Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Agricultural Productivity Among Emerging Farmers Through Data-Driven Practices
Previous Article in Journal
Developing Key Performance Indicators for a Port in Indonesia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Beyond the Financial Horizon: A Critical Review of Social Responsibility in Latin American Credit Unions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 10
10.3390/su17104665
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Higher Education Institutions as Leverage for Backing up SMEs’ Efforts to Meet SDG 9

by
Luis Velazquez
Industrial Engineering, Interdisciplinary Faculty of Engineering, University of Sonora, Hermosillo 83000, Mexico
Sustainability 2025, 17(10), 4665; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104665
Submission received: 25 February 2025 / Revised: 15 May 2025 / Accepted: 16 May 2025 / Published: 19 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Role of Small and Medium Enterprises in Realizing the Sustainable Development Goals)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This article explores the current state of collaboration between higher education institutions (HEIs) and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), focusing on advancing the achievements of SDG 9. Using two bibliometric analyses, in Scopus and Web of the Science, this study examines resilient infrastructure, innovation, information and communication technology, and financial services as fundamental concepts within SDG 9’s targets to investigate how SMEs can contribute to meeting SDG 9 and what can be expected from higher education institutions to generate knowledge that supports SMEs’ efforts. The bibliometric analysis revealed trends and patterns that shape the state of the art regarding HEIs-SMEs collaboration for SDG 9. There is a subtle yet significant partnership between higher education institutions and SMEs centered around the key aspect of innovation within SDG 9. Even more significant is the insight into various mechanisms for strengthening knowledge transfer from higher education institutions to SMEs, as they substantially enhance the capabilities and skills of their workforce to innovate primarily through information and communication technologies. This suggests that higher education institutions emerge as strategic partners for SMEs to progress toward, if not all, some of the targets of SDG 9, which is essential for their sustainable future readiness.

1. Introduction

The sector of small and medium enterprises has an essential role in countries’ resilience to recent geopolitical conflicts and economic crises, to the extent that the United Nations (UN) recognizes its relevance in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1]. Indeed, the entire set of SDGs is essential to reaching sustainable development. Still, multiple debates have focused on the importance of industry in successfully meeting the 2030 United Nations Agenda. Sustainable Development Goal 9 promotes inclusive and sustainable industrial development and comprises eight targets [2]. To a large extent, the great appreciation of SMEs in the world has responded to their significant role in creating the 600 million jobs needed to meet the growing need for labor by 2030 [3] and its contribution to macroeconomic indicators of countries, such as the Gross Domestic Product [4] exports, and the productive matrix [5]. However, generalizations must be taken cautiously since multiple factors, such as their economic environment, financial conditions, and government support policies, determine their firm’s performance [6]. Records are different and contrasting based on reports from other world regions. In 2023, SMEs in the European Union contributed significantly to employment and value-added by employing more than 88 million people [7]. In the United States of America, job creation was driven from 2021 to 2022 by SMEs, which generated about 70% of the net increase of 7.0 million jobs [8]. On the other hand, in Latin America and the Caribbean, SMEs’ significant contribution to the economy is also recognized. However, their high prevalence in the economy’s informal sectors makes it challenging to determine accurate data. Yet, in this condition, SMEs contribute approximately 60% of the formal employment and a quarter of the regional Gross Domestic Product [9], which is a situation that also takes place in other developing countries; therefore, the total reported worldwide SME figures might be underestimated [10].
In addition to their significant contribution to the global economy, the scholarly literature also focuses on the role of SMEs in addressing urgent development challenges, such as sustainability [11]. Concerning SDG 9, scholars pay great attention to corporate sustainability within large corporations and, to a lesser extent, the small business sector [8]. This apparent indifference could be explained by the difficulty of accessing SMEs’ reliable data due to their limited ability to measure, analyze, and document their sustainability performance [12]. According to [13], corporate sustainability reporting is a well-institutionalized business practice in large companies that dominate the market, but is less common in small enterprises. Sometimes, there is a ripple effect in SMEs associated with large manufacturing firms that support SMEs in gaining access to knowledge and practice to disclose their environmental impacts in standardized sustainability reporting frameworks [14]. Regrettably, most SMEs are not in this privileged position, and even less so those in the Global South that have to face more significant challenges in meeting the basic requirements for reporting [15].
The latter suggests that SMEs cannot adopt innovative practices without the assistance of an external actor in most cases. Thus, embracing partnerships with key allies becomes one of the crucial factors in their entrepreneurial strategy to grow [16], overcome obstacles, and seize opportunities for a long-term market presence [17].
Previous studies have explored collaboration between HEIs and SMEs, highlighting practical approaches that can enhance SMEs’ competitiveness and productivity. Research by [18] underscores the importance of SMEs partnering with universities and research institutes to access applied research and knowledge, enhancing their innovative performance by developing new products. A recent systematic literature review by [19] identified technology transfer, entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial outcome, and university–industry collaboration as the four keyword clusters of university–SMEs collaboration. This information sheds light on the diverse themes and research focuses on this field, helping to identify patterns and relevant content that enable the development of tailored solutions and specific challenges and opportunities. However, outcomes vary widely, and success is not guaranteed since various factors influence collaborations. Recently, [20] suggests that some SMEs may struggle to apply knowledge generated in HEIs to their productive processes due to their limited absorptive capacity. Both SMEs’ capacity to absorb and use external knowledge and universities’ willingness to understand the dynamism of the SME sector are closely linked to their organizational culture, so the compatibility of values and objectives is an essential condition for successful collaboration [21], although not the only one. While obtaining benefits from alliances between HEIs and SMEs is feasible, establishing these partnerships can be challenging due to various factors. The barriers SMEs perceive when establishing collaborations with HEIs can vary depending on specific circumstances, such as their familiarity with academic research and whether they have participated in joint initiatives [22]. According to [23], substantial differences between SMEs located in urban and rural areas affect the likelihood of establishing collaboration with universities or the potential for successful partnerships.
The complexity of university–industry partnerships is not unique to SMEs, as it can arise regardless of the partner’s industry size; therefore, it is necessary to identify instrumental mechanisms that enable effective collaboration [24]. Significant knowledge gaps persist despite the considerable advancements in understanding cooperation between HEIs and SMEs. Notably, a limited understanding remains of how the partnerships can be effectively harnessed to progress toward SDG 9.
This article presents a little-explored relationship between higher education institutions and SMEs, which can collaborate on key aspects such as innovation and ICT within the framework of SDG 9. In the current digital transformation and sustainability context, the two-way collaboration between both entities must be rethought in terms of roles and synergies so that knowledge transfer becomes a predominant factor in SMEs’ progress toward meeting SDG 9. In this context, the paper analyzes fundamental concepts within the targets of SDG 9 to explore how SMEs can contribute to meeting these goals and what can be expected from higher education institutions in generating knowledge to support SMEs’ efforts.

