Next Article in Journal
DSRA-DETR: An Improved DETR for Multiscale Traffic Sign Detection
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of the Quality and Quantity of Antiepileptic Drugs Required in Communities during Large-Scale Disasters: Focused on a Small Local City in Japan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 14
10.3390/su151410860
sustainability-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Building Sustainable Creative Economy in Society through the Mediation Role of Innovation Behavior

by
Widodo Widodo
1,2,*,
Mochamad Bruri Triyono
1,
Putu Sudira
1 and
Farid Mutohhari
1,2
1
Department of Technology and Vocational Education, Yogyakarta State University, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering Education, Universitas Sarjanawiyata Tamansiswa, Yogyakarta 55167, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(14), 10860; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410860
Submission received: 25 March 2023 / Revised: 27 May 2023 / Accepted: 25 June 2023 / Published: 11 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study measures the level of influence of digital competence (DC), green behavior (GB), psychological well-being (PWB), and innovation behavior (IB) in building a sustainable creative economy (SCE). In more depth, the role of IB mediation is tested against the influence of DC, GB, and PWB in building SCE. This study adopts an ex post facto design that involves 294 participating creative industry communities. A Likert scale questionnaire instrument with validated items was used to collect data. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis was used to test the hypothesis of direct influence between variables and the mediating role through path analysis and the bootstrap method. The results of the direct effect test stated that DC, GB, PWB, and IB played significant roles in building SCE. The mediating role of IB was shown to be significant in the influence of DC, GB, and PWB on SCE development. This result provides a signal for the government and society to strive for the growth of DC and GB, which PWB offsets, to boost SCE. The most important thing is to grow IB through these three aspects to build SCE. These results provide specific conveniences for the community to participate in building SCE through the encouragement of the studied aspects.

1. Introduction

Following the declaration of the seventeen sustainable development goals (SDGs) by the United Nations in 2015, the issues of environmental stability, climate change, energy savings, and human welfare have become four major issues that continue to be considered [1,2]. The birth of the SDGs is part of the response to the development of science and technology in the 21st century [3,4]. Moreover, these developments have spawned disruptions to competence and work qualifications in the work industry such that the problem of public welfare regarding job and career security is disrupted as well [1]. In the last decade, people have become increasingly aware of their crucial role in overcoming these problems. An important orientation that is an important concern for the community is the creation of creative economic development (CE) and sustainable society (SS) [5]. Following up on this interest, related institutions that synergize with the world of work industry are starting to think about creating various new jobs based on sustainable development [6]. The orientation, apart from achieving CE and SS goals, is to overcome the gap regarding the limited number of jobs that are not proportional to the large number of the workforce, especially amid the rapid disruption of jobs in the era of digital transformation [7,8]. Based on these aspects, it has been seen that developing skills in the community is the key to achieving this goal [9]. Furthermore, it needs to be considered is that the skills developed must be oriented towards the growth of a sustainable creative economy (SCE) in society [10].
Building SCE in the community requires development efforts that are able to stimulate the birth of the ability to build creative industries in the community to ensure that they are able to respond to current developments. According to reports from [11], innovation behavior (IB) in society determines the main indicators of creativity in society so that creators are able to create something new that has high benefits [12]. In addition, IB provides an overview of the depth and breadth of new aspects that are being built by a person [13]. On the other hand, [14] emphasizes the importance of IB in the midst of scientific and technological developments, bearing in mind that work disruptions that are constantly lurking require the ability to consistently innovate to find new ways to overcome them. In reality, growing IB in society is a difficult job for all people [15]. Most complain about the lack of comprehensive information to provide an overview of innovation (Tóth et al., 2020). This is a crucial issue; [11,16] emphasize that the birth of innovation requires a comprehensive understanding of various sources of information. Moreover, people complain about satisfaction and lack of attention, which cause a lack of fulfillment of people’s needs to innovate [17]. In addition, one last aspect that becomes an obstacle for the community is the awareness of behaving in a sustainable way of life where there is minimal literacy around innovation according to present and future needs [18].
In addressing the low level of IB in the community, various community development and strengthening activities are continuously carried out. To date, several relevant studies have reported three main aspects of IB growth that are oriented toward creating SCE. First, strengthening digital competence (DC) in society must be an important priority. Research from [19,20] provides confidence that literacy and the ability to use digital technology provide a comprehensive understanding. In addition, DC is a response that can be utilized to stimulate creativity that gives birth to IB in the midst of digital transformation developments [21]. Research from [22,23] provides new important signals related to green behavior (GB) in society. GB is one of the important pillars in sustainable development at work [24]. GB describes a green culture related to green jobs that are oriented towards ecosystem welfare [25]. Finally, another important aspect is the psychological well-being (PWB) of the community [26]. PWB is an important capital that describes a prosperous psychological condition and is able to demonstrate a work ethic with a feeling of happiness [27]. This is very important, considering that PWB will spur a person’s motivation to seek new jobs or activities that can be beneficial to him [28].
The importance of these problems illustrates that in the effort to grow SCE in society it is necessary to strengthen certain aspects. The most important thing is that people need to be encouraged to have a high IB to grow skills in creating SCE. Furthermore, in order to have a high IB, DC is needed as a competence for finding sources of information to be converted into innovation materials. GB, which is the characteristic and goal of the SDGs, is very worthy of strengthening to grow SCE-oriented IBs. Lastly, PWB is needed as the main foundation to spur enthusiasm and motivation to innovate in achieving SCE. Departing from this orientation, the present study aims to examine the effects of DC, GB, PWB, and IB on SCE. In addition, IB was tested for its significance as a mediator of DC, GB, and PWB in influencing SCE, with the main consideration that IB is the main determinant of the birth of SCE in society. Finally, the study problem and the purpose of the research raise the following questions:
  • Do DC, GB, PWB, and IB directly affect SCE?
  • Is AI able to act as a significant mediator of the indirect influence of DC, GB, and PWB on SCE?

