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

25 February 2025

Technological Innovations Shaping Sustainable Competitiveness—A Systematic Review

and
1
Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan University of Technology, 60-965 Poznań, Poland
2
Faculty of Economics, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, 79000 Lviv, Ukraine
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Economy and Sustainable Development

Abstract

The concept of sustainable competitiveness is becoming increasingly relevant, as it combines the investigation of the factors that determine the competitive advantages of economic entities, as well as management strategies that ensure economic and environmental efficiency in the face of modern global requirements and challenges. The main hypothesis of the research is that technological innovations are key determinants of the sustainable competitiveness of economic entities, increase their resilience to various challenges and threats, and therefore contribute to sustainable competitiveness in the long run. Accordingly, the object of the research is a comprehensive science literature review at the intersection of the issues of competitiveness, technological innovations, and sustainable development using the Scopus database and PRISMA statement in order to substantiate the importance of technological innovation in ensuring sustainable competitiveness. The scientific research pinpoints three key questions shaping the scientific discussion: Are technological innovations key determinants of sustainable competitiveness? How do advanced technologies contribute across sectors? What strategies and measures stimulate sustainable competitiveness? By answering the research questions based on the methodology of nonempirical systematic scientific analysis, this review article provides scientific and practical insights for businesses and policymakers aiming to harness technological advancements to sustain their business in the long run.

1. Introduction

Modern trends of intellectualization, digitalization, and humanization of socio-economic processes, as well as growing social standards and environmental requirements of society, pose one of the primary tasks for economic entities at both the micro and macroeconomic levels—determining the drivers of their sustainable competitiveness. At the same time, an equally important aspect of sustainable competitiveness in the face of modern challenges of various origins is determining the factors of resilience of economic entities to various threats and ensuring competitiveness in the long run. In such complicated conditions, technological innovations should become a response to modern challenges of an ecological, epidemiological nature, military threats, etc., as they allow for flexible adaptation to extremely complex and changing conditions.
Historically, advanced technologies have always been the driving force behind progressive changes, competitiveness, and development at both the micro and macroeconomic levels. Nowadays, the integration of technological innovations with sustainability and competitiveness is increasing significantly and recognized as essential for addressing global challenges and achieving sustainable development goals. Advanced technologies are significant drivers worldwide in shaping industries using digital and environmental capabilities: clean energy and renewable energy industries, telehealth and digital health technologies, fintech industry and blockchain technologies, e-commerce and social commerce, etc. This is due to their influence on both sustainability and competitiveness. In this context, Herciu M. and Ogrean Cin. describe in their research sustainable competitiveness as the ability of a company to utilize all of its resources in a synergistic manner in order to enhance productivity, profitability, efficacy, and sustainability over the years [1]. Therefore, the integration of advanced technologies has proven to be a powerful enabler of this goal.
Transformative solutions—outcomes of technological innovation—one of the ways that enable organizations to achieve dual objectives: reducing environmental impact while enhancing profitability, efficiency, and market position [2,3]. This led the technological innovations to play a critical role in bridging this gap. However, the ways in which these innovations contribute to sustainable competitiveness still need to be explored, in particular, across different sectors and sizes of business structures, as well as the specifics of the regulatory and macroeconomic environment in different countries.

1.1. Literature Review and Theoretical Background

1.1.1. Theoretical Foundations of Technological Innovation and Sustainable Competitiveness

The analysis of the scientific literature at the intersection of innovation, technology, and sustainable development has made it possible to highlight the following main scientific approaches in this area:
  • Resource-Based View (RBV) Framework: Barney highlights the strategic role of resources in achieving competitive advantage [4]. Technological assets empower firms with solutions that help in enhancing efficiency while addressing the aspects of sustainability.
  • Dynamic Capabilities Theory: Theory of Dynamic Capabilities: It builds on the previously mentioned framework (RBV), in which, while the RBV is about the ability of a firm to use resources and capabilities for sustained competition, the theory of Dynamic extends on this by stressing the high value of agility while adapting to technological and environmental changes [5]. It emphasizes the need for firms to adapt and reconfigure their resources and competencies in response to rapidly changing environments.
  • Triple Bottom Line (TBL): In this framework, Elkington expanded the traditional way of focusing only on the financial performance of a firm to include a wider perspective that supports a balance between three main elements: economic, environmental, and social goals [6]. Technological innovation provides help in giving a balance among those elements. This is through providing support in improving resource efficiency and promoting equitable growth.
  • Model of Triple Helix: In their model, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff highlighted the vital collaboration between three key spheres: academia, industry, and government. This intersection aims to help innovation ecosystems that scale technological advancements for sustainable competitiveness [7]. Carayannis and Campbell developed this model and formed a Quadruple Helix Model [8] by the involvement of civil society in the innovation ecosystem. While Peris-Ortiz, Ferreira, Farinha, Fernandes, and Nuno additionally included the natural environment as a new subsystem and substantiated mechanisms for close interaction between government, academia, industry, and civil society to promote sustainable competitiveness at the country (regional) and company (business) levels [9]. Within the Quintuple Helix Model, sustainable development became a core idea, pushing innovators to launch new solutions with support given by universities, authorities, and society to reduce natural environment degradation.
The above concepts emphasize that modern dynamic changes increase the requirements for the competitiveness of economic entities at the micro and macroeconomic levels and require innovative solutions for the effective use of all productive resources of society. This, in turn, requires the formation of an innovation ecosystem with the involvement of academic centers, business structures, government authorities, and civil society to develop innovative mechanisms for sustainable competitiveness based on the modern technologies for careful use of resources and a prudent attitude to the environment.

1.1.2. Empirical Evidence of the Impact of Technological Innovation on Sustainable Competitiveness

Scientific concepts find confirmation of the importance of technological innovations in practice, contributing to increasing the competitiveness of economic subjects based on increasing economic, environmental, and social efficiency:
  • Economic Impact: Industry 4.0 technologies enhance productivity. Also, it supports the development and growth of circular economy practices. Hence, driving long-term economic sustainability [10,11].
  • Environmental Sustainability: Innovations in renewable energy, smart grids, and green technologies mitigate environmental impacts and enhance resilience [12].
  • Social Equity: World Economic Forum highlighted that advances in education, healthcare, and digital access promote inclusivity, although the digital divide persists [13].
Empirical evidence confirms that at the current stage, sustainable competitiveness at both the macro and microeconomic levels is to a great extent ensured by the continuous implementation of technological innovations, which in the long run bring positive economic, social, and environmental results.

1.1.3. Strategies and Challenges in Adopting Technological Innovation for Sustainable Competitiveness

Technological innovations offer significant opportunities for overall business and socio-economic development. However, barriers exist for firms eager to adopt these innovations, such as high costs, cultural resistance, and various regulatory gaps hindering adoption. Addressing these issues requires:
  • Policy Support: OECD highlighted the importance that governments bring when it comes to encouraging and helping public–private partnerships; besides, their help in setting clear regulatory frameworks [14].
  • Collaboration: For scaling innovations, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff stated in their research that it is essential to have partnerships across three spheres: academia, industry, and government [7].
  • Capacity Building: Organizations need to ensure their competency by having a good knowledge base and advanced technologies. Also, organizations need to promote a culture of innovation [15].
Overall, several gaps remain unaddressed. First, the role of technological innovations in driving sustainable competitiveness across different industries and sectors. Secondly, sectoral contributions of advanced technologies to sustainable competitiveness. Third, the strategies that stimulate and scale the adoption of technology across different sectors are still not well documented. Explaining each element of those objectives will provide a comprehensive understanding of how technological advancements shape sustainable competitiveness. Hence, offering practical insights for academia, industry, and policymakers.