2. Methodology

This section scrutinizes scientific articles using the bibliometric analysis method to illustrate current developments published in the scientific literature regarding the relationship between universities and SMEs concerning initiatives aimed at achieving the various goals of SDG 9. Bibliometric studies formally communicate the most relevant aspects of a research field in scientific inquiry [25]. Following established practices in the bibliometric literature [26], two independent searches were conducted in Scopus and Web of Science in April 2025 to maximize the comprehensive capture of the literature. Records from Scopus and Web of Science were kept separate to prevent the duplication of entries that could arise from discrepancies in coverage and indexing practices between the two databases. [27] highlighted diverse challenges such as duplicate removal, inconsistent indexing, and potential bias when merging Scopus and Web of Science records.
In the VosViewer Software Version 1.6.20 for all series, the co-occurrence map and the Normalization Method called Strength of Association were applied, using as criteria the keywords repeated more than 5 times for each category to establish the most substantial relationships between them and other scientific areas. Then, the results were compared according to the following criteria:
  • Number of articles;
  • Years of publication;
  • Countries with the highest scientific production;
  • Area of science with the highest scientific production;
  • Co-occurrence map;
  • Number of clusters and keywords that it groups.
The search spanned articles published from 2015 to 2025, aligning with the timeframe of the 2030 Agenda’s SDGs. The search fields were title, abstract, and keywords, and the search was limited only to the type of document “scientific articles”. The keywords used were university or universities, SDG 9 or sdg-9 or sdg9, and SMEs.

Current Trends in University–SMEs Collaboration for SDG 9

Initially, articles containing the three keywords in the title, abstract, or keywords were searched in Scopus to ensure that these keywords were the primary focus of the manuscript. However, the search yielded no results. Subsequently, the same search procedure in Scopus was replicated in the Web of Science, which also returned no records. After confirming that the search had no methodological flaws, the results led to the following premises:
  • There is a need for original research on this theme;
  • The triad of universities, SMEs, and SDG 9 exhibits low relevance for the academic scholar community.
A more comprehensive analysis was conducted to address the foregoing assertions. Therefore, the term SDG 9 and its variants were substituted with fundamental terms outlined in the target of the same sustainable goal. The following section analyzes resilient infrastructure, innovation, Information and Communications Technology, and sustainable finance, which are fundamental concepts within SDG 9’s targets.

