You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Sustainability
  • Article
  • Open Access

14 June 2023

The Nexus between Industrial Parks and the Sustainability of Small and Medium-Scaled Ventures

,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Management, University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410105, Nigeria
2
Department of Industrial Psychology & People Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
3
Department of Business Administration, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka 420110, Nigeria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability

Abstract

Investigations on industrial parks appear to be slim with inadequate statistical data in spite of their growing connectedness with sustainability and the importance of their establishment. They were required to curb the overarching challenges of small and medium-scaled ventures (SMVs). To revert the status quo and justify the call for the timeliness of empiricism in this regard, the study investigated the extent to which industrial parks (IPs) impact the sustainability of SMVs. Specifically, it hypothesizes that competition among IP firms affects innovativeness and that government tax incentives impact the cost efficiency of SMVs in Enugu State in Nigeria. Empirical data for the study’s analyses were gathered from the distributive trade, manufacturing, agriculture and allied products, and commerce and tourism sub-sectors of SMVs in the Enugu metropolis, Enugu State, Nigeria. Adopting a descriptive survey design, 711 staff members from the aforementioned SMV sub-sectors in Enugu State, Nigeria were included as the research population. The regression analytics tool was used to analyze the data, following collection, using a structured questionnaire. The study’s results indicate that competition had a significant positive impact on SMVs’ innovativeness in the Enugu metropolis (R = 0.575, β = 0.283, t = 6.794, p = 0.000 < 0.05), while the government’s tax incentive had a significant positive impact on SMVs’ cost-effectiveness (R = 0.267, β = 0.213, t = 6.472, p = 0.000 < 0.05). Therefore, the study concluded that the pursuit of sustainability stimulated competition, resulting in higher levels of innovativeness, while government support in the form of tax incentives helped to lower SMVs’ costs of operating in the parks. As a result, SMVs can maintain viability through a well-planned structure of the industrial park.