2. Materials and Methods

The research objective is a nonempirical systematic scientific analysis of the technological innovations, the implementation of which contributes to sustainable competitive development, based on a comprehensive review of scientific literature using the Scopus database and PRISMA statement (See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist in the Supplementary Materials) [16]. Additionally, analysis of selected articles focuses on technological innovations peculiarities in various sectors and industries, as well as on successful strategies for their implementation at the micro and macroeconomic levels, which lead to sustainable competitiveness. Analytical materials will be generalized from identified peer-reviewed articles taken from the Scopus database. Synthesizing results from the final articles will help in answering our main core research questions for this article:
  • Are the technological innovations key determinants of sustainable competitiveness?
  • How do advanced technologies contribute to sustainable competitiveness across sectors?
  • What measures and strategies on micro and macroeconomic levels stimulate and accelerate sustainable competitiveness?
By answering the questions, this review article will provide a foundation for future research, and it will offer practical insights for policymakers and industry leaders. Also, it will help academics seeking to navigate the evolving landscape of sustainable competitiveness across different sectors and industries.
The Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework [16] has been adopted to systematically review and analyze how technological innovations shape sustainability competitiveness (see the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist in the Supplementary Materials) to ensure methodological rigor and transparency throughout this review process.
The literature search was conducted using the Scopus database by applying a set of keywords and then filters that align with our research questions. The search query in which it used to get the related articles is constructed as follows: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“technological innovation” OR “digital technology” OR “sustainable technology” OR “advanced technologies”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“ sustainable competitiveness” OR “sustainable development” OR “sustainability”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“competitiveness” OR “competitive advantage”) AND PUBYEAR > 2012 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE, “final”)).
The search using the above query provided us with 122 articles (retrieved on 1 December 2024). The 122 articles were then subsequently screened and ranked for their relevance.
To ensure that the selected literature directly addresses the paper’s research questions, certain inclusion and exclusion criteria were established before:
  • Inclusion Criteria Include the following:
    • Articles that examine, in particular, the role of technological innovation in shaping sustainable competitiveness or competitive advantage
    • Articles that present real-life case studies, frameworks, or empirical evidence linking technology with sustainable competitiveness.
    • Articles published between 2013 and the present (1 December 2024). The reason behind this is to look at recent advancements that consider critical to understanding current trends of sustainable competitiveness.
    • Articles in the final publication stage to ensure only completed and peer-reviewed works were included.
  • Exclusion Criteria-Studies were excluded if they met any of the following conditions:
    • Non-article documents (e.g., reviews, book chapters, or conference proceedings).
    • Articles that do not offer any clear ideas on technology, sustainability, or competitiveness.
    • Non-English articles
    • Articles with no current application and just focused on historical analysis
Table 1 shows the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the research:
Table 1. The inclusion and the exclusion criteria for data screening.
The flow diagram (see Figure 1), which follows the PRISMA guidelines, summarizes the inclusion and exclusion steps at each stage of the selection process. The process includes:
Figure 1. The process of SLR steps. (Authors’ analysis).
  • Step 1: Identification. An initial search on Scopus gave us 122 articles. (Retrieved on 1 December 2024). This is for the field of Business, Management and Accounting.
  • Step 2: Screening. This stage required reviewing all the titles and abstracts for the 122 articles, and then they were ranked based on relevance, with ranks from 1 to 5. The criterion used for evaluating the relevancy of the retrieved articles began with a review of the title and abstract to determine the significance of their content to the topic of research based on the selection in this article. Furthermore, the relevancy check used a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being out of scope and 5 being the highest rate of relevancy, and the publications for full reading were selected from scores of 4 to 5. Moreover, a score of 3 was considered low, and a score of 2 was considered very low. Table 2 presents the criteria behind this scale and how we selected the articles.
    Table 2. (1–5) Ranking during the screening step for article relevance.
  • Step 3: Eligibility. Only articles that received rank 4 and 5 were selected for full in-depth analysis. Those ranked as 3 and 2 will be used as supportive articles in the discussion section.
  • Step 4: Inclusion. The final selection included 4 and 5-ranked articles (overall 68 articles). Figure 2 shows the distributions of the articles.
    Figure 2. Shows the authors distribution of the ranking articles according to their relevance.
  • Step 5: Data Extraction. Data from each selected article were extracted using a standardized form. The reason behind that is to ensure consistency across all the included articles. Key details included: article citation, technological innovations discussed, sector, key findings on how each technology supports sustainable competitive advantage, and limitations and gaps in the articles that were noted by authors.
  • Step 6: Thematic Synthesis. A thematic synthesis was conducted over the selected 68 articles. This analysis seeks to categorize key insights based on sectors and strategies to stimulate sustainable competitiveness. This process highlighted innovations frequently associated with sustainable competitive advantage. Also, it underlines sector-specific insights, in which it presents the differences in implementation across industries such as agriculture, manufacturing, and energy. In addition to presenting a summary of practical strategies for firms looking to enhance competitiveness through sustainable technological innovation.
The relevancy checks of 122 publications used a scoring method categorizing papers as Highly Relevant, Moderately Relevant, Low Relevance, or Very Low, out of the scope. Highly relevant papers for full reading were highlighted in red and formed the basis for scientific analysis.

3. Results

This section divides the findings of this article into 3 subsections to make them more cohesive. In this light, we first looked at the Scopus analysis based on the search engine query results. Second, we present the results for the exported articles to the VOSviewer program version 1.6.20 to get cluster analysis and images for co-occurrence for the keywords of the authors. Finally, we examined the data-extraction table as a result of the inquiry by reviewing the content of the selected articles based on selection criteria and responding to the research questions outlined in the SLR methodology. Additionally, in the next section, we attempted to build on the findings and responses to the research questions through discussion in order to analyze the overall findings, research gaps, difficulties, and opportunities.

3.1. Analysis of the Scopus Results

The analysis of publishing from the Scopus portal to trace the history of publication reveals the lowest slope of publication between 2013 and 2017 and a larger slope of publication in the following 3 years until 2020. However, a decrease in publishing followed from 2020 to 2021. Then, the rate grew to its peak between 2021 and 2024, indicating the peak of publications. Figure 3 presents the publications by year.
Figure 3. Historical analysis of publications. Source: Scopus “Analyze Results” portal (covering the period from 2013 to 1 December 2024).
Concurrently, for the same period, the pie chart (Figure 4) from Scopus database analytics shows the distribution of articles by subject area. The result was obtained on 1 December 2024 and shows that Business, Management, and Accounting (45.4%) is the most dominant subject area. This distribution places a strong emphasis on businesses and managerial research within the collection, further demonstrating the significant relevance of this issue in the context of studying the factors determining sustainable competitiveness and the importance of technological leadership strategies in ensuring competitive advantages and sustainable competitiveness on the micro and macroeconomic levels. The other 54.6% of articles are distributed among the other disciplines.
Figure 4. Scopus category of publications; Source: Scopus (1 December 2024).

3.2. Biblometric Analysis Results (VOSviewer)

The exported data from Scopus was inserted into the VOSviewer program to show clusters and present the keywords and the linking between them (Figure 5). Also, to get the co-occurrence of keywords, we used the fractional counting approach and a minimum of 5 occurrences per keyword. From the program, we were able to get Table 3, which presents the keywords, the occurrence, and the total link strength. The VOSviewer clustering analysis of the extracted keywords reveals four thematic clusters related to sustainable competitiveness. Cluster 1 focuses on circular economy, digitalization, Industry 4.0, and innovation, highlighting the role of emerging technologies in transforming industries. Cluster 2 groups digital technologies, digital transformation, and sustainable development, emphasizing the connection between technological advancements and sustainability goals. Cluster 3 links competitive advantage, sustainability, and technological innovation, showcasing the direct impact of innovation on maintaining a competitive edge. Lastly, Cluster 4, which stands alone with competitiveness, suggests its overarching influence across all other themes. These clusters collectively illustrate the key dimensions shaping sustainable competitiveness in modern industries.
Figure 5. Bibliometric analysis with keywords of 122 articles in Scopus database, accessed in 1 December 2024).
Table 3. List of top occurrences of technological innovations shaping sustainable competitiveness filtered by VOS viewer program.

