Next Article in Journal
Internal Control Quality and Leverage Manipulation: Evidence from Chinese State-Owned Listed Companies
Previous Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Evolution and Suitability Evaluation of Rural Settlements in the Typical Mountainous Area of the Upper Minjiang River: A Case Study of Lixian County, Sichuan Province, China
 
 
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 7
10.3390/su17072903
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

Impact of Supply Chain Risk Management on Product Innovation Performance of Omani SMEs: Synergetic Moderation of Technological Turbulence and Entrepreneurial Networking

by
Ali Mohsin Salim Ba Awain
1,
Muzaffar Asad
2,*,
Mohammed Ali Bait Ali Sulaiman
3,
Muhammad Uzair Asif
4 and
Khalid Salim Al Shanfari
1
1
Business Administration Department, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Salalah 133, Oman
2
Business School, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey 64700, Mexico
3
Department of Marketing and Entrepreneurship, College of Commerce and Business Administration, Dhofar University, Salalah 211, Oman
4
School of Business Management, University Utara Malaysia, Sintok 06010, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(7), 2903; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072903
Submission received: 3 February 2025 / Revised: 9 March 2025 / Accepted: 21 March 2025 / Published: 25 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Logistics)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Considering the continuous diversity of the supply chain and the increasing risks involved, small and medium enterprises are overly concerned about managing related risks because these firms hardly have the capacity to bear major shocks. Furthermore, considering the resource scarcity of these firms, the moderating roles of entrepreneurial networking, and the current pace of change in technology, the moderating effect of technological turbulence has also been added to the research. Quantitative methods have been applied in this research. The data have been collected using adapted questionnaires from prior studies. A purposive sampling technique has been applied to collect the data. A sample of 99 small and medium enterprises was chosen, and their owners and managers were chosen as representatives. The framework has been evaluated using Structural equation modelling with the help of SMART PLS-3. The findings drawn from the analysis of the empirical data confirmed that supply chain risk management holds a significant impact on product innovation performance and sustainability in SMEs. Additionally, entrepreneurial networking and technological turbulence both hold a significant direct impact on product innovation performance and sustainability as well. Moreover, entrepreneurial networking and technological turbulence hold a significant moderating effect on the relationship between supply chain risk management and product innovation performance.

1. Introduction

Recent events like COVID-19 have disturbed every aspect of life [1]; however, they have created a lot of opportunities for innovation and efficiency [2]. Similarly, recent wars have put enormous strain on and have disturbed supply chain operations [3,4]. Furthermore, as supply networks have become more digitalised and connected, supply chain operations have become increasingly vulnerable [5]. As a result, the supply chain of small firms is highly exposed to a wide range of dangers, both conventional as well as new [6]. These trends highlighted the importance of both organised and general risk management in SMEs, as well as proactive measures [7]. Firms’ ability to manage risk in their supply chain is crucial for their long-term competitiveness [8].
Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) has sparked increased interest among researchers. This interest has even been exaggerated since the outbreak of COVID-19 [9,10,11]. Understanding SCRM for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is limited [12], particularly in the context of developing countries such as Oman [4,13], despite the fact that the country is focussing on logistics and supply chains due to its strategic location [3]. SMEs all over the world try to find a way to handle crisis situations [14,15], and innovation is one of the solutions [16]. This phenomenon is given remarkable attention, especially for SMEs in many economies [13], due to the fact that smaller enterprises are extremely vulnerable to external threats [17,18], increasing the likelihood of failure among them, particularly the younger ones [19].
Existing SCRM research has mostly focused on major corporations and is predominantly undertaken in developed countries [20,21,22,23]. Additionally, there appears to be a focus on specific industries such as automobiles, construction, manufacturing, food, and beverages; however, SMEs, and especially product innovation as a result of crisis situations, have hardly gained the attention of the researchers, despite the fact that the solution to crises lies in innovation [24,25]. Concerning the components of SCRM, a particular focus on investigating risk treatment has been observed, specifically risk reduction approaches to cater to the risk of business failure [12]. Researchers have revealed that the literature is scarce on the impact of SCRM on performance, particularly product innovation performance [26], which leads to sustainability in the performance of SMEs.
Additionally, turbulence of any kind is considered a motivator for innovation [27]. SMEs all over the world are considered the most vulnerable to survive in tough times compared to large enterprises; hence, they are left with no other option but to innovate in order to face any crisis situation, and TT plays the role of a catalyst that instigates SMEs towards product innovation [28,29,30]. Technological Turbulence (TT) forces businesses to innovate instead of facing failure [31]. This is because the pace of technological change has increased, especially after the introduction of Artificial Intelligence in the industry [32]. This presents SMEs with an extra obstacle since many of these enterprises struggle to adopt new technology and frequently lack the internal technical expertise needed to do so [33,34]. Recently, Ta’Amnha et al. [27] identified that technological turbulence supports product innovation. The majority of studies in the recent past have focused on technological turbulence for product innovation and the performance of firms, but product innovation performance has hardly been analysed.
However, it is impossible to overlook the significance of product innovation performance, especially when dealing with reducing supply chain risks [26]. In this regard, the importance of TT cannot be ignored [16]. Businesses are trying to automate their supply chains, and technological turbulence may act as a hurdle, but if it is managed properly, it may result in efficiency and improvement in product innovation as well as product innovation performance. Furthermore, recent radical innovations and technical advancements have already demonstrated the ability of SMEs to completely upend entire business models [24,35]. Hence, the connection between SCRM and product innovation performance is thought to be highly relevant; however, this has received scarce attention from researchers, which may jeopardise the sustainability of SMEs.
In addition to that, during crisis situations and for innovation, information is the key resource [36,37], and SMEs in the progressing economies seek information from their network [38]. Entrepreneurial networking thus provides needed information and helps in the identification of the market opportunities that SMEs can cater to, developing new products to survive and compete in the market [39]. Like TT, entrepreneurial networking has gained limited attention in helping SMEs manage their risks related to the supply chain by bringing new products into the market.
Hence, considering the importance of SCRM and its impact on product innovation performance, taking the underpinning support of the Resource-Based View (RBV) as SCRM is a skill and competence that is a type of resource, as described by RBV [40], and considering the importance of TT and entrepreneurial networking, this study is an attempt to understand the synergetic moderation of entrepreneurial networking and TT over the impact of SCRM on product innovation performance, which certainly enhances sustainability. SCRM is a resource; hence, the relationship is developed with the theoretical support of RBV. Additionally, the Resource Dependency Theory serves as the foundation in support of entrepreneurial networking and how it influences the impact of SCRM on product innovation performance. RDT identifies the external support of resources as provided by the network of the entrepreneur [41]. Furthermore, in accordance with contingency theory, which states that organisations should adapt in accordance with the environment [42], TT is crucial in either promoting or impeding the performance of product innovation. Researchers have identified the synergetic impact of networking and TT [43,44]; however, how they affect the impact of SCRM on product innovation performance has not yet been analysed. This study also claims that the degree of TT affects the relationships between SCRM and product innovation performance. Hence, the core significance of this research is the integration of the three different theories.
Additionally, SMEs could have different objectives for resource distribution. Considering the increasingly unstable technological climate, especially after the COVID-19 epidemic, SMEs should carefully assess if they are prepared to pay more for a greater focus on risks regarding the associated relationship between SCRM and product innovation performance. While focussing on product innovation performance, the current research addressed a detailed explanation of SCRM in the settings of Omani SMEs. A set of SME data is used for two reasons: first, Oman is paying significant attention towards the promotion of SMEs; second, the government of Oman is paying special attention towards developing the country as a hub of supply chain for the entire region. Hence, given the government’s strong interest in supporting SMEs, logistics, and supply chains in the nation, Oman is a perfect location for this study.
Recognising the impact of SCRM on product innovation performance in SMEs is the key contribution of this study. Second, this study advances our knowledge of how entrepreneurial networking and TT supplement the impact of SCRM on product innovation performance. Thirdly, this study adds diversity to the study of SCRM and enhances the undeveloped research on SCRM in SMEs by concentrating on SMEs and employing data from a progressive economy.
The structure of this paper is as follows. SCRM is presented after a summary of product innovation performance. This study’s two moderators then talk about how they may improve product innovation performance by acting as a catalyst. A description of the approach employed follows this section. The analysis and findings are then given. Sections on discussion, implications, and conclusions conclude this study.