1. Introduction and Hypotheses Development

Sustainability has become crucial, owing to the decisive contributions of small and medium-sized ventures (SMVs) in raising living standards and advancing the economy. This can be achieved by gathering SMVs in specific locations close to key inputs (raw materials, labor, and machinery), infrastructure, and target markets [1]. These businesses are typically innovative within industrial parks, maximizing the potential of constrained resources to further achieve cost efficiency (via business value chains and lower transaction costs). By incorporating strategic skills and all other pertinent elements, this strategy also aids to enhance the competitiveness of clustered ventures through product specialization [2,3,4]. Important components of an industrial park can include a collaborative and competitive atmosphere, a suitable location, linked or supporting businesses, governmental rules in the form of tax incentive schemes, and tactical measures that promote productivity and innovativeness [5,6,7].
The idea of an industrial park (IP) was first introduced in Great Britain and Germany in the 1930s and 1963s, respectively, at a time when the majority of large corporations’ activities concentrated on research and development projects for nuclear power, data processing, and technological advancement. In the early 1960s, government agencies gave small- and medium-sized businesses the attention that they needed in the area of fundamental infrastructure development to support their viability. To improve sustainability and environmental performance, the concept became more prominent in the 1990s as a way of evaluating connections between industries and the environment from a system viewpoint. Since then, industrial parks have developed into a global network of businesses that collaborate within a given geographic area [8]. Contrary to emerging economies, industrial parks have undergone extraordinary growth on a variety of scales, contributing considerably to higher economic development in developed nations. Industrial layout, business/manufacturing district, high-tech parks, or production zones are all synonyms for the term industrial park. To lower the associated costs of infrastructural development and to attract new investors, the development of industrial parks was justified by the ideology of allocating specialized facilities in designated zones. This had the ultimate objective of reducing some adverse externalities impact on the social and ecological scale as a result of industrial activities on the environment [8,9]. Some of the intrinsic advantages enjoyed by businesses operating within the industrial park include these positive conditions (tax incentives, innovation, cost-efficiency, and competitiveness). In terms of its competitiveness, SMVs are spurred to offer value-added commodities continually, observing the gains of cost-efficiency, since resource proximity is evidenced, while innovation capacity is heightened and government tax incentives become available [7].
Industrialization and SMV growth in developing nations depend on the advancement of industrial parks. The formulation and implementation of government tax incentive policies should ideally consider this concentration of businesses in a specific area to foster innovation, competitive advantage (business specialization), and cost-effectiveness among businesses that operate in industrial parks. This is particularly true in developed nations where the central government has created an environment that is favorable for the growth of industrial parks with businesses thriving by increasing their competitiveness through knowledge symmetry, simple access to raw materials, and the development of innovative capabilities owing to the presence of necessary infrastructure [10]. In Nigeria, the situation is currently the opposite; SMVs struggle to stay afloat owing to deteriorating infrastructure, multiple taxes, and extortion of businesses by government revenue officers; all of which tend to thwart their efforts and activities, whilst compounded by other environmental difficulties. The rapid development of IPs has also led to an increase in environmental problems including resource depletion, climate change, environmental emissions, and solid waste management [11,12]. However, the economic benefits frequently come at the expense of the quality of the environment in and surrounding industrial parks. The overall well-being of society as a whole is at risk since environmental concerns are frequently not completely considered and integrated into the planning and building of industrial parks [13]. Industrial park development has been hampered early on in Africa, particularly in Nigeria, by an unstable political climate and inconsistent policy. In a bid to provide an institutional framework for industrialization, contemporary service delivery, and the development of social infrastructure, the Nigerian Industrial Park Pilot Project was founded in Cross Rivers State in the early 1990s [14]. It was envisioned that SMVs would be able to achieve cost efficiency in the area of expenditures to further enhance sustainability by providing government tax incentives, but these have all proven abortive [15].
Sustainability for SMVs is a strategy to generate genuine value for the resources and systems upon which it depends. Based on this, it is regarded as a process for research and decision-making across organizational activities, acquired by a committed and correct comprehension of the occurrence of changes in the present or future. Thus, if an SMV achieves equilibrium with its unique resources, innovative capabilities/competitiveness, and the environment in which it operates, it is said to be sustainable. Burlea-Schiopoiu and Mihai [16] and Lee, Park, Yoon, and Park [17] discuss innovativeness as a characteristic of sustainability. According to the authors, 56% of SMVs have been shown to learn about innovativeness through the competition since it involves the introduction of a commodity that offers better value than the one in existence. Maula, Keil, and Salmenkaita [18] aver that because the establishment of business clusters entails concentrating businesses in an exclusive environment, it avails the potential for sustainability. To achieve this, business executives must employ integrated partnerships with the government as there is an overwhelming demand for governments and firms to revamp the business environment by re-engineering industrial parks [19]. This has also been necessitated owing to recent calls by scholars around its influence on the continuing accomplishments of SMVs. The foregoing illustrates an inconclusive debate concerning the extent to which industrial parks affect nations, start-ups, or the economy, as the literature presents contradictory and conflicting reports. In terms of novelty, extant literature focuses primarily on industrial parks in advanced countries and multinationals, with little or no attention paid to nascent enterprises in developing countries. This, therefore, motivates scholarly attention in this direction and the investigation of the topic under study.

Study Hypotheses

The study’s primary goal was to examine industrial parks and the viability of small- and medium-sized ventures in Enugu State, Nigeria. The hypotheses presented below were formulated in this respect.
HA1: 
Competition among firms in the IPs affects the innovativeness of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria.
H01: 
Competition among firms in the IPs does not affect the innovativeness of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria.
HA2: 
Government tax incentives impact the cost efficiency of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria.
H02: 
Government tax incentives do not impact the cost efficiency of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria.