3.3. Data Extraction Table

In this section, we present the findings of the selected 68 publications in detail. The data (information) is organized into a data extraction table to systematically analyze the relationship between technological innovations and sustainable competitiveness. Before that, another important data is presented in Table 1 (Table 1. Relevance Assessment of Articles on Technological Innovations for Sustainable Competitiveness). This table was done after careful reading of the full 68 articles in order to evaluate articles based on their contributions to business sustainability, competitiveness, and their intersection (sustainability-competitiveness synergy). The selected 68 articles were categorized into High, Moderate, or Low relevance for the following dimensions:
  • Business Sustainability: Focus on environmental, economic, or social sustainability. It is about how businesses integrate sustainable practices, technologies, and strategies into their operations for long-term impact.
  • Competitiveness: Contributions to competitive advantage, firm performance, or innovation. This includes improving firm performance, innovation, market share, and financial growth. However, it does not necessarily require that sustainability be a part of competitiveness. It is only regarding the company’s practices or strategies that drive its competitive advantage.
  • Sustainability-Competitiveness Synergy: Interactions between sustainability practices and competitiveness outcomes. This category examines the intersection between business sustainability practices and competitive advantage. It is about identifying how adopting sustainable strategies (e.g., environmentally-friendly practices, eco-innovation, etc.) directly contributes to or enhances a company’s competitiveness.
This rating system that we did for the final selected articles is to help us in setting a clear identification of the strengths and limitations in addressing the research-targeted questions from those articles. The following three rates are:
  • High rate: High means that an article explored in deep detail the topic from that rated dimension. Therefore, this rate can be given for a certain article for a certain category like business sustainability or completeness or sustainability-competitiveness synergy. For example, the study by Ha et al. 2023 [3] received a high rate in terms of “sustainability-competitiveness synergy” since it contributes to sustainable competitiveness, such as integrating Industry 4.0 technologies with circular economy practices. Normally, studies with high ranks for all of the categories propose actionable strategies and explore sustainability-competitiveness synergy.
  • Moderate—when an article partially explores the dimension, offering useful but limited or less integrated insights. For instance, the article from Antonioli et al. 2022 [17] emphasizes sustainable strategies in innovation and technology adoption but does not extensively explore the sustainability-competitiveness link, giving it a moderate rate from this dimension.
  • Low—an article can be rated as low in a certain dimension when it offers broad or superficial discussions with minimal relevance or depth in addressing the dimension. This is not really the case in our table, as we already filtered the articles from 122 to 68. Only one article received this from the dimension of sustainability-competitiveness Synergy. Including this type of article in our data extraction table helps identify gaps in actionable insights and methodological approaches, which can provide a guide for future studies.
It is clear from Table 4 that there is a growing interest in business sustainability and competitiveness. In addition to that, our analysis of the selected articles reveals that there is also growing attention from scholars to sustainable competitiveness aspects across different industries and sectors. Articles that we rate as a “high” rate in the “sustainability-competitiveness synergy” column have covered the elements of sustainable competitiveness. Meanwhile, some of them have not exactly mentioned the term “sustainable competitiveness”. Around 35% of the articles we reviewed from the Scopus database received a high rating from the dimension of sustainable competitiveness. 24 articles out of 68 address their synergy (business sustainability and competitiveness). These articles, which received a high rating, will help answer the research questions and provide actionable insights and strategies for achieving sustainable competitiveness, as they effectively integrate the two domains of business sustainability and competitiveness.
Table 4. Relevance Assessment of Articles on Technological Innovations for Sustainable Competitiveness.
The remaining articles in Table 4, meanwhile, in which they were rated as moderate in terms of the synergy between competencies and sustainability, are still valuable. Including those articles in our analysis and discussion provides important perspectives on sustainability-driven innovations or even competitive strategies. As an example of those articles, Bui et al. 2024 shed light on the importance of integrating digital technologies for effective responses to crises [71]. Also, Yu et al. 2024 highlighted the importance of digital technology for competitive advantages [53]. Therefore, we can conclude that although these articles do not directly address the synergy, they still offer insights that can inform frameworks for sustainable competitiveness.
Table 5 below is the primary data extraction table. This table and Table 4 above both provide important findings and may both respond to all research questions for this study, indicating that there are studies that focus on the relationship between “business sustainability” and “competitiveness” but not in a strong sense of convergence. Table 5 summarizes the selected 68 articles and includes the following components:
Table 5. Data extraction.
  • Citation of the Article: The source of the article.
  • Sector/Industry Focus: In order to shed light on the specific industries or sectors examined.
  • Technological Innovations Discussed: Summary of the technological advancements that were covered in the studies, such as Industry 4.0, digital transformations, or circular economy practices.
  • Key Findings on Sustainable Competitiveness: Summarizes the studies’ contributions to understanding how technological innovations impact sustainable competitiveness.
  • Measures and Strategies: Outlines actionable recommendations for enhancing sustainable competitiveness, including policy suggestions, frameworks, and industry-specific interventions.
  • Limitations/Gaps: Identifies unresolved challenges or research gaps.
To support Table 4 and Table 5, there is an additional Table A1 in Appendix A—An additional table that provides auxiliary information to the reviewed studies. This table includes:
  • Cite of the article: Lists of the 68 publications included in the review.
  • Research Method: The methodological approaches used in the studies (e.g., case studies, qualitative analyses, etc.)
  • Keywords: Highlights significant terms that were used by the authors in their research.
  • Citation Metrics: Provides data on the academic impact and recognition of the studies.

4. Discussion

In this article, we conduct a systematic literature review exploring how technological innovations are shaping sustainable competitiveness for different sectors and industries. Our objective was to answer 3 main questions. We ran a screening for the abstracts and titles of 122 articles we got from the Scopus database. 68 articles were selected to be final papers for this review. Those were rated according to their relevance to sustainable competitiveness. While doing that, we also decided to give a rate for each dimension of this term to add more value to this review. In this section, we are going to answer the three questions and provide all the details from the selected articles.
  • RQ1: Are the technological innovations key determinant of sustainable competitiveness?
After doing this systematic review and after careful analysis of 68 articles from the Scopus database, we can say that technological innovations are one of the key elements that shape sustainable competitiveness across various industries. Many of the researchers in their articles stress the role of advanced technologies in achieving sustainability goals while sustaining or enhancing competitive advantage [35,36,52,76,84].
Key insights from the reviewed articles include:
  • Enhancing Operational Efficiency:
Articles such as [24,36,43] shed light on the importance of using artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) in enhancing process optimization. Gómez and others also covered in their research the true value of both AI and IoT in manufacturing. They mentioned how it helps the industry in data-driven decision-making, besides helping improve resource management. Hence, it leads to reduced waste and sustains their competitiveness in the market [24]. The Resource-Based View (RBV) holds that these technologies are important assets that businesses may use to obtain and preserve a competitive edge. Through the use of AI and IoT, businesses create distinctive skills in data management and process optimization that are hard for rivals to match, giving them long-term benefits. Furthermore, the importance of the Internet of Things (IoT) in improving cleaner industrial techniques was covered in research by Girdwichai et al. Improving cleaner production means an increase in resource efficiency in production, which allows organizations to be more efficient [61], resulting in sustainable business development. According to the Dynamic Capabilities Theory, these innovations help businesses improve their long-term competitiveness by allowing them to modify their current processes and adjust to shifting environmental conditions. Businesses contribute significantly to both environmental and economic sustainability by integrating and automating their processes. This means that companies can achieve more with less, which is key to sustainable practices.
  • Driving Market Differentiation:
Technological innovation allows companies to develop differentiated products and services that set them apart from their competitors. This was covered by different researchers, such as in those articles [19,85]. Others mentioned that this is a key element of achieving a sustainable competitive advantage [66,86,87]. Businesses that use technological innovation as a valued resource, such as smart textiles or nano-textiles, may create distinctive product offers that are challenging for rivals to imitate, claims the Resource-Based View (RBV). Businesses can strengthen their market positioning by creating unique offerings; they can attract new customers who value innovation highlighted by different articles such as [30,42,62]. Köhler A. and Som C. covered in their research new emerging technologies such as smart textiles and nano-textiles, which play significant roles in enhancing material performance and aligning production with sustainability goals [60]. Technologies like this offer the potential to create products with unique properties. For example, products with improved durability or environmental friendliness allow companies to grow a market segment that is interested in sustainable and high-performance products [60].
  • Achieving Environmental Goals–Green innovations a source of competitiveness:
Renewable systems are a green technological innovation that might play a significant role in enhancing a company’s competitiveness [86]. Firms that have green innovation in their focus can create differentiated products and services, which might work as a significant role in increasing their sustainable competitiveness. Articles like the study by Malagón et al. [23] emphasize that the adoption of green technologies, including renewable energy systems and energy-efficient solutions, is crucial for reducing environmental impacts. This is not the only thing, but it helps establish a good image for businesses while giving them a competitive advantage, mentioned in the article [88]. A study by Thompson B. and Rust S. [89] highlighted that the use of blockchain can reduce food fraud, which is a problem that affects both environmental sustainability and trust in supply chains [90]. According to the Dynamic Capabilities Theory, the deployment of blockchain is an example of how businesses are constantly reshaping their capacities to satisfy consumer expectations for more sustainability and transparency. The implementation of blockchain also creates a competitive advantage for businesses that use it.
  • Addressing Social and Economic Aspects:
Dabbous A., Barakat K., and Kraus S., in their article, shed light on the importance of connectivity and digital integration [76]. Those factors help in promoting entrepreneurial activity and sustainable competitiveness across different industries. According to the Resource-Based View (RBV), these elements are important assets that businesses may use to gain a competitive edge. Further, the Dynamic Capabilities Theory emphasizes that firms must continuously renew and reconfigure their capabilities to maintain a competitive edge, particularly in a rapidly changing technological and environmental landscape. Technological innovations like digitalization serve as dynamic capabilities, allowing firms to adapt to evolving market demands and shifts in environmental and social imperatives. By leveraging these capabilities, companies can rapidly respond to new opportunities and reconfigure their operations to meet sustainability challenges, thus ensuring long-term competitive positioning. Additionally, in different articles, such as [75,91], technological innovations address social and economic aspects. This includes job creation, skill development, and increased access to some essential services [50,76]. As an example of this, digitalization is a significant driver of growth and technological development in the global economy. It leads to the creation of new business markets. However, they also highlight disparities in digital infrastructure and how they need inclusive strategies to ensure equity.
  • Catalyzing Strategic Transformation:
Our findings after careful reading of articles show that, firms are increasingly using frameworks like the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) to integrate sustainability into their main business strategies [50]. This means it involves considering not only economic performance but also social and environmental impacts [24]. In this study [92], which is not from the 68 but from the 122 articles, it highlighted that firms are seeking to integrate sustainable business models to increase competitive advantage. Hence, it is related to sustainable competitiveness in some ways.
2.
RQ2: How do advanced technologies contribute to sustainable competitiveness across sectors?
The operational efficiency for different sectors can be enhanced by integrating advanced technologies into the work, it can lead to reduced waste, and improved resource management, leading in the end to improved economic and environmental sustainability. Table 6 down below provides a conclusion to the questions in detail for the sectors explored in the studies selected for this review.
Table 6. Sustainable Competitiveness Across Sectors/Industries.
3.
RQ3: What measures and strategies stimulate and accelerate sustainable competitiveness?
The following Table 7 includes the identified and highlighted measures and strategies from most of the articles.
Table 7. Measures and Strategies Stimulate and Accelerate Sustainable Competitiveness.
Figure 6 summarizes key strategies for achieving sustainable competitiveness in a flow chart.
Figure 6. Key Strategies for Achieving Sustainable Competitiveness: A Conceptual Flowchart.
Apart from the 3 main questions, while technological innovations contribute to sustainable competitiveness across industries, the impact of these innovations significantly differs between sectors. For example, the manufacturing sector primarily focuses on improving process efficiency and resource management through automation, AI, and IoT, while the services sector emphasizes customer-centric technologies, such as AI-driven personalization and cloud-based solutions, to enhance service delivery and customer engagement [19,35,36,61,66,87].
In the manufacturing sector, technologies such as AI and digital twins optimize production processes and improve resource utilization. This helps to have more sustainable practices that will reduce production waste. Hence, companies are going to gain a competitive edge by lowering production costs and meeting sustainability goals (e.g., reducing energy consumption and waste) [24,36,43,61]. For instance, IoT integration in manufacturing enables businesses to automate resource management, ultimately achieving more with fewer resources, which leads to greater market competitiveness, as mentioned by some authors like [52,55].
On the other hand, in the services sector, innovations such as digital platforms, big data, and cloud computing have transformed customer experiences. Businesses now can offer more personalized and scalable services. This has made service industries more agile and customer-responsive, giving them a competitive advantage in a fast-paced, digitally driven market. For instance, AI-powered chatbots with personalized touches and predictive analytics help service companies better understand and serve their customers, driving both economic and environmental sustainability [42,50,72,100]. Also, it is worth mentioning that cloud computing has enabled some companies to scale their services globally, providing a unique competitive advantage in the modern economy, as highlighted by different authors [71,92,100].
Therefore, the sectoral differences in technological implementation present how industries are actually benefiting from different technologies to address their specific operational challenges. Nowadays, each sector is benefiting from innovations that are aligned with their unique business models and sustainability goals [19,24,42,66].
In order to provide a clearer synthesis of the key empirical findings and actionable insights taken from the reviewed studies, we created the following Table 8. It summarizes the technological innovations across various industries. Also, it presents their contributions to sustainable competitiveness, practical implications for businesses, and critiques of existing studies to identify important gaps.
Table 8. Empirical Evidence, Practical Implications, Limitations, and Gaps Across Industries.
Another important to conclude in a chart is the influence of external factors like regulatory frameworks, consumer preferences, and technological advancements on firms’ innovation strategies. Figure 7 summarizes the key factors.
Figure 7. Influence of External Factors on Innovation Strategies [34,44,52,61,73,81,86,89].
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that there are regional policy environments that influence the sustainability of technological innovation, along with specific, actionable policy recommendations drawn from the sources provided:
  • Infrastructure and Economic Resources: Sustainable technological innovations (STI) are more likely to be adopted in areas with strong infrastructure and economic resources. For instance, by implementing precision agriculture and intelligent livestock management, areas with higher R&D expenditures typically see better Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) results [20].
  • Policy Support and Targeted Interventions: The presence of supportive policies and targeted interventions is essential for regions falling behind in sustainability. Government policies encouraging wealth creation, employment, research, and infrastructure investments can facilitate innovation and technological development [52]. In contrast, limited financial autonomy, reliance on political priorities, excessive bureaucracy, and inadequate technological knowledge can impede the implementation of modern technologies in civil service organizations [33].
  • Market Conditions: The specific market environment of a region also influences the adoption of new technologies. One study emphasized the importance of market orientation in the development of new products and technologies [63].
  • Digital Infrastructure: Entrepreneurship and long-term competitiveness are positively impacted in areas that make investments in digital infrastructure and encourage internet use. Digital integration, internet usage, and connectivity are important determinants of sustained competitiveness [76].
  • Financial Reform: Financial reforms in a region can bolster urban resilience through technological innovation and industrial agglomeration.
It is important to add at the end of the discussion a figure that presents the interconnected relationship between the Resource-Based View (RBV), the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), and Dynamic Capabilities. The Figure 8 down below shows how these three theoretical frameworks collectively contribute to sustainable competitiveness. RBV emphasizes the strategic importance of internal resources and capabilities, TBL integrates sustainability by balancing economic, social, and environmental factors, and Dynamic Capabilities highlight the firm’s ability to adapt and innovate in response to changing market conditions. The intersection of these theories represents the foundation for achieving long-term competitive advantage, where valuable resources, sustainability principles, and continuous adaptation work together to drive organizational success.
Figure 8. The interconnected relationship between the Resource-Based View (RBV), the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), and Dynamic Capabilities.
To conclude, the research results demonstrate the following strategic priorities to enhance technological innovations that accelerate sustainable competitiveness: digitalization strategies with an emphasis on advanced technologies; implementing circular economy practices that minimize waste; green production strategies, specializing in environmentally friendly production; an open innovation strategies focused on attracting advanced external knowledge; sustainable supply chain management practices; strategic management practices focused on competitiveness, a highly skilled workforce, and on the integrating corporate social responsibility with technological innovation that enhance sustainability and competitiveness.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review explores advanced technology’s role—primarily Industry 4.0 innovations such as artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and blockchain—as a key determinant of sustainable competitiveness. Based on the analysis and synthesis of the reviewed literature, it has been proven that advanced technologies, as well as effective strategies for their implementation, can improve long-term sustainable competitiveness in various industries in different countries, including enterprises of large, small, and medium-sized businesses in the real and public sectors of the economy. Moreover, in today’s dynamic and changing environment, which is exposed to various challenges, risks, and uncertainties, technological innovation is becoming crucial for competitiveness and sustainable development at micro-, meso-, and macroeconomic levels.
A systematic review of the scientific literature made it possible to form the scientific basis for the theoretical substantiation of the essential role of technological innovations in achieving sustainable competitiveness based on the interconnections and logical integration of the Resource-Based View (RBV), the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), and Dynamic Capabilities approaches. The synthesis of these theories provides an understanding that in modern conditions of dynamic scientific progress and growing social demands, technological innovations are the main valuable resource, mechanism, and strategic priority for achieving sustainable competitiveness.
At the same time, as evidenced by a systematic literature review, the potential of technological innovation can be limited or, on the contrary, expanded due to external and institutional factors, which include regulatory frameworks, consumer preferences, stakeholders’ expectations, socio-cultural traditions and norms, technological advancements on firms’ innovation strategies, etc.
The conducted review of the scientific literature proved the existence of empirical confirmation of the importance of technological innovations and their notable contributions to various sectors. For example, in the agriculture sector, innovations in precision agriculture and digital farming—highlighted in studies [20,27,96]—optimize resource use and minimize environmental impact. In the textile and fashion industries, the adoption of smart textiles and nano-textiles has led to more sustainable production processes [2,60,93]. Meanwhile, digital platforms, big data, and AI-driven personalization have enhanced customer engagement and operational flexibility in the services sector, as was highlighted in those studies [35,36,42]. These sector-specific insights intensify the need for tailored strategies that align technological capabilities with unique industry challenges and sustainability goals.
Our review identifies several strategic measures that stimulate sustainable competitiveness, including but not limited to:
  • Digitalization and Advanced Technologies: tapping into Industry 4.0 innovations to drive operational efficiency and innovation.
  • Circular Economy and Green Practices: implementing circular economy ideas and cleaner production practices to reduce waste and maximize resource use.
  • Open Innovation and Collaboration: promoting external knowledge integration and stakeholder collaboration to enhance innovation capacity.
  • Sustainable Supply Chain Management: It is about using advanced technologies to ensure the supply chain is environmentally friendly and dependable.
Businesses that integrate these methods into their core operations yield both increased profitability and a secure equilibrium for environmental and social responsibility.
Although our review’s findings have theoretical and empirical confirmation, it is vital to acknowledge that they are based solely on articles from the Scopus database, and although Scopus is a comprehensive source, it likely excludes relevant studies indexed in other databases such as Web of Science or Google Scholar. This limitation is evident in the narrow focus of some studies, which may affect the generalizability of the findings, such as those addressing only large enterprises in manufacturing [36,55] or specific geographic regions in agriculture [27,96]. So, our future research should include a broader range of sources and focus on long-term sustainable competitiveness outcomes, including the impact of technological innovations on innovation equity and the development of comprehensive sustainability frameworks. Also, advanced technologies should be explored in different regions with a special focus on analyzing their potential to stimulate sustainable competitive advantage.
By systematically linking technological innovations with sustainable competitiveness, this paper contributes to enriching the academic knowledge base. Also, it helps offer actionable insights for policymakers, industry leaders, and researchers. The findings stress that advanced technologies should be viewed not only as tools for economic gain but also as integral elements for reaching long-term sustainable competitiveness. Embracing these innovations will be key for stakeholders seeking to speed up the shift to a more sustainable and competitive future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17051953/s1, PRISMA 2020 checklist [16].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H. and M.K.; methodology, M.H. and M.K.; software, M.H.; validation, M.H. and M.K.; formal analysis, M.H.; investigation, M.H.; resources, M.H.; data curation, M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H.; writing—review and editing, M.K; visualization, M.H.; supervision, M.K.; project administration, M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Data exaction.
Table A1. Data exaction.
ArticlesResearch MethodKeywordsCitation
[3]Quantitativecircular economy; firm performance; Industry 4.0; Industry 4.0 technology; partial least squares structural equation modelling; PLS-SEM; Vietnam0
[17]Quantitativecircular economy; economic return; firm competitiveness; sustainable production39
[18]Qualitativebusiness creation; competitive advantage; digitization; less developed and emerging economies; small and medium scale enterprise; technology adoption18
[19]QuantitativeCompetitiveness progress; Economic growth; Institution; New product development; Performance; Productivity; Sustainable development5
[20]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)business competitiveness; CSR; digital transformation; environmental impact mitigation; sustainable development; sustainable technological innovation0
[21]Quantitativeinnovation; innovation performance; Sustainability; sustainability performance; value creation2
[22]Quantitativedigital economic platforms; digital technologies; human capital; innovative technologies; Peace Index; sustainable development0
[23]QualitativeAir transport; Circular Economy; Competitiveness; Innovation; Sustainability0
[24]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)Business innovation; Sustainable automation integration; Sustainable business automation; Sustainable business strategies; Workforce sustainability0
[25]QuantitativeBehavior; Consumer; Industry 4.0; Lifestyle; Networks; Sustainability48
[26]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)agribusiness; business sustainability; logistics 4.0; systematic literature review; VOSviewer6
[27]QuantitativeAgricultural digitalization; competitiveness; digital technologies; productivity; research and innovation; smart farming; sustainability1
[28]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)Bibliometric; Governance; Innovation; Management; Strategy; Sustainable development6
[29]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)absorptive capacity; competitive advantage; resources and capabilities; responsible innovation; SEM-ANN; sustainability1
[30]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)competitividad sostenible; decisions estratégicas; factores claves para la productividad; key factors for productivity; strategic decisions; sustainable competitiveness12
[31]QualitativeBig data analytics; Competitive advantage; Digital circular economy; Expert interviews; Resource-based view; Sustainability97
[32]QuantitativeEmployee disability; Financial performance; Stakeholder theory; Technological innovation6
[33]Quantitativeabsorptive capacity; export; export companies of the Republic of Croatia; new digital technologies; sustainable development0
[34]QualitativeCivil service organizations; Communication sustainability; Digital communication; Technologies9
[35]Quantitativeinnovation; multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA); PINTEC; PROMETHEE II; qualified human capital0
[36]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)BWM; Cleaner production; GREY-DEMATEL; GRID; Industry 5.0; Strategies; Sustainable competitive advantage12
[37]QuantitativeABC II; Attributes Based Costing Technology; Competitive Advantage; Manufacturing Firms; Sustainable Development8
[38]QuantitativeAbsorptive Capacity; High-tech Firms; Innovation Performance; Innovative Culture19
[39]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)Design; Digital; Digitalization; Industry 4.0; Integration; IoT; Manufacturing; Performance; SME; Transformation170
[40]QuantitativeDigital Age; digital capability; industrial enterprises; sustainable competitive advantage; systematic transformation32
[41]QuantitativeAdaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems (ANFIS); FMCG; retail industry; Supplier selection; sustainability factors54
[42]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)competitive advantage; open innovation; small-medium enterprises; sustainability6
[43]QuantitativeArtificial Intelligence (AI); critical success factor (CSF) theory; diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory; grey DEMATEL; success factors; sustainable frugal innovation; triple bottom line (TBL) theory39
[44]QuantitativeCarbon cap-and-trade mechanism; Different scenarios; Digital transformation; Low carbon; Manufacturer decision-making6
[45]QuantitativeArtificial intelligence (AI); effort expectancy; innovation openness; knowledge integration; perceived knowledge; performance expectancy; technology adoption4
[46]QuantitativeAdministrative, regulatory or design; Green technologies; Latent dirichlet allocation (LDA); Patent analysis; Text mining; Topic evolution18
[47]QuantitativeBusiness Sustainability; Second Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis; Strategy toward Excellence2
[48]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)Artificial intelligence (AI) applications; Employability; Fuzzy delphi method; Smartized upscale hotel; Z-numbers1
[49]Quantitativedeveloped economies; emerging; managerial practices; sustainability practices (SP); Technology-Organisation-Environment (TOE) framework; tourism industry0
[50]QualitativeDigital Performance; Innovation; Sdgs; Sme; Society 5.0; Sustainable Growth; Tbl9
[51]QuantitativeBiotechnology; Government support; Innovation; Innovation policy42
[52]QuantitativeDigitalization; European Union; Innovation; Panel data; Synthetic indicator28
[53]QualitativeAntecedents; Competitive advantages; Equifinality; Fuzzy set/qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA)4
[54]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)Determination of weights; green technology innovation (GTI) capability; interval linguistic Z -number vector (ILZNV); multiattribute group decision making (MAGDM); MULTIMOORA7
[55]QuantitativeDigital technology adoption; innovation performance; knowledge base; technological capability9
[56]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)clustering analysis; data visualization; industry-university cooperation; partner selection; Patent analysis17
[57]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)agribusiness competitiveness; agribusiness sustainability; bibliometric analysis; logistics 4.0; systematic literature review9
[58]QuantitativeAbsorptive capacity; External sources of knowledge; Longitudinal analysis; Science and technology parks; Sustainability performance7
[59]QuantitativeBayesian networks; Knowledge intensive organizations; Sustainability; Technology transfer; University–industry15
[60]QualitativeDecision-making; EHS; Intangible risks; Life cycle perspective; Sustainability; Uncertainty71
[61]QuantitativeEnvironment; Supply chain; Sustainability; Thailand4
[62]QuantitativeCIS; Community innovation survey; Entrepreneurship; HJ-Biplot; Innovation accelerators; Innovation return; Internet of things; IoT; Open innovation; Portugal10
[63]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)Concept relationship diagram; Environmental innovation; Malaysia; Review; Sustainable development10
[64]QualitativeComplexity and Uncertainty; Creating Shared Value; Global Competitiveness; Globalization; International Business; Macro Strategy Analysis; Social Inclusion; Sustainability; Technological Innovation4
[65]QualitativeChemical industry; Innovation management; Internationalization; Sustainability5
[66]QuantitativeChina; firm size; process innovation; product innovation; product quality; structural equation model; technological innovation practice23
[67]QuantitativeAnalytic Hierarchy; Chain (SSC); Clean technology; Manufacturing; Oxy-fuel burner; Process (AHP); Secondary metal; Selection; Sustainability; Sustainable Supply; Technology; Triple Bottom Line15
[68]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)Community; Marketing; Networking; Online; Organizations; Social network24
[69]QualitativeBiodiesel; Competitiveness; Critical factors; Dimensions; Supply chain; Sustainability7
[70]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)CQI on-track innovation; CQI technological discontinuities; Organizational quality specific immune; Technological perception1
[71]QuantitativeBusiness response; Creativity; Digital technology speed; Mimetic pressure; Performance; Status certainty; Traditionality0
[72]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)barriers; fuzzy AHP; supply chain initiatives16
[73]Quantitativeenvironmental; information; resource-based view of the firm; services; strategy; sustainability; sustainability9
[74]QualitativeEnergy; Housing; Sustainability; Transportation; Urban design; Water management1
[75]Quantitativedigital competitiveness index; digital technologies; digital transformation; digitization; economic development; global competitiveness index; stability index1
[76]QuantitativeDigitalization; Entrepreneurship; Panel data analysis; Sustainable competitiveness59
[77]QualitativeIndustrial ecosystem; Sustainable development; Technologies to reduce CO2 emissions; Tehnological innovation; The knowledge triangle4
[78]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)circular economy; hybrid method; Industry 4.0; Kendall’s W; smart circularity performances; smart circularity practices1
[79]Qualitativeenvironmental policy; natural-resource-based view theory; stakeholder engagement; sustainability; sustainable development; sustainable packaging3
[80]Mixed-methods approach (Qualitative and Quantitative)Co-creation; Growth strategies; Istria; Technological innovation in tourism; Transformational tourist experiences8
[81]Qualitativeecological innovation; environmental regulation; product innovation; system innovation; technological innovation331
[82]Quantitativecompetitiveness; mediating effect; moderating effect; procurement; strategy10
[83]QuantitativeDigital currency vs. mobile payments; Impact of DCEP; Metcalfe’s Law in digital currencies; Mobile payment market dynamics; Stackelberg model in payments3

References

  1. Herciu, M.; Ogrean, C. Business Sustainable Competitiveness a Synergistic, Long-Run Approach of a Company’s Resources and Results. Stud. Bus. Econ. 2018, 13, 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Špiler, M.; Milošević, D.; Miškić, M.; Gostimirović, L.; Beslać, M.; Jevtić, B. Investments in Digital Technology Advances in Textiles. Ind. Textila 2023, 74, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ha, M.-T.; Mai, S.-T.; Tran, T.-K.; Nguyen, T.-S. The Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technology and the Circular Economy: A Solution for the Sustainable Development of Enterprises. J. Glob. Bus. Adv. 2023, 16, 225–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Conscientious Commerce; New Society Publishers: Gabriola, BC, Canada, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  7. Etzkowitz, H.; Leydesdorff, L. The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations. Res. Policy 2000, 29, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Carayannis, E.G.; Campbell, D.F.J. “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st Century Fractal Innovation Ecosystem. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2009, 46, 201–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Peris-Ortiz, M.; Ferreira, J.J.; Farinha, L.; Fernandes, N.O. (Eds.) Multiple Helix Ecosystems for Sustainable Competitiveness; Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tortorella, G.L.; Fettermann, D. Implementation of Industry 4.0 and Lean Production in Brazilian Manufacturing Companies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 2975–2987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stahel, W.R. The Circular Economy. Nature 2016, 531, 435–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A Literature and Practice Review to Develop Sustainable Business Model Archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. How Can We Close the Digital Divide? | World Economic Forum. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/10/how-to-build-a-bridge-across-the-digital-divide/ (accessed on 25 December 2024).
  14. OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Principles for Public Governance of Public-Private Partnerships; OECD: Paris, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 4237–4257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Antonioli, D.; Ghisetti, C.; Mazzanti, M.; Nicolli, F. Sustainable Production: The Economic Returns of Circular Economy Practices. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 2603–2617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Akpan, I.J.; Ibidunni, A.S. Digitization and Technological Transformation of Small Business for Sustainable Development in the Less Developed and Emerging Economies: A Research Note and Call for Papers. J. Small Bus. Entrep. 2023, 35, 671–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Prasetyo, P.E.; Setyadharma, A.; Kistanti, N.R. Integration and Collaboration of Determinants of Entrepreneurial Competitiveness. Uncertain. Supply Chain. Manag. 2021, 9, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Abad-Segura, E.; Castillo-Díaz, F.J.; Batlles-delaFuente, A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J. Enhancing Competitiveness and Sustainability in Spanish Agriculture: The Role of Technological Innovation and Corporate Social Responsibility. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2024, 7, e70021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Khaghaany, M.; Shaker, A.S.; Dawood, A.N.; Almagtome, A.H. Sustainability, Innovation, and Value Creation in Developing Countries: Evidence from Iraq. Innovar 2024, 34, e116817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Danik, N.; Rud, I.; Symonenko, O.; Bilousko, T.; Tsikalo, Y. Directions of the development of the digital economy in the conditions of military conflicts. Financ. Credit. Act. Probl. Theory Pract. 2023, 1, 238–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Malagón, R.C.; Reyes, M.A.C.; Saldaña, R.S.R. Circular Economy: A Technological Innovation Strategy for Sustainability in Air Transport. Mercados y Negocios 2024, 2024, 31–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gómez Gandía, J.A.; Gavrila Gavrila, S.; de Lucas Ancillo, A.; del Val Núñez, M.T. Towards Sustainable Business in the Automation Era: Exploring Its Transformative Impact from Top Management and Employee Perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2025, 210, 123908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Satyro, W.C.; de Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Pinto, M.J.A., Jr.; Contador, J.C.; Giannetti, B.F.; de Lima, A.F.; Fragomeni, M.A. Industry 4.0 Implementation: The Relevance of Sustainability and the Potential Social Impact in a Developing Country. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 337, 130456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Soledispa-Cañarte, B.J.; Pibaque-Pionce, M.S.; Merchán-Ponce, N.P.; Mex Alvarez, D.C.; Tovar-Quintero, J.; Escobar-Molina, D.F.; Cedeño-Ramirez, J.D.; Rincon-Guio, C. The Role of Logistics 4.0 in Agribusiness Sustainability and Competitiveness, A Bibliometric and Systematic Literature Review. Oper. Supply Chain. Manag. 2023, 16, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tomorri, I.; Domi, S.; Çera, G.; Keco, R.; Kapaj, I. Examination of the Importance and Level of Application of Digitization in the Rural Sector, the Case of Albania. WSEAS Trans. Bus. Econ. 2024, 21, 528–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alonso Dos Santos, M.; Huertas González-Serrano, M.; Staniewski, M.W. Analytical Editorial: Ensuring the Future of Our World: Innovation, Management and Governance for Sustainable Growth. Acad. Rev. Latinoam. Adm. 2022, 35, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Memon, K.R.; Ooi, S.K.; Han, H. Responsible Innovation and Corporate Sustainability Performance: A Structural Equation Modeling-Neural Network Approach. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 33, 2712–2730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Luis Alberto, B.G.; Claudio, R.E.; Marcelo, R.T.; Alexis, M.P.; Martín, I.A.; Paola, J.M. Analysis of Competitiveness Factors for the Sustainable Productivity of SMEs in Trujillo (Peru). Rev. Metodos Cuantitativos Econ. Empresa 2020, 29, 208–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kristoffersen, E.; Mikalef, P.; Blomsma, F.; Li, J. Towards a Business Analytics Capability for the Circular Economy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 171, 120957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Oware, K.M.; Mallikarjunappa, T. Disability Employment and Financial Performance: The Effect of Technological Innovation of Listed Firms in India. Soc. Responsib. J. 2020, 17, 384–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Martincevic, I. Enhancing Financial Performance through Absorptive Capacity: Evidence from Croatian Export Companies in Domestic and International Markets. Bus. Syst. Res. 2023, 14, 214–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Laužikas, M.; Miliūtė, A. Impacts of Modern Technologies on Sustainable Communication of Civil Service Organizations. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020, 7, 2494–2509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Silva Neto, A.R.; Silva, M.G.G.D.; Taques, F.H.; Poleto, T.; Nepomuceno, T.C.C.; Carvalho, V.D.H.D.; Monte, M.B.D.S. Multicriteria Analysis of Innovation Ecosystems and the Impact of Human Capital and Investments on Brazilian Industries. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sharma, R.; Gupta, H. Harmonizing Sustainability in Industry 5.0 Era: Transformative Strategies for Cleaner Production and Sustainable Competitive Advantage. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 445, 141118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ahmad, S.A.; Sulaiman, G.A. The role of attributes based costing technology in achieving sustainable development goals. Int. J. Prof. Bus. Rev. 2023, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, S.-M.; Hu, R.; Kang, T.-W. The Effects of Absorptive Capability and Innovative Culture on Innovation Performance: Evidence from Chinese High-Tech Firms. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 1153–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dutta, G.; Kumar, R.; Sindhwani, R.; Singh, R.K. Digital Transformation Priorities of India’s Discrete Manufacturing SMEs—A Conceptual Study in Perspective of Industry 4.0. Compet. Rev. 2020, 30, 289–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, J.; Zhou, J.; Cheng, Y. Conceptual Method and Empirical Practice of Building Digital Capability of Industrial Enterprises in the Digital Age. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 69, 1902–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Okwu, M.O.; Tartibu, L.K. Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Retail Industry: A TOPSIS- and ANFIS-Based Evaluating Methodology. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2020, 12, 1847979019899542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wibowo, V.; Gautama, I.; Kuncoro, E.A.; Bandur, A. Improving Sustainability in the Small-Medium Culinary Industry: Analyzing the Role of Open Innovation and Competitive Advantage. J. Syst. Manag. Sci. 2024, 14, 172–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Govindan, K. How Artificial Intelligence Drives Sustainable Frugal Innovation: A Multitheoretical Perspective. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2024, 71, 638–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chen, A.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, J. Digital Transformation or Not? Manufacturer’s Selection Strategy under Carbon Cap-and-Trade Mechanism. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2024, 124, 541–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Khan, A.N.; Mehmood, K.; Soomro, M.A. Knowledge Management-Based Artificial Intelligence (AI) Adoption in Construction SMEs: The Moderating Role of Knowledge Integration. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2024, 71, 10874–10884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, M.; Guo, J.; Bi, D. Comparison of Administrative and Regulatory Green Technologies Development between China and the U.S. Based Pat. Analysis. Data Sci. Manag. 2023, 6, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Silpcharu, T.; Noongam, W. The Second Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis Strategies Toward Sustainable Excellence in the Industrial Sector. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2020, 19, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  48. Fang, C.C.; Liou, J. Developing an Assessment Framework of Smartized Upscale Hotel Workforce Employability from the Practitioners’ Perspective. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2024, 7, 1636–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lucas, M.M.; Moreno-Luna, L.; Roets, A.O.S.B.; Al-Jaberi, S. Technological, Organisational and Environmental Drivers of Sustainability in Hotels. S. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2024, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Islam, A.; Wahab, S.A.; Latiff, A.S.A. Annexing a Smart Sustainable Business Growth Model for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). World J. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 18, 185–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Aghmiuni, S.K.; Siyal, S.; Wang, Q.; Duan, Y. Assessment of Factors Affecting Innovation Policy in Biotechnology. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Marti, L.; Puertas, R. Analysis of European Competitiveness Based on Its Innovative Capacity and Digitalization Level. Technol. Soc. 2023, 72, 102206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yu, T.H.-K.; Huarng, K.-H. Causal Analysis of SDG Achievements. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2024, 198, 122977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Su, Y.; Chai, J.; Lu, S.; Lin, Z. Evaluating Green Technology Innovation Capability in Intelligent Manufacturing Enterprises: A Z-Number-Based Model. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2024, 71, 5391–5409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhou, Y.; Yang, C.; Liu, Z.; Gong, L. Digital Technology Adoption and Innovation Performance: A Moderated Mediation Model. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2024, 36, 3341–3356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ran, C.; Song, K.; Yang, L. An Improved Solution for Partner Selection of Industry-University Cooperation. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2020, 32, 1478–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Soledispa-Cañarte, B.J.; Pibaque-Pionce, M.S.; Merchán-Ponce, N.P.; Alvarez, D.C.M.; Tovar-Quintero, J.; Escobar-Molina, D.F.; Cedeño-Ramírez, J.D.; Rincon-Guio, C. Advancing agribusiness sustainability and competitiveness through Logistics 4.0: A bibliometric and systematic literature review. Logforum 2023, 19, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Forés, B.; Fernández-Yáñez, J.M. Sustainability Performance in Firms Located in a Science and Technology Park: The Influence of Knowledge Sources and Absorptive Capacity. J. Knowl. Manag. 2023, 27, 112–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Terán-Bustamante, A.; Martínez-Velasco, A.; López-Fernández, A.M. University–Industry Collaboration: A Sustainable Technology Transfer Model. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Köhler, A.R.; Som, C. Risk Preventative Innovation Strategies for Emerging Technologies the Cases of Nano-Textiles and Smart Textiles. Technovation 2014, 34, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Girdwichai, L.; Jamjumrus, T.; Pongsiri, T.; Jaepho, S. Exploring the Nexus among the Technological Innovation, Supply Chain Integration and Environmental Management Practices in Thai Manufacturing Industry: A Sustainability View. Int. J. Supply Chain. Manag. 2019, 8, 334–341. [Google Scholar]
  62. Fernandes, S.; Castela, G. Start-Ups’ Accelerators Support Open Innovation in Portugal. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2019, 26, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yusuf, M.F.; Ashari, H.; Razalli, M.R. Environmental Technological Innovation and Its Contribution to Sustainable Development. Int. J. Technol. 2018, 9, 1569–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pezzuto, I. Turning globalization 4.0 into a real and sustainable success for all stakeholders. J. Gov. Regul. 2019, 8, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. de Menezes, U.; Dias, V.; Gomes, C.; Scherer, F.; Kruglianskas, I. Management of Sustainable Innovation in an Internationalized Company. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2013, 8, 264–273. [Google Scholar]
  66. Shi, L.; Wang, X.; Sun, H.; He, Z. The Impact of Technological Innovation on Product Quality: The Moderating Role of Firm Size. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2018, 29, 746–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Khatri, J.; Srivastava, M. Technology Selection for Sustainable Supply Chains. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 15, 275–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Correia, P.A.P.; Medina, I.G.; Romo, Z.F.G.; Contreras-Espinosa, R.S. The Importance of Facebook as an Online Social Networking Tool for Companies. Int. J. Account. Inf. Manag. 2014, 22, 295–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. dos Santos, S.F.; Borschiver, S.; de Souza, V. Mapping Sustainable Structural Dimensions for Managing the Brazilian Biodiesel Supply Chain. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014, 9, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Xu, Y.; Yu, G.; Qiang, L. Deconvoluting the Mechanism of the Continuous Quality Improvement Technological Discontinuities on the Continuous Quality Improvement On-Track Innovation: The Mediating Effect of the Organizational Quality Specific Immune and the Two-Stage Moderating Effe. J. Ind. Eng. Eng. Manag. 2022, 36, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bui, M.-T.; Tran, T.-T.-H. The Internal and External Effect of Environmental Complexity on Business Responses: A PLS-SEM and Artificial Neural Network Approach. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2024, 7, 2742–2762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nazam, M.; Hashim, M.; Ahmad Baig, S.; Abrar, M.; Ur Rehman, H.; Nazim, M.; Raza, A. Categorizing the Barriers in Adopting Sustainable Supply Chain Initiatives: A Way-Forward towards Business Excellence. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1825042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Galbreath, J.; Chang, C.-Y.; Tisch, D. The Impact of a Proactive Environmental Strategy on Environmentally Sustainable Practices in Service Firms: The Moderating Effect of Information Use Value. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 5420–5434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Suresh, S.; Neetha, S.N.; Kollarath, R.M. Sustainable Urban Design in Singapore. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 8, 944–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Spitsina, A.; Plukar, L.; Maslyhan, O.; Moroz, T.; Kasmin, D.; Nazarenko, I. Digitalization of the economy as a factor of sustainable state development against the background of large-scale military aggression (Ukrainian experience). Financ. Credit. Act. Probl. Theory Pract. 2022, 6, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dabbous, A.; Barakat, K.A.; Kraus, S. The Impact of Digitalization on Entrepreneurial Activity and Sustainable Competitiveness: A Panel Data Analysis. Technol. Soc. 2023, 73, 102224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Frone, S.; Constantinescu, A. Impact of Technological Innovation on the Pillars of Sustainable Development. Qual.-Access Success. 2014, 15 (Suppl. S1), 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ali, S.S.; Torğul, B.; Paksoy, T.; Luthra, S.; Kayikci, Y. A Novel Hybrid Decision-Making Framework for Measuring Industry 4.0-Driven Circular Economy Performance for Textile Industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 33, 7825–7854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lau, C.C.I.; Wong, C.W.Y. Achieving Sustainable Development with Sustainable Packaging: A Natural-Resource-Based View Perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 33, 4766–4787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Golja, T.; Paulišić, M. Managing-Technology Enhanced Tourist Experience: The Case of Scattered Hotels in Istria | Upravljanje Tehnološki Usmjerenim Turističkim Iskustvom: Slučaj Raspršenih Hotela u Istri. Management 2021, 26, 63–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Shao, S.; Hu, Z.; Cao, J.; Yang, L.; Guan, D. Environmental Regulation and Enterprise Innovation: A Review. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 1465–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Corboș, R.-A.; Bunea, O.-I.; Jiroveanu, D.-C. The Effects of Strategic Procurement 4.0 Performance on Organizational Competitiveness in the Circular Economy. Logistics 2023, 7, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wu, W.; Chen, X.; Zvarych, R.; Huang, W. The Stackelberg Duel between Central Bank Digital Currencies and Private Payment Titans in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2024, 200, 123169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Yang, Y.-J. The Rising and Fall of Mobile Phone Enterprises: Patent-Based Competitive Advantage Analysis. Contemp. Manag. Res. 2022, 18, 133–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Li, G.; Wang, X.; Su, S.; Su, Y. How Green Technological Innovation Ability Influences Enterprise Competitiveness: Green Technological Innovation Ability, Product Differentiation and Enterprise Competitiveness. Technol. Soc. 2019, 59, 101136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sun, D.; Zeng, S.; Lin, H.; Yu, M.; Wang, L. Is Green the Virtue of Humility? The Influence of Humble CEOs on Corporate Green Innovation in China. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2023, 70, 4222–4232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ogbari, M.E.; Ibidunni, A.S.; Ogunnaike, O.O.; Olokundun, M.A.; Amaihian, A.B. A Comparative Analysis of Small Business Strategic Orientation: Implications for Performance. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 17, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  88. Li, G.; Xue, J.; Li, N.; Qi, Q. Does Digital Finance Favor Firms in Supply Chains? Roles of Green Innovation and Bargaining Power. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2024, 183, 103431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Thompson, B.S.; Rust, S. Blocking Blockchain: Examining the Social, Cultural, and Institutional Factors Causing Innovation Resistance to Digital Technology in Seafood Supply Chains. Technol. Soc. 2023, 73, 102235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Camel, A.; Belhadi, A.; Kamble, S.; Tiwari, S.; Touriki, F.E. Integrating Smart Green Product Platforming for Carbon Footprint Reduction: The Role of Blockchain Technology and Stakeholders Influence within the Agri-Food Supply Chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2024, 272, 109251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kazancoglu, Y.; Sezer, M.D.; Ozkan-Ozen, Y.D.; Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, A. Industry 4.0 Impacts on Responsible Environmental and Societal Management in the Family Business. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 173, 121108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Broccardo, L.; Zicari, A.; Jabeen, F.; Bhatti, Z.A. How Digitalization Supports a Sustainable Business Model: A Literature Review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 187, 122146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rahman, M.; Hack-Polay, D.; Billah, M.; Nabi, N.U. Bio-Based Textile Processing through the Application of Enzymes for Environmental Sustainability. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 19, 87–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. 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]
  95. Parrilli, M.D.; Balavac-Orlić, M.; Radicic, D. Environmental Innovation across SMEs in Europe. Technovation 2023, 119, 102541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bucci, G.; Bentivoglio, D.; Finco, A. Precision Agriculture as a Driver for Sustainable Farming Systems: State of Art in Litterature and Research. Qual.-Access Success. 2018, 19, 114–121. [Google Scholar]
  97. Guan, H. Research on Performance Evaluation Model of Papermaking Enterprise Innovation Management Based on Organizational Shared Mental Model. Paper Asia 2018, 34, 35–40. [Google Scholar]
  98. Walwyn, D.; Bertoldi, A.; Gable, C. Building the Hydrogen Economy through Niche Experimentation and Digitalisation. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 1179–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ilyina, L.A.; Ermolina, L.V.; Sunteev, A.N. Features of Advanced Technologies and Development Strategies of Fuel and Energy Complex. Qual.-Access Success. 2018, 19, 62–66. [Google Scholar]
  100. Galazova, S.S.; Magomaeva, L.R. The Transformation of Traditional Banking Activity in Digital. Int. J. Econ. Bus. Adm. 2019, 7, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Luneto, B.; Mala, A.R.; Hasbi, M.; Supiah. The Challenge in School Education Management in Achieving Sustainability and Advantages in the Technological Digital Era. Educ. Adm. Theory Pract. 2022, 28, 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Rumanti, A.A.; Sunaryo, I.; Wiratmadja, I.I.; Irianto, D. Cleaner Production for Small and Medium Enterprises: An Open Innovation Perspective. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2023, 70, 2355–2368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Chygryn, O.; Miskiewicz, R. New trends and patterns in green competitiveness: A bibliometric analysis of evolution. Virtual Econ. 2022, 5, 24–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Annunziata, E.; Pucci, T.; Frey, M.; Zanni, L. The Role of Organizational Capabilities in Attaining Corporate Sustainability Practices and Economic Performance: Evidence from Italian Wine Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1300–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Onofrei, G.; Nguyen, H.; Yang, Y.; Filieri, R. Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Triple Bottom Line: Does Supply Chain Learning Matter? IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2024, 71, 10054–10065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zaloznova, Y.; Trushkina, N. Management of logistics activities as a mechanism for providing sustainable development of enterprises in the digital economy. Virtual Econ. 2019, 2, 64–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Cui, Y.; Cao, Y.; Ji, Y.; Chang, I.-S.; Wu, J. Determinant Factors and Business Strategy in a Sustainable Business Model: An Explorative Analysis for the Promotion of Solid Waste Recycling Technologies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 2533–2545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

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