2. Literature Review

2.1. DC and PWB on GB

GB is one of the seventeen important goals to achieve in the SDGs [1]. GB is defined as societal behavior that leads to the greening of jobs or activities. GB includes behavior in three main dimensions related to environmental stability, public health and safety, and energy saving [29]. Various studies note the urgency of the role of GB in maintaining environmental stability, considering that currently the issue of ecosystem damage is growing [15,30,31]. The main impact is related to the safety and health of people who are threatened [32]. In addition, GB plays an important role in maintaining energy security so that it can be used sustainably [33]. In response to this, several studies have developed important breakthroughs in line with today’s digital transformation. They reveal the same phenomenon, namely, that GB can grow in line with DC which is constructed within society [34,35]. The community states that DC has a role in providing comprehensive information on issues concerning the environment, energy, and welfare, which are important in responding to [36]. DC stimulates awareness and builds literacy, capability, creativity, and criticality in the community about the importance of developing GB to respond to these issues [37,38]. In addition, in the midst of digital transformation, DC has become an important aspect as a fundamental capital in carrying out work processes in almost all fields [7,39]. Thus, DC is seen as being able to answer two important challenges which are currently integrated with each other and have become urgent in the global community regarding the development of SCE in society in the midst of the digital transformation era [37]. In addition to DC, which is strongly thought to be able to construct GB, the issue of PWB in society has been raised by many researchers as important in efforts to grow GB in society [40,41]. PWB is an ideal state in society which includes feelings of pleasure, meaningfulness in life, prosperity, and no symptoms of stress in carrying out activities [42]. Feelings of pleasure provide high motivation for people to green their behavior, as previously reported [43]. In addition, a good mental condition without stress provides resilience and strength in developing the competencies needed at this time [44]. Thus, in essence, DC and PWB have high relevance in achieving the ideal GB, and the importance of these two aspects gives rise to the following hypotheses:
H1: 
DC plays a positive role in constructing GB.
H2: 
PWB plays a positive role in stimulating GB.

2.2. DC, GB, and PWB on IB

According to reports from [11], innovation behavior (IB) in society determines the main indicators of creativity in society such that people are able to create something new that is sustainable [12]. In addition, IB provides an overview of the depth and breadth of new aspects being built by a person [13]. On the other hand, Feng et al. (2021) emphasize the importance of IB in the midst of scientific and technological developments, bearing in mind that work disruptions that are constantly lurking require the ability to consistently innovate in order to find new ways to overcome them. As with forming green behavior, several studies suggest strengthening digital competence in stimulating innovative behavior. In [33], the authors emphasize that current continuous innovation is born because of the creativity in using DT that arises within the individual. Meanwhile, creativity in using DT arises because of systematic technological aspects starting from awareness, literacy, and capability [38]. This is part of the DC systematics and of the foundation for stimulating IB in society. The current innovation trend is innovation in support of the achievement of the SDGs [35]. One of these innovation trends leads to green innovation, which is oriented towards creating jobs that are friendly to the environment, energy efficient, and oriented towards the welfare of SS [45,46]. These innovations can emerge because of work-oriented behavior with these characteristics. GB is one of the most important behaviors that is relevant in stimulating the birth of IB in supporting the SDGs [47]. In addition to covering three important dimensions, GB includes six rethinking behaviors, namely, rethink, refuse, repair, reduce, reuse, and recycle (6R) [34,48]. These 6R behaviors have the general orientation of reducing the negative impact of work and energy consumption on the environment and of making important efforts to recycle the necessities at work [49]. These behaviors have great potential in stimulating the birth of the innovation needed in current and future jobs [50]. On the other hand, strengthening competency capital (DC and GB) in stimulating the birth of IB must be supported by capital from the psychological perspective of society [40,41]. This capital is PWB, which must be owned by the community as an important basis for triggering the birth of motivation to perform a crucial job [26]. Prosperous psychological conditions and being able to demonstrate a happy work ethic play an important role in generating new ideas for the needs of current trend-based renewable innovations [27]. This is very important, considering that PWB strengthens the determination to try to create new activities or jobs that can be beneficial [28]. The fundamental reasons from these studies strengthen and give rise to the following hypotheses:
H3: 
DC plays a positive role in stimulating IB.
H4: 
GB plays a positive role in stimulating IB.
H5: 
PWB plays a positive role in stimulating IB.