3. Materials and Method

The descriptive survey method was adopted to conduct the study and to synthesize, integrate, and evaluate the collected data. To extract both factual and interpretive information, the collection of data was conducted, using a well-structured questionnaire, constructed by utilizing the topic-specific Five (5) Point Likert scale questions, and drawn for easy comprehension. Validation of the instrument was measured by using both content and face validity led by SMV stakeholders and academic experts. This was performed to ascertain the correctness of the instrument and its ability to address the research hypotheses. While ensuring the instrument’s reliability and consistency, a test–re-test method was applied, which is a repeated administering of the survey instrument that was conducted within a two-week period. In doing so, the length of time between the administration and retrieval was considered because the shorter the time, the higher the correlation, and vice versa. The reliability result, using Cronbach Alpha, provided a 0.72 value, demonstrating consistency and a high degree of dependability of the questionnaire items. To determine the sample size, the Trek [71] statistical method was adopted, which yielded a value of 250. A total of 711 employees from the four (4) selected sub-sectors of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria, were cited as the research population. These sub-sectors included manufacturing, agriculture and allied products, distribution trade, and commerce and tourism, while justification of the population set, and sub-sectors was based on their commercial viability, economic contributions, and involvement in business operations. In gathering the data, 250 copies of the survey were distributed to respondents based on the determined sample size. Only the owners and top executives of these SMVs were allowed to respond to the survey since they possessed the required knowledge to provide accurate information regarding the questionnaire items. The study instrument recovered with 218 (87.2%) completed copies, while 32 (12.8%) were not. The hypotheses were analyzed, using the regression analysis methods. Using the research analytics’ decision criteria as a guide, the researchers rejected the null hypothesis if the calculated value was at a 5% significance level with the appropriate degree of freedom greater than the table value. If not, they did not accept it.

4. Results and Discussion

This section presents the respondents’ responses to the survey items based on the specific hypotheses of the study, illustrated in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8.
Table 1. The location of the park is a source of strength for the engaged firms.
Table 2. The variety in the company’s products and services creates uniqueness.
Table 3. Advertisement costs are eliminated owing to the centrality of the cluster.
Table 4. Social media advertising is an inventive means used by firms.
Table 5. Branding does not affect the market share of firms offering similar goods.
Table 6. Model Summary b.
Table 7. ANOVA.
Table 8. Model Summary.
H1A: 
Competition among firms in the IP affects the innovativeness of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria.
Table 1 above indicates that of the 218 respondents, 59 (27.06%) strongly agreed, 48 (21.55%) agreed, 21 (9.63%) were undecided, 41 (18.80%) disagreed, and 49 (22.47%) strongly disagreed with the statement that the location of the park is a source of strength for the firms in it.
Table 2 above indicates that of the 218 respondents, 56 (25.68%) strongly agreed, 35 (16.05%) agreed, 26 (11.92%) were undecided, 42 (19.26%) disagreed, and 59 (27.06%) strongly disagreed with the statement that the variety in the company’s products and services creates a distinctiveness for each firm’s commodities.
Table 3 above shows that of the 218 respondents, 61 (27.98%) strongly agreed, 44 (20.18%) agreed, 26 (11.92%) were undecided, 40 (18.34%) disagreed, and 47 (21.55%) strongly disagreed with the statement that advertising is not necessary owing to customers being aware of the parks’ locations.
Table 4 above indicates that of the 218 respondents, 60 (27.52%) strongly agreed, 36 (16.51%) agreed, 27 (12.38%) were undecided, 47 (21.55%) disagreed, and 48 (22.01%) strongly disagreed with the statement that social media advertising is a new strategy that firms use to reach more customers.
Table 5 above indicates that of the 218 respondents, 45 (20.64%) strongly agreed, 44 (20.18%) agreed, 31 (14.22%) were undecided, 49 (22.47%) disagreed, and 49 (22.47%) strongly disagreed with the statement that branding does not affect customer numbers in spite of similar offerings.
Model 1: INN = β0 + β COM + µ1.
In testing this hypothesis, the data presented in Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 was analyzed. The results of the regression on innovativeness (INN) and competition (COM) are shown below.

