The Combined Effects of Technological Resources, Competitive Pressure, and Innovation Attitude on Corporate Competitiveness: Evidence from Taiwan’s Textile Industry

Abstract

This research paper explores the textile industry in Taiwan and investigates how technological innovation can support corporate competitiveness under the pressures of global market competition, increased labor costs, and sustainability. This study tests the impact of technological resources, competitive pressures, and innovation attitudes on corporate competitiveness, moderated by risk management capability and technological innovation investment. A stratified random sampling method and questionnaire survey produced 401 valid responses that were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The study found that technological resources, competitive pressure, and innovation attitudes positively affect risk management capability and technological innovation investment, which improve corporate competitiveness. Technological innovation investment had the most significant effect on corporate competitiveness of these three factors. This is because competitive pressure and innovative attitudes push firms towards increased research and development and investment that create differentiation in the market and sustainable advantages. In terms of theoretical contribution, this study addresses the research gap related to the interaction between risk management and innovation in traditional industries. The practical implication is that firms should consider investing in organizational processes that create innovative attitudes and allocate resources to maximize organizational capabilities and ensure a competitive advantage in highly dynamic markets through risk management and ongoing innovation.

1. Introduction

In recent years, Taiwan’s textile industry has been facing multiple challenges, including global competition, rapid technological evolution, and pressures related to environmental and social responsibility [1,2]. Emerging economies such as China, Vietnam, and India exert strong competitive pressure on Taiwan’s textile industry through low labor costs and large-scale production. In addition, fluctuations in international demand and supply chain instability have created an increasingly uncertain business environment [2].

Against this backdrop, technological innovation and digital transformation have become critical for the survival and competitiveness of traditional industries. The advancement of smart manufacturing relies on the Internet of Things (IoT), big data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), and automation technologies [3], which not only enhance production efficiency but also enable more customized, flexible, and sustainable processes [4]. At the same time, growing demands from consumers and regulatory bodies for green production have compelled Taiwanese textile firms to integrate environmental sustainability into their technological innovations [4]. This study posits that Dynamic Capabilities Theory can explain how firms, through sensing, seizing, and transforming capabilities, reconfigure resources under conditions of rapid change and sustainability pressures, thereby effectively converting technological innovation into sustained competitive advantage [5,6,7].

However, compared with low-wage countries, Taiwan faces higher labor costs, which makes it even more necessary to maintain profitability through automation and process optimization [8]. The COVID-19 pandemic has further revealed the vulnerabilities of global supply chains, underscoring the urgency for firms to establish resilient and diversified supply networks [2]. Within this context, firms with risk management capabilities are better positioned to respond effectively to sudden challenges and sustain stable operations.

Existing research suggests that technological innovation can improve product quality, reduce costs, accelerate market responsiveness, and meet consumer needs [9,10]. However, discussions regarding the mediating role of risk management capability between technological innovation and corporate competitiveness remain limited in traditional industries [11]. Can these issues also be observed in Taiwan’s textile industry? This study therefore seeks to fill this gap by exploring how Taiwan’s textile firms, under competitive pressure, develop risk management capabilities through technological resources, innovation investment, and proactive innovation attitudes, thereby enhancing corporate competitiveness.

The objectives of this study are as follows:

• To examine the effects of technological resources, competitive pressure, and innovation attitudes on risk management capability and technological innovation investment.
• To investigate how risk management capability and technological innovation investment further strengthen corporate competitiveness.
• To test the mediating effects of risk management capability and technological innovation investment, thereby revealing the interaction between innovation and risk management in traditional industries.

This study collected data through a questionnaire survey targeting managers and professionals directly involved in technological innovation and risk management in Taiwan’s textile industry. Furthermore, this study carries significant managerial implications by providing concrete suggestions to help firms review and optimize their innovation and risk management strategies in highly competitive and uncertain market environments. Combining existing literature with empirical findings from Taiwan’s traditional industry, this study explains how firms can strategically utilize technological resources to strengthen risk management capability and enhance competitiveness through continuous technological innovation. Accordingly, this study first proposes a conceptual framework encompassing technological resources, competitive pressure, innovation attitudes, risk management capability, technological innovation investment, and corporate competitiveness (see Figure 1). The subsequent sections present the research methodology, analyze the empirical results, and discuss the findings, including theoretical and practical implications, future research directions, and managerial recommendations.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Taiwanese Textile Industry

Taiwan’s textile industry has played a crucial economic and social development. In the early stages, the industry was mainly cotton spinning, but with government support for petrochemical downstream raw materials in the 1960s, it shifted toward chemical fibers and blended products. After fulfilling domestic demand, Taiwan’s cotton textile industry turned to export markets, and by the 1970s, vertical integration from raw materials, textiles, to apparel established Taiwan’s position in the global supply chain. From 1967 to 2003, textiles were Taiwan’s largest foreign exchange earner for 37 consecutive years, averaging around US$10 billion annually, contributing significantly to the economy and livelihoods [12].

Over the past six decades, continuous product innovation and investment in production equipment have enabled Taiwan to build one of the world’s most complete textile production systems. Taiwan has become a global hub for functional textiles, supplying advanced materials to the international sportswear and fashion markets. The industry continues to develop toward smart textiles, sustainability, and functional applications, maintaining its leading global position [12].

However, the industry has faced notable challenges in recent years. Between 2005 and 2021, Taiwan’s textile and apparel production value declined by 30.7%, from NT$498.9 billion to NT$345.6 billion. Within this period, apparel and made-ups contracted 62.1%, artificial fibers decreased by 52.3%, and textiles fell by 15%. Both manufacturers and employment levels also shrank significantly. These structural shifts highlight the need for strategic transformation, as developing a well-defined strategy is essential for outperforming competition and achieving sustainable growth [13].

2.2. Dynamic Capabilities Theory

Since Teece et al. [14] advanced the concept of “the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments,” Dynamic Capabilities Theory has come to be seen as one of the important foundations for explaining the ability of firms to maintain competitiveness in contexts of extreme uncertainty. The value of the theory lies in answering questions related to the “why” and “how” firms survive and grow in continuously transforming conditions [15]. The theory emphasizes that organizations create value in the three capacities of sensing, seizing, and transforming [5,6]. Helfat et al. [7] further specified that dynamic capability, as defined in the context of organizations, refers to an organization’s ability to purposefully create, extend, and modify its base of resources, which is not a static stock of resources but ongoing and evolving.

The operational mechanisms of dynamic capabilities are derived from perspectives encompassing two main streams. Specifically, on the one hand, Mele et al. [16] shared that dynamic capabilities are a set of identifiable, path dependent processes that may be regarded as cross-firm “best practices.” On the other hand, Zhang et al. [17] described them as higher-order routines delivered from experiential accumulation and organizational learning. This mechanism encompasses not only routines, inertia, and endogenous change [17], but also the role of managerial awareness and motivation in devoting capability evolution [18]. Teece and Pisano [19] highlighted the idea of “dynamic” as the dynamic environment, while “capabilities” focus on the importance of management, especially with respect to integration and reconfiguration of resources. Thus, the theoretical framework has emerged as a necessary theory to understand how firms use innovation to address problems in the market [20].

Dynamic Capabilities Theory is particularly relevant to understanding risk management capability, technological innovation investment, and competitiveness. Teece [14] mentioned that dynamic capabilities can develop technological innovation into managerial innovation. Li and Liu [21] noted that companies can see threats and opportunities, act quickly, and develop systems to solve problems. This means that firms that consistently build dynamic capabilities can maximize their ability to identify and respond to risks, and spur technological innovation investment through resource reconfiguration [22]. Further, under the condition of a digital transformation and an industrial revolution, dynamic capabilities are considered to be crucial and integral drivers of firms’ ability to continuously create new knowledge and new value [23,24].