2.3. DC, GB, PWB, and IB on SCE

The growth of SCE has become an important orientation following the publication of the seventeen SDGs by the United Nations in 2015. Achieving SCE is not easy, bearing in mind that this requires a special stimulation led by innovation, as reported by [15,51]. Innovation holds an important key in triggering the creation of new, creative, and sustainable jobs [9]. Production and distribution of goods and services that are novel in nature at work certainly require consistent and smooth IB [15]. As an effort to reach IB to build SCE in society, DC has become an important element throughout the era of digital transformation disruption [35,36]. DC is an aspect that can raise awareness to criticality in producing IBs to build SCE [38]. In addition, the development of DT, which is complex and provides comprehensive information, makes it easier for the public to access sources such as materials for creating innovations [35]. Research from [36] has reported that innovation to build SCE in the midst of digital transformation requires green skills that are oriented towards ecosystem sustainability and sustainable development [47]. GB is one of the important behaviors that must be instilled in society, considering the potential for new job opportunities in the future oriented towards green and DT-based jobs [35]. Finally, as has been predicted and revealed by several previous studies, the skill aspect must be balanced with the adequacy of psychological capital [28,40]. PWB must be constructed within the community to spur high motivation and enthusiasm in carrying out innovations that are oriented towards SCE development [43]. Thus, both DC, GB, PWB, and IB have high relevance in achieving SCE. The importance of these four aspects gives rise to the following hypotheses:
H6: 
DC plays a positive role in constructing SCE.
H7: 
GB plays a positive role in constructing SCE.
H8: 
PWB plays a positive role in stimulating SCE.
H9: 
IB plays a positive role in building SCE.

2.4. Mediating Role of IB

The construction and stimulation of SCE are not necessarily influenced by DC, GB, or PWB as a whole. Previous studies have reported the crucial role of innovation as a mediator of the influence of these three aspects on SCE [52]. IB is seen as the main foundation jointly built by DC, GB, and PWB as SCE builders amidst the development of DT. The first reason is that DC is necessary for the community to master as a response to the digital transformation [53]. DC plays a role as a builder of literacy and capability in using DT [38], while DC plays a role in stimulating creative thinking to produce SCE-building innovations [54]. The existence of GB directly plays a role in clarifying the direction of innovation towards the creation of sustainable creative jobs. As reported by [26], SCE, which essentially aims to help achieve the SDGs, requires strong GB as a specific construct. Indirectly, GB which affects the awakening of SCE, stimulates the birth of IB [23]. Furthermore, the strengthening of DC and GB capital in constructing SCE must be supported by capital from a psychological perspective. This capital indirectly triggers the birth of motivation to stimulate the emergence of innovations that are oriented towards the creation of sustainable new jobs [26]. Prosperous psychological conditions and being able to demonstrate a happy work ethic play an important role in generating new ideas for the needs of current trend-based renewable innovations [27]. This is very important, considering that PWB can strengthen the determination to try to create new activities or jobs that can be beneficial [28]. This theory ensures that IB has the potential to act as a significant mediator in bridging the influence of DC, GB, and PWB on SCE, resulting in the following hypotheses:
H10: 
AI significantly mediates the effect of DC on SCE.
H11: 
AI significantly mediates the effect of GB on SCE.
H12: 
AI significantly mediates the effect of PWB on SCE.

3. Materials and Methods

Based on data collected from conditions or events that have occurred, we decided to adopt an ex post facto research method following the design developed in [55]. This was a cross-sectional study where data were collected through a questionnaire that was planned and designed using a statement scheme according to the parameters of each measured variable. In accordance with the procedures in the conceptual framework that were previously strengthened through theoretical studies, both direct and mediating effects were measured based on actual data. We ensured that the direction of research was in line with human resource development policies in Indonesia through the development of creative industries, with a focus on the development of digital transformation and the United Nations SDGs.

3.1. Research Participants

We decided that the participants in this study would be selected based on the criterion of having experience innovating, developing, or creating jobs in the digital transformation era. Regarding this aspect, the experiences found among the participants involved included involvement in formulating an educational tourism village, pioneering environmentally friendly products, and formulating digital-based smart technology to facilitate access to information and education in the village. The next criterion was that the people involved had to have attended intensive training regarding the development of sustainable creative industries organized by relevant stakeholders. Before conducting the research, we conducted an online survey to ascertain the community’s willingness among participants who met the criteria in order to maintain a sufficient level of rationality of the data. The results of simple random sampling based on probabilistic calculations were used to obtain the number of participants (N = 294 people) representing six major cities in Indonesia. The six major cities were determined by considering their achievements in developing sustainable cities in the country as manifested through the awards they received. Of the participants, fifty-two percent were women and the remaining forty-eight percent were men. Fifty-six people involved were people with higher education backgrounds, while the rest were high school graduates. Their ages varied between 24–41 years, for an average of 33 years (SD = 3.68).

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Sustainable Creative Economy (SCE) Scale

The SCE scale was adopted from Fazlagić and Skikiewicz (2019) [56] for the purposes of the formulation and development of this research instrument. The scale was adopted taking into consideration the high level of reliability and validity needed to measure the quality and achievement of SCE in the community at the level of various participant characteristics. This scale consisted of four indicators that were used to analyze and evaluate the level of SCE appearing in society. We re-assessed the level of validity and reliability through retesting with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), obtaining the following items: educated and creative people can develop their talents (LF = 0.759; α = 0.911); focus on maintaining product consistency based on leading market demand (LF = 0.753; α = 0.907); developing local potential as an economic driver (LF = 0.791; α = 0.898); encouraging environmentally friendly economic development (LF = 0.800; α = 0.932); collaborating appropriate technology in appropriate work (LF = 0.758; α = 0.919); and spurring community economic growth (LF = 0.790; α = 0.903). This instrument adopted a 5-point Likert Scale type starting from a score of 1 (very inappropriate) to 5 (completely appropriate).