4.1. Discussion of the Results for Hypothesis One

With a correlation value (R) of 0.575, Table 6 shows that competition and the creativity of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria, are positively correlated. The model successfully explains 6.3% of the variance of the dependent variable, according to the coefficient of determination (R square). The low standard error of the estimate, with a value of 0.88545, served as proof that the regression model was adequate. According to the 0.137 Durbin–Watson statistic, which was not more than 2, there was no autocorrelation. The variation that the model explains was not a random variation because the significance value of the F statistic (0.000) was less than 0.05. The F-test, which employed an F-distribution, assessed the overall relevance of the model. The competition coefficient of 0.575, which was statistically significant (t = 6.794), demonstrates the relationship between the innovativeness of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria, and their competitiveness. This led to the conclusion that competition significantly and positively affects the innovativeness of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria (R = 0.575, β = 0.283, t = 6.794, p = 0.000 < 0.05). This finding concurs with those of Evans and Appolonius [65], Zhongwei Cao, Jiang Xu, Zhiyuan Liu [66], and Yayan, Suryana, Eeng, and Hari [67], who confirmed that competitive strategy has a significant positive outcome on organizational performance in Nairobi County, Kenya; there is a positive correlation between the level of competition faced by SMEs and how well they perform in internationalization and that innovation has a substantial positive influence on competitiveness. The fact that the modern business environment is extremely competitive and forces companies to fully utilize their innovative capabilities to stay relevant and gain a greater advantage in the global business setting is one of the reasons why the aforementioned explanations are considered to be credible.
H2A: 
Government tax incentive impacts the cost efficiency of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria.
Table 9 below indicates that of the 218 respondents, 75 (34.40%) strongly agreed, 31 (14.22%) agreed, 19 (8.71%) were undecided, 45 (20.64%) disagreed, and 48 (22.01%) strongly disagreed with the statement that due to operating in the park are non-existent.
Table 9. Business premise dues are eliminated for operators in the park.
Table 10 below indicates that of the 218 respondents, 61 (27.98%) strongly agreed, 33 (15.13%) agreed, 30 (13.76%) were undecided, 47 (21.55%) disagreed, and 47 (21.55%) strongly disagreed with the statement that the close nature of raw materials that firms require is key to the citing of parks.
Table 10. The nearness of raw materials is central to the citing of industrial parks by the government.
Table 11 below indicates that of the 2I8 respondents, 46 (21.10%) strongly agreed, 51 (23.39%) agreed, 21 (9.63%) were undecided, 50 (22.93%) disagreed, and 50 (22.98%) strongly disagreed with the statement that the government shares exportation costs to motivate firms.
Table 11. Export expenses are cut down through governments’ involvement in the parks.
Table 12 below indicates that of the 218 respondents, 54 (24.00%) strongly agreed, 29 (13.30%) agreed, 27 (12.38%) were undecided, 55 (25.22%) disagreed, and 53 (24.31%) strongly disagreed with the statement that there are laws in place to protect local companies against foreign counterparts.
Table 12. The government established policies to protect local firms against foreign competition.
Table 13 below indicates that of the 218 respondents, 58 (26.60%) strongly agreed, 44 (20.18%) agreed, 24 (11.00%) were undecided, 42 (19.26%) disagreed, and 50 (22.93%) strongly disagreed with the statement that the establishment of clusters ensures a rise in start-ups.
Model 2: CE = β0 + β1 GTI + µ1.
Table 13. Industrial parks act as a means of encouraging local start-ups by the government.
In testing this hypothesis, the data presented in Table 14, Table 15 and Table 16 was analyzed. The results of the regression on cost efficiency (CE) and government tax incentive (GTI) are presented below.
Table 14. Model Summary.
Table 15. ANOVA.
Table 16. Coefficients.

4.2. Discussion of the Results to Hypothesis Two

The correlation coefficient R in Table 14, with a value of 0.267, shows that there was a correlation between government tax incentives and the cost efficiency of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria. The model explains 7.1% of the variance in the dependent variable, according to the coefficient of determination (R square). The regression model’s applicability was shown by the estimate’s low standard error, which had a value of 0.64762. The 0.120 Durbin-Watson statistics, which were not more than 2, indicate that there was no autocorrelation. Given that the F statistics’ significance value (0.000) was less than 0.05, the fluctuation that the model predicted was not random. The F-test, which used an F-distribution, quantified the model’s overall significance. The cost efficiency of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria, had a link with government tax incentives, as indicated by the identifying new markets coefficient of 0.267, which was statistically significant (t = 6.472). The cost-effectiveness of SMVs in Enugu State, Nigeria, was, therefore, found to be significantly and positively impacted by government tax incentives (r = 0.267, β = 0.213, t = 6.472, p = 0.000 < 0.05). This result concurs with Wasiu’s [70] findings, according to which several governmental regulations, such as intervention funds given through the nation’s Bank of Industry, the incorporation of entrepreneurship into school curricula, and the restriction of imported goods that are similar to those made locally, amongst others, tend to lessen the negative effects of environmental factors on SMEs’ productivity in the Ibadan Metropolis. In contrast to the aforementioned claims, Olufemi et al. [69] mention that monetary policies (high-interest rate) and money supply drive or restrain Nigeria’s economic growth, while trade policies continue to hurt the economy both in the short and long term. Theoretically, the researcher’s contrasting viewpoint boils down to the notion that excellent and effective government policies (in the field of GTI) have a huge potential to promote an enterprise’s cost efficiency over the long term, owing to the built-in incentives and other supporting factors (subsidies, tax holidays, and single digit interest rates, amongst others).