Therefore, the current study will adopt dynamic capabilities as the primary linking mechanism for explaining how technological resources, competitive pressure observations, and innovation attitudes impact the risk management capability and technological innovation investment that affects competitiveness. The theoretical premise for explaining the causal relationships among these variables is based on the three functions of dynamic capabilities (sensing, seizing and transforming). The sensing function helps firms recognize external threats and opportunities, the seizing function enables firms to allocate and invest in the resources for innovation effectively, and the transforming function ensures that the firm adjusts its organizational structure and processes to the external environment change. This theoretical premise will be used to formulate an integrative framework, that can demonstrate the mediating and driving role of dynamic capabilities in the relationship between technological innovation and company competitiveness in the textile industry.

While much of the existing literature has applied Dynamic Capabilities Theory to issues of transformation and innovation, several gaps remain. First, the findings of most studies, although theoretically informed, develop conceptual or theoretical frameworks or models. For instance, Zhang et al. [17] combined various perspectives from different schools of thought to develop an evolution-based framework while Mele et al. [16] conducted a literature review on knowledge-based dynamic capabilities as a foundation for a research agenda. However, much of the literature remains in macro-level theory and has rarely considered related questions of how firms reconcile “innovation investment” and “risk management”.

Second, some studies have examined specific contexts, for example, Komkowski et al. [20] looked at German manufacturing experts views of lean management in the context of Industry 4.0, or Liu et al. [25] conducted an empirical analysis of CSR on innovation, and reported on the moderating effect of digital transformation on effects observed. However, again, the studies emphasized investments in innovation, CSR or digital transformation, and rarely examined the role of “risk management capability,” or interactions with technological innovation investment.

Third, some studies report challenges for survival in start-ups (e.g., [26]) or developed capability lists, implementation roadmaps for Industry 4.0 (e.g., [27]) but are essentially about addressing resource allocation to respond to environmental challenges, with little focus on how traditional industries, under competitive pressure, respond by investing in innovation to increase competitiveness by developing “risk management capability”.

As a result, existing studies have consistently failed to consider the interactive role of “risk management capability” and technological innovation investment in transforming traditional industries, or to provide empirical tests of their mediation effects. The research questions that are addressed in the study sought to verify the effects of technological resources, competitive pressure and innovation attitudes on “risk management capability” and “innovation investment”, in order to explore how “risk management capability” and “innovation investment” can promote competitiveness, and to test if “risk management capability” and “innovation investment” can have a positive mediation effect; thereby filling the inquiry created by the existing studies not addressing the interactive roles of innovation and risk management and their implications.

Table 1. Literature Summary of Dynamic Capabilities Theory.

Title	Author(s)	Main Research Focus	Theoretical Framework	Theoretical Gap
Integrating Lean Management with Industry 4.0: an explorative Dynamic Capabilities theory perspective	[20]	Exploring how to integrate lean management and Industry 4.0, and proposing an action model	Dynamic Capabilities Theory	Emphasizes the integration model but lacks the linkage and empirical validation of “risk management capability” and “innovation investment
Revisiting the idea of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities for digital transformation	[16]	Systematically reviewing the application of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities in digital transformation	Knowledge-Based View + Dynamic Capabilities Theory	Remains at the level of theoretical construction, lacking empirical validation, and does not incorporate the perspective of “risk management
Does corporate social responsibility influence corporate innovation in China? Combining innovation investment and dynamic capabilities theory	[25]	Examining how CSR influences innovation through financing costs and digital transformation	Reputation Theory + Innovation Investment Theory + Dynamic Capabilities Theory	Although innovation investment is included, the study focuses solely on CSR and lacks examination of “risk management capability
New perspectives for dynamic capabilities in meeting needs of startups’ survival	[26]	Exploring how dynamic capabilities meet the survival needs of new ventures	Dynamic Capabilities Theory (entrepreneurial context)	Focuses on new ventures, lacking discussion on risk management and innovation in traditional industries
A review of dynamic capabilities evolution—based on organizational routines, entrepreneurship and improvisational capabilities perspectives	[17]	Exploring the evolutionary mechanisms of dynamic capabilities and proposing an “adaptation–innovation–response” framework	Dynamic Capabilities Theory (evolutionary perspective)	Focuses on the evolutionary process but lacks empirical analysis of how “risk management capability” influences innovation
Developing a strategic roadmap towards integration in Industry 4.0: A dynamic capabilities theory perspective	[27]	Developing a capability list and roadmap for Industry 4.0 integration	Dynamic Capabilities Theory (three elements: sensing, seizing, reconfiguring)	Focuses on capability lists and roadmaps but lacks the linkage with “innovation investment” and “risk management capability

listed Literature Summary of Dynamic Capabilities Theory.

2.3. Technological Resources

Technological resources refer to the various technologies and related knowledge that an organization or company possesses and utilizes [28]. These resources include hardware, software systems, technical expertise, patents, and other technology-related assets [29]. These resources are key factors in corporate innovation and enhancing competitiveness [29,30]. First, technological resources can improve production efficiency and reduce costs through automation and technological upgrades [30]. Secondly, technological resources are the foundation for product and service innovation, helping companies develop new products and services to meet market demands [31]. In summary, possessing and effectively utilizing technological resources can place companies in an advantageous position in market competition, establishing competitive barriers and preventing imitation by competitors.

Technological resources are a primary driver of economic growth and development [32]. Technological progress makes production more efficient, thereby improving overall economic benefits [33]. Moreover, the effective management of technological resources can help achieve environmental sustainability, such as reducing pollution and resource consumption through technological innovation [34]. Additionally, companies with strong technological resources can adapt more quickly to market changes, seize new opportunities, and respond to challenges [35]. Finally, companies that leverage technological resources for innovation and improvement can significantly enhance their market performance and financial results, as technological resources can moderate the relationship between diversification and performance [36].

Taiwan’s textile companies need to place great emphasis on technological resources as they can significantly enhance production efficiency and reduce costs. Advanced technological equipment and automated production lines can improve production speed and product quality, reduce labor and time costs, thereby boosting overall competitiveness [8]. Secondly, facing intense international market competition, Taiwan’s textile companies must continuously innovate to develop new products and improve product quality, in order to meet market demands and consumer preferences [8]. Moreover, with the growing awareness of environmental protection and increasingly stringent regulations, Taiwan’s textile companies must focus more on environmental protection and social responsibility during the production process. Technological resources can assist companies in developing and applying environmentally friendly technologies, reducing pollution and resource consumption in the production process, and achieving green production [37]. Lastly, technological resources enable companies to respond more flexibly to market changes and technological advancements, allowing them to maintain market adaptability [8].

2.4. Risk Management Capabilities

Corporate risk management is regarded as an integrated mechanism that adopts a unified risk supervision approach to help firms cope with multidimensional risks [38]. These risks may include market risk, operational risk, financial risk, legal risk, environmental risk, and more [39]. Risk management capabilities involve the establishment of systematic methods and processes to reduce the impact of risks on the achievement of corporate objectives. First, companies should systematically identify and assess the various risks they face and prioritize them based on their likelihood and potential impact [40,41]. Secondly, for the identified risks, companies should develop corresponding risk response strategies and plans, including risk avoidance, reduction, transfer, and acceptance [42]. Finally, companies should continuously monitor risk conditions and promptly report changes in risk levels so that management can respond quickly and make informed decisions [43].

Effective risk management capabilities can help companies identify potential threats and opportunities, thereby improving the quality of decision-making. Through systematic risk assessments, companies can more accurately predict market changes and develop more robust business strategies [41]. Secondly, risk management capabilities can assist companies in responding to emergencies and uncertainties, ensuring stable operations. For instance, when faced with natural disasters, economic crises, or legal changes, companies can swiftly take action to mitigate the impact on their business [39]. Furthermore, strong risk management capabilities can enhance a company’s competitiveness. By identifying and managing risks, companies can maintain an advantageous position in the face of competition, seize opportunities, and avoid potential losses and failures [42]. Finally, effective risk management can increase investor and stakeholder confidence in the company. When a company can demonstrate effective risk management strategies and capabilities, investors are more likely to trust its business and management, which in turn facilitates capital inflow [44].

Technological resources, including advanced technical equipment and data analysis tools, can help companies more accurately identify and predict potential risks [45,46]. For example, through big data analytics and artificial intelligence technologies, companies can analyze market trends and consumer behaviors, identifying market risks and changes in demand in advance, thereby developing corresponding response strategies [47]. Additionally, technological resources can provide the technical support and resource assurance that companies need when facing risks. For instance, automation equipment and intelligent systems can improve a company’s flexibility and response speed during the production process, helping them quickly respond to unexpected events and uncertainties in production [48]. Moreover, technological resources support companies in developing contingency plans and risk management systems, enhancing their risk response capabilities. Sufficient technological resources contribute to building and improving internal risk management systems, including risk identification, assessment, monitoring, and response management [43]. Companies can utilize technological resources to develop risk management information systems, enabling real-time monitoring and dynamic management of various risks, thereby improving the systematicness and effectiveness of risk management [49].

In summary, technological resources positively impact the risk management capabilities of Taiwan’s textile companies by improving risk identification and forecasting abilities, supporting the implementation of risk response measures, and promoting the construction of internal risk management systems. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H1. 

The technological resources of Taiwan’s textile companies have a positive impact on their risk management capabilities.

2.5. Investment in Technological Innovation

Investment in technological innovation refers to the funds and resources that a company dedicates to activities such as technology research and development, technology acquisition, equipment upgrades, and other related initiatives [46]. The purpose of these investments is to enhance the company’s innovation capabilities, develop new products, or improve existing products to maintain market competitiveness [50]. Through technological upgrades and the introduction of automated equipment, companies can increase production efficiency and reduce production costs [51]. Moreover, investment in technological innovation can help companies improve the quality of existing products, enhancing their market competitiveness and customer satisfaction [52]. Furthermore, continuous investment in technological innovation allows companies to maintain a competitive edge in rapidly changing markets, preventing them from being surpassed by competitors [53]. Finally, technological innovation contributes to the development of environmentally friendly technologies and products, promoting sustainable development and meeting society’s demands for environmental sustainability [54].

As companies increase their investment in technological resources, they are better positioned to make further investments in technological innovation, creating a positive feedback loop. Research shows a significant positive correlation between a company’s technological resources and innovation investments; the more technological resources a company possesses, the more it invests in innovation [54]. Companies with abundant technological resources are better equipped to respond to market competition and technological changes, which motivates them to make more innovation investments. These companies can leverage technological resources to improve market responsiveness and product competitiveness, thereby driving further innovation investments [55].

In summary, the technological resources of Taiwan’s textile companies have a significant positive impact on their investment in technological innovation. As companies accumulate more technological resources, their investment in technological innovation also increases. This is primarily because technological resources enhance a company’s innovation capabilities, innovation outcomes, and market competitiveness, creating a positive cycle of technological innovation investment. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H2. 

The technological resources of Taiwan’s textile companies have a positive impact on their investment in technological innovation.

2.6. Competitive Pressure

Competitive pressure refers to the challenges a company faces in the market from other businesses, including competition from market rivals, product substitutes, supplier bargaining power, and customer bargaining power [56]. Competitive pressure compels companies to continuously improve their products, services, and processes to maintain or enhance their market position. First, competitive pressure drives companies to innovate technologically and develop new products to meet consumer demands and stand out in the market [57]. Secondly, competitive pressure forces companies to seek more efficient operational models and management methods to reduce costs and improve production efficiency [58]. Finally, by responding to competitive pressure, companies can enhance their market competitiveness, strengthen their market position, and achieve sustained growth [59].

Competitive pressure is a key driver of technological progress, as companies must continuously innovate in order to maintain a technological edge in the face of competition [60]. Secondly, in response to competitive pressure, companies need to improve product quality and service levels to attract and retain customers [61]. Furthermore, competitive pressure stimulates market vitality, prompting companies to constantly seek new market opportunities and business models to maintain their competitiveness [57]. Lastly, competitive pressure pushes companies to enhance their ability to adapt to market changes, increasing their resilience when facing uncertainty [62].

In highly competitive markets, companies must continuously enhance their risk management capabilities to cope with the ever-changing market environment and challenges from competitors [59]. When companies face greater competitive pressure, they are more likely to adopt advanced risk management methods and technologies to ensure stability and sustainable development. Effective risk management helps companies quickly respond to market fluctuations and uncertainties, allowing them to take appropriate measures to maintain their competitive advantage [63]. Under high competitive pressure, companies need greater resilience to face various market challenges. Strong risk management capabilities enable companies to better predict and respond to potential risks, thereby increasing their resilience and adaptability [64].

In summary, as companies face greater competitive pressure, their risk management capabilities improve. This is because competitive pressure drives companies to continuously enhance their risk management capabilities in order to maintain market competitiveness and achieve sustainable development. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3. 

Competitive pressure faced by Taiwan’s textile companies has a positive impact on their risk management capabilities.

Under high competitive pressure, companies are more strongly motivated to innovate. Competitive pressure pushes companies to constantly seek innovation opportunities to avoid being eliminated from the market [65]. This means that when companies face competitive pressure, they are more inclined to invest resources in technological innovation to secure their market position. When faced with competitive pressure, companies increase R&D investment to ensure the competitiveness of their technologies and products. Research has found a significant positive correlation between competitive pressure and investment in technological innovation, with companies’ innovation investments increasing as competitive pressure rises [66].

In conclusion, the greater the competitive pressure a company faces, the more it invests in technological innovation. This is because competitive pressure stimulates companies’ innovation motivation and R&D investment, driving them to continuously innovate in order to maintain market competitiveness and technological leadership. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H4. 

Competitive pressure faced by Taiwan’s textile companies has a positive impact on their investment in technological innovation.

2.7. Attitude Toward Technological Innovation

A company’s attitude toward technological innovation refers to its overall perspective and behavior regarding innovation activities, including the adoption of new technologies, investment in R&D, and the formulation and implementation of innovation strategies [50]. This attitude reflects the importance a company places on technological advancement and innovation [67]. In rapidly changing market environments, a proactive attitude toward technological innovation can help companies adapt more quickly to market changes and consumer demands, thereby maintaining their market competitiveness [68]. Continuous investment in technological innovation is the foundation for long-term growth and sustainable development. A positive attitude toward technological innovation promotes continuous progress in the technological field, ensuring a company’s leading position in the market [69]. A supportive attitude toward innovation can also unlock employees’ innovative potential, encouraging them to propose creative solutions in their work, thus enhancing the company’s overall innovation capacity [70].

Also, a company’s proactive attitude toward technological innovation drives its investment in R&D and the adoption of new technologies, which in turn enhances its risk management capabilities. Research has shown that there is a close connection between knowledge management capabilities and risk management capabilities, with a positive innovation environment helping companies manage market risks [71]. Managerial innovation and technological innovation are closely related, and this relationship has a significant impact on a company’s risk management capabilities. Companies at higher stages of technological capability demonstrate a stronger connection between risk management and technological innovation, indicating that a proactive attitude toward innovation enhances risk management capabilities [72].

Overall, the more positive a company’s attitude toward technological innovation, the better its risk management capabilities. This is because a proactive innovation attitude fosters the collaborative development of knowledge management and risk management, enhancing a company’s adaptability and market competitiveness. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H5. 

The attitude toward technological innovation in Taiwan’s textile companies has a positive impact on their risk management capabilities.

A proactive attitude toward technological innovation often drives companies to increase investment in R&D and technology acquisition to maintain competitiveness. Research shows that technology acquisition and R&D spending are key indicators of a company’s innovation investment, and a positive attitude toward digital innovation significantly boosts these investments [50]. Additionally, a positive attitude toward innovation can influence resource allocation strategies, prompting companies to increase investments in science, technology, and innovation activities, thus enhancing overall innovation capacity [54]. Furthermore, a proactive attitude toward technological innovation helps companies respond to competitive market pressures by continuously investing in innovation to improve product quality and production efficiency, thereby strengthening market competitiveness [73].

In summary, the more positive a company’s attitude toward technological innovation, the higher its investment in technological innovation. This is because a proactive innovation attitude encourages resource allocation in R&D and technology acquisition, improving the company’s ability to respond to market and environmental pressures, thus increasing its technological innovation investment. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H6. 

The attitude toward technological innovation in Taiwan’s textile companies has a positive impact on their investment in technological innovation.

2.8. Corporate Competitiveness

Corporate competitiveness is defined as a company’s ability to acquire and maintain an advantage in the market. This competitiveness is demonstrated by a company’s capacity to effectively utilize its resources and capabilities to outperform competitors and achieve sustainable growth and profitability [74]. The concept of corporate competitiveness encompasses several aspects. First, in terms of resources and capabilities, it includes the management of physical, financial, human, and knowledge resources, as well as organizational and technological capabilities [75]. Additionally, innovation capability in products, services, processes, and management is a key factor in maintaining competitive advantage [76]. Furthermore, a company must possess the ability to quickly adapt to market changes and consumer demands, including flexible strategies and efficient operations [14]. Moreover, brand influence and reputation in the market directly affect consumer choice and loyalty [77].

In fierce market competition, only companies with strong competitiveness can survive and thrive. By enhancing competitiveness, companies can gain a larger market share, achieve growth and profitability [74], maintain sustainable development in a constantly changing market environment [78], and enhance their market value and shareholder interests [75]. In addition, companies with high competitiveness are better equipped to deal with changes and challenges in the market environment [14]. Highly competitive companies are also more attractive to investors, as investors tend to favor companies capable of long-term stable growth [75].

In a globalized and highly competitive market environment, risk management capabilities play a crucial role in corporate competitiveness. Taiwan’s textile companies, when facing various risks (such as market, financial, and supply chain risks), can improve their competitiveness through strong risk management capabilities. Companies with robust risk management capabilities are better able to predict and respond to market fluctuations, ensuring operational stability, which is essential for maintaining and enhancing competitiveness [39]. Effective risk management improves the efficiency and quality of decision-making, enabling companies to respond quickly to competition and adjust strategies, thereby enhancing their competitive advantage [44]. A well-executed risk management strategy reduces losses caused by various risks, thereby lowering overall operating costs and boosting competitiveness [79]. Companies with strong risk management capabilities can effectively handle unexpected events, protect their reputation, and gain greater trust from consumers and investors, all of which significantly enhance competitiveness [80].

The risk management capabilities of Taiwan’s textile companies have a significant positive impact on their corporate competitiveness. By improving their risk management capabilities, these companies can maintain operational stability, improve decision-making quality, reduce costs and losses, and enhance their reputation, thereby maintaining a competitive advantage in the market. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H7. 

The risk management capabilities of Taiwan’s textile companies have a positive impact on their corporate competitiveness.

Investment in technological innovation can help companies develop high-quality and differentiated products, thereby gaining a competitive advantage in the market [81]. Technological innovation can improve production efficiency and reduce costs, enabling companies to offer products at more competitive prices, thus enhancing market competitiveness [82,83]. Companies with strong innovation capabilities can quickly respond to changes in market demand, develop new products, and enter new markets, which is crucial for improving competitiveness [84]. Technological innovation helps enhance a company’s brand image and market recognition, increasing consumer trust and loyalty to the company’s products, thereby boosting competitiveness [85].

The technological innovation investment of Taiwan’s textile companies has a significant positive impact on their corporate competitiveness. By improving product quality, increasing operational efficiency, promoting market expansion, and enhancing brand image, these companies can stand out in fierce market competition and achieve sustainable growth and development. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H8. 

The technological innovation investment of Taiwan’s textile companies has a positive impact on their corporate competitiveness.

2.9. Risk Management Capabilities as Mediator

Technological resources are the foundation for enhancing efficiency and innovation, constituting an important basis for strengthening risk management capability. When firms possess advanced technological equipment and data analytics tools, they are able to more accurately identify and predict potential risks and design effective response measures, thereby promoting the construction and operation of risk management systems [43,45,46]. Enhanced risk management capability enables firms to maintain stable operations and respond quickly in uncertain market environments. This mediating role implies that technological resources not only directly influence corporate competitiveness but also enhance market advantages through the mediating effect of risk management capability [39].

H9. 

Technological resources positively influence corporate competitiveness through risk management capability.

Competitive pressure is a critical external force driving firms to continuously improve processes, reduce costs, and pursue innovation. When market challenges intensify, firms adopt more comprehensive risk management approaches to ensure resilience in unstable environments [59]. Under such conditions, risk management capability becomes indispensable in supporting firms facing intense competition, enabling them to adjust strategies more effectively, mitigate potential losses, and sustain competitive advantages [63,64]. Thus, competitive pressure exerts a positive influence on corporate competitiveness through the mediating role of risk management capability.

H10. 

Competitive pressure positively influences corporate competitiveness through risk management capability.

A firm’s attitude toward technological innovation refers to the degree of emphasis placed on adopting new technologies, investing in R&D, and pursuing innovation strategies. A proactive innovation attitude fosters the integration of knowledge management and technological applications, enhancing the ability to identify, assess, and control risks [71]. Particularly in contexts of advanced technological capability, the relationship between innovation attitude and risk management is even stronger, indicating that a positive orientation toward innovation improves firms’ risk response capacity [72]. Consequently, risk management capability is an important mediator between innovation attitude and corporate competitiveness, enabling firms to sustain competitive advantages when facing market challenges.

H11. 

Attitude toward technological innovation positively influences corporate competitiveness through risk management capability.

2.10. Investment in Technological Innovation as Mediator

Technological resources are the technologies and related knowledge firms can access and use. This can include equipment, know-how, or tech-related assets. Technological resources impact market performance and innovation engagement [29,30]. Firms characterized by their abundance of technological resources can also devote more resources to R&D and technology upgrade, thus implementing an innovation investment virtuous cycle [54,55]. Investments in technology resources lead to higher production efficiency, lower costs, greater product and service innovation capabilities, and better responsiveness to market demand [51,52]. Hence, technological resources amplify sustained competitive advantages in competitive civic markets and enhance overall competitiveness through the mediating mechanism of technological engagement investment [50,53].

H12. 

Technological resources positively influence corporate competitiveness through investment in technological innovation.

Competitive pressure means the challenges firms experience in the marketplace, relative to competitors, substitutes, suppliers, and consumers [56]. External pressure pushes firms to continuously upgrade products and processes to maintain their position in the marketplace while advancing their growth capabilities [59]. In highly competitive environments, firms tend to escalate their investment in technological innovation by developing new products and technologies to gain differentiation and meet the customers’ needs [57,60]. As such, competitive pressure becomes an important driver of sustainable investment in technological innovation, allowing firms to remain adaptive to market conditions in order not to be outdone by competitors. As firms continuously grow their investment in technological innovation, they will achieve better efficiency and quality, leading them to larger leaps in market competitiveness [61,62]. Therefore, competitive pressure promotes corporate competitiveness through the mediating role investment in technological innovation.

H13. 

Competitive pressure positively influences corporate competitiveness through investment in technological innovation.

Firm attitude toward technological innovation refers to negative adaptive attitude and behavior toward new technologies, R&D investment, and innovation strategies. This reflects how important a firm thinks technological advancement will be to future success [67,68]. Firms with a positive adaptive technology innovation attitude are more confident they will engage in D&D, adopt new technologies, and commit resources to investment in technological innovation will later provide them with long-term, market derived advantages [69,70]. Research suggests that positive knowledge, innovation, and organizational climate contribute to knowledge management and decision-making, increasing market competitiveness [71]. Moreover, firms that are high on innovation importance likely have some relationship with technology enhancement capability, continuing to invest in innovation to achieve longer-term market competitiveness [72]. Therefore, an adaptive attitude built upon innovation distances a firm’s competitive position in competitive markets, which is met through the mediating role of investment in technological innovation.

H14. 

Attitude toward technological innovation positively influences corporate competitiveness through investment in technological innovation.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study adopts a quantitative research method using questionnaire to examine the relationships among technological resources, competitive pressure, innovation attitude, risk management capability, and enterprise competitiveness in Taiwan’s textile industry. This approach allows for statistical analysis of large-scale data and hypothesis testing using structural equation modeling (SEM).

3.2. Sampling Procedure

Taiwan’s textile industry comprises over 4000 factories and employs more than 140,000 workers [86]. Given the substantial differences among firms of varying sizes, stratified random sampling was employed to enhance the representativeness of the sample and reduce bias from any single stratum. The stratification was based on firm size (large, medium, small), ensuring that differences in resource allocation, innovation capability, and competitive pressure were adequately captured, thereby improving the generalizability of the findings [87].

Following Krejcie and Morgan’s [88] guideline, a minimum of 300 valid responses was required to achieve sufficient statistical power. Because the research model involves multiple latent variables and employs SEM, the target sample size was set above this threshold. The questionnaire was distributed electronically via email invitations containing a survey link between August and October 2024. To improve response rates and data quality, reminder messages were sent, and respondents were assured of anonymity and data confidentiality. Approximately 450 responses were expected to be collected.

3.3. Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire for this study is divided into two main sections: demographic variables and research variables.

3.3.1. Demographic Variables

This section aims to collect basic background information from the respondents to better understand the characteristics of the sample.

• Gender: Two options—Male and Female.
• Age: Five options—29 years old or younger, 30–39 years old, 40–49 years old, 50–59 years old, and 60 years old or older.
• Educational Level: Four options—Junior high school or below, High school (or vocational), College (or technical school), and Graduate school or above.
• Work Experience: Five options—Less than 1 year, 1–3 years, 3–10 years, 10–20 years, and More than 20 years.
• Position: Four options—Junior management, Middle management, Senior management, and Technical personnel.
• Company Size: Three options—Small corporate (fewer than 50 employees), Medium corporate (50–249 employees), and Large corporate (250 or more employees).

3.3.2. Research Variables

The measurement items for the research variables will use a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The questionnaire was developed based on previous studies (Technology Resources from Zhu et al. [89]; Risk Management Capabilities from Miller [90]; Investment in Technological Innovation from Cohen and Levinthal [91]; Competitive Pressures from Porter and Strategy [74]; Technological Innovation Attitude from Damanpour and Schneider [92]), with the measurement items revised to align with the objectives of this study.

• Technology Resources (TR)

This study references the classic work by Zhu et al. [89], which explores the assimilation of technological innovation in businesses across different countries, with a particular focus on the diffusion and application of e-commerce technology. The paper introduces variables such as the availability of technological resources, the integrity of technological infrastructure, and the company’s ability to utilize technological resources, all of which have direct relevance to this study. This study develops five items to measure technology resources, focusing on evaluating the availability of internal technological resources, the integrity of technological infrastructure, the ability to utilize technological resources, the sufficiency of technical support, and continuous investment in technological resources. The goal is to assess the company’s ability to acquire necessary technological resources, as well as the advancement and completeness of its technological infrastructure. The items for technology resources are listed in

Table 2. Technology Resources Items.

Items	Reference
TR1. My company can easily access the necessary technological resources to support technological innovation.	[89]
TR2. The technological infrastructure within the company is advanced and complete.
TR3. The company can effectively utilize technological resources to improve competitiveness.
TR4. My company receives sufficient technical support during the process of technological innovation.
TR5. The company continuously invests in technological resources to support long-term technological innovation.

.

2.

Risk Management Capabilities (RMC)

This study references the classic work by Miller [90], which presents a comprehensive risk management framework, particularly focusing on risk management in international business. The paper discusses key aspects such as risk forecasting, risk response strategies, and the development of risk management systems, providing a strong theoretical foundation for designing evaluation items to assess a company’s risk management capabilities. This study develops five items, with the core focusing on evaluating the company’s ability to forecast risks, the effectiveness of risk response strategies, the completeness of internal risk management systems, the adequacy of resources allocated to risk management, and the continuous improvement of risk management capabilities. The items for risk management capabilities are listed in

Table 3. Risk Management Capabilities Items.

Items	Reference
RMC1. My company can effectively forecast potential future risks.	[90]
RMC2. The risk response strategies formulated by the company can effectively address various risks.
RMC3. The company’s risk management system is very comprehensive.
RMC4. The company has allocated sufficient resources to risk management.
RMC5. The company continuously enhances its risk management capabilities to cope with the changing risk environment.

.

3.

Investment in Technological Innovation (ITI)

This study references the classic research by Cohen and Levinthal [91], which introduced the concept of absorptive capacity, emphasizing a company’s ability to absorb and utilize external knowledge during innovation and learning processes. The paper discusses a company’s investment in technological innovation, including R&D investment, human resource allocation, and continuous learning, providing a crucial theoretical foundation for designing evaluation items for technological innovation investment. This study develops five items, with the core focusing on evaluating the company’s financial investment in technological innovation, human resource allocation, the frequency of R&D activities, the ability to absorb and utilize external technology, and the company’s investment in learning and training for technological innovation. The items for technological innovation investment are listed in

Table 4. Technological Innovation Investment Items.

Items	Reference
ITI1. My company invests a large amount of money in technological innovation each year.	[91]
ITI2. The company’s human resource allocation for technological innovation is sufficient.
ITI3. The company frequently engages in R&D activities for technological innovation.
ITI4. The company has strong capabilities to absorb and utilize external technology.
ITI5. The company provides ample learning and training opportunities for employees regarding technological innovation.

.

4.

Competitive Pressures (CP)

This study references the classic work of Porter and Strategy [74], which introduced competitive strategies and the Five Forces analysis model. The literature discusses in detail how firms respond to internal and external competitive pressures within their industry, and it elaborates on how competitive pressures influence firms’ behaviors and decision-making. This literature provides the theoretical foundation and empirical support for studying how companies survive and grow in highly competitive markets. This study develops five items, with each item evaluating key aspects such as the intensity of competition faced by the company in the market, technological innovation, price competition, market share, and the competitive pressure brought by new entrants. The items related to competitive pressures are shown in

Table 5. Competitive Pressure Items.

Items	Reference
CP1. My company faces intense competition from industry peers.	[74]
CP2. Competitors’ continuous technological innovations place significant pressure on my company.
CP3. My company frequently faces price pressure from competitors.
CP4. My company faces immense competitive pressure to capture market share.
CP5. New entrants into the market pose a significant threat to my company.

.

5.

Technological Innovation Attitude (TIA)

This study references the classic research of Damanpour and Schneider [92], which explores the different stages of innovation adoption within organizations and analyzes the impact of environmental factors, organizational characteristics, and top management’s attitudes toward technological innovation. The literature details how organizations transform their attitudes toward technological innovation, emphasizing the key role of managers in driving the innovation process. These insights provide crucial theoretical support for designing assessment items related to attitudes toward technological innovation. This study develops five items, each focusing on evaluating the company’s emphasis on technological innovation, encouragement of employee participation in technological innovation activities, support measures for technological innovation, willingness to take risks associated with technological innovation, and top management’s attitudes toward technological innovation. The items related to attitudes toward technological innovation are shown in

Table 6. Technological Innovation Attitude Items.

Items	Reference
TIA1. My company places great emphasis on technological innovation and regards it as a core aspect of business development.	[92]
TIA2. The company encourages employees to actively participate in technological innovation activities and propose innovative ideas.
TIA3. The company provides various resources and measures to support technological innovation, including funding, training, and equipment.
TIA4. The company is willing to take the risks associated with technological innovation in pursuit of potential high returns.
TIA5. The company’s top management actively supports technological innovation and participates in related decision-making.

.

6.

Corporate Competitiveness (CC)

This study references the classic research of Barney [75]. This seminal work, written by Jay Barney, introduced the Resource-Based View (RBV), emphasizing the importance of a firm’s resources in sustaining competitive advantage. The literature explores in detail how company resources create and maintain competitive advantage, covering aspects such as resource scarcity, non-substitutability, inimitability, and organizational capability. These insights provide a solid theoretical foundation for designing assessment items related to enterprise competitiveness. This study develops five items, each focusing on evaluating the company’s product innovation capabilities, responsiveness to market changes, brand recognition and market reputation, cost control and management capabilities, and technological leadership. The items related to enterprise competitiveness are shown in

Table 7. Corporate Competitiveness Items.

Items	Reference
CC1. My company possesses strong product innovation capabilities and can continuously launch new products.	[75]
CC2. The company is able to quickly respond to market changes and adjust strategies accordingly.
CC3. The company’s brand has high recognition and a good reputation in the market.
CC4. The company has advantages in cost management and can effectively control operating costs.
CC5. The company holds a leading position in the technological field, with multiple core technologies and patents.

.

3.4. Data Analysis

Concerning methodological choice between covariance-based SEM methods such as AMOS, this study utilizes partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) for the following reasons. First, PLS-SEM is more appropriate for research intended for theory development and prediction, while CB-SEM (e.g., AMOS) is more often applied in the rigorous testing of a theory [93]. Second, PLS-SEM imposes fewer restrictions on sample size and normality data in the analysis and is a better fit for the cross-sectional survey data collected in this study [94]. Third, the structural complexity is increased since the research model includes multiple latent constructs and mediation effects. PLS-SEM can reliably offer more flexibility and broader generalizability with a more complex research model [95]. In summary, PLS-SEM is more suitable for examining the research objectives, addressing the data characteristics, and accommodating the research model for this study than CB-SEM.

4. Research Results

4.1. Analysis of Personal Background Data

The questionnaire distribution for this study began in August 2024 and continued for two months. In total, 457 responses were collected. After excluding incomplete and patterned responses deemed invalid, a total of 401 valid questionnaires were retained for analysis. The gender distribution shows a majority of female respondents, with 209 participants (52.1%). The majority of respondents were aged 30–39, accounting for 143 participants (35.7%). In terms of educational background, most respondents had a university (or junior college) education, with 307 participants (76.6%). Additionally, the largest portion of respondents had less than one year of work experience, with 188 participants (46.9%). The details are shown in

Table 8. Analysis of Personal Background Data.

Category	Group	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	192	47.9
	Female	209	52.1
Age	Below 29	86	21.4
	30–39	143	35.7
	40–40	137	34.2
	50–59	32	8
	60 and above	3	0.7
Education	Junior High School or Below	2	0.5
	High School	54	13.5
	University (Junior College)	307	76.6
	Graduate School or Above	38	9.5
Work Experience	Less than 1 year	188	46.9
	1–3 years	96	23.9
	3–10 years	103	25.7
	10–20 years	14	2.6
Position	Junior Management	84	20.9
	Middle Management	218	54.4
	Senior Management	89	22.2
	Technical Staff	10	2.5

.

4.2. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is a measure of validity used to assess the consistency among multiple measurement items or variables that are theoretically related. According to Fornell and Larcker [96] and Nunnally [97], the evaluation criteria for the validity of a measurement model include the following: factor loadings should be greater than 0.7, composite reliability should exceed 0.7, the average variance extracted (AVE) should be greater than 0.5, and Cronbach’s α should be greater than 0.7. Statistical analysis revealed that the factor loadings for each construct in this study ranged from 0.761 to 0.953, all exceeding 0.7. The composite reliability of all constructs ranged from 0.880 to 0.947, indicating composite reliability greater than 0.7. The AVE values ranged from 0.670 to 0.828, showing AVE values greater than 0.5. The Cronbach’s α values for the constructs ranged from 0.876 to 0.946, all exceeding 0.7. These results demonstrate that the measurement model in this study exhibits good convergent validity. The details are shown in

Table 9. Convergent Validity Analysis.

Construct	Item	Factor Loading	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Technology Resources (TR)	TR1	0.856	0.903	0.911	0.723
	TR2	0.927
	TR3	0.853
	TR4	0.884
	TR5	0.718
Competitive Pressure (CP)	CP1	0.866	0.910	0.910	0.736
	CP2	0.872
	CP3	0.819
	CP4	0.860
	CP5	0.871
Corporate Competitiveness (CC)	CC1	0.941	0.946	0.947	0.828
	CC2	0.953
	CC3	0.945
	CC4	0.915
	CC5	0.784
Investment in Technological Innovation (ITI)	ITI1	0.806	0.901	0.904	0.719
	ITI2	0.852
	ITI3	0.908
	ITI4	0.893
	ITI5	0.773
Risk Management Capabilities (RMC)	RMC1	0.829	0.876	0.880	0.670
	RMC2	0.862
	RMC3	0.835
	RMC4	0.720
	RMC5	0.838
Technological Innovation Attitude (TIA)	TIA1	0.907	0.917	0.921	0.752
	TIA2	0.889
	TIA3	0.761
	TIA4	0.886
	TIA5	0.886

.

4.3. Discriminant Validity

This study used the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) method to examine the discriminant validity between reflective constructs. According to Fornell and Larcker [96], discriminant validity is established when the square root of the AVE for each construct is greater than the correlation coefficients between that construct and other constructs. The analysis results show that, in most cases, the square root of the AVE for each construct exceeds the squared correlation coefficients between constructs, meeting the requirements for discriminant validity. This indicates that there is sufficient distinction between the reflective constructs, and each construct effectively represents different concepts. Overall, the study demonstrates good discriminant validity. The details are shown in

Table 10. Discriminant Validity Analysis.

	CP	CC	ITI	RMC	TIA	TR
Competitive Pressure (CP)	0.858
Corporate Competitiveness (CC)	0.672	0.910
Technological Innovation Investment (ITI)	0.721	0.639	0.848
Risk Management Capability (RMC)	0.561	0.593	0.595	0.818
Technological Innovation Attitude (TIA)	0.701	0.721	0.674	0.599	0.867
Technological Resources (TR)	0.460	0.410	0.455	0.532	0.432	0.850

.

4.4. Goodness of Fit

Goodness of Fit (GOF) is an indicator used to measure the degree of alignment between a statistical model and observed data, primarily to test the model’s fit. The formula for calculating GOF is: $GOF=\sqrt{\overline{AVE}} \times \sqrt{\overline{R^2}}$. According to Vinzi et al. [98], a GOF value of 0.1 indicates weak fit, 0.25 represents moderate fit, and 0.36 indicates strong fit. The results of this study show a GOF value of 0.615, which suggests a strong model fit.

$$GOF=\sqrt{\overline{AVE}}\times \sqrt{\overline{R^2}}=\sqrt{0.741\times 0.510}=0.615$$

(1)

4.5. Path Analysis

The results, as presented in

Table 11. Path Analysis Results.

Path	Original Sample	Standard Deviation	t	p	2.50%	97.50%
Control Variables
Work Experience → CC	0.008	0.027	0.318	0.375	−0.035	0.053
Education → CC	0.029	0.029	0.994	0.160	−0.019	0.077
Position → CC	−0.041	0.029	1.437	0.075	−0.088	0.005
Hypothesis
H1: TR → RMC	0.397	0.036	10.924	<0.001	0.337	0.456
H2: TR → ITI	0.193	0.040	4.821	<0.001	0.128	0.261
H3: CP → RMC	0.128	0.050	2.546	0.005	0.046	0.211
H4: CP → ITI	0.383	0.049	7.800	<0.001	0.300	0.463
H5: TIA → RMC	0.455	0.051	8.849	<0.001	0.369	0.539
H7: TIA → ITI	0.392	0.050	7.774	<0.001	0.310	0.475
H7: RMC → EC	0.353	0.062	5.669	<0.001	0.247	0.452
H8: ITI → EC	0.515	0.058	8.91	<0.001	0.421	0.61
H9: TR → RMC → CC	0.140	0.023	6.105	<0.001	0.101	0.177
H10: CP → RMC → CC	0.045	0.020	2.283	0.011	0.015	0.079
H11: TIA → RMC → CC	0.160	0.038	4.202	<0.001	0.100	0.226
H12: TR → ITI → CC	0.099	0.024	4.061	<0.001	0.062	0.142
H13: CP → ITI → CC	0.197	0.031	6.322	<0.001	0.148	0.249
H14: TIA → ITI → CC	0.202	0.037	5.449	<0.001	0.144	0.265

Note: Bootstrapping = 5000. The abbreviations in the table refer to TR: Technological Resources; CP: Competitive Pressure; TIA: Attitude toward Technological Innovation; RMC: Risk Management Capability; ITI: Technological Innovation Investment; CC: Corporate Competitiveness.

, indicate that among the control variables, Work Experience (β = 0.027, p = 0.375), Education (β = 0.029, p = 0.160), and Position (β = 0.029, p = 0.075) exerted no significant influence on Enterprise Competitiveness. Regarding direct effects, Technological Resources had significant and positive effects on both Risk Management Capability (β = 0.036, p < 0.001) and Technological Innovation Investment (β = 0.040, p < 0.001), thereby supporting H1 and H2. Similarly, Competitive Pressure demonstrated significant and positive effects on Risk Management Capability (β = 0.050, p = 0.005) and Technological Innovation Investment (β = 0.049, p < 0.001), supporting H3 and H4. In addition, Attitude toward Technological Innovation also exhibited significant and positive effects on Risk Management Capability (β = 0.051, p < 0.001) and Technological Innovation Investment (β = 0.050, p < 0.001), supporting H5 and H6. Furthermore, Risk Management Capability showed a significant and positive effect on Enterprise Competitiveness (β = 0.062, p < 0.001), supporting H7. Finally, Technological Innovation Investment exerted the strongest positive effect on Enterprise Competitiveness (β = 0.058, p < 0.001), supporting H8.

For the mediating effects, the bootstrapping method was applied [99]. The results reveal that Technological Resources affected Enterprise Competitiveness through Risk Management Capability (CI = [0.101, 0.177]), indicating a significant mediating effect and supporting H9. Likewise, Competitive Pressure (CI = [0.015, 0.079]) and Attitude toward Technological Innovation (CI = [0.100, 0.226]) influenced Enterprise Competitiveness through Risk Management Capability, supporting H10 and H11. Furthermore, Technological Resources (CI = [0.062, 0.142]), Competitive Pressure (CI = [0.148, 0.249]), and Attitude toward Technological Innovation (CI = [0.144, 0.265]) also affected Enterprise Competitiveness through Technological Innovation Investment, demonstrating significant mediating effects and supporting H12, H13, and H14.

Below, in Figure 2, is the statistical model diagram.

5. Discussion

This study, through empirical analysis, explored the effects of technological resources, competitive pressure, and attitude toward technological innovation on technological innovation investment, risk management capability, and enterprise competitiveness within Taiwan’s textile industry. The results not only confirmed the significant impact of these independent variables on enterprise competitiveness but also revealed, through a mediation model, the mediating effects of risk management capability and technological innovation investment in this process.

5.1. The Role of Technological Resources

Technological resources have been proven to have a significant positive impact on both risk management capability and technological innovation investment. This suggests that companies with sufficient technological resources are better equipped to manage risks and promote technological innovation. This finding is consistent with Cohen and Levinthal [91] absorptive capacity theory, which emphasizes the critical role of technological resources in facilitating organizational learning and innovation. Moreover, technological resources indirectly enhance enterprise competitiveness by strengthening risk management capability and technological innovation investment. However, compared to competitive pressure and attitude toward technological innovation, the driving effect of technological resources on competitiveness is relatively weaker. This may be because the impact of technological resources is more supportive and foundational rather than directly driving innovation or responding to market pressures. Therefore, the effectiveness of technological resources depends largely on whether companies can fully utilize them to drive innovation or improve risk management efficiency.

5.2. The Driving Force of Competitive Pressure

In this study, the impact of competitive pressure on technological innovation investment was the most significant, indicating that market competition is a key driver of corporate innovation. This finding aligns with the theoretical perspective of Porter and Heppelmann [47], which posits that competitive pressure is a core driving factor for companies seeking technological innovation. In highly competitive market environments, companies are compelled to innovate in order to differentiate their products and improve production efficiency, helping them stand out in the global market. Moreover, competitive pressure also encourages companies to strengthen their risk management, ensuring stable operations in uncertain market conditions. Therefore, this study confirms that competitive pressure not only drives technological innovation investment but also indirectly influences enterprise competitiveness through improved risk management.

5.3. The Key Role of Attitude Toward Technological Innovation

In this study, attitude toward technological innovation has been shown to be a crucial factor influencing both risk management capability and technological innovation investment. Companies with a proactive attitude toward innovation are more likely to adopt new technologies to manage risks and increase investment in innovation, which further enhances their competitiveness. This aligns with Zahra and George [100] Z innovation-driven theory, which argues that an innovation-oriented attitude enables companies to respond more flexibly to market changes and actively seek technological solutions. While risk management plays a critical role in maintaining organizational stability, the direct impact of an innovation attitude on technological innovation investment and, subsequently, on competitiveness is more pronounced. This suggests that a company’s attitude toward innovation is a key driving factor in determining the level of technological innovation investment, highlighting its importance in fostering competitiveness.

5.4. The Mediating Effects of Risk Management Capability and Technological Innovation Investment

The mediation analysis in this study further confirmed the mediating roles of risk management capability and technological innovation investment in enhancing enterprise competitiveness. Specifically, technological resources and competitive pressure influence competitiveness through risk management capability and technological innovation investment. This finding aligns with Teece [5] dynamic capabilities theory, which emphasizes the need for companies to develop effective risk management and innovation capabilities to cope with market uncertainties and rapid changes. Among the mediation effects, the impact of competitive pressure on enterprise competitiveness through technological innovation investment was the most significant, reflecting the critical role of technological innovation in boosting competitiveness. This highlights that, in highly competitive environments, companies must prioritize innovation as a key strategy for maintaining and enhancing their market position.

The results of this study are consistent with previous research, further reinforcing the importance of technological resources, competitive pressure, and attitude toward technological innovation in enhancing enterprise competitiveness. However, the uniqueness of this study lies in its focus on the traditional industry of Taiwan’s textile sector, filling a gap in the literature on technological innovation and risk management in traditional industries. While past research has primarily concentrated on high-tech industries or general manufacturing sectors, this study reveals that even in traditional industries, these factors play a crucial role in boosting competitiveness. Additionally, this study highlights the mediating role of risk management capability between innovation investment and competitiveness, a relationship that has been less systematically explored in the previous literature. This focus on risk management as a mediator adds a valuable dimension to understanding how innovation impacts competitiveness, particularly within the context of traditional industries.

5.5. Theoretical Implications

The findings reveal that technological resources, competitive pressure, and innovation attitudes all exert positive effects on risk management capability and technological innovation investment, which in turn enhance corporate competitiveness, with the effect of technological innovation investment being the most significant. This result is consistent with the core assumptions of Dynamic Capabilities Theory, which posits that firms able to integrate resources through sensing, seizing, and transforming capabilities can convert external challenges into competitive advantages in highly uncertain environments [5]. The study further demonstrates that risk management and innovation investment serve as bridging mechanisms in this process, illustrating the concretization of dynamic capabilities within traditional industries [7,22].

Compared with existing literature, prior research has largely focused on the direct impact of technological innovation on performance [47,91] or on the operation of dynamic capabilities within high-tech industries [23,24], while paying limited attention to the complementary relationship between risk management and innovation. This study addresses this gap by showing that in traditional industries, risk management goes beyond crisis response, serving instead as a reinforcing mechanism with innovation investment to enhance competitiveness through mediation. This perspective is consistent with theories that view dynamic capabilities as outcomes of organizational learning and accumulated routines [17], while also underscoring the theoretical value of risk management as a micro-foundation of dynamic capabilities [18].

In sum, this study extends Dynamic Capabilities Theory to the context of traditional industries, highlighting the critical role of risk management and innovation investment in resource allocation and capability building. It also emphasizes that the formation of corporate competitiveness is a dynamic process driven by environmental pressures, resource bases, and innovation attitudes, collectively operating through mediating mechanisms [43,46,100].

5.6. Practical Implications

The results of this study indicate that technological resources, competitive pressure, and innovation attitudes enhance corporate competitiveness through risk management capability and technological innovation investment, with the effect of technological innovation investment being the most significant. This finding suggests that, in managerial practice, firms should view innovation investment and risk management as complementary strategies and implement them through concrete institutional and procedural designs. For example, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), due to limited resources, may find large-scale innovative manufacturing initiatives less feasible. Instead, they can prioritize strengthening the application of data analytics tools to improve market forecasting and risk identification under resource constraints [45,47]. In such contexts, data-driven risk management can improve firms’ ability to cope with uncertainty, reduce decision-making errors, and enhance competitive advantage. Given large enterprises’ more comprehensive technological resources and human capital, promoting the transformation toward smart factories has become a more pressing managerial priority. Smart factories, which integrate automation and artificial intelligence, alleviate production pressures in high-wage environments and enhance supply chain resilience [2,8], playing a critical role in maintaining a leading position in the international market.

Furthermore, the findings also reveal that managerial attitudes toward innovation exert a pivotal influence on both risk management capability and innovation investment. Therefore, in practical operations, organizations should cultivate a culture that encourages innovation, enabling managers to demonstrate support and commitment to innovation in resource allocation. Specifically, top managers can foster cross-departmental collaboration and provide technical training to encourage employee participation in innovation [82]. In such a context, organizations can strengthen internal learning and absorptive capacity [91], allowing risk management and innovation decision-making to complement one another and enhance overall dynamic capabilities. When firms succeed in transforming innovation attitudes into sustained investment and effective risk management mechanisms, they can maintain flexibility and long-term advantages in highly dynamic and competitive markets, ultimately improving managerial effectiveness and consolidating long-term competitiveness.

5.7. Research Limitations and Future Directions

Regarding research limitations, first, the data for this study were collected from a single point in time and a single source, which may raise concerns of common method variance (CMV). Future research could adopt time-lagged data collection or multiple data sources to improve the reliability and validity of the findings. Second, some of the measurement scales in this study were adapted from relatively older references. Although they were revised and validated to ensure validity, they may be insufficient in capturing the dynamics of today’s rapidly changing industrial environment. Future research could adopt or develop more up-to-date scales to ensure the appropriateness of measurement tools. In addition, this study focuses on Taiwan’s textile industry, which has unique operational models and market characteristics. As a result, the generalizability of the findings may be limited, as other industries, such as high-tech or service sectors, may face different challenges and requirements.

Comparative studies could be extended to different regions and industries in future research directions. Moreover, further investigation could examine how firms strengthen competitiveness through technological innovation and risk management under digital transformation and sustainability pressures, thereby aligning the research more closely with global trends. Finally, this study only tested the mediating roles of risk management capability and technological innovation investment. Future research could incorporate variables such as organizational culture, leadership style, or employee capability to understand better how firms enhance competitiveness in dynamic environments.

6. Conclusions

Grounded in Dynamic Capabilities Theory, this study investigates how technological resources, competitive pressure, and innovation attitudes influence the competitiveness of Taiwan’s textile firms through risk management capability and technological innovation investment. The empirical results indicate that all three antecedents positively affect risk management and innovation investment, with innovation attitude being most critical for risk management. At the same time, competitive pressure serves as the strongest driver of innovation investment. Further analysis reveals that risk management and innovation investment enhance competitiveness, with innovation investment being the most significant, serving as a mediating mechanism that transforms external challenges and internal resources into advantages. Regarding managerial implications, small and medium-sized enterprises are advised to utilize data analytics to strengthen risk identification, while large enterprises should promote smart factories to balance efficiency and resilience. Managers should also demonstrate a proactive innovation attitude, embedding innovation into practice through collaboration and a learning culture. Theoretically, this study fills the gap in understanding the interaction between risk management and innovation in traditional industries. It concretizes the operation of dynamic capabilities in resource allocation and constructing competitive advantage.