3.2.2. Innovation Behavior (IB)

IB measurement was carried out by referring to the strength of the indicators as a parameter owned by the community in generating new ideas or ideas and their applications. In measuring IB in creative economy societies, we followed the parameters from [12,13,57], which were then re-tested to ensure the appropriate level of validity and reliability. Of the five IB indicators, four received confirmation of a high level of validity and reliability and they were used for measurement; these included analysis of potential future product or service requirements (LF = 0.905; α = 0.922); cultivating innovative scientific experiments (LF = 0.890; α = 0.917); high flexibility in implementing new ideas (LF = 0.895; α = 0.901); and cultivating the application of collaborative ideas in increasing the consistency of results (LF = 0.760; α = 0.889). Meanwhile, the indicator item that was dropped and eliminated because of a low validity and reliability index (LF = 0.328; α = 0.296) was marketing innovation. As before, for these measures we adopted a 5-point Likert Scale with the same conditions.

3.2.3. Green Behavior (GB)

GB measurement was carried out by referring to the strength of the indicators as a parameter owned by the community regarding green behavior. In measuring GB, we followed the previous parameter from [34,38,48], which was then re-tested to ensure the appropriate level of validity and reliability. There were six main indicators which received confirmation of their high level of validity and reliability, which included rethinking work processes involving tools, labor, and materials that have a negative impact on the ecosystem (LF = 0.824; α = 0.858); behavior of rejecting or avoiding the use of work materials and tools that have a negative impact on the ecosystem and lack of better efficiency and effectiveness (LF = 0.834; α = 0.846); innovative behavior in repairing work materials or tools that have the potential to become waste that contribute to ecosystem damage, usually related to materials or tools that cannot be decomposed by soil (LF = 0.810; α = 0.930); behavior to reduce as much as possible the use of materials or energy that only limited use (LF = 0.839; α = 0.944); behavior of reducing as much as possible the use of materials or energy that can only be used in a limited way (LF = 0.825; α = 0.900); and innovative behavior to recycle damaged materials and limited energy (LF = 0.707; α = 0.804). As before, we adopted a 5-point Likert Scale with the same conditions.

3.2.4. Digital Competency (DC)

DC was measured using a technological competency profile scale adopted from [38,53] for the purposes of the formulation and development of this research instrument. The scale was adopted with consideration of the high level of reliability and validity to measure the DC profile in various participant characteristics. This scale consisted of five items used to measure DC in society. We obtained certainty about the level of validity and reliability through back testing, obtaining the following items: awareness of the development trend of DT for job development (LF = 0.791; α = 0.949); a comprehensive understanding of useful information as a reference for job development (LF = 0.813; α = 0.962); the capability to use DT for work purposes (LF = 0.829; α = 0.958); creativity in developing ideas about the use of DT in the employment sector (LF = 0.868; α = 0.912); and criticality in determining the need to use DT to increase work efficiency and effectiveness (LF = 0.701; α = 0.916). This instrument adopted a 5-point Likert-type Scale using scores from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (completely agree).

3.2.5. Psychological Well-Being (PWB)

PWB was measured using opinions from [58] for the purposes of the formulation and development of this research instrument. The PWB construct was adopted with the consideration of a high level of reliability and validity for measuring various participant characteristics. This scale consisted of four items used to measure PWB owned by the community. We obtained certainty about the level of validity and reliability through back testing for the following items: optimistic when expressing oneself in public (LF = 0.892; α = 0.949); work activity in society is important for me to achieve (LF = 0.904; α = 0.958); society values me in carrying out my daily work (LF = 0.901; α = 0.912); and adequacy of work results for livelihood (LF = 0.828; α = 0.916). This instrument adopted a 5-point Likert Scale type using scores from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (completely agree).

3.3. Statistical Analysis

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis was used to test the hypothesis of direct influence between variables and indirect effect (mediation role) through path analysis and the bootstrap method. Path analysis was used to measure the direct influence of DC, GB, PWB, and IB on SCE. At the same time, the bootstrap method was used to measure the role of IB in mediating the influence of DC, GB, and PWB on SCE. Bootstrapping was adopted considering its accuracy, as it is the most reasonable method and is capable of obtaining confidence limits for certain indirect effects in most conditions [59]. For data analysis, we used SmartPLS 3.0 software. The research hypotheses were formulated based on relevant theoretical support related to the line of influence of exogenous variables on endogenous variables either directly or by using mediation, as stated in the previous literature review.

4. Results

4.1. Model Fit Evaluation

We tested the fit model four times until finally the model was determined according to the presentation in Figure 1. Testing this model provides an evaluation of the suitability level of the standard structural model which is able to explain the coefficient of the relationship between variables and the role of mediation. Evaluation of the fit index in the last test is presented (as the basic model) as in Table 1. With the analysis carried out, all the fit indices in the entire basic model are well evaluated according to the cut off criteria. The expected small chi-square value was confirmed as appropriate. The high probability value (p-value ≥ 0.50) provides clarification of the suitability between the model being tested and the data, meaning that the predictive ability of the model being tested on the observed value is very good. GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI were all realized according to above the threshold value (≥0.90). The SRMR value < 0.05 and RMSEA < 0.08 indicate high suitability for structural model analysis [60].