5. Conclusions

Any country’s capacity to harness commerce and commercialize all economic sectors is a key factor in determining whether it will experience complete economic growth and development. Nations’ capacity to maintain a work environment, where ventures can use their special resources, core competencies, and capabilities rests on their ability to create functional industrial parks. Establishing industrial parks is a proven technique to enhance the sustainability of SMV operations. The IP has become a strategy, which the majority of advanced and industrialized nations/economies currently use as a means of enhancing, coordinating, and monitoring businesses operating in their commercial eco-systems. Since SMVs’ management, government, and industrialists are all involved in the process to produce long-term viability, productivity, and sustainability, the establishment of industrial parks is starting to transform how significant sectors of the economy operate. Hence, it has become evident throughout the conduct of this study that the pursuit of sustainability in terms of innovativeness stimulates competitiveness, resulting in higher levels of productivity. Furthermore, IP’s attractiveness to SMVs depends on the availability of government support through tax incentives, which help to lower operational costs. It is thus concluded that industrial parks influence the sustainability of SMVs in the Enugu metropolis of Nigeria.

Policy Implications

The study provides the following policy implications in line with the declared conclusion:
  • Companies operating in industrial parks must maintain their innovativeness by delivering and offering goods that cater for industrial, economic, and home demands, as this increases the required, sustained competitiveness for the parks to survive;
  • SMVs have been plagued by insufficient support systems. Governments must establish laws and offer tools to support and encourage SMVs, since this allows them to plan and carry out their duties more efficiently while reducing the excess that the government takes care of currently.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.O.N. and F.E.M.; Methodology, F.E.M. and P.N.O.; Software, P.N.O. and U.G.M.; Validation, V.A.O. and W.I.U.; Formal analysis, R.O.N., V.A.O., F.E.M. and U.G.M.; Investigation, F.E.M., P.N.O. and U.G.M.; Resources, R.O.N., V.A.O., W.I.U., P.N.O. and U.G.M.; Data curation, F.E.M. and U.G.M.; Writing—original draft, R.O.N. and F.E.M.; Writing—review & editing, V.A.O. and W.I.U.; Visualization, W.I.U.; Supervision, V.A.O.; Project administration, V.A.O. and W.I.U.; Funding acquisition, W.I.U. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received no external funding from any agency in the commercial or not-for profit sectors.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Management, University of Nigeria, Nsukka (protocol code: DM-2022-015 and date of approval: 12 August 2022).

Data Availability Statement

Primary data was used for the study which was provided by persons in the study. As such, there are no links to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study.

Acknowledgments

We hereby acknowledge the proofreader and editor of our manuscript, Shamila Sulayman for her outstanding grammarian support towards the final stage of the article. Also, appreciate the independent reviewers for their insightful comments; and not forgetting Emmanuel K. Agbaeze and Very Rev. Fr. Anthony A. Igwe for their assessments and support which was positioned towards addressing issues through robust academic scholarship.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no potential conflict of interest concerning the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Olokundun, M.A.; Ibidunni, A.S.; Peter, F.; Amaihian, A.B.; Moses, C.L.; Iyiola, O.O. Experiential pedagogy and shared vision: A focus on identification of business opportunities by Nigerian students. J. Entrep. Educ. 2017, 20, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ibidunni, A.S.; Ogunnaike, O.O.; Abiodun, A.J. Extending the knowledge strategy concept: Linking organizational knowledge with strategic orientations. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2017, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  3. Adeniji, A.; Osibanjo, A.O.; Abiodun, A.J.; Oni-Ojo, E.E. Corporate image: A strategy for enhancing customer loyalty and profitability. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Business Information Management Association Conference, Valencia, Spain, 13–14 May 2014; Volume 1, pp. 1687–1695. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ogunnaike, O.O.; Ade-Turton, D.; Ogbari, M.E. Higher education marketing: Does corporate quality matter? In Proceedings of the 23rd International Business Information Management Association Conference, Valencia, Spain, 13–14 May 2014; pp. 2846–2861. [Google Scholar]
  5. Delgado, M.; Porter, M.E.; Stern, S. Defining clusters of related industries. J. Econ. Geogr. 2016, 16, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ketels, C. Recent research on competitiveness and clusters: What are the implications for regional policy? Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2013, 6, 269–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Feser, E.; Renski, H.; Goldstein, H. Clusters and economic development outcomes. Econ. Dev. Q. 2008, 22, 324–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, Z.Y.; Geng, S.; Ulgiati, H.S.; Park, F.; Tsuyoshi, O.H.; Wang, H. Uncovering key factors influencing one industrial park’s sustainability: A combined evaluation method of energy analysis and index decomposition analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sergey, S. Industrial clusters in Russia: The development of special economic zones and industrial parks. Russ. J. Econ. 2017, 3, 174–199. [Google Scholar]
  10. Antonelli, C. Collective knowledge communication and innovation: The evidence of technological districts. Reg. Stud. 2000, 34, 535–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Onyekwelu, N.P.; Okoro, O.A.; Nwaise, N.D.; Monyei, E.F. Waste management and public health: An analysis of Nigeria’s healthcare sector. J. Public Health Epidemiol. 2022, 14, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dong, H.; Geng, Y.; Xi, F.; Fujita, T. Carbon footprint evaluation at industrial park level: A hybrid life cycle assessment approach. Energy Policy 2013, 57, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. UNEP/SEPA. Environmental Management of Industrial Estates and Zones in China; Workshop Report; UNEP/SEPA: Beijing, China, 2002; pp. 11–13. [Google Scholar]
  14. Osibanjo, A.O.; Ibidunni, A.S.; Jevwegaga, H.; Adebanji, A.W.; Olokundun, M.A.; Obaoye, D. Industrial clustering and performance of technology-based SMEs in Nigeria: Does firm age and size have any influence? Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2019, 10, 2242–2249. Available online: http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=1 (accessed on 22 June 2022).
  15. McNall, S.; Hershauer, J.; Basile, G. The Business of Sustainability; Praeger: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  16. Burlea-Schiopoiu, A.; Mihai, S.L. An Integrated Framework on the Sustainability of SMEs; Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Craiova: Craiova, Romania, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lee, S.; Park, G.; Yoon, B.; Park, J. Open innovation in SMEs: An intermediated network model. Research Policy 2010, 39, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maula, M.V.J.; Keil, T.; Salmenkaita, J.P. Open innovation in a systemic innovation context. In Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm; Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  19. Yu, F.; Han, F.; Cui, Z. Evolution of industrial symbiosis in an eco-industrial park in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bertalanffy, L.V. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, and Application; George Brazillar: New York, NY, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  21. Laszlo, A.; Krippner, S. Systems theories: Their origins, foundations, and development. In Systems Theories and a Priori Aspects of Perception; Jordan, J.S., Ed.; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998; pp. 47–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kuhn, A. The Logic of Social Systems; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  23. Anekwe, R.I.; Ndubusi-Okolo, P.; Uzoezie, C. Sustainability in the Nigerian business environment: Problems and prospects. Int. J. Acad. Manag. Sci. Res. 2019, 3, 72–80. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nwachukwu, C.C. Management Theory and Practice; African First Publishers: Onitsha, Nigeria, 2007; pp. 9–10. [Google Scholar]
  25. Samah, A.S.; Ahmed, A.; Tamer, A.E. The effect of applying imperial research on sustainable industrial areas (SIA) approach. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2020, 13, 3194–3207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Santi, S. Using cluster analysis study to examine the successful performance of entrepreneurs in Indonesia. Innovation and sustainability in SME development (ICSMED). Procedia Econ. Financ. 2012, 4, 286–298. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jose, C.P.; Tulio, C.; Simon, L.; Caio, P. Industrial Clusters and Economic Performance in Brazil. Inter-American Development Bank. Felipe Herrera Library. 2013. Available online: www.josepires@iadb.org (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  28. Osmond, O.U.; Andreas, K.; Alfons, L.; Axel, S.; Karl, W. Small and Medium Scale Enterprises Cluster Development in the South-Eastern Region of Nigeria. Berichte aus dem Weltwirtschaftlichen Colloquium der Universitat Bremen, Nr, 86. 2004. Available online: http://www.iwim.uni-bremen.de (accessed on 2 March 2023).
  29. Gudda, P. Clustering and product innovativeness: A literature review of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Kenya. Int. J. Acad. Res. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2017, 6, 2226–3624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ahsan, M.; Ming, K.L.; Louise, K. Sustaining competitive advantage in SMEs. 2nd International (European) Conference on Asia Pacific Business Innovation & Technology Management. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 25, 408–412. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wawan, D.; Eko, A.P.; Sudrajati, R.; Sri, H.; Rendra, C.; Qorri, A.; Bayuningrate, R.H.; Evy, R. Moderating effect of the cluster on firm’s innovation capability and business performance: A conceptual framework. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 65, 867–872. [Google Scholar]
  32. WBG. Mainstreaming Eco-Industrial Parks; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  33. Van-Berkel, R. Regional Resource Synergies for Sustainable Development in Heavy Industrial Areas: An Overview of Opportunities and Experiences; The Curtin University of Technology: Perth, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  34. Thanh, T.C.; Thi-Hoai, H.H.; Thi, Y.L. Impacts of industrial park development on the surroundings’ livelihood. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Agyekum-Mensah, G.; Knight, A.; Coffey, C. 4Es and 4 Poles model of sustainability: Redefining sustainability in the built environment. Struct. Surv. 2012, 30, 426–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. WCED. Sustainable Development: Process and Indicators; WCED World Bank: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  37. Nidumolu, R.; Pralahad, K.C.; Rangaswami, E. Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation; Harvard Business Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tansley, W.K. The impact of competition on performance of firms in the mobile telecommunication sector in Kenya. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2014, 4, 2250–3153. [Google Scholar]
  39. Joekes, S.P.; Evans, P. Competition and Development of the Power of Competitive Markets; International Development Research Centre: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  40. Cooke, A.M. Effects of Competition on Performance, and the Underlying Psychophysiological Mechanisms. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  41. Porter, M.E. The Competitive Advantage of Nations; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mary, N.K.; Mary, N.; Stephen, M. Effect of innovation on firm competitiveness: The case of manufacturing SMEs in Nairobi county, Kenya. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2019, 18, 307–327. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lall, S. Competitiveness indices and developing countries: An economic evaluation of the global competitiveness report. World Dev. 2001, 29, 1501–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pedraza, M. How to Evaluate Competitiveness: Which Economic Indicators to Use. 2014. Available online: https//www.researchgate.net (accessed on 15 August 2022).
  45. Buzzigoli, L.; Viviani, A. Firm and System Competitiveness: Problems of Definition, Measurement and Analysis; Firenze University Press: Firenze, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  46. Buckley, P.J.; Pass, C.L.; Prescott, K. Measures of international competitiveness: A critical survey. J. Mark. Manag. 1988, 4, 175–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Liargovas, P.; Skandalis, K. Factors affecting firm competitiveness: The case of the Greek industry. Eur. Inst. J. 2010, 2, 184–197. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tellis, G.J.; Prabhu, J.C.; Chandy, R.K. Radical innovation across nations: The pre-eminence of the corporate culture. J. Mark. 2009, 73, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Terziovski, M. Building Innovation Capability in Organizations: An International Cross-Case Perspective; Imperial College Press: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  50. Williams, A.M.; Shaw, G. Internationalization and innovation in tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 27–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bresnahan, T. General purpose technologies. Handb. Econ. Innov. 2010, 2, 761–791. [Google Scholar]
  52. Schumpeter, J.A. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1934. [Google Scholar]
  53. Monyei, F.E.; Onyekwelu, P.N.; Emmanuel, I.E.; Taiwo, O.S. Linking safety net schemes and poverty alleviation in Nigeria. Int. J. Community Soc. Dev. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Okojie, C.E.E. Policy space for capital control and macroeconomic stability: Lessons from emerging economies. Econ. Financ. Rev. 2013, 51, 8. [Google Scholar]
  55. Aguolu, O. Taxation and Tax Management in Nigeria; Revised Edition; Meridan Associates: Enugu, Nigeria, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ezejelue, A.C.; Ihendinihu, D. Basic Principles in Managing Research Projects; Africana: Onitsha, Nigeria, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  57. Okauru, I.O. How corporate Nigerians can maximize on the provisions of tax incentives for private sector contribution to sports development. In Proceedings of the National Sports Commission Stakeholders Conference, Abuja, Nigeria, 26 January 2009. [Google Scholar]
  58. Adeyemi, W.A.; Adewale, J.A.; Kolawole, F. Influence of Cost Efficiency on Performance of Nigerian Listed Deposit Money Banks. J. Econ. Financ. Manag. Stud. 2020, 3, 276–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Adjei-Frimpong, K.; Gan, C.; Hu, B. Cost efficiency of Ghana’s banking industry: A panel data analysis. Int. J. Bus. Financ. Res. 2014, 8, 69–86. [Google Scholar]
  60. Gichuki, C. Effect of Cost Management Strategies on the Financial Performance of Manufacturing Companies Listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ikpefan, O.; Okorie, U.; Agwu, M.; Achugamonu, B. Bank capitalization and cost of equity on the profitability of Nigeria deposit money banks–general moment approach. Int. Rev. Manag. Bus. Res. 2014, 3, 1928–1947. [Google Scholar]
  62. Le, T.Y.; Pham, V.H. The impact of industrial zone investment and development on the land loss people’s incomes: A case study in Thai Nguyen Province, Vietnam. Int. J. Econ. Commer. Manag. 2016, 4, 330–342. [Google Scholar]
  63. Daniel, M.Q.; Isaac, M. Industrial Cluster and Competitive Advantage of Micro-Firms: Insight from Wood Industry in Ghana. J. Creat. Bus. Innov. 2017, 3, 170–196. Available online: https://www.journalcbi.com/ (accessed on 12 August 2021).
  64. Rožman, M.; Peša, A.; Rajko, M.; Štrukelj, T. Building Organisational Sustainability during the COVID-19 Pandemic with an Inspiring Work Environment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Evans, V.S.; Appolonius, S.K. Effects of Competitive Strategy on the Performance of Deposit Taking SACCOs in Nairobi County, Kenya. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2016, 8, 30–37. [Google Scholar]
  66. Cao, Z.; Xu, J.; Liu, Z. A study on the impact of competition intensity on internationalization degree and international performance. Adv. Soc. Sci. Educ. Humanit. Res. 2018, 250, 2352–5398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yayan, H.; Suryana; Eeng, A.; Hari, M. The effect of innovation on business competitiveness of small and medium enterprises in Indonesia. Adv. Soc. Sci. Educ. Humanit. Res. 2019, 100, 2352–5428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Efrata, T.C.; Radianto, W.E.D.; Marlina, M.A.E.; Budiono, S.C. The impact of innovation, competitive advantage, and market orientation on a firm’s marketing performance in the garment industry in Indonesia. Adv. Soc. Sci. Educ. Humanit. Res. 2019, 100, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Olufemi, S.A.; Sunday, A.K.; Oluwadamilola, T.F. The impact of government policies on Nigeria’s economic growth (case of fiscal, monetary and trade policies). Future Bus. J. 2021, 7, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wasiu, A.M. Assessment of government policies on small and medium scale enterprises’ productivity in Ibadan metropolis, Oyo State: An empirical survey. Int. J. Res. Bus. Stud. Manag. 2019, 6, 30–39. [Google Scholar]
  71. Trek, S. Statistical Formula for Sample Size Determination. 2004. Available online: https://stattrek.com/statistics/formulas (accessed on 12 October 2022).
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.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.