3. SME–Universities’ Pathways to SDG 9

(a)
Resilient infrastructure
Resilient infrastructure can be conceptualized as an entity’s physical structure that can recover from or adjust to potential disturbances in the shortest period possible. Though those disturbances can commonly be of all kinds [15], they are associated with natural disasters such as those generated by climate change [28]. This concept is presented in the following three SDG 9 targets:
TARGET 9.1 “Develop quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure, including regional and trans-border infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, focusing on affordable and equitable access for all” [29];
TARGET 9.4 “By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities” [29];
TARGET 9.a “Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing countries through enhanced financial, technological, and technical support to African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States” [29].
The search of the existing literature on the triad university–SMEs–resilient infrastructure in both Scopus and Web of Science yielded no results, suggesting that these targets are irrelevant for collaboration between higher education institutions and SMEs. The government’s accountability in building infrastructure can explain the lack of interest in this area. Undoubtedly, governments are the primary drivers in building resilient infrastructure, yet governments alone cannot meet the demand for a reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure; therefore, private participation in building infrastructure is required [30]. According to the World Bank [31], private investment in infrastructure accounted in 2023 for approximately 0.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product of all low- and middle-income countries, a smaller investment compared to last year, with Latin American, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asian countries experiencing a more significant decline than the average. Still, embedded SMEs in critical sectors like electricity, water, and transportation might play a relevant role in strengthening local resilient infrastructure, which larger firms often neglect [32].
(b)
Innovation
In SDG 9, resilient infrastructure is closely associated with innovation capacity, mainly when designing solutions to reduce climate change and enhance a low-carbon industry [33,34]. Hence, countries must strengthen their innovation capacity to meet SDG 9 [35]. According to the OECD, innovation fosters inclusive growth by reducing productivity and wage gaps between SDGs and large companies [36], which aligns with the following two of its eight targets:
TARGET 9.5 “Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million people and public and private research and development spending” [29];
TARGET 9.b “Support domestic technology development, research, and innovation in developing countries, including by ensuring a conducive policy environment for, inter alia, industrial diversification and value addition to commodities” [29].
In Scopus, the university–SMEs–innovation triad yielded 230 scientific articles. For this series, 230 scientific articles were identified from 2015 to 2025, with 2024 and 2023 being the years with the highest scientific production, with 38 and 30 articles, respectively. Spain and Italy had the highest production, with 28 and 25 articles, respectively. The areas of science most frequently included in these studies were Business, Management, Accounting, Social Sciences, and Economics. In Figure 1, the co-occurrence map identified six clusters with 35 items, 206 links, and 489 link strengths.
In Web of Science, 276 scientific articles were identified from 2015 to 2025, with the years 2024 and 2023 witnessing the highest scientific production, featuring 44 articles each. The United Kingdom and Italy ranked as the countries with the most production, contributing 31 and 29 articles, respectively. The scientific fields most often addressed in these studies included Management, Business, Environmental Sciences, Ecology, and Engineering. A total of 222 articles were framed within SDG 9.
In Figure 2, the co-occurrence map identified six clusters with 109 items, 2231 links, and 5209 link strengths.
Table 1 reveals minimal discrepancies between the findings in Scopus and WoS. Six clusters with similar keyword themes were identified in both databases. The most notable difference is the link strength, which is significantly higher in the Web of Science, suggesting that the connection between keywords is more cohesive. Despite these differences, the overall trends and patterns in the data appear consistent across both databases.
According to Agenda 2030, innovation should ensure successful operational performance and benefit vulnerable communities [37]. In this context, enterprises typically respond to the growing demands of civil society for a sustainable industry by creating innovative solutions [38]. Although innovation efforts vary widely by sector, they primarily address products, processes, services, and organizational structures [39]. The drivers of innovation for SMEs may differ from those in large firms, which typically pursue innovation to register patents [40]; the drivers for SMEs range from gaining a competitive advantage that differentiates them in the marketplace [41] to accessing national subsidies and funds to strengthen their business [42]. The demand for this latter strategy has become increasingly sought after, especially among Latin American SMEs, to thrive in the post-COVID-19 era [43]. At the same time, the pandemic also accelerated digital innovation in manufacturing, forcing SMEs to adopt digital technology as a solution to disrupted supply chains and markets [44]. In this innovation scenario, some SMEs have proven more resilient and adaptable to COVID-19 disruptions than others. SMEs that integrated digital technologies experienced increased innovation [45], while those with robust organizational structures successfully formulated innovative solutions that helped them penetrate emerging markets [46]. In contrast, those lacking capabilities, such as weak financial structures, low digital literacy among workers, and managerial issues, struggled to realize the potential benefits of digital innovation [47].
Ironically, their less bureaucratic structure is seen by some experts as an opportunity to foster the adoption of innovative solutions, given their natural propensity to take risks in business [48]. Usually, SMEs increase their ability to innovate through collaboration that provides access to external knowledge [49]; therefore, for SMEs with a low capacity to innovate, the support from HEIs determines success in the efforts to engage in innovative practices that increase the operational performance [50]. Forming SME clusters can complement this approach as they offer opportunities for learning and developing creative solutions [51].
(c)
Information and Communications Technology
Adopting information and communication technology (ICT) to operate sustainability initiatives has become a survival issue in shaping business strategies to compete in domestic or international markets in the era of Industry 4.0 [52]. Wireless technology has evolved to its fifth generation to virtually connect machines, equipment, devices, and individuals from everywhere, leading to a more sustainable industry [53]. Providing more connectivity than in the previous decades is at the core of SDG 9, which is why ICTs are very promising to meet Target 9. c, which states the following:
TARGET 9. c “Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in the least developed countries by 2020” [29].
With the support of ICTs, companies across all sectors may drive progress toward SDG 9 while preventing potential costly production constraints, thereby enhancing productivity [54]. However, only about a dozen articles examining the relationship between universities, SMEs, and ICTs were found in each database. Figure 3, Scopus inputs, identified two clusters with a relatively weak connection between major research topics such as digital innovation, digital transformation, and digitalization.
Figure 4, WofS inputs, also illustrates two clusters with a relatively weak connection but different keywords such as adoption, impact, and knowledge.
Table 2 displays the leading indicators of this triad. Business and Management emerge as the leading disciplinary fields, with a striking absence of Computer Science and related areas.
The relatively low link strength between ICTs and innovative SMEs may be attributed to the fact that digital technologies such as Cyber–Physical Systems (CPSs), the Internet of Things (IoT), and Big Manufacturing Data Analytics might primarily concern firms with large-scale infrastructure projects that require highly automated computerized systems [55]. Although the above is true, several theoretical models have been proposed to help SMEs incorporate digital technology into their processes and operations and assess their I4.0 maturity [54,56]. Notwithstanding later developments, their level of integration with I4.0 is low in this kind of business [57].
In this sense, digitalization’s contribution to catalyzing the path toward a sustainable industry does not stand in doubt [39]; instead, other factors preventing SMEs from receiving ICT benefits, such as affordability due to the initial investment to acquire ICTs, can be a significant burden, particularly for an SME with fragile financial structures [58,59,60]. Due to their economic instability, SMEs in developing countries are more vulnerable to this risk. As a result, achieving competitive advantages from digital transformation becomes increasingly challenging [61]. Yet, some scholars bet on digital technologies as valuable and affordable for SDGs in generating value-producing opportunities to access international markets [62]. Furthermore, even assuming their transition to digital transformation can be a reality, it implies critical tradeoffs such as digital-related waste, which occurs at an alarming rate [63,64] because of obsolescence or the entry of the newest generation of hardware, appliances, or gadgets, making it a pressing issue that demands immediate solutions [65,66,67].
Regrettably, most SMEs are not in the optimal conditions to transition fully to digital transformation [60,68], and their employees lack the essential competencies to handle electronic waste correctly and safely [69].
(d)
Financial Services
All areas of opportunity to meet SDG 9 discussed earlier require a flow of capital, which is often a challenging barrier for SMEs to overcome due to their fragile financial structure [70]. Their limited access to external financing [71] minimizes their capacity to progress toward SDG 9. Target 9.3 acknowledges this circumstance by emphasizing the following:
TARGET 9.3 “Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, particularly in developing countries, to financial services, including affordable credit, and their integration into value chains and markets” [29].
For the triad of HEIs, SMEs, and financial services, four articles were identified in Scopus, published in 2022 and 2023, with two publications each year. Indonesia (2), Australia, and China, with one each, are the countries reporting these publications. The most frequently cited areas of science in these studies were Business, Management, Accounting, Economics, and Computer Science. The co-occurrence map, shown in Figure 5, displays one cluster with 19 items, 171 links, and zero link strength. However, this series fell short of the five-interaction threshold.
The Web of Science yielded more comprehensive coverage, with 17 articles. The publication dates range from 2017 to 2025, with 2022 and 2023 exhibiting the highest scientific production, each with four articles. Indonesia, Spain, and the United States produced the highest, contributing two articles each. The scientific areas most frequently covered in these studies included Business Economics, Environmental Sciences, Ecology, and Science and Technology. The co-occurrence map, Figure 6, shows two clusters with five items, nine links, and 15 link strengths.
Table 3 shows the indicators of the relationship between universities, SMEs, and finance. Business and Management emerge as the leading disciplinary fields, with a striking absence of Computer Science and related areas.
The incorporation of “financial services” into the university–SMEs relationship yielded only a few articles between 2015 and 2025, indicating a relative lack of interest in Target 9.3 among academic finance experts, despite the sector’s pressing financing needs, even before the disruptions caused by COVID-19 [70]. This lack of interest persists to the extent that governments have tried to support them under their development plans [71]. With the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, the unfavorable financial context exacerbated the negative spiral in which many SMEs were caught [72]. Numerous countries and international financial institutions implemented various financial instruments to decrease this financial risk and enhance SMEs’ survival during the pandemic’s early months; however, not all governments shared the same response [73,74]. Worse yet, the aftermath of the COVID pandemic continued to cause global disruptions, and the outlook is not encouraging due to a potential sharper-than-expected economic slowdown [75].
According to the literature, low-quality financial reporting is perhaps the most commonly cited reason for SMEs accessing external funding [37,38,39,76]. This situation could also be exacerbated in low- and medium-sized economies, where a lack of credit and fiscal stimuli are constraints that prevent their growth [77,78]. Many countries recognize that the pandemic has profoundly impacted SMEs’ access to finance [79,80]. Consequently, SMEs cope with financial distress due to difficulty accessing bank credit [74]. Moreover, due to the growing financial constraints, many SMEs risk becoming insolvent or bankrupt [81].
Nowadays, it is reasonable to conclude that this sector continues to require financing support programs just as much, if not more, than it did in the pandemic’s aftermath [82]. Regrettably, governmental support for SMEs has decreased in the new normal era [6], forcing them to rely on banking financing schemes or alternative sources such as microfinance institutions [83,84].