4.2. Direct Effect Test Results

Presenting the results of the direct effect test through path analysis refers to the estimated path coefficient on the original sample and the p value with a significance level of 5% (p ≤ 0.050), as shown in Table 2. The estimated path coefficient on DC to GB was obtained at 0.247, and the p value was 0.000 ***, meaning that H1 is supported. The second consideration states that the path coefficient value of PWB to GB is 0.540, and the p value is 0.000 ***, meaning that H2 is supported. Furthermore, significant path coefficient estimation values were obtained in the DC path to IB with an estimate of 0.198 and a p value of 0.000 ***, supporting H3. Likewise, H4 is supported by considering the estimated path coefficient of 0.213 and a p value of 0.000 *** on the GB to IB path. Furthermore, the path coefficient on PWB to IB is 0.863 and the p value is 0.000 ***, meaning that H5 is supported. The effect of DC on SCE is obtained by a path coefficient with an estimate of 0.147 with a p value of 0.000 ***, meaning that H6 is supported. The GB path line to SCE obtains significant results as well, with an estimate of 0.452 with a p value of 0.000 ***, meaning that H7 is supported. PWB affects SCE by obtaining a path coefficient value of 0.312 with a p value of 0.000 ***, meaning that H8 is supported. Finally, IB has a significant influence on SCE with an estimated value of 0.541, with a p value of 0.000 ***, supporting H9. Thus, the results prove that all hypotheses incorporated in the direct effect are accepted.

4.3. The Mediating Roles of Innovation Behavior

The mediation role test considers the results of bootstrapping with a 97.55% confidence interval using one thousand iterations. The mediating role tested here is the mediating role of IB as a consequence of the growth of SCE in society. Analysis using the bootstrap method obtained significant results from the role of AI in mediating the influence of DC, GB, and PWB on SCE. Consideration of the support for this hypothesis is presented in Table 3, which presents the mediating role of IB. The estimated coefficient of the indirect effect of DC on SCE is 0.122, with a p value of 0.000 ***, meaning that H10 is supported. Consistent with this, the indirect effect of GB on SCE is 0.161, with a p value of 0.000 ***, meaning that H11 is supported. Likewise, the coefficient of the indirect effect of PWB on SCE is 0.108, with a p value of 0.000 ***, meaning that H12 is supported.

5. Discussion

In the context of various efforts to achieve the goal of building SCE in society, research and development focus on increasing new breakthroughs that can penetrate gaps and exploit existing potential. The role of new innovation is needed to be able to transform the potential of society into a highly competitive economy [16]. In addition, innovation must emerge as a response to digital transformation in the form of implementing new ideas to create sustainable new jobs [19]. IB is the behavior needed at this time to build SCE in society [56]. This study provides empirical evidence which reveals that IB has a very significant influence in constructing SCE. These results are consistent with previous research which proves the crucial role of behavior oriented towards the creation of new ideas and their application to open new jobs [17]. Other research provides reinforcement to the assertion that the growth of creative industries or jobs in the digital transformation era requires high innovation [19]. The innovations produced to build a creative industry must be based on the current and future needs of society [16].
Apart from revealing the importance of IB, this research proves the crucial role of DC and GB in building SCE in society. DC is seen as an important competency in line with responding to digital transformation developments that require high DT mastery. The reason for this is that DT is currently an important technology in developing more effective and efficient work [53,61]. In addition, DC provides a breadth of important information that can be used as an understanding and that stimulates creativity in the community to innovate in new jobs [62]. Thus, a high DC directly provides a comprehensive overview of and skills needed to develop SCE in the midst of the digital transformation. Relevant research confirms that DC is a major requirement for work in the era of the industrial revolution 4.0 [63,64]. According to reports from Sommer (2015) [65], DC is an important foundation in forming other competencies needed in certain jobs [61]. Likewise, GB, which is an important orientation in the SDGs, plays an important role as a competency that must be strengthened in society [66]. Behavior that is oriented towards environmental sustainability and supports saving energy is the main foundation for building SCE in society [33]. The economy can be made sustainable in line with the basic need for jobs that are always available and well maintained [67,68]. This is confirmed by several studies which agree that building new jobs that have sustainability aspects requires behavior based on environmental welfare [34,49,51].
On the other hand, this study confirms that strengthening competency capital (DC and GB) in building SCE must be supported by capital from a psychological perspective as well [40,41]. This capital is PWB, which must be owned by the community as an important basis for triggering the birth of motivation to carry out a crucial job [26]. Prosperous psychological conditions and being able to demonstrate a happy work ethic play an important role in generating new ideas for innovation purposes to build SCE [27]. This is very important when considering that PWB strengthens the determination to try to create new activities or jobs that can be beneficial and sustainable [28]. In line with these results, previous research reports have emphasized that PWB is an important asset in carrying out all activities, especially in efforts to build sustainable new jobs [16]. PWB is reported to be an important capital that describes a psychological condition that is prosperous and able to demonstrate a work ethic with a feeling of happiness [27]. This is very important when considering that PWB can spur a person’s motivation to seek new jobs or activities that can be beneficial [28].
As an effort to build SCE through DC, GB and PWB need additional assistance that can channel their indirect influence on SCE. This research provides important confirmation that IB is needed as a mediator for DC, GB, and PWB in building SCE. Previous studies have reported the crucial role of innovation as a mediator for the influence of these three aspects on SCE [52]. IB is seen as the main foundation that is jointly built by DC, GB, and PWB as SCE builders amid the development of DT. The first reason for this is that mastery of DC by the community is needed as a response to digital transformation [53]. DC plays a role as a builder of literacy and capability in using DT [38]. Then, DC also plays a role in stimulating creative thinking to produce SCE-building innovations [54]. The existence of GB plays a direct role in clarifying the direction of innovation towards the creation of sustainable creative jobs. As reported by [24], SCE, which essentially aims to help achieve the SDGs, requires strong GB as a specific construct. Indirectly, GB which affects the awakening of SCE, stimulates the birth of IB [23]. Furthermore, the strengthening of DC and GB capital in constructing SCE must be supported by capital from a psychological perspective. This capital indirectly triggers the birth of motivation to stimulate the emergence of innovations that are oriented towards the creation of sustainable new jobs [26]. Prosperous psychological conditions and being able to demonstrate a happy work ethic play an important role in generating new ideas for the needs of current trend-based renewable innovations [27]. This is very important when considering that PWB strengthens the determination to try to create new activities or jobs that can be beneficial [28].