2. Literature Review

To develop the study hypothesis and framework, a critical review of the literature has been performed. The review of the literature starts with the relationship between supply chain risk management and product innovation performance, which is very scarce and which jeopardises the sustainability of the SMEs. Considering the inconclusive findings of the available literature, two moderating variables have been added to the framework. The review of the literature continued with a discussion over the moderating role of entrepreneurial networking followed by the moderating role of technological turbulence. Finally, the framework that has been drawn by integrating three independent theories has been discussed.

2.1. Supply Chain Risk Management and Product Innovation Performance

Product innovation is essential to any firm’s long-term viability, regardless of size [18]. Therefore, it is equally vital for SMEs to keep innovating their products if they wish to increase their business success consistently [45]. It can be difficult for SMEs, especially the smaller ones, to approach product innovation performance while maintaining ongoing innovation operations [46], which leads to sustainability in the SMEs.
Since SCRM is a method for prioritizing risks and allocating resources most effectively to reduce risk, it is anticipated that it will require SMEs to invest in research and development to get the market information [47,48]. SMEs should also use various SCRM methods for their supply chain operations, R&D, and innovation projects [11]. The results of market research also help in better product innovation [49], which gives better product innovation performance, especially with a supply chain perspective [50], and raises the triumph of innovation because of accessing or increasing use of artificial intelligence and technological advancements [51].
The use of technology in the area of the supply chain is motivating SMEs to innovate products based on market demand and feasibility [52]. If SMEs assess and prioritise critical hazards incorrectly, their existence may be in jeopardy because of a lack of innovation [53]. SMEs address important concerns and strive to eliminate any chance of failure in order to successfully lower risk related to the supply chain because they are hardly in a position to absorb any serious shock [16,54]. Research on German enterprises revealed a positive attitude towards risk-taking activities along with adequate SCRM, which enhances innovation [55]. Risk management associated with knowledge [56] can impact an organisation’s innovativeness [57].
However, when combined with product innovation efforts, overly stringent controls and SCRM procedures might limit the space for learning from mistakes and failures, which can have a detrimental impact on innovation capability [58]. For example, technical innovation entails a significant degree of uncertainty [59], which suggests possible unknown and unanticipated hazards [60]. As a result, a SCRM that is overly strict and limited runs the danger of excluding these types of developments from the start.
Additionally, it has been noted that when a firm implements RM techniques, resources are usually used [61]. These resources, when appropriately and efficiently used, result in improved performance in terms of product innovation and market acceptance because the market-driven product based on the supply chain minimises costs. Additionally, market-driven innovation provides sustainability to the SMEs. Hence, we claim that a firm’s performance in product innovation would improve if SMEs attained an elevated level of efficiency in SCRM, resulting in improved product innovation at lesser expense, which will provide success to the innovative product in the market. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. 
Supply chain risk management has a significant impact on product innovation performance among SMEs in Oman.

2.2. Moderating Role of Entrepreneurial Networking

SMEs with extensive networks gain a great deal of knowledge and experience from their network, which improves their capacity for innovation and performance [62]. The process of improving performance entails entrepreneurs’ utilisation of their links to assemble and organise resources to exploit the available resources [63]. Entrepreneurial networking has important implications and has the potential to provide new insights into the circumstances in which resources or skills impact performance. Most of the studies in entrepreneurial networking have concentrated on the organisational and interpersonal networks of entrepreneurs [64]. Businesses can access a range of network-based resources that support product innovation because of solid network ties and diversity [65].
However, scholars who study entrepreneurial networks contend that the capacity of entrepreneurs to be inventive is more likely to result in innovation than the availability of network resources alone, which may not have a significant effect on creativity. Additionally, networking with other business owners helps SMEs gain insights about industry trends and existing and future market opportunities, which can improve product innovation performance. Product innovation performance is aided by the resources, advice, and critical thinking skills that owners of SMEs with large networks in the entrepreneurial ecosystem can access, which gives sustainability to SMEs. According to RDT, entrepreneurs can use such an external network resource to create an entrepreneurial opportunity with less time and effort.
It has been suggested that “executives’ boundary-spanning activities and their associated interactions with external entities” are included in entrepreneurial networking. Entrepreneurial networking is divided into personal and professional categories in the literature, but it is not made clear how these are created or how they help product innovation performance to give sustainability. Entrepreneurial networking refers to the management of social connections with market participants that facilitate the acquisition of consumer trends and market data [63]. These could include unofficial social relationships with customers, suppliers, and rival businesses. In addition to advancing organisations’ and managers’ relationships, entrepreneurial networking influences organisational creativity, boosts product innovation performance, and can give businesses a competitive edge. Through the development of capabilities and skills, the provision of information and resources that promote innovation, and the facilitation of learning from rivals, these relationships aid in product innovation [53].
Improved performance is made possible by flexible planning, which becomes possible by entrepreneurial networking [39]. By adopting new partnering models, organisations can increase revenues and obtain resources to expand up or offer options for bundling or unbundling goods and services. Businesses going through “fundamental and extensive institutional transformations” need to have a robust network of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial networking may help businesses innovate new products and depart from their previous approach [64]. Additionally, SMEs have access to R&D opportunities and academic expertise, both of which may help to improve product innovation performance for achieving sustainability in performance. As a result, it is clear that networking is not a resource in and of itself; rather, it makes resources available for performance. Hence, the following research hypothesis is proposed:
H2. 
Entrepreneurial networking moderates the relationship between supply chain risk management and product innovation performance.

2.3. Moderating Role of Technological Turbulence

Information Technology (IT), digital communication, and digital activities have seen significant changes in the last 20 years, and this Technological Turbulence (TT) has presented both opportunities and risks for firms [66]. The speed and unpredictability of technology advancements within a sector are referred to as TT. TT is the rate at which technology is changing and unpredictable in a market or industrial environment [33]. When the TT level is high, people favour technological changes, view them as useful, and adopt them easily [67]. Therefore, the acceptance of incremental innovation is easier compared to radical innovation, which is more unpredictable [68].
To increase their sustainable performance in product innovation, SMEs employ various techniques and activities to strengthen their internal capabilities to handle the TT [27]. The ability to process information has expanded due to TT, and businesses are now more focused on keeping up with emerging trends in technology and how they affect client needs [30]. Businesses are compelled by TT to prepare for emerging innovations [32]. Thus, it is essential to learn about new technical developments since this might supplement product innovation [69].
To meet the ongoing challenge of TT, SMEs should carefully concentrate on their internal capacities, such as identifying organisational potential and regularly developing skills and expertise to meet the changes in the supply chain [70]. These new technologies have a significant impact [71], but because of the high direct and indirect costs of technology implementation, it might be risky for SMEs [72]. However, considering the advantages of being a motivator, as it helps SMEs to gain first modern advantages TT encourages investment which boosts product innovation [73], and the use of technology in risk management may also result in a positive outcome [74]. Therefore, it can be said that recent technology advancements, which are the outcome of TT, are likely to improve SCRM and Product innovation performance link. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3. 
Technological Turbulence moderates the relationship between supply chain risk management and product innovation performance.

2.4. Theoretical Support and Framework Development

Three distinct ideas have provided theoretical underpinning for the development of the current framework. The primary underlying theory is the Resource-Based View (RBV), which is limited to internal resources only and fails to consider the significance of external resource support which is highly needed in the current technologically turbulent environment. Hence the framework is drawn based on the integration of three independent theories.
As a source of competitive advantage, RBV highlights the significance of a firm’s internal resources and competencies [75]. According to RBV, supply chain risk management successfully safeguards important resources and competencies that are essential for product innovation [76]. SCRM is useful for attaining product innovation performance because a firm with strong risk management procedures can better protect its R&D spending, which in turn improves its capacity to develop new products [77], which gives sustainability to SMEs. Capabilities like effective SCRM enable SMEs to pursue product innovation while navigating uncertainty and interruptions [78]. These capabilities enable SMEs to better coordinate their risk management plans with their attempts to innovate new products to gain more customers, preventing risks from impeding these efforts [5]. Therefore, the theoretical underpinning of RBV provides a clear theoretical base for supporting the impact of SCRM on product innovation performance.
Additionally, RDT recommended that to accomplish their objectives, SMEs also rely on outside resources provided by entrepreneurial networking [42]. SMEs lack self-sufficiency, thus, they need to manage their dependencies through entrepreneurial networks, to lower uncertainty and guarantee their success [79]. To obtain access to important resources and possibilities that are outside the organisation’s control, entrepreneurial networking entails establishing and preserving connections with other institutions, individuals, and organisations [62]. Researchers have claimed that these networks assist businesses in controlling their reliance on outside resources and reducing the dangers that come with them [39]. Entrepreneurial networking can enable improved innovation and overall performance by mitigating the adverse impacts of excessive resource dependence [80], which jeopardises sustainability, so the entrepreneurs can improve their performance outcomes in product innovation and better manage their dependencies because of the entrepreneurial network.
Entrepreneurial networking enables business owners to acquire important knowledge and perspectives that can support product development [81]. The uncertainties that are a component of SCRM can be moderated by this information flow [82]. Therefore, RDT lends credence to the notion that the relationship between SCRM and product innovation performance can be moderated by entrepreneurial networking to achieve sustainability in product innovation. Hence, RDT is the most suitable theoretical support for the notion that the relationship between SCRM and product innovation performance can be moderated by entrepreneurial networking.
Lastly, contingency theory is the best theoretical foundation to address the moderating effect of TT. According to contingency theory, an organisation’s ability to function effectively is dependent on how well its internal procedures, external environment, and organisational structure mesh [83]. The moderating effect of TT is supported by this idea. Organisations must modify their procedures due to TT. The impact of SCRM on product innovation performance might be moderated by the level of TT, according to contingency theory [66]. By highlighting the fact that organisational efficiency depends on matching structures, procedures, and tactics with the degree of TT, contingency theory thereby supports the moderating influence of TT [84]. Depending on the degree of TT, the efficacy of innovation methods or technology adoption procedures either increases or decreases [85]. The degree of TT moderates the effect of SCRM on product innovation performance. Hence, considering the abovementioned arguments, Figure 1 shows the research framework.
The relationship between SCRM and product innovation performance has thus been established based on the theoretical foundation of RBV. RBV and RDT both discuss the resources that add value for the firms. Moreover, contingency theory deals with the adoption of change as per the changing situations; hence, this integration of theories supports the argument that when they need any additional resources, they are capable of getting them from their network and, in the technologically turbulent environment, they are capable of handling the change. To overcome the shortcomings of the RBV, as it ignores the external factors, and to fill in the gaps in the literature, the moderating roles of TT and entrepreneurial networking have been explored with the theoretical support of RDT and contingency theory. CT also considers the external environment, which supports the challenge of TT and converts it into opportunity, as it suggests adapting in accordance with the changing environment [83]. In turn, this demonstrates the value of entrepreneurial networking in technological turbulence, where SMEs recognise their internal environment to select low-risk and appropriate activities to improve their performance in product innovation [86], which leads to sustainability. Thus, with the synergetic moderation of support from external resources and the adoptive skill of the company as per the changing environment because of the information and moral support provided by the network, SMEs can instead maintain and improve their performance and sustainability in SMEs. Thus, RDT and CT have been used to address the moderating effects of TT and entrepreneurial networking to gain product innovation performance from SCRM.

3. Methods

SMEs need the support of the government for R&D, innovation, intellectual property rights, financing, and establishing business relationships with other firms in the industry. As per the latest statistics, 141,126 registered SMEs in 2024 [87], as reported by the Authority for Small and Medium Enterprises Development, out of which 120,000 are micro-enterprises, 19,000 are small, and only 1100 are medium, and those enterprises have supply chain networks. The government is supporting the growth and development of SMEs. However, the culture of innovation is very weak in Oman compared to other Arab countries. Therefore, in an environment where innovation is not prioritised, it is essential to comprehend SCRM procedures for SMEs to maximise their product-innovative performance. Owners of the SMEs were visited in person by one of the authors. Ninety-nine complete and valid surveys were selected for the final analysis. The sample size is small; however, purposive sampling was chosen because of the nature of this study, as we need to involve only SMEs that have their own supply chain network. Secondly, people in Oman are not very comfortable discussing their business. So, only those SMEs that have their own supply chain management system and were willing to participate in this study were involved. Mostly, SMEs operating in Oman have suppliers that are big companies and provide them with the supplies.
Four subjective measures—SCRM, product innovation performance, entrepreneurial networking, and TT—were part of this study. The items were modified from earlier research. The eight SCRM measurement items were modified from Hoffmann et al. [88] by combining supply risk management process maturity and supply risk management performance; however, in the current research, the construct is treated as a single uni-dimensional variable, i.e., SCRM. Considering the understanding level of the participants, the scale has been measured uni-dimensionally. The variable is measured in terms of competition, risks associated with supply chain networks, and procedures to avoid any hurdle in the supply chain. Ta’Amnha et al. [18] are the source of nine items used to assess product innovation performance. The scale followed has already been used in the settings of an Arab country, so the items were quite suitable for Oman as well, as the items measure product innovation performance in terms of competition, innovation in technology, sales growth, and success of the product in the market. Eight items following Satar et al. [39] were used to gauge entrepreneurial networking. The items measure the resources used by the entrepreneurs provided by their network, including information, machinery, and motivation. The five technological turbulence items were taken from Ta’Amnha et al. [18]. The items used for measuring technological turbulence have already been analysed in the same context as Jordan. Secondly, it covers technological changes and the complex environment. A five-point Likert scale is used to measure each construct because researchers in the field of SMEs have mostly used the same Likert scale [89,90]. For better understanding, the questionnaire has been attached in Appendix A.
To get a clear picture of the collected data set, descriptive analysis has been conducted initially to measure central tendency and dispersion. Additionally, to assess this study’s hypotheses, the authors used SMART PLS-3 to run Partial Least Square–Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). A strategy that facilitates the investigation of “causal paths and the identification of the collective strength of multiple variables” is employed in order to generalise the findings. Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability, Average Variance Extracted, and item loadings as recommended by previous studies, as well as Discriminant Validity tests, were performed to evaluate the reliability of the instrument used, and after confirmation, the structural model was analysed.

4. Results

Once the descriptive analysis, common method bias, convergent validity, and reliability, which includes item loadings, Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability, and Average Variance extracted, were determined, this study looked at the findings. Similarly, the Discriminant Validity (Fornell Larcker criteria and HTMT), as well as direct and moderating effects, have been established. Finally, the predictive relevance of the construct has also been examined.

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

Table 1 displays descriptive data, including means, standard deviations, tolerance, and VIF.
Implementing a five-point Likert scale over all the constructs, it has been observed that the data are normally distributed. Skewness and Kurtosis values are under the threshold levels.

4.2. Common Method Bias

The survey used in this study was cross-sectional, meaning that each firm provided a single response. The Common Method Bias (CMB) issue arises because of methodological flaws when the entire data are collected from one source or a single respondent. The Harman single factor was examined to evaluate CMB using exploratory factor analysis. The first component out of four components showed a variation of 41.01%, which is lower than the threshold level of 50% [91]. Hence, common method bias is not an issue for this inquiry.

4.3. Convergent Validity and Reliability

The researchers first calculated the outer loading values to ensure that items used in the constructs were made to measure the same construct. Quinlan et al. [92] suggested that every item loading value needs to be more than 0.7. After analysing item loading, Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability, and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for all variables, such as SCRM, entrepreneurial networking, TT, and product innovation performance, were evaluated. In contrast to composite reliability, where all variable values must be greater than 0.60 [93], Cronbach’s Alpha values for all the constructs must be greater than 0.7 [94]. Furthermore, AVE values for all the constructs affirm that convergent validity has been established as the AVE value was above 0.50 [93]. Table 2 displays the calculated values of all variables based on the threshold levels.
As the analysis demonstrates, the outer loadings confirm that every item is included in the model and that the variable values of SCRM, entrepreneurial networking, product innovation performance, and TT are greater than the 0.7 threshold level, which falls between 0.721 and 0.928. Furthermore, the computed values of Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability, and AVE for all variables are above the threshold levels.

4.4. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been conducted to confirm that items used in one construct discriminate from the items used in the other constructs. The calculated values for discriminant validity are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 shows that the square root of AVE for each variable is greater compared to its relationship with any other variable. To allay any concerns, the Heterotrait Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) criteria have also been adopted to establish discriminant validity, even though the Fornell–Larcker criterion is most used [95]. An HTMT near 1 indicates that discriminant validity is lacking. According to Ab Hamid, Sami, and Sidek (2017), the estimated value must be less than 0.85 as per HTMT criteria [96]. Results of discriminant validity by HTMT for all constructs including product innovation performance, supply chain risk management, entrepreneurial networking, and technological turbulence are mentioned in Table 4.
The computed values of discriminant validity by HTMT in Table 4 fall below 0.85, the HTMT criteria affirm discriminant validity. After ensuring that the instrument used is reliable and valid, the next step was to evaluate the hypothesis to confirm the validity of the research model, developed by integrating three theories.

4.5. Structural Modelling

Structural equation modelling was used to evaluate the framework. Firstly, the direct impact of SCRM on product innovation performance has been assessed. Table 5 reveals the findings of the direct effects.
Table 5 indicates that SCRM has a direct impact on product innovation performance, as demonstrated by the analysis (β = 0.569, t = 9.769, p = 0.000). Likewise, the model has since been updated to include the two moderating variables, as recommended by the research model. The findings are shown in Table 6.
The analysis demonstrates that entrepreneurial networking holds a direct link with product innovation performance (β = 0.516, t = 4.413, p = 0.000), while TT also has significant product innovation performance (β = 0.180, t = 2.148, p = 0.032). After ensuring that both the moderators have a direct link with the product innovation performance, interaction terms were introduced to evaluate the moderating role of entrepreneurial networking and TT. The results of the first interaction term revealed that entrepreneurial networking positively moderates the relationship between SCRM and product innovation performance (β = 0.525, t = 5.564, p = 0.000). Likewise, technological turbulence also positively moderates the relationship between SCRM and product innovation performance (β = 0.454, t = 4.729, p = 0.010).
To get a better understanding and strengthen the theoretical contribution of the integration of the three theories, the effect size of the moderators has been calculated. The value of R2 for product innovation performance without moderators was 0.324; the value of R2 after adding the moderating impact of entrepreneurial networking increased to 0.560; and the value of R2 was 0.474 when TT was added as a moderator. The values confirmed that the effect size of entrepreneurial networking is large, whereas the effect size for technological turbulence is medium. This observation further demonstrates the size effect of the moderators in Table 7.
Subsequently, the blindfolding technique has been used to confirm the predictive relevance of the model and support this study’s conclusions. Furthermore, Table 8 lists the results of cross-validated redundancy.
The calculated values of product innovation performance for Q2 are 0.154 greater than zero, according to construct cross-validated redundancy findings, confirming the model’s significant predictive significance [94].

5. Discussion, Implications, Limitations, Recommendations, and Conclusions

The results of this study confirmed the significance of SCRM for SMEs in general and the product innovation performance of SMEs in particular, considering the importance of sustainability aspects. In the current business period, where technology plays a key role in operations, procedures, and the creation of innovative products, the importance of supply chain practices and entrepreneurial networking should not be underestimated. Due to their limited internal resources, SMEs cannot overlook the significance of entrepreneurial networking, as their network provides support of external resources in the form of information and other support resources. In conclusion, the current study supports earlier research that holds the widely held belief that SCRM is essential to SME product innovation. Although similar relationships have independently been found in several models by earlier researchers, the current study is unique in the sense that it has developed a complicated model with the theoretical backing of three distinct theories.
This study adds to the existing literature on SCRM and product innovation performance among SMEs by considering the moderating effects of entrepreneurial networking and TT. The link between SCRM and product innovation performance is affected by entrepreneurial networking and TT, which jeopardise the sustainability of the SMEs. Entrepreneurial networking supports SMEs by providing relevant information about the potential threats in the market and about the perspective opportunities. Similarly, TT being a challenger forces SMEs to adopt the changes quickly, helps them gain first-mover advantage, and provides a competitive advantage, thus catalysing the impact of SCRM over product innovation performance among SMEs to make them more sustainable.
In the past, researchers have addressed all the variables independently. Supply chain risk management has been addressed in the past by Gurtu and Johny [48] in the form of a review, and they suggested empirical research on it. Additionally, Foli [16] also conducted the impact of SCRM, but they claimed its influence over performance and did not focus on product innovation performance, thereby somehow ignoring the concept of sustainability. Likewise, the role of entrepreneurial networking has been observed as a moderator with reference to the performance by Satar [39], but for product innovation performance, it is the first of its kind. Likewise, technological turbulence has been measured as a moderator in the past and has been identified to have a significant impact [27]. Product innovation performance has already been studied in the past [18,85], but its dependence on SCRM, entrepreneurial networking, and technological turbulence has been observed for the first time, especially while keeping in mind the elements of sustainability of SMEs. The main significance of the current research with reference to the contribution to the body of knowledge is that it focused on integrating the three independent domains and coming up with a comprehensive framework.
Nonetheless, the increase in R2 value after adding the moderating roles of both moderators further confirms the importance and significance of entrepreneurial networking and TT. This result about the moderating role of entrepreneurial networking is also consistent with earlier studies that emphasised the effects of resource limitations of SMEs and their network support in overcoming this challenge [39]. The findings also imply that to reduce the effects of TT, SMEs who wish to enhance their performance in product innovation should carefully invest in growing their networks [18,27]. Thus, the current study’s findings support the moderating effects of entrepreneurial networking and TT on the impact of SCRM over product innovation and guide the managers and entrepreneurs to carefully monitor SCRM as it can directly influence product innovation, which can boost performance.

5.1. Implications of This Study

The findings of this research enable the authors to make inferences that apply to scholars and professionals alike.

5.1.1. Theoretical Implications

On the theoretical ramifications, this study, with the help of the primary data collected from 99 SMEs, examines the moderating influence of entrepreneurial networking and TT over the impact of SCRM on product innovation performance in SMEs. In addition to advancing research on SCRM in SMEs, which is still an underdeveloped area of study, this empirical evidence supports RBV, RDT, and contingency theory by demonstrating the necessity of entrepreneurial networking through the theoretical support of RDT to address the difficulties brought on by TT through the theoretical lens of contingency theory over the basic link between SCRM, which is a skill and thus a resource as per RBV. Furthermore, this study has shown that SCRM may have a significant effect on product innovation performance because this network provides especially useful information needed to develop new products in accordance with consumer demand and the product in accordance with the suitability of the supply chain network.
A more detailed understanding of SCRM in SMEs in general and product innovation performance in SMEs in particular is provided by this research. These empirical results suggest that SMEs should carefully balance their SCRM investments based on the guidelines provided through their networking and should address the issue related to resource scarcity through the external resources provided by the network, which is the RDT argument. Additionally, considering the suggestion of contingency theory, SMEs should lessen the detrimental impact of TT by changing immediately as per the changing scenario for achieving product innovation performance [90].

5.1.2. Managerial Implications

A deeper comprehension of the impact of SCRM and product innovation performance can be advantageous for practitioners in the field of supply chain, innovation, and SMEs. This is because it will provide such insight, which will help them make better-informed choices regarding how to utilise the few available resources. The managers need to concentrate on the supply chain because sufficient input can be received from the suppliers. Likewise, entrepreneurial networking provides a lot of information about industrial changes and helps businesses identify the technological changes and support them whenever needed. Moreover, by managing supply chain risk management, the launching of new products in the competitive market can gain good success because of the smooth and latest supply chain system, which streamlines many activities. Additionally, technological turbulence, despite a threat, helps SMEs to be pioneers in the adoption of technology to gain first-mover advantage and, hence, it helps in gaining a competitive advantage.
This study illustrates a clear picture that shows the relationship between SCRM and product innovation performance to improve sustainability in SMEs. Therefore, to enhance the performance of SMEs through product innovation, decision-makers are urged to leverage their entrepreneurial networks to tackle the challenges posed by TT. However, considering the moderating role of TT on product innovation performance, they should understand that, even though SCRM is crucial, entrepreneurial networks should be closely monitored to prevent a situation in which the costs of SCRM exceed the gains.

5.2. Limitations and Future Recommendations

Despite several theoretical and practical ramifications, this study has certain limitations. This study’s shortcomings can be utilised to identify areas for future investigation. The foremost limitation is the small sample size of this study. Purposefully, only those SMEs were chosen that had their own supply chain network from raw material to end user. Thus, only a limited number of SMEs participated in this study. Hence, it is recommended to evaluate the same framework in other countries and over a larger scale; even a cross-country analysis could be conducted. Future studies that concentrate on the industry’s influence on SCRM should be conducted because context is important, and any challenging situation certainly affects SMEs’ SCRM practices. There is a need to replicate the same framework in other countries to increase this study’s external validity, given the importance of nation-specific variations in choices regarding SCRM in product innovation performance in SMEs.
Secondly, despite analysing common method bias, as the questionnaire has been used as a data collection tool, it is ridiculously hard to fully eliminate the concern. Therefore, qualitative research is suggested to the authors in the future. Furthermore, identifying the factors that limit SMEs’ performance in SCRM, and product innovation may be aided by a qualitative study. Moreover, this study was conducted after COVID-19, which may also have had a significant impact on SCRM tactics being used by the firms. Additionally, the dynamism of internal and external developments of organisations throughout time cannot be captured by such a framework, as a cross-sectional survey was employed to gather the data for this investigation. Thus, to look at change and its effects on SMEs’ product innovation performance due to SCRM, future studies should be focused on longitudinal research designs.

5.3. Conclusions

Examining how SCRM affects SMEs’ product innovation performance was the aim of this study. It also demonstrates how this link is moderated by TT and entrepreneurial networking. The research has examined recent concerns for greater diversity in the study of SCRM by collecting data from 99 SMEs having their own supply chain network and operating in the Sultanate of Oman. This research adds to the growing body of literature on SCRM in general as well as on the relationship between SCRM and product innovation performance in SMEs that give them sustainability. Yet, more research is needed, given the part SMEs play in supply chain operations on the one hand and the fact that recent supply chain disruptions have had a major impact on SMEs.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Ethical Approval Exemption for research study was approved by the Research Committee at University of Technology and Applied sciences/Salalah.

Informed Consent Statement

The study did not involve human or animal subjects, nor did it include minors or patients. The information collected from owners and managers pertained to their firms’ supply chain risk management practices, product innovation, networking activities, and the level of technological turbulence within their respective markets. Hence, informed consent was not needed.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be made available upon reasonable request, as the respondents were given confirmation that their details will not be shared publicly.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Questionnaire
Demography
Please tick (√) in the box relevant to you.
A. Age of the Firm
Which year did you start the current business?
□ Before 2000,    □ 2000 to 2005,               □ 2006–2020,               □ 2020 to date
B. Gender
□ Male                           □ Female
C. What is your education level?
□ Middle   □ Matric     □ Intermediate    □ Bachelors                 □ Masters
Product Innovation Performance
No.Items12345
1Our firm regularly change the products
2Our firm always introduce new products
3Our firm innovate products superior to competitors
4Our firm innovate products through technological breakthrough
5Market response of our product innovation is very high
6Our firm innovate improved quality of the products
7Our sales growth improved because of product innovation
8Profitability of our product innovation is high
9Success in gaining market share for product innovation is high
Supply Chain Risk Management
No.Items12345
1We manage supply risk more effectively than our rivals
2In general, we are happy with the way we handle supply risk
3Reduce how frequently supply risks arise
4Reduce the impact of occurrences of supply hazards
5A thorough supply risk management procedure has been implemented by our organisation
6We use a cross-functional approach to supply risk management
7We evaluate each supplier’s risks on a quarterly or annual basis
8We regularly enhance our risk management procedure
9A thorough examination of troublesome suppliers is a component of our risk management procedure
Entrepreneurial Networking
No.Items12345
1Information about market received from personal networking
2Motivation received from personal networking
3Machinery and equipment received from personal networking
4Premises received from personal networking
5Information about market received from business networking
6Motivation received from business networking
7Machinery and equipment received from business networking
8Premises received from business networking
Technology turbulence
No.Items12345
1Technology in our organisation is changing rapidly
2Technological changes provide big opportunities in our organisation
3It is exceedingly difficult to forecast technology developments in our organisation
4A large number of new product ideas have been made possible through technological breakthroughs in our organisation
5Technologically, our organisation has an overly complex environment

References

  1. Fadhel, H.A.; Aljalahma, A.; Almuhanadi, M.; Asad, M.; Sheikh, U. Management of higher education institutions in the GCC countries during the emergence of COVID-19: A review of opportunities, challenges, and a way forward. Int. J. Learn. High. Educ. 2022, 29, 83–97. [Google Scholar]
  2. Asad, M.; Kashif, M. Unveiling success factors for small and medium enterprises during COVID-19 pandemic. Arab J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2021, 28, 187–194. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ba-Awain, A.M.S.; Daud, D. Oman as a future logistics hub: A conceptual study. Int. J. Econ. Commer. Manag. 2018, 6, 141–148. [Google Scholar]
  4. Awain, A.M.S.B.; Jantan, M.D.; Sukati, I. Assessing the effect of integration in logistics sector on economic growth: Evidence from Sultanate of Oman. Int. Bus. Res. 2022, 51, 35–51. [Google Scholar]
  5. Awain, A.M.S.B.; Sulaiman, M.A.B.A.; Sheyadi, A.A.; Sukati, I. The role of digital supply chain management practices in the relationship between organizational culture and customer development. J. Ecohumanism 2025, 4, 336–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Allam, Z.; Bibri, S.E.; Sharpe, S.A. The rising impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia–Ukraine war: Energy transition, climate justice, global inequality, and supply chain disruption. Sustainability 2022, 11, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lima, P.F.D.A.; Crema, M.; Verbano, C. Risk management in SMEs: A systematic literature review and future directions. Eur. Manag. J. 2020, 38, 78–94. [Google Scholar]
  8. Piprani, A.Z.; Jaafar, N.I.; Ali, S.M.; Mubarik, M.S.; Shahbaz, M. Multi-dimensional supply chain flexibility and supply chain resilience: The role of supply chain risks exposure. Oper. Manag. Res. 2022, 15, 307–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Baz, J.E.; Ruel, S. Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the disruption impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? Evidence from an empirical survey in a COVID-19 outbreak era. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 233, 107972. [Google Scholar]
  10. Shahed, K.S.; Azeem, A.; Ali, S.M.; Moktadir, M.A. A supply chain disruption risk mitigation model to manage COVID-19 pandemic risk. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hohenstein, N.-O. Supply chain risk management in the COVID-19 pandemic: Strategies and empirical lessons for improving global logistics service providers’ performance. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2022, 33, 1336–1365. [Google Scholar]
  12. Mishra, R.; Singh, R.K. A systematic literature review on supply chain resilience in SMEs: Learnings from COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2023, 40, 1172–1202. [Google Scholar]
  13. Abdelfattah, F.; Malik, M.; Alawi, A.M.A.; Sallem, R.; Ganguly, A. Towards measuring SMEs performance amid the COVID-19 outbreak: Exploring the impact of integrated supply chain drivers. J. Glob. Oper. Strateg. Sourc. 2023, 16, 520–540. [Google Scholar]
  14. Klein, V.B.; Todesco, J.L. COVID-19 crisis and SMEs responses: The role of digital transformation. Knowl. Process Manag. 2021, 28, 117–133. [Google Scholar]
  15. Zutshi, A.; Mendy, J.; Sharma, G.D.; Thomas, A.; Sarker, T. From challenges to creativity: Enhancing SMEs’ resilience in the context of COVID-19. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Foli, S.; Durst, S.; Temel, S. The link between supply chain risk management and innovation performance in SMEs in turbulent times. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 2024, 16, 626–648. [Google Scholar]
  17. Asad, M.; Asif, M.U.; Sulaiman, M.A.B.A.; Satar, M.S.; Alarifi, G. Open innovation: The missing nexus between entrepreneurial orientation, total quality management, and performance of SMEs. J. Innov. Entrep. 2023, 12, 79. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ta’Amnha, M.A.; Magableh, I.K.; Asad, M.; Al-Qudah, S. Open innovation: The missing link between synergetic effect of entrepreneurial orientation and knowledge management over product innovation performance. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2023, 9, 100147. [Google Scholar]
  19. Thukral, E. COVID-19: Small and medium enterprises challenges and responses with creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Strateg. Change 2021, 30, 153–158. [Google Scholar]
  20. Grondys, K.; Ślusarczyk, O.; Hussain, H.I.; Androniceanu, A. Risk assessment of the SME sector operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ali, I.; Sadiddin, A.; Cattaneo, A. Risk and resilience in agri-food supply chain SMEs in the pandemic era: A cross-country study. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2022, 26, 1602–1620. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mohezar, S.; Mohamad, M.N.; Nor, M.N.M. Supply chain risk and SME business continuity strategies in the food industry during COVID-19 pandemic. Contin. Resil. Rev. 2023, 5, 116–134. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sun, K.-X.; Ooi, K.-B.; Tan, G.W.-H.; Lee, V.-H. Enhancing supply chain resilience in SMEs: A deep Learning-based approach to managing Covid-19 disruption risks. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2023, 36, 1508–1532. [Google Scholar]
  24. Khan, A.A.; Asad, M.; Khan, G.U.H.; Asif, M.U.; Aftab, U. Sequential mediation of innovativeness and competitive advantage between resources for business model innovation and SMEs performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA), Sakheer, Bahrain, 7–8 December 2021. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sulaiman, M.A.B.A.; Asad, M.; Awain, A.M.S.B.; Asif, M.U.; Shanfari, K.S.A. Entrepreneurial marketing and performance: Contingent role of market turbulence. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 492. [Google Scholar]
  26. Abdallah, A.B.; Alfar, N.A.; Alhyari, S. The effect of supply chain quality management on supply chain performance: The indirect roles of supply chain agility and innovation. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2021, 51, 785–812. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ta’Amnha, M.A.; Alsoud, M.; Asad, M.; Magableh, I.K.; Riyadh, H.A. Moderating role of technological turbulence between green product innovation, green process innovation and performance of SMEs. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 324. [Google Scholar]
  28. Santos, L.L.D.; Borini, F.M.; Pereira, R.M. Bricolage as a path towards organizational innovativeness in times of market and technological turbulence. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 2021, 13, 282–299. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pratono, A.H. Reinterpreting excellence for sustainable competitive advantage: The role of entrepreneurial culture under information technological turbulence. Meas. Bus. Excel. 2022, 26, 180–196. [Google Scholar]
  30. Santos, V.D.; Beuren, I.M.; Bernd, D.C.; Fey, N. Use of management controls and product innovation in startups: Intervention of knowledge sharing and technological turbulence. J. Knowl. Manag. 2023, 27, 264–284. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jin, C.; Liu, A.; Liu, H.; Gu, J.; Shao, M. How business model design drives innovation performance: The roles of product innovation capabilities and technological turbulence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 178, 121591. [Google Scholar]
  32. Arias-Pérez, J.; Cepeda-Cardona, J. Knowledge management strategies and organizational improvisation: What changed after the emergence of technological turbulence caused by artificial intelligence? Balt. J. Manag. 2022, 17, 250–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cai, W.; Wu, J.; Gu, J. From CEO passion to exploratory and exploitative innovation: The moderating roles of market and technological turbulence. Manag. Decis. 2021, 59, 1363–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Haug, A.; Wickstrøm, K.A.; Stentoft, J.; Philipsen, K. The impact of information technology on product innovation in SMEs: The role of technological orientation. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2023, 61, 384–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Asad, M.; Sulaiman, M.A.B.A.; Awain, A.M.B.; Alsoud, M.; Allam, Z.; Asif, M.U. Green entrepreneurial leadership, and performance of entrepreneurial firms: Does green product innovation mediates? Cogent Bus. Manag. 2024, 11, 2355685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zheng, C.; Ahsan, M.; DeNoble, A.F. Entrepreneurial networking during early stages of opportunity exploitation: Agency of novice and experienced new venture leaders. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2019, 44, 671–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xiao, S.; Lew, Y.K.; Park, B.I. International new product development performance, entrepreneurial capability, and network in high-tech ventures. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 124, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Flamini, G.; Pellegrini, M.M.; Manesh, M.F.; Caputo, A. Entrepreneurial approach for open innovation: Opening new opportunities, mapping knowledge and highlighting gaps. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2022, 28, 1347–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Satar, M.; Alharthi, S.; Asad, M.; Alenazy, A.; Asif, M.U. The moderating role of entrepreneurial networking between entrepreneurial alertness and the success of entrepreneurial firms. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pfeffer, J.; Salancik, G.R. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  42. Luthans, F. The contingency theory of management: A path out of the jungle. Bus. Horiz. 1973, 16, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Uzkurt, C.; Ekmekcioglu, E.B.; Ceyhan, S. Business ties, adaptive capability and technological turbulence: Implications for SMEs’ performance in Turkey. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2024, 39, 568–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. He, X.; Wu, X. Social networks and ambidextrous innovation in SMEs: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities and the moderating role of technological turbulence. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2022, 36, 2662–2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, Z.; Zhu, H.; Zhou, Z.; Zou, K. How does innovation matter for sustainable performance? Evidence from small and medium-sized enterprises. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 153, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stornelli, A.; Ozcan, S.; Simms, C. Advanced manufacturing technology adoption and innovation: A systematic literature review on barriers, enablers, and innovation types. Res. Policy 2021, 50, 104229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Petrovici, D.; Obal, M.; Walton, B.; Fearne, A. The role of market knowledge type on product innovation performance. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, 24, 2050046. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gurtu, A.; Johny, J. Supply chain risk management: Literature review. Risks 2021, 9, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zuhroh, S.; Rini, G.P. Product innovation capability and distinctive value positioning drivers for marketing performance: A service-dominant logic perspective. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ni, J.; Xu, Y.; Shi, J.; Li, J. Product innovation in a supply chain with information asymmetry: Is more private information always worse? Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2024, 314, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cricelli, L.; Mauriello, R.; Strazzullo, S. Technological innovation in agri-food supply chains. Br. Food J. 2024, 126, 1852–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Aljohani, A. Predictive analytics and machine learning for real-time supply chain risk mitigation and agility. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Asad, M.; Hafeez, M.H.; Saleem, I.; Asif, M.U.; Sulaiman, M.A.B.A.; Awain, A.M.B. Product innovation: A mediator between entrepreneurial orientation, knowledge management, and performance of SMEs. J. Knowl. Econ. 2024, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Foli, S.; Durst, S.; Davies, L.; Temel, S. Supply chain risk management in young and mature SMEs. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2022, 15, 328. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lendowski, E.; Oldeweme, A.; Schewe, G. Drivers of innovation performance and firm performance: Examining the inter-relationship of risk-taking, risk management and open innovation. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2022, 26, 2250015. [Google Scholar]
  56. Asif, M.U.; Asad, M.; Kashif, M.; Haq, A.U. Knowledge exploitation and knowledge exploration for sustainable performance of SMEs. In Proceedings of the 2021 Third International Sustainability and Resilience Conference: Climate Change, Sakheer, Bahrain, 15–17 November 2021. [Google Scholar]
  57. Kanaan, O.A.; Alsoud, M.; Asad, M.; Ta’Amnha, M.A.; Al-Qudah, S. A mediated moderated analysis of knowledge management and stakeholder relationships between open innovation and performance of entrepreneurial firms. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2024, 12, 2383–2398. [Google Scholar]
  58. Annosi, M.C.; Foss, N.; Martini, A. When agile harms learning and innovation:(and what can be done about it). Calif. Manag. Rev. 2020, 63, 61–80. [Google Scholar]
  59. Liu, M.; Li, C.; Wang, S.; Li, Q. Digital transformation; risk-taking, and innovation: Evidence from data on listed enterprises in China. J. Innov. Knowl. 2023, 8, 100332. [Google Scholar]
  60. Damer, N.; Al-Znaimat, A.H.; Asad, M.; Almansour, A.Z.A. Analysis of motivational factors that influence usage of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAATs) auditors in Jordan. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2021, 20, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  61. Rauniyar, K.; Wu, X.; Gupta, S.; Modgil, S.; Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S. Risk management of supply chains in the digital transformation era: Contribution and challenges of blockchain technology. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2023, 123, 253–277. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hilmersson, F.P.; Hilmersson, M. Networking to accelerate the pace of SME innovations. J. Innov. Knowl. 2021, 6, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  63. Engel, Y.; Kaandorp, M.; Elfring, T. Toward a dynamic process model of entrepreneurial networking under uncertainty. J. Bus. Ventur. 2017, 32, 35–51. [Google Scholar]
  64. Fernandes, A.J.; Ferreira, J.J. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and networks: A literature review and research agenda. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022, 16, 189–247. [Google Scholar]
  65. Cuvero, M.; Granados, M.L.; Pilkington, A.; Evans, R. Start-ups’ use of knowledge spillovers for product innovation: The influence of entrepreneurial ecosystems and virtual platforms. RD Manag. 2022, 53, 584–602. [Google Scholar]
  66. Pratono, A.H. The strategic innovation under information technological turbulence: The role of organisational resilience in competitive advantage. Compet. Rev. 2022, 32, 475–491. [Google Scholar]
  67. Lee, K.L.; Wong, S.Y.; Alzoubi, H.M.; Kurdi, B.A.; Alshurideh, M.T.; Khatib, M.E. Adopting smart supply chain and smart technologies to improve operational performance in manufacturing industry. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2023, 15, 18479790231200614. [Google Scholar]
  68. Al-Khatib, A.W.; Al-ghanem, E.M. Radical innovation; incremental innovation; competitive advantage, the moderating role of technological intensity: Evidence from the manufacturing sector in Jordan. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2022, 34, 344–369. [Google Scholar]
  69. Zhao, J. Knowledge management capability and technology uncertainty: Driving factors of dual innovation. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2021, 33, 783–796. [Google Scholar]
  70. Abdelaziz, M.A.A.; Wu, J.; Yuan, C.; Ghonim, M.A. Unlocking supply chain product and process innovation through the development of supply chain learning capabilities under technological turbulence: Evidence from Egyptian SMEs. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2023, 34, 793–819. [Google Scholar]
  71. Trieu, H.D.; Nguyen, P.V.; Nguyen, T.T.; Vu, H.; Tran, K. Information technology capabilities and organizational ambidexterity facilitating organizational resilience and firm performance of SMEs. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2023, 28, 544–555. [Google Scholar]
  72. Thomas, G.H.; Douglas, E.J. Resource reconfiguration by surviving SMEs in a disrupted industry. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2024, 62, 140–174. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sheng, M.L. A dynamic capabilities-based framework of organizational sensemaking through combinative capabilities towards exploratory and exploitative product innovation in turbulent environments. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2017, 65, 28–38. [Google Scholar]
  74. Puriwat, W.; Hoonsopon, D. Cultivating product innovation performance through creativity: The impact of organizational agility and flexibility under technological turbulence. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2022, 33, 741–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Aydin, H. Market orientation and product innovation: The mediating role of technological capability. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2021, 24, 1233–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Castillo-Vergara, M.; García-Pérez-de-Lema, D. Product innovation and performance in SME’s: The role of the creative process and risk taking. Innov. Organ. Manag. 2021, 23, 470–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chaudhuri, R.; Chatterjee, S.; Vrontis, D.; Thrassou, A. Adoption of robust business analytics for product innovation and organizational performance: The mediating role of organizational data-driven culture. Ann. Oper. Res. 2024, 339, 1757–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Andersén, J. A relational natural-resource-based view on product innovation: The influence of green product innovation and green suppliers on differentiation advantage in small manufacturing firms. Technovation 2021, 104, 102254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Khan, S.H.; Majid, A.; Yasir, M.; Javed, A. Social capital and business model innovation in SMEs: Do organizational learning capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation really matter? Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2021, 24, 191–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ozturk, O. Bibliometric review of resource dependence theory literature: An overview. Manag. Rev. Q. 2021, 71, 525–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tsai, F.-S.; Cabrilo, S.; Chou, H.-H.; Hu, F.; Tang, A.D. Open innovation and SME performance: The roles of reverse knowledge sharing and stakeholder relationships. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 148, 433–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Silva, G.M.; Gomes, P.J.; Carvalho, H.; Geraldes, V. Sustainable development in small and medium enterprises: The role of entrepreneurial orientation in supply chain management. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 3804–3820. [Google Scholar]
  83. Yusuf, M.F.; Nasarudin, N.A.I.M.; Sorooshian, S.; Fauzi, M.A.; Kasim, N.M. Exploring the impact of contingency theory on sustainable innovation in Malaysian manufacturing firms. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wang, C.; Qureshi, I.; Guo, F.; Zhang, Q. Corporate social responsibility and disruptive innovation: The moderating effects of environmental turbulence. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 139, 1435–1450. [Google Scholar]
  85. Huo, B.; Wang, B.; Li, Z. How to deal with technological turbulence for improving innovation performance. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2024, 36, 549–562. [Google Scholar]
  86. Wang, M.-C.; Chen, P.-C.; Fang, S.-C. How environmental turbulence influences firms’ entrepreneurial orientation: The moderating role of network relationships and organizational inertia. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2021, 36, 48–59. [Google Scholar]
  87. Oman, B.S. Oman’s SME Sector Growing with Strong Government Support. 8 October 2024. Available online: https://www.businessstartupoman.com/news/omans-sme-sector-continues-grow-government-support/ (accessed on 1 January 2025).
  88. Hoffmann, P.; Schiele, H.; Krabbendam, K. Uncertainty, supply risk management and their impact on performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2013, 19, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Alkhuzaie, A.S.H.; Asad, M.; Mansour, A.Z.A.; Sulaiman, M.A.B.A.; Kayani, U.N.; Asif, M.U. Compliance with accounting standards by Jordanian SMEs. Ikon. Izsled. 2024, 33, 89–107. [Google Scholar]
  90. Asif, M.U.; Bakar, L.J.A. Green strategic orientation and sustainable performance of SMEs: Moderating role of environmental turbulence. J. Knowl. Econ. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar]
  92. Quinlan, C.; Zikmund, W.G.; Babin, B.J.; Carr, J.C.; Griffin, M. Business Research Methods, 2nd ed.; Cengage Learning: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  93. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Editorial-partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  94. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar]
  95. Rönkkö, M.; Cho, E. An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organ. Res. Methods 2022, 25, 6–14. [Google Scholar]
  96. Hamid, M.R.A.; Sami, W.; Sidek, M.M. Discriminant validity assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017, 890, 12163. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 02903 g001
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Sustainability 17 02903 g001
Table 1. Descriptive analysis.
Table 1. Descriptive analysis.
ConstructMeansStandard DeviationSkewnessKurtosis
Supply Chain Risk Management4.781.301.5243.48
Product Innovation Performance4.231.281.5452.65
Entrepreneurial Networking4.831.431.3493.25
Technological Turbulence4.711.581.5163.57
Table 2. Item loadings, construct reliability, and validity.
Table 2. Item loadings, construct reliability, and validity.
ConstructsItemsLoading ValuesCronbach’s AlphaComposite ReliabilityAverage Variance Extracted (AVE)
Product Innovation PerformancePIP10.8080.9240.7370.622
PIP20.781
PIP30.774
PIP40.818
PIP50.750
PIP60.816
PIP70.808
PIP80.801
PIP90.741
Supply Chain Risk ManagementSCRM 10.9010.9470.7550.705
SCRM 20.721
SCRM 30.856
SCRM 40.928
SCRM 50.840
SCRM 60.775
SCRM 70.875
SCRM 80.766
SCRM 90.873
Entrepreneurial NetworkingEN10.8250.8160.7660.501
EN20.852
EN30.783
EN40.801
EN50.822
EN60.726
EN70.804
EN80.763
Technological TurbulenceTT10.7210.8410.7860.610
TT20.826
TT30.816
TT40.755
TT50.780
Table 3. Discriminant validity by Fornell–Larcker criterion.
Table 3. Discriminant validity by Fornell–Larcker criterion.
ConstructsPIPSCRMENTT
Product Innovation Performance (PIP)0.789
Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)0.5460.840
Entrepreneurial Networking (EN)0.7300.5790.705
Technological Turbulence (TT)0.5740.3760.6120.781
Table 4. Discriminant validity by HTMT criterion.
Table 4. Discriminant validity by HTMT criterion.
ConstructsPIPSCRMENTT
Product Innovation Performance (PIP)
Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)0.824
Entrepreneurial Networking (EN)0.6470.580
Technological Turbulence (TT)0.7530.6320.420
Table 5. Direct effects.
Table 5. Direct effects.
RelationshipsOriginal SampleSample MeanStandard DeviationT Statisticsp-Values
SCRM → PIP0.5690.5840.0589.7690.000
Table 6. Moderating effects.
Table 6. Moderating effects.
RelationshipsOriginal SampleSample MeanStandard DeviationT Statisticsp-Values
EN → PIP0.5160.5160.1174.4130.000
TT → PIP0.1800.1710.0842.1480.032
SCRM × EN → PIP0.5250.5160.0935.6450.000
SCRM × TT → PIP0.4540.4340.0964.7290.010
Table 7. Coefficient of determination and effect size.
Table 7. Coefficient of determination and effect size.
VariablesR2 IncludedR2 ExcludedDifference1-incF2
Entrepreneurial Networking0.5600.3240.2360.440.536
Technological Turbulence0.4740.3240.150.5260.285
Table 8. Cross-validated redundancy.
Table 8. Cross-validated redundancy.
Latent ConstructsSSOSSEQ2 = (1 − SSE/SSO)
Product innovation performance1182.0001154.6860.154
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

Ba Awain, A.M.S.; Asad, M.; Sulaiman, M.A.B.A.; Asif, M.U.; Shanfari, K.S.A. Impact of Supply Chain Risk Management on Product Innovation Performance of Omani SMEs: Synergetic Moderation of Technological Turbulence and Entrepreneurial Networking. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072903

AMA Style

Ba Awain AMS, Asad M, Sulaiman MABA, Asif MU, Shanfari KSA. Impact of Supply Chain Risk Management on Product Innovation Performance of Omani SMEs: Synergetic Moderation of Technological Turbulence and Entrepreneurial Networking. Sustainability. 2025; 17(7):2903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072903

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ba Awain, Ali Mohsin Salim, Muzaffar Asad, Mohammed Ali Bait Ali Sulaiman, Muhammad Uzair Asif, and Khalid Salim Al Shanfari. 2025. "Impact of Supply Chain Risk Management on Product Innovation Performance of Omani SMEs: Synergetic Moderation of Technological Turbulence and Entrepreneurial Networking" Sustainability 17, no. 7: 2903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072903

APA Style

Ba Awain, A. M. S., Asad, M., Sulaiman, M. A. B. A., Asif, M. U., & Shanfari, K. S. A. (2025). Impact of Supply Chain Risk Management on Product Innovation Performance of Omani SMEs: Synergetic Moderation of Technological Turbulence and Entrepreneurial Networking. Sustainability, 17(7), 2903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072903

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