4. Building Synergies Toward SDG 9

Worldwide universities have increasingly developed innovative structures to encourage collaboration with SMEs, stressing the substantial benefits of win–win relationships [85]. In this regard, creating partnerships helps HEIs deconstruct the ivory tower, which criticizes the role of higher education institutions in the real world, mainly in how much they are theorized instead of solving real problems [55,64]. In response to this demand, universities aim to collaborate more and better with communities to solve highly relevant issues [86].
The Scopus bibliometric analysis of the university–SMEs relationship revealed 461 publications, with a notable surge in 2024, when 80 articles were published. The dominant fields of study were Business, Management, Accounting, Social Sciences, Econometrics, and Finance. The co-occurrence map identified seven clusters containing 76 items, 621 links, and 1105 link strengths. Innovation, research and development, digital transformation, and technological development were the most frequently occurring keywords (see Figure 7). This finding suggests a subtle connection between universities, SMEs, and SDG 9, as keywords related to its targets appeared in the co-occurrence analysis even when the publications did not explicitly mention SDG 9.
In the Web of Science, 468 scientific articles were identified from 2015 to 2025, with 2023 and 2024 representing the highest scientific production, totaling 79 and 75, respectively. The United Kingdom and Spain led in production, with 46 and 43 articles, respectively. The fields of science most involved in these studies were Business and Economics, Environmental Sciences, Ecology, and Engineering. In Figure 8, the co-occurrence map identified nine clusters with 53 items, 3816 links, and 7876 link strengths.
Table 4 summarizes the key indicators of the relationship between universities and SMEs.
Another significant insight is that knowledge transfer emerged as a key concept in the previous co-occurrence maps. In Scopus, twenty scientific articles were identified in the university–SME–knowledge transfer series. The data range from 2015 to 2025, with 2015 being the year of the highest scientific production, featuring five articles. The United Kingdom and Spain had the highest production, having five and three articles, respectively. The areas of science most involved in these studies included Business, Management, Accounting, Social Sciences, and Computer Science. The co-occurrence map identified one cluster containing 10 items, 10 links, and zero link strength. In WoS, the outcome comprised 55 scientific articles. The data range from 2016 to 2025, with 2021 and 2020 being the years of the highest scientific production, with 11 and 12 articles, respectively. The United Kingdom and Spain had the highest production, with nine and seven articles, respectively. The areas of science most frequently covered in these studies were Business Economics and Engineering. The co-occurrence map identified two clusters, containing six items, 13 links, and 22 link strengths.
Historically, based on university–business nexus principles, higher education institutions have been at the forefront of encouraging firms to adopt responsible business practices and enhance their corporate sustainability through various methods [86,87,88]. One of the most prominent models is the Triple Helix Model and its subsequent Helix models, which are often cited to emphasize the importance of university–business–government collaboration, particularly in entrepreneurial and innovation contexts [89,90]. In particular, governments play a key role in fostering university–SME collaboration through funding and regulatory policies that promote circularity in supply chains [91], knowledge transfer, innovation, and spin-offs [92].
In this sense, there is a trend among governments to establish regulatory frameworks to facilitate collaboration with SMEs, which has yielded positive outcomes [84]. In contrast, others have not been as successful despite the involvement of key stakeholders in industry, academia, and research institutes [93]. Its critical role in facilitating practical strategies for HEIs to forge partnerships with SMEs to meet SDG 9 justified a deeper analysis. Interestingly, for most SMEs, accessing low-cost external knowledge is crucial to achieving more efficient competitiveness. In the context of SDG 9, knowledge transferred from universities enables SMEs to explore opportunities to capitalize mainly on open innovation by accessing academic publications, workshops, and free or low-cost consulting services offered by graduate students supervised by experienced mentors [83]. HEIs and SMEs collaborate to strengthen innovative performance through various formal and informal schemes, with both approaches demonstrating positive outcomes [94]. Nevertheless, alliances that enhance innovative-tailored solutions for processes, products, and organizational structures require more structured mechanisms to increase engagement, commitment, and value creation. Unfortunately, high relational mechanisms are not inherent; they are often overlooked in HEIs-SMEs alliances [95]. Therefore, knowledge transfer demands a proactive approach from the knowledge generators to develop accessible and affordable collaboration strategies that can add value to SMEs [96].
Knowledge transfer extends beyond innovation, addressing recurring needs in SMEs such as workforce training and upskilling [97]. This approach is relevant because low training and skill development are frequently highlighted in the literature, hindering SMEs’ performance [98] and unquestionably restricting SMEs’ access to those markets. Reference [6] also recognizes the SMEs’ dependence on external sources of knowledge as a limitation to scaling up; therefore, one effective strategy for HEIs to support SMEs is to form a skilled workforce, which is challenging since it requires knowledge beyond conventional engineering sciences [99]. Finally, through digital knowledge transfer, higher education institutions can help SMEs overcome the challenges of digital transformation and thrive in the Industry 4.0 landscape, which is crucial for their sustainable future readiness [100].
Building synergies toward SDG 9 must prioritize actionable, collaborative initiatives that focus on tangible and measurable outcomes benefiting SMEs, HEIs, and, where possible, communities. Some scholars have adopted a pragmatic sustainability model comprising the three sustainability dimensions, recognizing that sustainable solutions must be adaptable and viable in practice, primarily through a human-centric approach that benefits people and the planet [101]. In this sustainability model, youth engagement plays a crucial role as agents of change, offering novel perspectives to mobilize key stakeholders and drive actions toward achieving the SDGs [102]. As automation and artificial intelligence transform industrial workplaces, new professionals require advanced technological preparation and social knowledge to enhance human–machine environments [103]. For this to be viable in industrial settings, SMEs require higher education institutions to equip young professionals with the necessary skills to create innovative solutions, integrating principles of sustainable development into curricula, research initiatives, and community engagement that transform them into pillars of sustainable societies [104].

5. Conclusions

The results of the bibliometric analyses led to the conclusion that the initial premises are unfounded. The findings revealed a subtle yet significant collaboration between higher education institutions and SMEs centered around the key aspects of innovation and ICTs within SDG 9, indicating that the initial premises are no longer valid. The insight into various mechanisms for strengthening knowledge transfer from higher education institutions to SMEs is even more significant, as they substantially enhance the workforce’s capabilities and skills to innovate, primarily through information and communication technologies. This suggests that higher education institutions emerge as strategic partners for SMEs to progress toward, if not all, some of the targets of SDG 9.

6. Limitations and Future Trends

The bibliometric study has several limitations, including potential biases in database coverage, search strategy, variability in data quality from using two separate scientific databases, and methodological constraints inherent to bibliometric analysis, which may impact the interpretation of the findings. Despite these limitations, the bibliometric analysis revealed trends and patterns that shape the state of the art regarding HEIs-SMEs collaboration for SDG 9, highlighting the crucial role of innovation initiatives and ICTs adoption that suggest future trends will focus on innovative solutions and digital transformation.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Micro-, Small and Sedium-Sized Enterprises (MSMEs) and Their Role in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Sustainable Development Goals: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  2. UN-General Assembly. A/RES/74/4: Political Declaration of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development Convened Under the Auspices of the General Assembly. 2019. Available online: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/74/4 (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  3. Pamela Coke-Hamilton, P. Las Microempresas y las Pequeñas y Medianas Empresas son Esenciales Para un Futuro Inclusivo y Sostenible. Crónica ONU, 27 June 2023. [Google Scholar]
  4. Núñez, P. La importancia de las Pymes en México. Rev. Obs. Econ. Latinoam. Ecuad. 2023, 22, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  5. Pérez, C. Comparación Internacional del Aporte de las Mipypes a la Economía. (CIEN-DT No. 2019-03). 2019. Available online: https://www.cien.adexperu.org.pe/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Comparacion-Internacional-del-aporte-de-las-MIPYMES-a-la-Economia-DT-2019-03.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  6. OECD. SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. European Comission. Annual Report on European SMEs2023/2024. 2024. Available online: https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/ec-publishes-20232024-annual-report-european-smes-2024-07-25_en (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  8. U.S. Small Business Administration. Small Business Profile; 2023. Available online: https://advocacy.sba.gov/2022/08/31/2022-small-business-profiles-for-the-states-territories-and-nation/ (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  9. OECD. SME Policy Index Latin America and the Caribbean 2024 Towards an Inclusive, Resilient, and Sustainable Recovery. 2024. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/sme-policy-index-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-2024_ba028c1d-en.html (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  10. International Labour Organization. Small Matters Global Evidence on the Contribution to Employment by the Self-Employed, Micro-Enterprises and SMEs. 2019. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40dgreports/%40dcomm/%40publ/documents/publication/wcms_723282.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  11. World Bank. Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Finance. Improving SMEs’ Access to Finance and Finding Innovative Solutions to Unlock Sources of Capital. 2016. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/smefinance (accessed on 16 January 2025).
  12. Path for Growth: Making Sustainability Reporting Work for SMEs; Sage Publishing: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2023.
  13. Das, M.; Rangarajan, K.; Dutta, G. Corporate sustainability in small and medium-sized enterprises: A literature analysis and road ahead. J. Indian Bus. Res. 2020, 12, 271–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Small Business Big Impact: SME Sustainability Reporting from Vision to Action; Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): Amsterdam, The Netherlands; The International Organization of Employers (IOE): Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 2–12.
  15. OECD. Fostering Convergence in SME Sustainability Reporting. 2023. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/cfe/oecd-platform-on-financing-smes-for-sustainability/SME-financing-platform-4-pager-WEB.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  16. Fajarika, D.; Trapsilawati, F.; Sopha, B.M. Influential factors of small and medium-sized enterprises growth across developed and developing countries: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2024, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ify Igbokwe, P. Entrepreneurial Strategies and Development of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs). Glob. J. Soc. Sci. 2024, 23, 317–325. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bucaioni, V.; Murgia, G.; Taalbi, J. The impact of explorative and exploitative collaborations on SMEs innovative performance. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2024, 63, 463–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, Y.; Shuib, L.; Norman, A.A.; Tajudeen, F.P. The Factors Influencing University-driven Technology Transfer with SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access 2025, 13, 45753–45770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Noya, S.; Thoyib, A.; Wijayanti, R.; Hussein, A.S. The Dynamic Roles of Government, Higher Education, Large Enterprises, and Communities in SME Collaboration: Mediating Effect of Knowledge and Innovation Exchange. Int. J. Anal. Appl. 2025, 23, 42. [Google Scholar]
  21. Franco Medina, F.A. Evaluación de los Impactos Ambientales de los Hoteles en la Playa Atacames, Provincia de Esmeraldas—Ecuador. Master’s Thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  22. Goduscheit, R.C.; Knudsen, M.P. How Barriers to Collaboration Prevent Progress in Demand for Knowledge: A Dyadic Study of Small and Medium-Sized Firms, Research and Technology Organizations and Universities. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2015, 24, 29–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Johnston, A.; Prokop, D. Peripherality and university collaboration: Evidence from rural SMEs in the UK. J. Rural. Stud. 2021, 88, 298–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. O’Dwyer, M.; Filieri, R.; O’Malley, L. Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: Barriers and enablers deconstructed. J. Technol. Transf. 2023, 48, 900–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dabbagh, M.; Sookhak, M.; Safa, N.S. The evolution of blockchain: A bibliometric study. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 19212–19221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cascajares, M.; Alcayde, A.; Salmerón-Manzano, E.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. The bibliometric literature on scopus and wos: The medicine and environmental sciences categories as case of study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kumpulainen, M.; Seppänen, M. Combining Web of Science and Scopus datasets in citation-based literature study. Scientometrics 2022, 127, 5613–5631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chatterjee, A.; Layton, A. Mimicking nature for resilient resource and infrastructure network design. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2020, 204, 107142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. UN-General Assembly. Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/71/313. 2017. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/ (accessed on 31 March 2022).
  30. Spencer, J.H.; Meng, B. Resilient urbanization and infrastructure governance: The case of the Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority, 1993–2007. Water Policy 2019, 21, 848–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Word Bank. Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI). Annual Report. 2021. Available online: https://ppi.worldbank.org/content/dam/PPI/documents/PPI-2021-Annual-Report.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  32. OECD. SMEs: Key Drivers of Green and Inclusive Growth. OECD Green Growth Papers. 2019. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/smes-key-drivers-of-green-and-inclusive-growth_8a51fc0c-en.html (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  33. Liang, Z. Assessment of the construction of a climate resilient city: An empirical study based on the difference in differences model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. De Genaro Chiroli, D.M.; Menezes, M.G.; Zola, F.C.; Aragão, F.V.; Almeida, R.D.d.e.; Tebcherani, S.M. Integrating resilience and sustainability: A systematic analysis of resilient cities using ISO 37123. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023, 96, 103960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Szopik-Depczyńska, K.; Kędzierska-Szczepaniak, A.; Szczepaniak, K.; Cheba, K.; Gajda, W.; Ioppolo, G. Innovation in sustainable development: An investigation of the EU context using 2030 agenda indicators. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. OECD. SMEs and Entrepreneurship. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/smes-and-entrepreneurship.html (accessed on 12 May 2022).
  37. Dette, R. Do No Digital Harm: Mitigating Technology Risks in Humanitarian Contexts. In Technologies for Development: From Innovation to Social Impact; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lim, S.S.; Sonko, L.K. Linking corporate sustainability and innovation in supply chain management—Evidence of a Taiwan leading glass recycling company. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2019, 31, 957–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mulolli, E.; Islami, X.; Hashani, M. Enhancing Sme Performance Through Innovation: Evidence from a Transition Economy—Kosovo. Bus. Manag. Econ. Eng. 2024, 22, 401–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hervás-Oliver, J.L.; Parrilli, M.D.; Rodríguez-Pose, A.; Sempere-Ripoll, F. The drivers of SME innovation in the regions of the EU. Res. Policy 2021, 50, 104316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Stoian, C.; Gilman, M. Corporate Social Responsibility That “Pays”: A Strategic Approach to CSR for SMEs. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2017, 55, 5–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Briozzo, A.; Albanese, D.; Santolíquido, D. Gobierno corporativo, financiamiento y género: Un estudio de las pymes emisoras de títulos en los mercados de valores argentinos. Contad. Adm. 2017, 62, 358–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Restrepo-Morales, J.A.; Valencia-Cárdenas, M.; García-Pérez-de-Lema, D. The role of technological innovation in the mitigation of the crisis generated by COVID-19: An empirical study of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in Latin America. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 2024, 54, 120–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lamperti, S.; Cavallo, A.; Sassanelli, C. Digital Servitization and Business Model Innovation in SMEs: A Model to Escape from Market Disruption. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2024, 71, 4619–4633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hassan, S.S.; Meisner, K.; Krause, K.; Bzhalava, L.; Moog, P. Is digitalization a source of innovation? Exploring the role of digital diffusion in SME innovation performance. Small Bus. Econ. 2024, 62, 1469–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Donbesuur, F.; Ampong, G.O.A.; Owusu-Yirenkyi, D.; Chu, I. Technological innovation, organizational innovation and international performance of SMEs: The moderating role of domestic institutional environment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 161, 120252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chatterjee, S.; Chaudhuri, R.; Shah, M.; Maheshwari, P. Big data driven innovation for sustaining SME supply chain operation in post COVID-19 scenario: Moderating role of SME technology leadership. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 168, 108058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Valdez-Juárez, L.E.; Castillo-Vergara, M. Technological Capabilities, Open Innovation, and Eco-Innovation: Dynamic Capabilities to Increase Corporate Performance of SMEs. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Do, H.N.; Do, N.B.; Nguyen, T.M. Unveiling the role of sustainability practices, co-innovation and entrepreneurial orientation on SMEs performance: An empirical study in developing country. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2024, 7, e70022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hidayat, A.S.; Pok, W.C. Empowering SMEs innovation through intangible factors. J. Innov. Entrep. 2025, 14, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Galviz Cataño, D.F.; Caycedo Sánchez, V.M.; Simancas Trujillo, R.; Solórzano Movilla, J.; Marcela Montoya, C. The clusters, the technology and the academy, an imminent trilogy in the SMEs of Donmatías confection, in its process of internationalization. Espacios 2018, 39, 17. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kafetzopoulos, D.; Katou, A.A. Expanding strategic flexibility through organizational culture, industry 4.0 and market orientation. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2024, 73, 1305–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yu, H.; Lee, H.; Jeon, H. What is 5G? Emerging 5G Mobile Services and Network Requirements. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Elhusseiny, H.M.; Crispim, J. A Review of Industry 4.0 Maturity Models: Adoption of SMEs in the Manufacturing and Logistics Sectors. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2023, 219, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hetemi, E.; Ordieres-Meré, J.; Nuur, C. An Institutional Approach to Digitalization in Sustainability-Oriented Infrastructure Projects: The Limits of the Building Information Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bouwman, H.; Nikou, S.; de Reuver, M. Digitalization, business models, and SMEs: How do business model innovation practices improve performance of digitalizing SMEs? Telecommun. Policy 2019, 43, 101828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Amaral, A.; Peças, P. SMEs and Industry 4.0: Two case studies of digitalization for a smoother integration. Comput. Ind. 2021, 125, 103333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Burinskienė, A.; Nalivaikė, J. Digital and Sustainable (Twin) Transformations: A Case of SMEs in the European Union. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yuwono, T.; Suroso, A.; Novandari, W. Information and communication technology in SMEs: A systematic literature review. J. Innov. Entrep. 2024, 13, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. OECD. SME Digitalisation to Manage Shocks and Transitions: 2024 OECD D4SME Survey; OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Papers; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  61. Nazir, M.A.; Khan, M.R. Identification of roles and factors influencing the adoption of ICTs in the SMEs of Pakistan by using an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Innov. Dev. 2024, 14, 189–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Onu, P.; Mbohwa, C. Industry 4.0 opportunities in manufacturing SMEs: Sustainability outlook. Mater. Today: Proc. 2021, 44, 1925–1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pedro, F.; Giglio, E.; Contreras, L.V.; Munguia, N. Constructed Governance as Solution to Conflicts in E-Waste Recycling Networks. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wang, Q.; Kong, L.; Li, J.; Li, B.; Wang, F. Behavioral Evolutionary Analysis between the Government and Uncertified Recycler in China’s E-Waste Recycling Management. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Niu, B.; Shanshan, E.; Cao, Y.; Xiao, J.; Zhan, L.; Xu, Z. Utilizing E-Waste for Construction of Magnetic and Core-Shell Z-Scheme Photocatalysts: An Effective Approach to E-Waste Recycling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 1279–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Patil, R.A.; Ramakrishna, S. A comprehensive analysis of e-waste legislation worldwide. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 14412–14431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ottoni, M.; Dias, P.; Xavier, L.H. A circular approach to the e-waste valorization through urban mining in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 261, 120990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. OECD. The Digital Transformation of SMEs; OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. UN Trade and Development. End of the Cycle? Digitalization-Related Waste and the Circular Economy; UN Trade and Development: Geneva, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 101–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Van Der Ven, C.M.A. Inclusive Industrialization: The Interplay between Investment Incentives and SME Promotion Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Law Dev. Rev. 2018, 11, 557–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Czerwonka, L.; Jaworski, J. Capital structure determinants of small and medium-sized enterprises: Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2021, 28, 277–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hossain, M.R.; Akhter, F.; Sultana, M.M. SMEs in COVID-19 Crisis and Combating Strategies: A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and A Case from Emerging Economy. Oper. Res. Perspect. 2022, 9, 100222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. OECD. The Impact of COVID-19 on SME Financing. A Special Edition of the OECD Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs Scoreboard. 2020. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/financing-smes-and-entrepreneurship-an-oecd-scoreboard_ecd81a65-en.html (accessed on 16 January 2025).
  74. United Nations Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2021. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2020. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2021-Report.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2025).
  75. World Economic Outlook, October 2022. International Monetary Fund. International Monetary Fund. 2022. Available online: https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9798400218439/9798400218439.xml (accessed on 16 January 2025).
  76. Palacín-Sánchez, M.J.; Canto-Cuevas, F.J.; di Pietro, F. Examining the effects of the quality of financial reports on SME trade credit: An innovative approach. Int. Rev. Financ. 2022, 22, 662–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ndiaye, N.; Abdul Razak, L.; Nagayev, R.; Ng, A. Demystifying small and medium enterprises’ (SMEs) performance in emerging and developing economies. Borsa Istanb. Rev. 2018, 18, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Distinguin, I.; Rugemintwari, C.; Tacneng, R. Can Informal Firms Hurt Registered SMEs’ Access to Credit? World Dev. 2016, 84, 18–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bańkowska, K.; Ferrando, A.; García, J.A. The COVID-19 pandemic and access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises: Evidence from survey data. Econ. Bull. Boxes 2020, 4, 3. [Google Scholar]
  80. OCDE. Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs: An OECD Scoreboard Special Edition: The Impact of COVID-19. 2020, pp. 1–49. Available online: https://www.knowledge4all.com/admin/Temp/Files/90ff83ad-3311-4742-9562-e4d915feb9f8.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  81. Mrockova, N. Resolving SME insolvencies: An analysis of new Chinese rules. J. Corp. Law Stud. 2022, 22, 469–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Carvajal, A.F.; Didier, T. Boosting SME Finance for Growth: The Case for More Effective Support Policies. Washington, D.C. 2024. Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099092724122562655 (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  83. Jonsson, L.; Baraldi, E.; Larsson, L.E.; Forsberg, P.; Severinsson, K. Targeting Academic Engagement in Open Innovation: Tools, Effects and Challenges for University Management. J. Knowl. Econ. 2015, 6, 522–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Graafland, J.; Bovenberg, L. Government regulation, business leaders’ motivations and environmental performance of SMEs. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020, 63, 1335–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Centre for Universities and Business. Arresting the Decline: Unlocking the Potential of University-SME Interaction in the UK; National Centre for Universities and Business: London, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  86. Davey, T.; Martínez-Martínez, S.L.; Ventura, R.; Galán-Muros, V. The Creation of Academic Spin-Offs: University-Business Collaboration Matters. J. Technol. Transf. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ramani, S. Background and Skill Set of Instructional Designers Questioned in the OPM-University Business Model. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 2022, 34, 25–35. Available online: http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  88. Knop, L.; Papież-Pawełczak, K. Relationship Between University and Business: Cooperation or Collaboration? Sci. Pap. Silesian Univ. Technology. Organ. Manag. Ser. 2023, 2023, 297–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Simões, P.C.; Moreira, A.C.; Dias, C.M. The “Endless Perspective” to University–Industry–Government Relations. Triple Helix 2022, 9, 247–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Cai, Y.; Lattu, A. Triple Helix or Quadruple Helix: Which Model of Innovation to Choose for Empirical Studies? Minerva 2022, 60, 257–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Provensi, T.; Sehnem, S.; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B. Towards circularity in supply chains: The case of agtechs. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2024, 201, 110684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. OECD. University-Industry Collaboration: New Evidence and Policy Options; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  93. Doh, S.; Kim, B. Government support for SME innovations in the regional industries: The case of government financial support program in South Korea. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 1557–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lu, C.; Qi, Y. Collaboration Networks and Innovation Performance of SMEs: The Moderating Role of Intellectual Property Protection. In Proceedings of the 2022 8th International Conference on Information Management (ICIM), Cambridge, UK, 25–27 March 2022; pp. 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. de Zubielqui, G.C.; Jones, J.; Seet, P.S.; Lindsay, N. Knowledge transfer between actors in the innovation system: A study of higher education institutions (HEIS) and SMES. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2015, 30, 436–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lykke, M.; Lokkegaard, S.; Jantzen, C. Experience-oriented knowledge organisation for the transference of scientific knowledge from universities to SMEs. Knowl. Organ. 2018, 45, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tereshchenko, E.; Salmela, E.; Melkko, E.; Phang, S.K.; Happonen, A. Emerging best strategies and capabilities for university–industry cooperation: Opportunities for MSMEs and universities to improve collaboration: A literature review 2000–2023. J. Innov. Entrep. 2024, 13, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Prasanna, R.P.I.R.; Jayasundara, J.M.S.B.; Gamage, S.K.N.; Ekanayake, E.M.S.; Rajapakshe, P.S.K.; Abeyrathne, G.A.K.N.J. Sustainability of SMEs in the competition: A systemic review on technological challenges and SME performance. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Winkens, A.K.; Lemke, C.; Leicht-Scholten, C. How to teach resilience thinking in engineering education. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 2024, 9, 513–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Rajah, R.B.; Woeffray, O. Future Readiness of SMEs and Mid-Sized Companies: A Year on; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 1–38. Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_Readiness_of_SMEs_and_Mid_Sized_Companies_A_Year_On_2022.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  101. D’Adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, E.N.; Uricchio, A.F. Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social Progress: A Cluster Analysis Comparison towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Fukuda, M.; Zusman, E. Meaningful Youth Engagement in Sustainability Processes in Japan and Finland: A Comparative Assessment. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Osorio, A.M.; Úsuga, L.F.; Restrepo-Carmona, J.A.; Rendón, I.; Sierra-Pérez, J.; Vásquez, R.E. Methodology for Stakeholder Prioritization in the Context of Digital Transformation and Society 5.0. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Biancardi, A.; Colasante, A.; D’Adamo, I. Sustainable education and youth confidence as pillars of future civil society. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 17 04665 g001
Figure 1. Triad university–SMEs–innovation co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Scopus extractions.
Figure 1. Triad university–SMEs–innovation co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Scopus extractions.
Sustainability 17 04665 g001
Sustainability 17 04665 g002
Figure 2. Triad university–SMEs–innovation co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Web of Science extractions.
Figure 2. Triad university–SMEs–innovation co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Web of Science extractions.
Sustainability 17 04665 g002
Sustainability 17 04665 g003
Figure 3. Triad university–SMEs–ICTs co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Scopus extractions.
Figure 3. Triad university–SMEs–ICTs co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Scopus extractions.
Sustainability 17 04665 g003
Sustainability 17 04665 g004
Figure 4. Triad university–SMEs–ICTs co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Web of Science extractions.
Figure 4. Triad university–SMEs–ICTs co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Web of Science extractions.
Sustainability 17 04665 g004
Sustainability 17 04665 g005
Figure 5. Triad university–SMEs–finance services co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Scopus extractions.
Figure 5. Triad university–SMEs–finance services co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Scopus extractions.
Sustainability 17 04665 g005
Sustainability 17 04665 g006
Figure 6. Triad university–SMEs–finance services co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Web of Science extractions.
Figure 6. Triad university–SMEs–finance services co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Web of Science extractions.
Sustainability 17 04665 g006
Sustainability 17 04665 g007
Figure 7. University–SMEs co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Scopus extractions.
Figure 7. University–SMEs co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Scopus extractions.
Sustainability 17 04665 g007
Sustainability 17 04665 g008
Figure 8. University–SMEs co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Web of Science extractions.
Figure 8. University–SMEs co-occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer Software—Web of Science extractions.
Sustainability 17 04665 g008
Table 1. University–SMEs–innovation key indicators.
Table 1. University–SMEs–innovation key indicators.
IndicatorScopusWofS
Number of Articles Extracted From230276
Top Publication Years2023, 20242023, 2024
Top Publishing Countries Italy, SpainItaly, United Kingdom
Field of StudyBusiness, Management, and Accounting
Social Sciences and Economics.		Management, Business, Environmental Sciences, Ecology, and Engineering
Clusters66
Items35109
Links2062231
Links Strength 4895209
Table 2. University–SMEs–ICTs key indicators.
Table 2. University–SMEs–ICTs key indicators.
IndicatorScopusWofS
Number of Articles Extracted From1011
Top Publication Years2023, 20152023, 2020
Top Publishing Countries Italy, PolandChina, Italy, Colombia
Field of StudyBusiness, Management, and Accounting
Economics, Econometrics, Finance, and Decision Sciences.		Management, Business.
Clusters22
Items64
Links106
Links Strength 110
Table 3. University–SMEs–financial key indicators.
Table 3. University–SMEs–financial key indicators.
IndicatorScopusWofS
Number of Articles Extracted From417
Top Publication Years2023, 20152023, 2023
Top Publishing Countries Australia, ChinaIndonesia, Spain, and the United States
Field of StudyBusiness, Management, Accounting, Economics, and Computer ScienceBusiness Economics, Environmental Sciences, Ecology, and Science and Technology
Clusters12
Items55
Links1719
Links Strength 015
Table 4. University–SMEs key indicators.
Table 4. University–SMEs key indicators.
IndicatorScopusWofS
Number of Articles Extracted From461468
Top Publication Years20242024, 2023
Top Publishing Countries The United Kingdom and IndonesiaThe United Kingdom and Spain
Field of StudyBusiness, Management, Accounting, Social Sciences, Econometrics, and Finance Business and Economics, Environmental Sciences, Ecology, and Engineering
Clusters79
Items7653
Links6213816
Links Strength 11057876
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

Velazquez, L. Higher Education Institutions as Leverage for Backing up SMEs’ Efforts to Meet SDG 9. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4665. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104665

AMA Style

Velazquez L. Higher Education Institutions as Leverage for Backing up SMEs’ Efforts to Meet SDG 9. Sustainability. 2025; 17(10):4665. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104665

Chicago/Turabian Style

Velazquez, Luis. 2025. "Higher Education Institutions as Leverage for Backing up SMEs’ Efforts to Meet SDG 9" Sustainability 17, no. 10: 4665. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104665

APA Style

Velazquez, L. (2025). Higher Education Institutions as Leverage for Backing up SMEs’ Efforts to Meet SDG 9. Sustainability, 17(10), 4665. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104665

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