6. Conclusions

The structural model in this study proves a significant determination of the influence of DC, GB, PWB, and IB on the development of SCE. Thus, the structural model in this study proves that IB can be a significant mediator of the effects of DC, GB, and PWB on SCE. These results reinforce the existing literature in finding that building a creative economy requires support for new behaviors constructed through mastery of developing technologies, sustainable (green) behavior, and balanced psychological conditions that are prosperous. This result signals the government and society to strive for DC growth and GB, which PWB balances to encourage SCE. The most important thing is that society has to grow IB through these three aspects to build SCE. This research is limited to the DC, GB, PWB, and IB variables in the context of an effort to build SCE. In addition, this study has limitations in terms of data collection, especially the time of data collection. This was quite long, spanning from August to December 2022, and as a result there may have been differences in the levels of each variable during that period. Further research is suggested to uncover various other important factors in efforts to increase the development of SCE amid the rapid digital transformation. Finally, we invite both relevant stakeholders and the community to strengthen collaboration in growing DC and GB balanced by strengthening PWB as a consequence of growing IB to build SCE.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Balai Pembiayaan Pendidikan Tinggi (BPPT) Kemendikbudristek dan Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP) for supporting the publication of this article.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Prieto-Jiménez, E.; López-Catalán, L.; López-Catalán, B.; Domínguez-Fernández, G. Sustainable development goals and education: A bibliometric mapping analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shulla, K.; Filho, W.L.; Lardjane, S.; Sommer, J.H.; Borgemeister, C. Sustainable development education in the context of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2020, 27, 458–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fonseca, L.M.; Domingues, J.P.; Dima, A.M. Mapping the sustainable development goals relationships. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Amran, A.; Yon, L.C.; Kiumarsi, S.; Jaaffar, A.H. Intellectual human capital, corporate social innovation and sustainable development: A conceptual framework. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 15, 75–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Heleta, S.; Bagus, T. Sustainable development goals and higher education: Leaving many behind. High Educ. 2021, 81, 163–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kopnina, H. Education for the future? Critical evaluation of education for sustainable development goals. J. Environ. Educ. 2020, 51, 280–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sutiman, S.; Sofyan, H.; Soenarto, S.; Mutohhari, F.; Nurtanto, M. Students’ career decision-making during online learning: The mediating roles of self-efficacy in vocational education. Eur. J. Educ Res. 2022, 11, 1669–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kurniawan, R.; Jaedun, A.; Mutohhari, F.; Kusuma, W.M. The absorption of vocational education graduates in the automotive sector in the industrial world. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 5, 482–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wiramihardja, K.; N’dary, V.; Al Mamun, A.; Munikrishnan, U.T.; Yang, Q.; Salamah, A.A.; Hayat, N. Sustainable development through entrepreneurship: A study on attitude, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial intention among university students in Malaysia. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 866753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bali Swain, R.; Yang-Wallentin, F. Achieving sustainable development goals: Predicaments and strategies. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2020, 27, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Li, J.; Wu, N.; Xiong, S. Sustainable innovation in the context of organizational cultural diversity: The role of cultural intelligence and knowledge sharing. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Pinkse, J.; Bohnsack, R. Sustainable product innovation and changing consumer behavior: Sustainability affordances as triggers of adoption and usage. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2021, 30, 3120–3130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ghobakhloo, M.; Iranmanesh, M.; Grybauskas, A.; Vilkas, M.; Petraitė, M. Industry 4.0, innovation, and sustainable development: A systematic review and a roadmap to sustainable innovation. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2021, 30, 4237–4257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Feng, C.; Shi, B.; Yan, H.; Yang, S.; Bai, C. Sustainable Export Innovation Behavior of Firms Under Fiscal Incentive. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 4752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kim, Y. Environmental, sustainable behaviors and innovation of firms during the financial crisis. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2015, 24, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tóth, J.; Migliore, G.; Balogh, J.M.; Rizzo, G. Exploring innovation adoption behavior for sustainable development: The case of Hungarian food sector. Agronomy 2020, 10, 612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Scherer, A.G.; Voegtlin, C. Corporate governance for responsible innovation: Approaches to corporate governance and their implications for sustainable development. Acad Manag. Perspect. 2020, 34, 182–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Santoso, H.; Elidjen Abdinagoro, S.B.; Arief, M. The role of creative self-efficacy, transformational leadership, and digital literacy in supporting performance through innovative work behavior: Evidence from telecommunications industry. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2019, 9, 2305–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nugraha, A.; Irwansyah, P. How digital knowledge sharing affects innovation work behavior and organizational innovation capability in term of sustainability development goals. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 716, 012058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yang, M.; Han, C. Stimulating innovation: Managing peer interaction for idea generation on digital innovation platforms. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 125, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Garzoni, A.; De Turi, I.; Secundo, G.; Del Vecchio, P. Fostering digital transformation of SMEs: A four levels approach. Manag. Decis. 2020, 58, 1543–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cai, W.; Yang, C.; Bossink, B.A.G.; Fu, J. Linking leaders’ voluntary workplace green behavior and team green innovation: The mediation role of team green efficacy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Xu, B.; Gao, X.; Cai, W.; Jiang, L. How Environmental Leadership Boosts Employees’ Green Innovation Behavior? A Moderated Mediation Model. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, G.; Wang, X.; Wu, J. How scientific researchers form green innovation behavior: An empirical analysis of China’s enterprises. Technol. Soc. 2019, 56, 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Peng, H.; Shen, N.; Ying, H.; Wang, Q. Can environmental regulation directly promote green innovation behavior?—Based on situation of industrial agglomeration. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 314, 128044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shu, Y.; Ho, S.J.; Huang, T.C. The Development of a Sustainability-Oriented Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Education Framework: A Perspective Study. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rasulzada, F.; Dackert, I. Organizational creativity and innovation in relation to psychological well-being and organizational factors. Create Res. J. 2009, 21, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dornelas Muzi, M.; Dose, E.; Desrumaux, P. Effects of innovation climate, leadership support to innovation and mediating role of psychological well-being at work: What effects on innovative behaviors at work? Innovations 2021, 64, 183–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chaudhary, R. Green human resource management and employee green behavior: An empirical analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 630–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Geng, M.M.; He, L.Y. Environmental regulation, environmental awareness and environmental governance satisfaction. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, L.; Jiang, J.; Bian, J.; Liu, Y.; Lin, G.; Yin, Y. Are environmental regulations holding back industrial growth? Evidence from China. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 306, 127007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Khan, A.; Sicen, L.; Khan, B.; Salman, N. On the influence of demographic structure and industrial growth on environmental quality. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 288, 112453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Midilli, A.; Dincer, I.; Ay, M. Green energy strategies for sustainable development. Energy Policy. 2006, 34, 3623–3633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, Z.; Lis, M. Modeling green energy development based on sustainable economic growth in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Chang, L.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, H. Digital finance innovation in green manufacturing: A bibliometric approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 52, 61340–61368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Feng, S.; Zhang, R.; Li, G. Environmental decentralization, digital finance and green technology innovation. Struct. Chang Econ. Dyn. 2022, 61, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zekhnini, K.; Cherrafi, A.; Bouhaddou, I.; Chaouni Benabdellah, A.; Bag, S. A model integrating lean and green practices for viable, sustainable, and digital supply chain performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 60, 6529–6555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pavlova, M. Technology and Vocational Education for Sustainable Development; Springer Science Business Media, B.V.: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mutohhari, F.; Sutiman, S.; Nurtanto, M.; Kholifah, N.; Samsudin, A. Difficulties in implementing 21st century skills competence in vocational education learning. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 2021, 10, 1229–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Carrus, G.; Scopelliti, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Ferrini, F.; Salbitano, F.; Sanesi, G. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Southon, G.E.; Jorgensen, A.; Dunnett, N.; Hoyle, H.; Evans, K.L. Perceived species-richness in urban green spaces: Cues, accuracy and well-being impacts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 172, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cleary, A.; Roiko, A.; Burton, N.W.; Fielding, K.S.; Murray, Z.; Turrell, G. Changes in perceptions of urban green space are related to changes in psychological well-being: Cross-sectional and longitudinal study of mid-aged urban residents. Heal Place 2019, 59, 102201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ling, T.Y.; Hung, W.K.; Lin, C.T.; Lu, M. Dealing with green gentrification and vertical green-related urban well-being: A contextual-based design framework. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lafortezza, R.; Carrus, G.; Sanesi, G.; Davies, C. Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Urban Green 2009, 8, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, J.; Xue, Y.; Sun, X.; Yang, J. Green learning orientation, green knowledge acquisition and ambidextrous green innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Guo, Y.; Wang, L.F.; Chen, Y. Green entrepreneurial orientation and green innovation: The mediating effect of supply chain learning. SAGE Open. 2020, 10, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mohd Zubir, M.Z.; Lai, C.S.; Zaime, A.F.; Lee, M.F.; Ibrahim, B.; Ismail, A. Dimension of green skills: Perspectives from the industry experts. J. Tech. Educ. Train. 2021, 13, 159–166. [Google Scholar]
  48. Bhowmik, C.; Bhowmik, S.; Ray, A. Green energy sources selection for sustainable planning: A case study. IEEE Trans Eng. Manag. 2022, 69, 1322–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pavlova, M. Fostering inclusive, sustainable economic growth and ‘“green”’ skills development in learning cities through partnerships. Int. Rev. Educ. 2018, 64, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Salleh, N.A.; Anwar, A.; Satori, M.; Ter Teo, P.; Shah, A.; Othman, Z.; Zulhumadi, F. Biodegradable material in composting: Green initiatives in northern Malaysia and Indonesia. J. Crit. Rev. 2020, 7, 1642–1645. [Google Scholar]
  51. Shah Bukhari, S.K.U.; Said, H.; Nor, F.M. Conceptual understanding of sustainability among academic administrators of Pakistan Public Universities. Qual. Rep. 2020, 25, 28–59. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85078939137&partnerID=40&md5=39108d26e2f6e616ad5365aa3fb344c5 (accessed on 24 June 2023). [CrossRef]
  52. Roh, T.; Lee, K.; Yang, J.Y. How do intellectual property rights and government support drive a firm’s green innovation? The mediating role of open innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 317, 128422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Astuti, M.; Arifin, Z.; Nurtanto, M.; Mutohhari, F.; Warju, W. The maturity levels of the digital technology competence in vocational education. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 2022, 11, 596–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lestari Kadiyono, A.; Harding, D.; Hafiar, H.; Nugraha, Y.; Ma’mun, T.N.; Siswadi, A.G.P.; Wibowo, H. The Introduction of Green Technology in Increasing Green Ethos among Students; Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cohen, L.; Lawrence, M.; Keith, M. Research Methods in Education; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  56. Fazlagić, J.; Skikiewicz, R. Measuring sustainable development—The creative economy perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2019, 26, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Christensen, C.M. The Innovator’s Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book That Will Change the Way You Do Business; Harper Business: Glasgow, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhang, Y.; Cheng, Z.; Pan, Y.; Xu, Y. Psychological antecedents and consequences of social integration based on self-disclosure in virtual communities: Empirical evidence from sina microblog. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 829327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Westland, J.C. Structural Equation Models: From Paths to Networks, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kožuh, A.; Maksimović, J.; Zajić, J.O. Fourth industrial revolution and digital competences of teachers. World J. Educ. Technol. Curr. Issues. 2021, 13, 160–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Astuti, M.; Arifin, Z.; Mutohhari, F.; Nurtanto, M. Competency of Digital Technology: The Maturity Levels of Teachers and Students in Vocational Education in Indonesia. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 5, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gandasari, D.; Dwidienawati, D.; Sarwoprasodjo, S. Discourse analysis: The impact of industrial revolution 4.0 and society 5.0 in Indonesia. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2020, 29, 5189–5199. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mubarak, M.F.; Petraite, M. Industry 4.0 technologies, digital trust and technological orientation: What matters in open innovation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 161, 120332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sommer, L. Industrial revolution—Industry 4.0: Are German manufacturing SMEs the first victims of this revolution? J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2015, 8, 1512–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Savchenko, A.B.; Borodina, T.L. Green and Digital Economy for Sustainable Development of Urban Areas. Reg. Res. Russ. 2020, 10, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Da Giau, A.; Foss, N.J.; Furlan, A.; Vinelli, A. Sustainable development and dynamic capabilities in the fashion industry: A multi-case study. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1509–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cui, R.; Wang, J. Shaping sustainable development: External environmental pressure, exploratory green learning, and radical green innovation. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 481–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 10860 g001 550
Figure 1. Structural model used in this research.
Figure 1. Structural model used in this research.
Sustainability 15 10860 g001
Table
Table 1. Model fit test results.
Table 1. Model fit test results.
Goodness of Fit AspectCriteriaResultDecision
Chi-squareSmall26.110Fit
Probability≥0.0500.407Fit
Goodness of fit index (GFI)≥0.900.920Fit
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)≥0.900.941Fit
Tucker lewis index (TLI)≥0.900.908Fit
Normal fit index (NFI)≥0.900.905Fit
Standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR)<0.050.039Fit
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)<0.080.071Fit
Table
Table 2. Direct effect test result.
Table 2. Direct effect test result.
PathPath EstimateSEp
Digital competency → green behavior0.2470.0630.000
Psychological well-being → green behavior0.5400.0260.000
Digital competency → innovation behavior0.1980.0870.000
Green behavior → innovation behavior0.2130.0520.000
Psychological well-being → innovation behavior0.8630.0340.000
Digital competency → sustainable creative economy0.1470.0370.000
Green behavior → sustainable creative economy0.4520.0190.000
Psychological well-being → sustainable creative economy0.3120.0160.000
Innovation behavior → sustainable creative economy0.5410.0210.000
Table
Table 3. Mediating role of innovation behavior.
Table 3. Mediating role of innovation behavior.
PathDirect EffectIndirect EffectTotal Effect
EstimateSigEstimateSigEstimateSig
DC → IB0.1980.000--0.1980.000
DC → SCE0.1470.0000.1220.0000.2690.000
GB → IB0.2130.000--0.2130.000
GB → SCE0.4520.0000.1610.0000.6130.000
PWB → IB0.8630.000--0.8630.000
PWB → SCE0.3120.0000.1080.0000.4200.000
IB → SCE0.5410.000--0.5410.000
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

Widodo, W.; Triyono, M.B.; Sudira, P.; Mutohhari, F. Building Sustainable Creative Economy in Society through the Mediation Role of Innovation Behavior. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10860. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410860

AMA Style

Widodo W, Triyono MB, Sudira P, Mutohhari F. Building Sustainable Creative Economy in Society through the Mediation Role of Innovation Behavior. Sustainability. 2023; 15(14):10860. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410860

Chicago/Turabian Style

Widodo, Widodo, Mochamad Bruri Triyono, Putu Sudira, and Farid Mutohhari. 2023. "Building Sustainable Creative Economy in Society through the Mediation Role of Innovation Behavior" Sustainability 15, no. 14: 10860. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410860

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop