide application of digital technology in SME supply chain financing activities by SMEs, the impact of digitalization in improving supply chain financing performance (SCFP) has attracted the attention of scholars and practitioners [5,6].
Previous research mainly concentrated on the information advantage of digitalization in improving SCFP by lessening information asymmetry between SMEs and FSPs. For instance, Lu et al. [2] found that big data analytic technology assisted FSPs in enhancing their information-processing capacity to offer small and medium suppliers a more efficient financial service. Apart from the information advantage, compared to SMEs without digitalization, digitalization can bring more resource advantages to resource-constrained SMEs [7]. Specifically, digitalization characterized as boundary spanning can acquire and integrate internal and external (e.g., upstream and downstream) data resources, generate vast amounts of data that SMEs can leverage to make informed decisions, establish unique resource advantage, and then release SMEs competence signals to gain supply chain financing from FSPs [8]. For example, suppliers in China’s Haier and Yili supply chains are actively enhancing the level of digitalization to improve their SCFP by embedding digital platforms to access resources or inform business processes. Some pioneering studies found that many SMEs find it difficult to use digitalization to enhance SCFP, even though it has a lot of appeal [9]. These anecdotal cases, to some extent, suggest that SMEs’ digitalization does not easily enhance SCFP [10]. Unfortunately, merely having resource advantages is not enough; SMEs need to transform the resource advantages brought by digitalization to achieve improvements at the capability level, and its underlying mechanisms need to be further explored. Some SMEs missed out on development opportunities precisely because they did not make full and efficient use of their resources. To reach its greatest potential, scholars must determine the fundamental processes that transform the resource advantage of digitalization into enhanced SCFP for SMEs. In summary, exploration of the mechanisms by which digitalization enhances SCFP is lacking; this gap limits their thorough and universal understanding.
To explore how digitalization influences SCFP through advantages such as resource integration and utilization, this study introduces resource orchestration theory (ROT). ROT emphasizes the theoretical path of ‘building resource portfolio—forming core competence—enhancing competitive advantage’, which provides a good theoretical framework for this study [11]. Previous studies have also used ROT to examine the relationship between digitalization and SCFP [8]. Given this, this study introduces ROT to reveal the internal mechanism of digitalization affecting SCFP. Previous research demonstrated that SMEs’ innovation capability is an important competence signal for gaining supply chain financing from FSPs [2]. The extant literature has mainly categorized innovation capabilities into exploratory and exploitative innovations, i.e., ambidextrous innovation [12]. Exploitative innovations aim to improve processes and products to meet the needs of current users and customers in the market. In contrast, exploratory innovation aims to explore new knowledge and skills to meet the needs of emerging users and customers [13]. These innovative skills need various organizational structure designs, resource requirements, and task priorities, and their influence mechanisms on performance vary greatly [14]. However, few studies have focused on the mediating roles of exploitative and exploratory innovations in the relationship between digitalization and SCFP. Given this, this study introduces these two types of innovation based on ROT to reveal the internal mechanisms by which digitalization affects SCFP.
In addition, ROT emphasizes the heterogeneity of resource orchestration actions and resource orchestration contexts. In other words, the effectiveness of digitalization in enhancing the two innovation capabilities and SCFP is influenced by contextual factors. Specifically, the impact of SMEs’ digitalization on SCFP via innovative capabilities may depend on environmental competitiveness [15]. Environmental competitiveness represents the extent to which a firm’s competitive environment is defined by intense competition [16]. In a highly competitive environment, with intense external competition, dynamic demand, and innovation-driven factors, the company may face significant competitive pressure. With a greater degree of environmental competitiveness, external and strongly competitive settings put SMEs under a lot of competitive pressure, placing limited resources into particular innovative activities. However, the moderating influence of environmental competitiveness in the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP remains largely underexplored. To address this research gap, this study introduces the contextual factor of environmental competitiveness to explore its moderating effect on the relationship between digitalization, ambidextrous innovations, and SCFP.
In conclusion, this study aims to answer the following three research questions: RQ1. How does SMEs’ digitalization influence SCFP? RQ2. Do ambidextrous innovations mediate the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP based on ROT? RQ3. How does environmental competitiveness moderate the effect of SMEs’ digitalization on ambidextrous innovations and SCFP?
The primary theoretical contributions of this study are expressed in the following three aspects: First, this study innovatively explores the relationship between digitalization and SCFP from the resource orchestration perspective. Extant studies mainly focused on the information advantage of digitalization on SCFP; this study empirically tests the potential resource efficacy of digitalization on SCFP, which gives confirmatory validity to past investigations based on conceptual studies. Second, this study opens the black box of how SMEs’ digitalization influences SCFP by exploring the mediating effect of ambidextrous innovations. This study highlights an important underlying mechanism of digitalization that orchestrates internal and external organization resources to improve SCFP by validating the mediating effect of innovation capabilities based on ambidextrous innovation studies. Third, this research extends the application scope of ROT by investigating the contextual significance of environmental competitiveness. It also explores the boundary condition for this mechanism based on ROT. In terms of practical contributions, this study provides guidance and decision-making references for SMEs on how to utilize digitalization to orchestrate resources and enhance SCFP.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Supply Chain Financing

With the awareness that financial flow in supply chain operations is of essential significance and controlling information and physical flow cannot enhance supply chain management., supply chain financing has received great attention in theory and practices [10]. Supply chain finance integrates financial flows into the physical supply chain to eliminate information asymmetry between SMEs and FSPs [17]. With increased transparency and improved access to information, digitalization in supply chain networks can ensure inter-organizational signal transmission quality, which has recently received attention from scholars and managers [18].
In recent years, one of the most attractive research possibilities in the supply chain finance sector has been the role of digitalization in enhancing supply chain financing [10,19]. Many scholars have conducted research on the impact of digitalization on SCFP. Digitalization is regarded as an important way for supply chain finance to create more excellent inter-organizational and intra-organizational value [5]. However, existing research has mostly focused on the information, not resource advantage, of digitalization, including information transparency, traceability, and security resulting from digitalization [2]. Some studies have shown that digitalization also provides a resource benefit [20]. For resource-constrained SMEs, various resources obtained through digitalization may help them access supply chain finance, but few studies have focused on this point. To fill this research gap, this study mainly discusses the influence of SMEs’ digitalization on SCFP from the resource perspective.

2.2. Resource Orchestration Theory

The resource orchestration theory (ROT) builds on the resource-based theory by specifically addressing managers’ resource-focused behaviors [8]. ROT suggests that owning resources alone does not ensure the emergence of a competitive advantage; rather, resources must be skillfully managed [11]. Managers must successfully accumulate, bundle, and leverage resources to achieve their full worth in terms of producing competitive advantage [10,21]. Studies using ROT are three-fold: “obtaining, amassing and divesting resources to build the enterprise’s resources portfolio”, “Combining resources to create capabilities” and “using the enterprise’s advantages and capitalizing on unique market possibilities” [11]. For example, Lu et al. [8] revealed that different resource orchestration strategies influence small and medium suppliers’ supply chain financing by forming operational and digitalization capabilities from a resource orchestration standpoint. Chen et al. [10] also found that big data analytics technology could be leveraged to develop a higher-order dynamic bricolage capability, thus promoting servitization.
ROT provides a promising theoretical perspective for exploring the relationship between digitalization, ambidextrous innovation, SCFP, and environmental competitiveness. Previous studies have used signaling theory to examine the information asymmetry associated with supply chain finance, with less exploration of the resource and capability aspects [22]. In the area of supply chain management, ROT is mostly used to describe how enterprise channel members achieve greater SCFP by using their resources and complementary competencies [2,20]. Additionally, extant studies have also revealed the connection between resource orchestration and innovation. For example, Cui et al. [23] discovered that information technology has a dual function in affecting innovation performance by enabling resource procurement and operation. Therefore, this study develops a research model that argues that digitalization as a way of resource orchestration can influence the mode of structuring, bundling, and leveraging demanded by ambidextrous innovation activities based on ROT. This model helps managers understand how Chinese SMEs build and bundle resources by digitalization to improve ambidextrous innovation capabilities and then leverage these capabilities to enhance SCFP to empower their own development. Additionally, the effectiveness of this model is also influenced by external environmental factors. Thus, we introduce environmental competitiveness as a moderating factor to explore its impact on the relationship between digitalization and ambidextrous innovation.

2.3. The Impact of SMEs’ Digitalization

In contrast to typical bank lending, supply chain finance stresses the necessity of integrated operational information embedding in the supply chain, which aligns financial flow with product and information flows and ultimately improves cash flow management [24]. Therefore, supply chain financing decreases information asymmetry between SMEs and FSPs by successfully communicating SME capabilities signals throughout the supply chain network [25], which Increases the chance of SMEs receiving the needed SCFP [26]. Based on ROT, this study proposes that SMEs’ digitalization can boost SCFP through increasing SME resource orchestration capabilities.
First, digitalization boosts SCFP by empowering SMEs to expand the resource pool by getting high-quality knowledge and resources from the external environment. Digitalization represents an enterprise’s capacity to leverage digital technology and processes to analyze large quantities of data and obtain insights for decision-making [27]. For instance, According to Lu et al. [2], implementing digital technology may allow an enterprise to either find and absorb new information or boost both digital innovation and corporate performance. Chen et al. [10] have found that manufacturers can understand existing resource bases and identify underexplored resources to outline a complete picture of the resource pool via big data analytics. Cui et al. [23] also have found that IT can initiate and facilitate the discovery, absorption, and usage of internal and external resources for innovation.
Second, digitalization boosts SCFP by empowering SMEs to bundle resources to build digitalization-based capabilities. For example, Lenka et al. [25] used artificial intelligence technology to boost connection capacities to anticipate value co-creation in service organizations. Lu et al. [9] also discovered that having an analytic capacity is vital for translating accessible data into relevant insights and effective instructions for enterprises. Finally, digitalization enhances SCFP by helping SMEs undertake the leveraging process, which uses the enterprise’s skills to find market opportunities and establish a lasting competitive advantage. According to Lu et al. [2], SMEs may improve information transparency and density by boosting digital customer orientation and gaining supply chain finance. These methods may help SMEs get finance from financial service providers [28,29]. However, while digitalization brings opportunities, it also puts pressure on enterprises [30]. Whether digitalization can indeed improve SCFP requires further verification. In summary, digitalization can help SMEs acquire resources and develop capabilities, thereby improving SCFP. Hence, we posit the following:
H1. 
SMEs’ digitalization has a positive effect on SCFP.

2.4. The Mediating Effect of Ambidextrous Innovations

Previous research has focused on the direct effect of digitalization on the SCFP of SMEs [2]. In contrast, this study innovatively introduces ROT to open the theoretical black box of digitalization and SCFP through ambidextrous innovations. The existing literature characterizes ambidextrous innovations from two perspectives: (1) the level of relevance to current goods, services, and knowledge and (2) the level of relevance to current markets. Exploitative innovation is intimately tied to existing knowledge and resources and moves following current pathways [31]. Exploratory innovation is less relevant to current knowledge or markets and instead demonstrates the characteristics of discovery, adaptability, and originality [32]. Both exploitative innovation and exploratory innovation can provide a sustained competitive advantage [2]. Existing studies have shown that innovation capability is an important signal for helping SMEs access supply chain finance [2,8]. However, these two types of innovation have inherent conflicts in resource and organizational needs, requiring various organizational architectures and diverse mission priorities [31]. The intricacy needed to simultaneously pursue ambidextrous innovation capabilities can place a great strain on SMEs’ management and staff [33]. Therefore, how SME managers successfully structure and package digital technology resources to transform innovative capabilities remains a significant topic that requires further attention.
Based on ROT, this study proposes that digitalization can empower SMEs’ exploratory innovation capabilities. Digitalization can provide a visual operation process and ensure real-time data collection and transparency of information, which promotes the formation of inter-organizational partnerships; this, in turn, helps SMEs efficiently streamline business procedures and boost inter-organizational resource transfer and sharing [9]. Digitalization facilitates collaboration and co-creation, both internally within the organization and externally with partners, customers, and suppliers. SMEs can leverage digital platforms and tools to engage in open innovation practices, crowdsource ideas, and collaborate with a diverse range of stakeholders [34]. This collaborative approach can foster exploratory innovation by incorporating different perspectives and expertise. Accordingly, we posit the following:
H2a. 
SMEs’ digitalization has a positive effect on exploratory innovation.
Exploitative innovation emphasizes the importance of leveraging existing knowledge and resources, which are intimately tied to existing markets, and proceed along established trajectories [31]. Moreover, exploitative innovation involves the refining of existing technologies, paradigms, and capabilities, which are defined by those enhanced capabilities, as well as efficiency and execution [35]. This article draws on ROT to propose that digitalization can empower SMEs’ exploitative innovation capability. Digitalization (e.g., big data analysis tools) can enhance SMEs’ comprehension of current resource bases and provide them with knowledge about resource recombination [36] by increasing process automation and efficiency. By digitizing and optimizing existing processes, SMEs can increase productivity, cut expenses, and become more efficient. This automation frees up resources and enables employees to focus on innovation within the existing framework, leading to exploitative innovation. Moreover, digitalization makes it easier for teams, employees, and outside partners to collaborate and share knowledge. For example, digital platforms can connect individuals, share best practices, and collaborate on improving existing processes or products. Chen et al. [10] revealed that big data analytics capability enabled manufacturers to take advantage of the available resources by discovering creative ways to recycle and repurpose them for new uses based on resource bricolage theory. Hence, we posit the following:
H2b. 
SMEs’ digitalization has a positive effect on exploitative innovation.
Based on the above hypotheses, this paper further hypothesizes that digital technology usage can be leveraged to develop ambidextrous innovation capabilities, which in turn improve the SCFP of SMEs. With the employment of digital technologies, SMEs can improve resource organization and bundling transparency and uncover hidden trends in operational processes. This enables SMEs to present a comprehensive image of their resource base and provide a solid base for facilitating existing resource exploitation and new resource recombination for new purposes [10]. In this vein, digitalization boosts ambidextrous innovations by enabling SMEs to fully use resource orchestration.
Digitalization can promote the acquisition and integration of new knowledge and resources by bridging the relationship between SMEs and external network members in supply chain networks [37,38], thus leveraging recombined resources to explore innovation capabilities. Meanwhile, transparency, traceability, and accuracy of information are guaranteed by digitalization, which makes it easier for external financial service providers to get capability signals from SMEs and anticipate any hazards in supply chain financing [18], further improving and enhancing the competence of SMEs and the identifiability from financial service providers in the supply chain networks [2,20]. Hence, we posit the following:
H3a. 
Exploratory innovation plays a mediating role between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP.
Digitalization may also increase the recombination and reuse of existing knowledge and resources amongst internal departments, as well as enhance the capacity to reuse and rearrange the resources available, namely exploitative innovation capability, thus enhancing the competence of SMEs and the identifiability of financial service providers in the supply chain networks. For instance, Lu et al. [20] discovered the role of digitalization in breaking the information isolation of various functional departments, enabling cross-departmental process reconstruction and collaborative R&D inside organizations. Additionally, Lu et al. [9] suggested that increased exploratory innovation capability can signal the competence of SME innovation capability to outside FSPs, thus positively affecting SCFP based on enterprises competence theory. Hence, we posit the following:
H3b. 
Exploitative innovation plays a mediating role between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP.

2.5. The Moderating Effect of Environmental Competitiveness

In order to further enrich the research, this study explores the boundary condition for this model. The extremely complicated and hypercompetitive environment has grown increasingly typical during the last two decades [39]. In particular, with the emergence of the digital economy, digital technology usage has further increased environmental competitiveness by enabling global connectivity, driving rapid innovation, and raising customer expectations [15]. Environmental competitiveness shows the degree of strong rivalry in the external surroundings of enterprises, which is represented primarily by the degrees of danger and the intensity of competition [2]. A Strong competitive environment means significant uncertainty and complexity for all enterprises involved [39,40]. If the pressure brought by environmental competitiveness cannot be properly addressed, it will have a negative impact on the enterprise [41]. Therefore, whether digitalization can indeed improve SCFP requires further verification.
Based on ROT, this study firstly indicates that environmental competitiveness positively moderates the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP. When environmental competitiveness intensifies, increased uncertainty and complexity prompt FSP creditors to ask SME borrowers for more digitalization to lift their structuring capability [9]. For instance, environmental competitiveness can further enhance this relationship by demonstrating SMEs’ commitment to resource efficiency and waste reduction in operations, which can result in long-term cost savings and improved financial stability. Additionally, environmental competitiveness can also strengthen resource exchange between FSPs and SMEs by using more digitalization to correctly acquire supply chain operational information (e.g., financial flows, product flows) to foresee warning signals of risk, thus minimizing the likelihood of opportunistic actions by the SMEs in the network and reducing default risks generated by their increasing operational risks. Thus, we posit the following:
H4a. 
Environmental competitiveness positively moderates the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP.
When competition is severe and the competitive environment is ambiguous and complicated, the competitive landscape tends to be unstable, making it more unpredictable. In such circumstances, resource-constrained SMEs are inclined to turn to digital technologies to drive incremental innovation as a means of survival. According to the ROT, stabilizing or enriching bundling acts combined with a resource advantage leveraging approach may be adequate for efficiency, which is the foundation of exploitative innovation [42]. When situated in a hypercompetitive environment, digital technology enables SMEs to be more nimble and flexible in responding to market changes. Moreover, digitalization offers a more cost-effective solution for SMEs to innovate and adapt to changing market circumstances. Compared to traditional methods of innovation, like creating new goods or breaking into untapped markets, digital technologies provide a more affordable and accessible avenue for SMEs to introduce incremental improvements to their existing products, processes, or business models. For example, Chen et al. [10] suggested that data analytics capability can enhance manufacturers’ bricolage by recombining and exploiting existing resources for new purposes in a dynamic environment. Thus, we posit the following:
H4b. 
Environmental competitiveness positively moderates the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and exploitative innovation.
When SMEs compete in highly competitive marketplaces, it is also vital to go beyond incremental bundling operations to procedures used to enhance current capabilities and pioneer new capabilities based on ROT [11]. In other words, increased environmental competitiveness boosts the need for SMEs leveraging digital technologies employment to exploratory innovation capability, either developing an internal inventive capacity and/or acquiring such inventions externally or via collaborative ties to merge unconnected knowledge stockpiles through a process termed bisociation [11]. In highly competitive markets, SMEs must differentiate themselves from their rivals. By going beyond incremental bundling, SMEs can offer something distinct and valuable to customers, setting themselves apart from competitors. Moreover, enriching and pioneering capabilities often require collaboration and partnerships with other stakeholders. SMEs can leverage external expertise, resources, or technologies to enhance their existing capabilities or develop new ones. Collaborative efforts can help SMEs access new markets, share risks, and leverage complementary strengths, strengthening their competitive position in rival markets. In turn, bisociation assists enterprises in developing new pioneering skills and entrepreneurial strategies that, when combined, encourage transformation that has the potential to disrupt markets. Thus, we posit the following:
H4c. 
Environmental competitiveness positively moderates the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and exploratory innovation.
Based on ROT, the research model is shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Sample Selection and Data Collection

In China, supply chain finance is mainly centered around SMEs, which are in greater need of working capital support than large enterprises but find it difficult to obtain financing from banks or other financial institutions due to the default risks [2]. In China, SMEs dominate the business landscape, representing over 90% of all companies. Chinese SMEs are an integral part of China’s economy and continue to drive economic growth. Focusing on China’s SMEs, mainly in the manufacturing sector, as a sample would be more valuable for research. This paper collected data through a questionnaire. The reasons are as follows: Firstly, SMEs find it difficult to provide credible financial reports due to their smaller scales and lower management levels. Secondly, the measurement of related variables, such as the digitalization of SMEs and SCFP, cannot be directly obtained from the financial reports published by the enterprises. Thirdly, questionnaires have always been favored by the academic community due to their flexibility, simplicity, and strong relevance. Supply chain finance has only been used by a few industries to solve the problem of “difficult and expensive financing”. Referring to Lu et al. [43], we adopted a reverse thinking mode to select samples. The questionnaire process was divided into two stages. The first stage involved finding companies that have used supply chain financing. From June 2019 to December 2020, we conducted extensive research in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, Pearl River Delta, and Yangtze River Delta, where most SMEs are located. The level of digitalization is also generally higher in these areas. In this stage, we identified ten large companies in the manufacturing sector.
The next stage was to collect data. First, the selection criteria for SMEs were formulated according to the “Chinese Provisional Regulation on SME Standards”. Second, we required large enterprises to list all the SMEs that meet the criteria and conduct a systematic random sampling to extract 50 SMEs. Each large enterprise invited these sampled SMEs to complete the questionnaire as required. A total of 418 questionnaires were returned. Following the elimination of questionnaires with missing items and invalid responses, we successfully obtained 343 valid questionnaires. In Table 1, we present the demographic characteristics of the SMEs.

3.2. Measurement

Independent variables. Concerning Ye et al. [44], the independent variable, SMEs’ digitalization, included three items. Specifically, the three items include using digital technologies to enhance networking between different business processes, sharing resources, and exchanging information with our business partners through digital technologies, etc.
Mediating variables. The mediating variables in this study are ambidextrous innovations, which were measured with reference to Rothaermel and Deeds [45]. Exploitative innovation (EII) includes using extant resources to achieve technical improvement or process change, optimizing the original cooperation mode to enlarge the market of existing products and services, etc. Exploratory Innovation (ETI) includes tapping new resources, expanding into new business areas, and continuously introducing new technologies and products through developing new relationship networks.
Moderating variables. Regarding the moderating variable of environmental competitiveness, this study mainly refers to Chang and Webster [46]. It includes three items; for example, the competition is very fierce and the products are easily imitated.
Dependent variables and control variables. The dependent variable is SCFP, which mainly reflects the effectiveness of SMEs using supply chain finance. This paper mainly draws on Gomm [24] and Lu et al. [8,20] to measure SCFP. In addition, this study refers to Lu et al. [2] and selects key factors as control variables, including annual sales (Sale), operating period (Year), total assets (Asset), and enterprise size (Size). Table 2 presents all the items.

3.3. Non-Response Bias and Common Method Bias

In this study, SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 28.0 were used to carry out the following tests. Firstly, based on the control variables, the questionnaires collected before and after were divided into two groups for t-test analysis. We found that there was no obvious difference between the data in the two groups (p > 0.1), indicating that there was no non-response bias. Secondly, homoscedasticity bias, as a systematic error, is an artificial covariation between predictive variables and validity variables caused by the same data collection situation. In this study, Harman’s one-way test through validated factor analysis revealed that the one-way model fit was poor (χ2 = 2079.912, DF = 119, RMSEA = 0.219, AGFI = 0.419, CFI = 0.336, GFI = 0.548, IFI = 0.340, NFI = 0.327, RFI = 0.230, TLI = 0.241), indicating that there was no serious homoscedasticity bias problem.

3.4. Reliability and Validity Tests

The reliability of the measures is mainly evaluated by composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s α. In Table 2, the minimum value of composite reliability (CR) was 0.768, which is higher than 0.7 [47]. Meanwhile, the minimum value of Cronbach’s α is 0.767, which is greater than 0.7 [48]. Hence, the scale has good reliability.
In Table 2, the minimum value of the average variance extracted (AVE) in this study is 0.525, which is greater than 0.5. Meanwhile, the results of the confirmatory factors indicate that the measurement models fit the data reasonably well and the convergent validity of the components is good (χ2 = 172.454, df = 109, 1 < χ2/DF = 1.582 < 3. RMSEA= 0.041 < 0.08, CFI = 0.979 > 0.9, IFI = 0.979 > 0.9, TLI = 0.973 > 0.9, RFI = 0.930 > 0.9, NFI = 0.944 > 0.9). In Table 3, the square root of each construct AVE on the diagonal is also greater than the correlation coefficient between constructs, which shows that the constructs in this study have high discriminant validity.

4. Analyses and Results

4.1. The Direct Effect Test of SMEs’ Digitalization on SCFP

We used multiple regression analysis to test all hypotheses. The reasons are as follows: Firstly, it has a wide range of applications in exploring linear or nonlinear relationships between variables, and it is a mature hypothesis testing method. Secondly, it plays an important role in testing moderating effects. In Table 4, Model 1 indicates that SMEs’ digitalization has a direct impact on SCFP (β = 0.176, p < 0.01), which supports H1.

4.2. The Mediating Effect Test of Ambidextrous Innovations

In Table 4, Model 3 indicates that SMEs’ digitalization positively impacts exploratory innovation (β = 0.288, p < 0.001), which supports H2a. However, Model 5 shows that after adding exploratory innovation into the regression equation, SMEs’ digitalization positively impacts SCFP (β = 0.170, p < 0.01), but exploratory innovation has no significant impact on SCFP (β = −0.019, p > 0.05), which suggests that exploratory innovation has no mediating effect on the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP, which supports H3a.
Model 2 suggests that SMEs’ digitalization positively impacts exploitative innovation (β = 0.292, p < 0.001), which supports H2b. Meanwhile, Model 4 shows that exploitative innovation positively impacts SCFP (β = 0.176, p < 0.01), while the impact of SMEs’ digitalization on the SCFP declines (β = 0.125, p < 0.05). We also used the bootstrap analysis to examine the mediating effect, and the result is shown in Table 5. Therefore, it shows that exploitative innovation plays a partial mediating role between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP, which supports H3b.

4.3. The Moderating Effect Test of Environmental Competitiveness

In Table 6, Model 6 shows that SMEs’ digitalization positively impacts SCFP (β = 0.176, p < 0.001). Model 7 shows that the explanatory power is significantly enhanced (R2 becomes larger) after introducing environmental competitiveness as the moderating variable, but the effect of environmental competitiveness on SCFP is not significant (β = 0.124, p < 0.05). Model 8 indicates that the explanatory power is further improved (R2 becomes larger) after the introduction of the interaction term between SMEs’ digitalization and environmental competitiveness, and the interaction term positively impacts SCFP (β = 0.113, p > 0.05). It shows that environmental competitiveness positively moderates the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP. Furthermore, simple slope analysis and the Johnson–Naiman (J-N) method (Hayes, 2013) were used to verify the moderating role of environmental competitiveness. Firstly, this paper developed a simple slope diagram of M ± 1SD. Figure 2 shows that the higher the level of environmental competitiveness, the greater the positive impact of digitalization on SCFP. Secondly, we observed the J-N region of significance and plotted this region in Figure 5. Combining the results of Figure 2 and Figure 3, H4a is supported.
Similarly, based on the results of Models 9–11, environmental competitiveness positively moderates the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and exploitative innovation. Combining the results of Figure 4 and Figure 5, H4b is not supported. The possible reason is that under the high level of environmental competitiveness, large enterprises can rely on their scale and resources to achieve innovation quickly. However, resource constraints make it difficult for SMEs to improve their existing situation and cope with market competition through exploitative innovation. This further reduces the effectiveness of digitalization on exploitative innovation [8]. Based on the results of Models 12–14, environmental competitiveness positively moderates the relationship between digitalization and exploratory innovation. Combining the results of Figure 6 and Figure 7, H4c is supported.
Jtaer 20 00020 g002
Figure 2. Simple slope graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and SCFP.
Figure 2. Simple slope graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and SCFP.
Jtaer 20 00020 g002
Jtaer 20 00020 g003
Figure 3. J-N graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and SCFP.
Figure 3. J-N graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and SCFP.
Jtaer 20 00020 g003
Jtaer 20 00020 g004
Figure 4. Simple slope graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and ETL.
Figure 4. Simple slope graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and ETL.
Jtaer 20 00020 g004
Jtaer 20 00020 g005
Figure 5. J-N graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and ETL.
Figure 5. J-N graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and ETL.
Jtaer 20 00020 g005
Jtaer 20 00020 g006
Figure 6. Simple slope graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and ERL.
Figure 6. Simple slope graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and ERL.
Jtaer 20 00020 g006
Jtaer 20 00020 g007
Figure 7. J-N graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and ERL.
Figure 7. J-N graph of the moderating effect of EC on the relationship between DT and ERL.
Jtaer 20 00020 g007

5. Discussion and Implications

5.1. Theoretical Implications

First, this study uses the ROT to empirically explore the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP. The research results in this paper indicate that the digitalization of SMEs has a positive effect on SCFP. Existing SCFP research has investigated the impact of digitalization on SCFP using exploratory conceptual analysis or qualitative case studies [49,50], and the findings need confirmation from a sufficiently large-scale dataset. However, few studies have provided empirical data. The present study bridges the research gap by experimentally proving the favorable effect of digitalization on SCFP using quantitative data gathered from over 300 SMEs in various sectors in China. Furthermore, this study takes a holistic view and systematically examines the direct relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP, not focusing on specific technology employment in supply chain financing activities [8] to respond to the call for common characteristics among different digital technologies employment in supply chain financing activities.
Second, this study opens the black box of how digitalization affects SCFP by demonstrating the mechanism mediating ambidextrous innovations. The findings uncover the fundamental process that explains how the value of digitalization is transferred to SCFP, which the existing literature has called for empirical investigations into [51]. Different from the information advantage of digitalization on SCFP [50,52], this study also finds the resource orchestration advantage of digitalization on SCFP by testing the mediating role of innovation capability. The findings show that exploitative innovation plays a mediating role in the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP, which further supports the hypothesis that exploitative innovation capability can predict supply chain financing from financial service providers [8,53]. In addition, the digitalization–innovation capability–SCFP framework constructed in the article also supports the resource orchestration theory, deepening managers’ understanding of the role of digitalization in resource orchestration. However, this study also finds that exploratory innovation cannot play a mediating role in the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP. The possible reason is that exploratory innovations are intense and radical, with very low short-term returns [54]. SMEs may face challenges in embracing digitalization because of the high investment required and the lack of resources. Managers are more inclined to focus their attention on the efficiency of digitalization in improving extant resource utility to cope with rivalry under resource-constrained situations. To some extent, the results agree with the finding that SMEs with resource constraints need to focus their limited resources on exploitative innovation capability [14]. This may also be due to China’s context as a developing country. For developed countries, more resources may be available for SMEs. Thus, the role of facilitating exploratory innovation through digitalization may be different.
Third, this study extends the application of ROT by revealing environmental competitiveness as a situational component impacting the mechanism through which digitalization pushes SCFP. The research results in this paper indicate that environmental competitiveness positively moderates the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP. Although recent studies indicate that the effectiveness of digitalization is very context-specific [55,56], few researchers have explored the situational aspects that determine the efficacy of digitalization in facilitating SCFP. Our study addresses this gap by demonstrating that environmental competitiveness serves as a boundary condition for the link between digitalization and SCFP. More interestingly, this study further finds that environmental competitiveness positively moderates the relationship between SMEs’ digitalization and exploratory innovation, not exploitative innovation. The reason may be that, in a highly competitive environment, SMEs face constant pressure to differentiate themselves and stay ahead of their competitors. As a result, increased urgency for innovation is higher in such environments, making SMEs explore new ideas, products, or services to gain a competitive edge and making the positive influence of digitalization on exploratory innovation more pronounced. In conclusion, by uncovering the underlying mechanism and the boundary conditions for this mechanism in the digitalization–SCFP relationships, this study gives a more nuanced understanding of how digitalization influences SCFP.
In summary, this study explores the relationship between digitalization, ambidextrous innovations, environmental competitiveness, and SCFP of Chinese SMEs based on ROT. It elucidates the mechanisms at play and expands the application of the theory. The conclusions of this study support and validate the ROT’s accumulate–bundle–leverage model, encouraging SME managers to actively embrace digitalization and enhance corporate innovation and environmental adaptability to facilitate access to finance and improve competitiveness.

5.2. Practical Implications

Our findings also have substantial practical implications for SMEs that want to translate digitalization into SCFP. First, this study reminds SME managers to proactively embrace digitalization to release the power of digital technologies to improve SCFP. SMEs could exploit the value of digitalization in the process of supply chain financing, such as developing big data analytics capabilities and cloud computing, to establish resource integration advantage and signal their competence to FSPs in supply chain networks.
Second, SME managers are advised to extend the digitalization to extant resource restructuring and integration to form innovation capabilities for obtaining supply chain financing from FSPs. This study validates the hypothesis that ambidextrous innovations are a critical channel through which digitalization promotes SCFP. Resource-constrained SMEs may indirectly use their digital technologies to raise transparency on present resource bases and provide insights to improve the ability of resource orchestration in terms of structuring, bundling, and leveraging in the operational process. The findings suggest that SMEs will generate additional profit from digitalization to support the SCFP via exploitative innovation. To pursue SCFP, SME managers should create resource orchestration capacity to obtain strategic flexibility by going beyond incremental bundling operations to procedures utilized to improve current capabilities and pioneer exploitative innovation capabilities. With improved resource orchestration capability, SMEs can enhance SCFP by combining their existing resources to overcome resource constraints, especially for exploitative innovation, further signaling their innovation capability to financial service providers to gain SCFP.
Third, SME managers are encouraged to adapt strategically to a highly competitive environment. When faced with a highly competitive environment, they can amplify the benefits of digitalization in SCFP. On the one hand, managers might immediately employ digitalization to improve the cash flow and information flow contained in the supply chain network, to reduce the information asymmetry and be better identified by FSPs. On the other hand, managers could use digitalization to improve exploratory innovation capability to further form core competence in the highly competitive environment.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study has some limitations. First, this study focuses primarily on the mediating role of innovation capabilities to understand how SMEs’ digitalization affects SCFP based on ROT. However, exploitative innovation, not exploratory innovation, plays a partial mediating role between SMEs’ digitalization and SCFP. Future studies might build on other theories or perspectives to investigate other potential mediators, such as knowledge management and information sharing, which may moderate the influence of digitalization on SCFP. Second, we performed our research using data from a two-stage questionnaire survey in China. Although the setting of sampling coincides with our study goal, the Chinese context may restrict the generalizability of results to other places, particularly Western countries. Future researchers may want to gather data from different countries to increase the generalizability of the results. Third, the level of digitalization needs more detailed discussion. This study aims to move research emphasis to an enterprise’s total digitalization rather than a specific level of digitalization. Different SMEs have varying degrees of digitalization in terms of both breadth and depth. Future researchers could expand on our findings to investigate the impact of different levels of digitalization on SCFP.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.L. and W.Q.; methodology, Q.L. and W.Q.; software, W.Q.; validation, W.Q. and R.Y.; formal analysis, W.Q., R.Y. and L.M.; investigation, W.Q. and R.Y.; resources, S.Z. and Q.L.; data curation, W.Q.; writing—original draft preparation, W.Q.; writing—review and editing, W.Q. and R.Y.; visualization, Q.L.; supervision, Q.L.; project administration, S.Z. and L.M.; funding acquisition, Q.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research underlying this paper was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71902007), the Major Project of the National Social Science Foundation of China (No. 22&ZD096), Key Project of the National Social Science Foundation of China (No. 21AZD015).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Paul, J.; Parthasarathy, S.; Gupta, P. Exporting challenges of SMEs: A review and future research agenda. J. World Bus. 2017, 52, 327–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lu, Q.; Chen, J.; Song, H.; Zhou, X. Effects of cloud computing assimilation on supply chain financing risks of SMEs. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2022, 35, 1719–1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gelsomino, L.M.; Mangiaracina, R.; Perego, A.; Tumino, A. Supply chain finance: A literature review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2016, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhu, Y.; Zhou, L.; Xie, C.; Wang, G.J.; Nguyen, T.V. Forecasting SMEs’ credit risk in supply chain finance with an enhanced hybrid ensemble machine learning approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 211, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Caniato, F.; Henke, M.; Zsidisin, A.G. Supply chain finance: Historical foundations, current research, future developments. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2019, 25, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Soni, G.; Kumar, S.; Mahto, R.V.; Mangla, S.K.; Mittal, M.L.; Lim, W.M. A decision-making framework for Industry 4.0 technology implementation: The case of FinTech and sustainable supply chain finance for SMEs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 180, 121686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, L.; Tang, W.; Zhou, H.; Yang, S. Digitalization and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Top Management Team Attributes. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2023, 71, 6595–6605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lu, Q.; Song, H.; Yu, K. The effects of operational and digitalization capabilities on SMSs’ supply chain financing under supplyrisk. Int. J. Logist.-Res. Appl. 2023, 26, 1642–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lu, Q.; Liu, B.; Song, H. How can SMEs acquire supply chain financing: The capabilities and information perspective. Ind. Manag. Data. Syst. 2020, 120, 784–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chen, L.; Moretto, A.; Jia, F.; Caniato, F.; Xiong, Y. The role of digital transformation to empower supply chain finance: Current research status and future research directions (Guest editorial). Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2021, 41, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sirmon, D.G.; Hitt, M.A.; Ireland, R.D.; Gilbert, B.A. Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1390–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ren, G.; Zeng, P.; Zhong, X. The effect of innovation performance shortfall on firms’ trade-offs between exploratory and exploitative innovation: Do corporate governance factors matter? J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2024, 71, 101801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Levinthal, D.A.; March, J.G. The myopia of learning. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cao, Q.; Gedajlovic, E.; Zhang, H. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ Sci. 2009, 20, 781–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, Y.; Sun, H.; Jia, T.; Chen, J. The impact of buyer–supplier interaction on ambidextrous innovation and business performance: The moderating role of competitive environment. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2021, 32, 673–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Xu, T.; Yang, J.; Zhang, F.; Guo, W. Interfirm coopetition, interfirm knowledge creation, and collaborative innovation performance: The moderating roles of environmental competitiveness and dysfunctional competition. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 99, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Song, H.; Li, M.; Yu, K. Big data analytics in digital platforms: How do financial service providers customise supply chain finance? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2021, 41, 410–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hofmann, E.; Kotzab, H. A supply chain-oriented approach of working capital management. J. Bus. Logist. 2010, 31, 305–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, Q.; Yang, D.; Qin, J. Multi-Party evolutionary game analysis of accounts receivable financing under the application of central bank digital currency. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2023, 18, 394–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lu, Q.; Deng, Y.; Yu, M.; Song, H.; Liu, B. Supply chain network and financing performance of small and medium enterprises in China: A survey and quasi-replication using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Balt. J. Manag. 2021, 35, 785–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sirmon, D.G.; Hitt, M.A. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 273–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lu, Q.; Yang, Y.; Yu, M. Can SMEs’ quality management promote supply chain financing performance? An explanation based on signalling theory. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2024, 19, 1981–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cui, T.; Ye, J.H.; Tan, C.H. Information technology in open innovation: A resource orchestration perspective. Inf. Manag. 2022, 59, 103699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gomm, M.L. Supply chain finance: Applying finance theory to supply chain management to enhance finance in supply chains. Int. J. Logist.-Res. Appl. 2010, 13, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lenka, S.; Parida, V.; Wincent, J. Digitalization capabilities as enablers of value co-creation in servitizing firms. Psychol. Mark. 2017, 34, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Song, H.; Yang, X.; Yu, K. How do supply chain network and SMEs’ operational capabilities enhance working capital financing? An integrative signaling view. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 220, 107447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Srinivasan, R.; Swink, M. An investigation of visibility and flexibility as complements to supply chain analytics: An organizational information processing theory perspective. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2018, 27, 1849–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kopalle, P.K.; Kumar, V.; Subramaniam, M. How legacy firms can embrace the digital ecosystem via digital customer orientation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2020, 48, 114–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Warner, K.S.R.; Wäger, M. Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 326–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rachinger, M.; Rauter, R.; Müller, C.; Vorraber, W.; Schirgi, E. Digitalization and its influence on business model innovation. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 1143–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wenke, K.; Zapkau, F.B.; Schwens, C. Too small to do it all? A meta-analysis on the relative relationships of exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity with SME performance. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 132, 653–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mu, R.; Wang, H. A systematic literature review of open innovation in the public sector: Comparing barriers and governance strategies of digital and non-digital open innovation. Public Manag. Rev. 2022, 24, 489–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Eggers, F. Masters of disasters? Challenges and opportunities for SMEs in times of crisis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 116, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Liu, Q.; Chen, J.; Li, Z. Digital technology implementation: The mediating role of the duality of digital technology affordance in open innovation practices. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2024, 73, 101832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Xie, X.; Wang, H. How to bridge the gap between innovation niches and exploratory and exploitative innovations in open innovation ecosystems. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 124, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, D.Q.; Preston, D.S.; Swink, M. How the use of big data analytics affects value creation in supply chain management. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 2015, 32, 4–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, N.; Wang, X.; Zhang, S. Effects of digitization on enterprise growth performance: Mediating role of strategic change and moderating role of dynamic capability. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2023, 44, 1040–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shen, L.; Zhang, X.; Liu, H. Digital technology adoption, digital dynamic capability, and digital transformation performance of textile industry: Moderating role of digital innovation orientation. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2021, 43, 2038–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Luo, N.; Yu, K. Fits and misfits of supply chain flexibility to environmental uncertainty: Two types of asymmetric effects on performance. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2016, 27, 862–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Adner, R.; Helfat, C.E. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 1011–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, C.Y. Competition favors the prepared firm: Firms’ R&D responses to competitive market pressure. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 861–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saunila, M. Innovation capability in SMEs: A systematic review of the literature. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lu, Q.; Zhou, Y.; Luan, Z.; Song, H. The effect of SMEs’ ambidextrous innovations on supply chain financing performance: Balancing effect and moderating effect. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2024, 44, 424–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ye, F.; Ke, M.; Ouyang, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, L.; Zhan, Y.; Zhang, M. Impact of digital technology usage on firm resilience: A dynamic capability perspective. Supply Chain Manag. 2024, 29, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rothaermel, F.T.; Deeds, D.L. Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures. J. Bus. Ventur. 2006, 21, 429–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chang, F.Y.M.; Webster, C.M. Influence of innovativeness, environmental competitiveness and government, industry and professional networks on SME export likelihood. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2019, 57, 1304–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hair, J.F.J.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bigliardi, B.; Filippelli, S.; Petroni, A.; Tagliente, L. The digitalization of supply chain: A review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 200, 1806–1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sarkis, J.; Kouhizadeh, M.; Zhu, Q.S. Digitalization and the greening of supply chains. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2021, 121, 65–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Smith, K.G.; Gregorio, D.D. Explaining Entrepreneurial Action, Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating a New Integrated Mindset; Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 129–150. [Google Scholar]
  52. Riedl, R.; Benlian, A.; Hess, T.; Stelzer, D.; Sikora, H. On the relationship between information management and digitalization. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 475–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, Y.; Jia, T.; Chen, J. Recombine supplier-side search via innovation ambidexterity: An empirical study on Hong Kong manufacturing firms. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2019, 49, 178–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. March, J.G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 1991, 2, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Subramani, M. How do suppliers benefit from information technology use in supply chain relationships? MIS Q. 2004, 28, 45–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Suoniemi, S.; Meyer-Waarden, L.; Munzel, A.; Zablah, A.R.; Straub, D. Big data and firm performance: The roles of market-directed capabilities and business strategy. Inf. Manag. 2020, 57, 103365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jtaer 20 00020 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Jtaer 20 00020 g001
Table 1. Distribution of SMEs.
Table 1. Distribution of SMEs.
VariableIndicatorN%VariableIndicatorN%
Operating year (year)<1133.8 Annual sales (million CNY)<1012737
1–2236.7 10–309126.5
2–59628.0 30–50298.5
5–108825.7 50–1503510.2
>1012335.9 >1506117.8
Number of employees0–30026677.6Total assets (million CNY)<2021863.6
300–500236.720–404312.5
500–60061.740–100102.9
600–1000144.1100–200185.2
>1000349.9>2005415.7
Table 2. Measurement scale and factor loading.
Table 2. Measurement scale and factor loading.
 ItemsFactor Loading
Supply chain financing performance (SCFP) (AVE = 0.646; CR = 0.844; Cronbach’s α = 0.840)
SCFP1: The interest in supply chain financing is reasonable.0.692
SCFP2: The volume of supply chain financing is flexible.0.840
SCFP3: The period of supply chain financing is flexible.0.868
Exploitative innovation (ETL) (AVE = 0.618; CR = 0.866; Cronbach’s α = 0.864)
ETL1: Utilize the existing resources of the enterprise to improve the efficiency of product upgrades and optimization.0.765
ETL2: Utilize the existing resources of the enterprise for process change or technology improvement.0.819
ETL3: Optimize existing cooperation methods to expand the existing products and services market.0.766
ETL4: Change and optimize the existing organizational structure of the enterprise to expand the scale of operations.0.794
Exploratory innovation (ERL) (AVE = 0.636; CR = 0.874; Cronbach’s α = 0.872)
ERL1: Actively seek new resources to expand markets and partners.0.829
ERL2: Actively expand new business areas and tap new resources.0.822
ERL3: Always devote resources to developing new markets, new opportunities, new products, and new technologies.0.838
ERL4: Continuously introduce new products and new technologies by expanding new relationship networks0.692
Digitalization (DT) (AVE = 0.782; CR = 0.914; Cronbach’s α = 0.913)
DT1: We aim to create stronger networking between the different business processes with digital technologies.0.896
DT2: We share resources and exchange information with our business partners through digital technologies.0.931
DT3: We optimize business cooperation process and enhance cooperation efficiency with digital technologies.0.823
Environmental competitiveness (EC) (AVE = 0.525; CR = 0.768; Cronbach’s α = 0.767)
EC1: The price competition in our market is very fierce.0.733
EC2: Our products are easily imitated.0.714
EC3: We are in a market with many competitors.0.727
Table 3. Correlation coefficients analysis and validity test.
Table 3. Correlation coefficients analysis and validity test.
MeanSDYearSizeSaleAssetSCFPDTETLERLEC
Year3.8301.1061
Size2.1302.0520.417 **1
Sale3.9002.3950.525 **0.747 **1
Asset3.0402.7840.488 **0.843 **0.809 **1
SCFP3.1911.164−0.060−0.086−0.083−0.0760.804
DT3.3661.117−0.0140.074−0.0270.0590.169 **0.884
ETL4.2060.781−0.098−0.193 **−0.106 *−0.130 *0.220 **0.266 **0.786
ERL3.8400.9560.0320.107 *0.111 *0.157 **0.0580.291 **0.273 **0.797
EC4.3230.726−0.116 *−0.180 **−0.111 *−0.141 **0.109 *0.0650.331 **0.139 *0.725
Notes: SCFP is supply chain financing performance; DT is digitalization; ETL is exploitative innovation; ERL is exploratory innovation; EC is environmental competitiveness. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 4. Direct effect and mediating effect tests.
Table 4. Direct effect and mediating effect tests.
VariableSCFPETLERLSCFPSCFP
M1M2M3M4M5
Year−0.020−0.051−0.053−0.011−0.019
(−0.321)(−0.840)(−0.863)(−0.182)(−0.304)
Size−0.090−0.345 ***−0.126−0.029−0.087
(−0.879)(−3.555)(−1.286)(−0.281)(−0.852)
Sale0.0010.1430.060−0.0240.000
(0.014)(1.552)(0.642)(−0.249)(0.002)
Asset−0.0020.0530.224 *−0.011−0.006
(−0.017)(0.475)(2.004)(−0.098)(−0.054)
DT0.176 **0.292 ***0.288 ***0.125 *0.17 **
(3.254)(5.663)(5.530)(2.230)(3.014)
ETL 0.176 **
(3.120)
ERL 0.019
(0.338)
R20.0390.1270.1100.0660.039
F2.7209.8338.3583.9482.280
DW0.5772.0382.0390.6750.573
Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Values in parentheses are t statistics.
Table 5. Bootstrap analysis of the mediating effect.
Table 5. Bootstrap analysis of the mediating effect.
PathEffectBootSEBootLLCIBootULCI
DT==>ETL==>SFCPIndirect0.05350.02160.01580.1004
Direct0.12980.0660−0.00040.2620
Total0.18330.06200.06300.3030
DT==>ERL==>SFCPIndirect0.00580.0199−0.03540.0445
Direct0.17760.06610.04580.3064
Total0.18330.06200.06300.3030
Table 6. The moderating effect test of EC.
Table 6. The moderating effect test of EC.
VariableSCFPSCFPSCFPETLETLETLERLERLERL
M6M7M8M9M10M11M12M13M14
Year−0.02−0.014−0.018−0.051−0.03−0.026−0.053−0.043−0.046
(−0.321)(−0.224)(−0.291)(−0.840)(−0.52)(−0.454)(−0.863)(−0.704)(−0.771)
Size−0.09−0.07−0.085−0.345 ***−0.278 **−0.264 **−0.126−0.094−0.108
(−0.879)(−0.680)(−0.828)(−3.555)(−2.966)(−2.821)(−1.286)(−0.956)(−1.101)
Sale0.001−0.0070.0030.1430.1150.1060.0600.0460.056
(−0.014)(−0.072)(−0.032)(−1.552)(−1.303)(−1.198)(−0.642)(−0.500)(−0.604)
Asset−0.002−0.003−0.0010.0530.0490.0470.224 *0.222 *0.224 *
(−0.017)(−0.026)(−0.007)(−0.475)(−0.465)(−0.448)(−2.004)(−2.006)(−2.034)
ZDT0.176 ***0.169 **0.147 **0.292 ***0.268 ***0.290 ***0.288 ***0.276 ***0.256 ***
(−3.254)(−3.121)(−2.675)(−5.663)(−5.420)(−5.773)(−5.530)(−5.338)(−4.869)
ZEC 0.0830.088 0.280 ***0.275 *** 0.135 *0.140 **
(−1.523)(−1.622) (−5.611)(−5.539) (−2.596)(−2.697)
ZDT × ZEC 0.113 * −0.109 * 0.106 *
(−2.082) (−2.198) (−2.036)
R20.0250.0450.0580.1270.2020.2130.1100.1280.138
F2.7202.6622.9249.83314.18412.9868.3588.2077.629
DW0.5770.6110.4582.0382.0792.1082.0392.0552.049
Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Values in parentheses are t statistics.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lu, Q.; Qin, W.; Yan, R.; Zhang, S.; Ma, L. The Effect of SMEs’ Digitalization on Supply Chain Financing Performance: Based on the Resource Orchestration Theory. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20010020

AMA Style

Lu Q, Qin W, Yan R, Zhang S, Ma L. The Effect of SMEs’ Digitalization on Supply Chain Financing Performance: Based on the Resource Orchestration Theory. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2025; 20(1):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20010020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lu, Qiang, Wangzhe Qin, Rui Yan, Songbo Zhang, and Lianyao Ma. 2025. "The Effect of SMEs’ Digitalization on Supply Chain Financing Performance: Based on the Resource Orchestration Theory" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 20, no. 1: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20010020

APA Style

Lu, Q., Qin, W., Yan, R., Zhang, S., & Ma, L. (2025). The Effect of SMEs’ Digitalization on Supply Chain Financing Performance: Based on the Resource Orchestration Theory. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 20(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20010020

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop