1. Introduction
Today, businesses are under ever-greater pressure to meet the challenge of achieving environmental sustainability [1,2,3,4]. To do so, they devote significant resources to the development of business strategies that minimize adverse effects on the environment [5,6,7]. At the same time, such businesses have a responsibility to stakeholders to maximize financial growth and economic sustainability [8,9]. By examining the factors that affect economic sustainability and the relationship between economic sustainability and environmental sustainability, this study sheds light on the impact of sustainability development on financial growth [10,11,12]. In particular, this study examines the effects of five different factors on economic sustainability: innovation inclination, customer centricity, supplier relationships, network maturity, and strategic agility. The first three of these factors are well-established as important tools in establishing market competitiveness [3,13], while networking maturity (establishing positive associations with competitors, suppliers, and local organizations) can also be a powerful driver of business efficiency and growth [14,15,16]. The final factor, strategic agility (an organization’s ability to recognize, assimilate, and use new knowledge to inform and adapt business strategy to meet changing market conditions), also plays an increasingly important role in economic development and stability [5,7].
From an intuitive perspective, it is reasonable to assume that all of these factors play a role in achieving economic sustainability, which can be considered to be the ability of a company to maintain profitability and growth over the long term while considering its impact on stakeholders, society and the environment [17,18]. From an evidential perspective, the literature—at least to some extent—supports this assumption [1,6,8]. There is evidence, for example, that organizations that adopt a business philosophy that aligns with the demands of the circular economy also demonstrate enhanced competitiveness. Such organizations deploy principles such as those that underpin the concept of Strategic Performance 4.0—i.e., principles that encourage the use of digital integration and automation, advanced data analytics, artificial intelligence and machine learning, blockchain and smart contracts, and supplier collaboration and ethical sourcing [19,20].
Despite the general support provided by the current literature, however, there remain some notable gaps in our understanding of the extent to which these factors ultimately affect financial growth through economic sustainability and environmental sustainability. These gaps take several forms. One of the most significant is that while previous studies have explored the relationship between specific constructs, such as that between strategic agility and economic sustainability or between strategic agility and environmental sustainability [5,6,7,8], there are few studies that examine the relationship between the constructs in an integrated, holistic way—i.e., how the constructs collectively impact economic sustainability and environmental sustainability, which act as moderators to impact, ultimately, financial growth. Another significant gap in the literature is that previous research has focused on the relationship between constructs in large multinationals outside of Saudi Arabia.
This study, however, examines the relationship between the constructs in the specific context of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Saudi Arabia. The findings of this study will be of significance not only to SMEs looking to achieve sustainable growth but also to Saudi institutions and government bodies seeking to support businesses in realizing the aims of the Saudi Vision 2030 [21,22].
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides an examination of the significance of SMEs within Saudi Arabia’s manufacturing sector. Section 3 presents the literature review and research model. Section 4 outlines the development of hypotheses. Section 5 provides a comprehensive description of the methodology employed. Section 6 analyzes the results. Section 7 discusses the findings, and Section 8 concludes this study with both limitations and suggestions for future research.
2. The Importance of SMEs in Saudi Arabia’s Manufacturing Sector
SMEs are considered to be an essential part of most developed and emerging national economies, as they can foster innovation, competition, and entrepreneurship, bring vibrancy and growth to local communities, add diversity to supply chains, and significantly enhance export potential [23,24]. There are also many examples of how SMEs have contributed to a nation’s social, as well as economic, growth [25,26]. In Saudi Arabia, however, the SME has a particular significance. Partly, this is because of the size and growth rate of the sector: according to the Saudi Arabia Small and Medium Enterprises General Authority (Monsha’at), there were almost 900,000 SMEs in Saudi Arabia by 2023, contributing over 20% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), and employing 62% of its private sector workforce [27]. However, the importance of SMEs is also due to their role in achieving the aims of the Saudi [20,21,22,27]. SMEs can help Saudis realize these goals for a number of reasons, including the fact that they are seen as a key driver of economic diversification, are a significant source of employment, and are often hubs of innovation and entrepreneurship [28,29]. In fact, according to the Vision 2030 plan, SMEs will contribute 35% of Saudi’s GDP by 2030 and play a key role in reducing the unemployment rate from 11.6% to 7%. Further, they will contribute significantly to addressing gender inequality in the workplace by increasing women’s workforce participation from 22% to 30% [30,31].
Within the SME field, this study focuses on firms that operate in Saudi’s manufacturing sector. Again, this is because of the significance of the sector within the context of Saudi’s current economy, as well as its importance in the Saudi national development plan. Currently, for example, manufacturing contributes very significantly to the country’s GDP, generating 287.7 billion SAR (6.7% of GDP) in 2022 [32]. However, while manufacturing is currently a vital industry in Saudi, it plays an even more important role in Saudi’s development plans. The Vision 2030 roadmap [20,28,30], for example, aims to improve the competitiveness of local products and enhance productivity while building a vibrant, diversified, and sustainable economy by promoting economic and social development and enhancing environmental stewardship. In fact, sustainability is a key foundational pillar of Vision 2030. As part of this vision, for example, Saudi Arabia aims to have 50% of its energy come from renewable sources by 2030 by making major investments in solar, wind, and other clean energy technologies, while other initiatives include the Saudi and Middle East Green Initiatives (SGI and MGI). These initiatives aim to achieve objectives such as reducing carbon emissions by 278 million metric tons per year, planting 10 billion trees across Saudi Arabia, and placing 30% of the kingdom’s land and sea under protection [20,30]. Further, the kingdom is committed to a circular carbon economy (CCE)—a strategy endorsed by G20 leaders during Saudi Arabia’s presidency of the summit in 2020. The kingdom has made significant progress in all these objectives, as shown by the Green Future Index 2022, issued by the MIT Technology Review. This index, which evaluates countries’ efforts in sustainability and environmental protection, shows that, in 2023, Saudi has advanced 10 places compared to the previous year [28,30].
By integrating sustainability principles into its strategic priorities and policy frameworks, Saudi Arabia aims to create a more resilient, inclusive, and prosperous society for its citizens and contribute to global efforts towards sustainable development. But Vision 2030 is not the only initiative that will stimulate the country’s manufacturing sector. The kingdom is also actively embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) by adopting advanced technologies like the Internet of things (IoT), robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI) [33,34]. Furthermore, the “Made in Saudi” program [21,34] is designed to further boost the manufacturing sector by encouraging citizens to buy locally produced and environmentally sustainable products. Such localization initiatives not only impact the economy but also empower Saudi citizens by creating employment opportunities and new revenue streams [35].
3. Literature Review and Research Model
3.1. Constructs That Impact Economic Sustainability and Environmental Sustainability
Financial growth is the ultimate goal and, to some extent, the responsibility of most businesses. To achieve this, businesses aim to be profitable through the provision of competitive goods and services and the effective use of financial, human, and knowledge-based resources [6,8]. However, financial growth is not, in itself, sufficient; businesses must also seek to achieve economic sustainability—that is, achieve long-term profitability while also contributing positively to the needs of stakeholders, society, and the wider economy [36,37]. Over the past three decades or so, it has become imperative that firms balance their efforts to achieve these aims against the need to show environmental sustainability—i.e., to deliver economic sustainability and financial growth while minimizing negative impacts on the environment. To realize these aims, businesses deploy strategies that make use of, to varying degrees, factors such as innovation, supplier relationships, and networking. This study identifies five such factors.
Innovation inclination refers to the extent to which a business prioritizes innovation as a fundamental part of its business strategy, culture, and operations [38,39], and SMEs with a strong innovation inclination often show higher levels of economic sustainability and financial growth [40]. While there are several characteristics that can define a firm with a strong innovation inclination, the key factors include the use of creativity that supports and encourages investment in R&D, openness to external input to gain new perspectives, a culture of continuous improvement to refine products and strong leadership [7,8]. However, while a willingness to innovate can, in itself, be a strong driver of business growth, there is evidence that innovation that embraces sustainability as a core principle can deliver higher levels of customer engagement and sustainable performance by mediating the relationship between sustainable development and lean manufacturing practices [41,42,43]. By actively contributing to sustainable performance, sustainable innovation also contributes to the long-term success and resilience of the organization while aligning business success with environmental and social responsibility [44,45].
Customer centricity refers to the tendency of a business or organization to actively seek an understanding of their customers’ needs, preferences, and pain points. This helps firms maximize customer lifetime value, resulting in improved business performance and economic sustainability [5,7,9]. While customer centricity is beneficial to most firms, it can prove an especially advantageous strategy for SMEs, as they tend to have more limited resources (financial and human), so focusing on the customer allows them to deploy these resources and create value more efficiently. SMEs are also often more agile and flexible compared to larger corporations, making it easier for them to adapt their products, services, and processes to meet evolving customer demands and retain a competitive advantage [39,46].
Supplier relationships have a similar impact on business performance to customer centricity insofar as positive relationships with suppliers help to make more efficient use of resources and maintain a competitive edge [47,48]. One of the principal mechanisms by which positive supplier relationship promotes economic sustainability is via increased flexibility, allowing firms to adjust to the dynamics of market fluctuations and demand by changing products and processes quickly and cost-effectively [49,50]. This is particularly true in the context of a circular economy, where a good level of supplier relationship has been shown to significantly enhance a company’s sustainability performance [49].
Network maturity is another factor that can significantly impact business performance. Network maturity refers to the level of development, sophistication, and effectiveness of a company’s network of relationships with stakeholders and other key actors. It reflects the breadth, depth, and quality of these relationships, which can contribute significantly to a firm’s strategic objectives [51,52,53]. While network maturity is an important element of business success for all firms, it is particularly important for SMEs for several reasons. One of these reasons is that network maturity can facilitate access to funding and investment by connecting a business to potential investors, venture capitalists, and financial institutions [54]. Network maturity can also help SMEs mitigate risks and build resilience by providing access to advice and assistance that can help them navigate uncertainties and adapt to changing market conditions [55]. However, one of the most significant ways that network maturity can influence performance is by supporting innovation [1,3]. By offering SMEs opportunities for knowledge sharing, learning, and professional development, mature networks can stimulate creativity and the development of disruptive ideas, as well as provide access to valuable market intelligence and insights that can inform strategic decision-making and innovation [56,57]. As was shown by Bucktowar et al. [55] in their study of the effect of networking on SMEs and innovation, this impact of network maturity can help businesses maintain competitive advantage and economic sustainability.
Strategic agility in the business environment refers to a firm’s ability to dynamically adapt to changes in its market environment while remaining on course to achieve long-term goals. It involves the capacity to identify new opportunities and potential threats and adjust strategies and operational systems to maximize short- and long-term commercial advantage [7,9]. Strategic agility can also positively affect innovation inclination by encouraging collaboration and cross-functional integration across the business and fostering a culture of experimentation, creativity, and risk-taking [58]. While high levels of strategic agility can sometimes lead to the prioritization of short-term opportunities [59] over long-term gains, such as environmental sustainability, it is increasingly connected with the development of longer-term initiatives related to sustainability issues, such as the mitigation of environmental damage, and the commercialization of emerging opportunities, based on the shift towards renewable energy or sustainable practices [60]. Overall, strategic agility has been found by several researchers, such as Ayyagari et al. [61], to act as a positive influence on long-term FP, though the role of economic sustainability and environmental sustainability as mediators has not been fully evaluated. This is one of the ways in which this study seeks to contribute to our knowledge.
3.2. Economic Sustainability and Environmental Sustainability
Economic sustainability plays a critical role in helping SMEs achieve their mission and vision by ensuring profitability, efficient resource management, investment (financial and human) in innovation, dynamic market adaptation, and stakeholder confidence [3,4,50]. However, while the focus of economic sustainability is economic/financial growth and stability, it also takes account of environmental considerations in that it seeks to ensure long-term prosperity and resilience without negatively impacting the local or global environment. This requires a holistic approach that balances economic, social, and environmental factors to achieve sustainable and inclusive development [23,38,46]. Environmental sustainability, on the other hand, plays a similar role, except that it is focused on achieving long-term goals while minimizing the impact on the environment [19,24,39].
3.3. Financial Growth
Financial growth is a multifaceted concept that typically reflects a company’s success in achieving revenue growth, profitability, positive cash flow, asset growth, and financial stability [36,37,56], and can be driven by economic sustainability and environmental sustainability [23,57,62]. By integrating the principles of economic sustainability and environmental sustainability into their business strategies and operational processes, SMEs can leverage all of the key factors that underpin financial growth, such as cost efficiency, innovation, brand enhancement, and risk mitigation, in order to enhance their brand reputation, mitigate risks and increase investor interest [63,64,65]. However, while economic sustainability and environmental sustainability are positively correlated with financial growth [11,12], the main drivers of these two constructs are relatively poorly understood in the context of Saudi SMEs. Although the existing literature offers a wide range of possible factors [2,5,7,9], such as strategy implementation, market orientation, innovation inclination, strategy orientation, network maturity, strategic agility, mission clarity, etc., there remain some significant gaps in our knowledge.
This is for three principal reasons: (a) previous research has tended to focus on the relationship between strategy orientation and economic sustainability, while environmental sustainability has been treated as a stand-alone mediator [6,8]; (b) there are few studies that offer empirical evidence that financial growth can be part of an integrated model [66]; and (c) previous studies have used samples derived from multinationals outside of Saudi Arabia—there are no studies that specifically examine the Saudi SME sector [67]. Figure 1, therefore, shows the model used to investigate the relationships between factors in Saudi Arabia.
4. Hypothesis Development
4.1. Innovation Inclination, Customer Centricity, Supplier Relationships, Network Maturity, and Economic Sustainability
Innovation inclination can play a key role in not merely identifying and developing new products and services to meet changing market requirements but in creating disruptive solutions that actually drive market tastes and needs [7]. In the context of SMEs, innovation inclination has particular significance, as it can unlock new growth opportunities, increase efficiency, attract talent, and help ensure economic sustainability [68,69]. By enabling SMEs to differentiate themselves in the marketplace with unique offerings, innovation inclination provides SMEs with a means of staying ahead of the competition and maintaining a competitive advantage in dynamic markets [1,2].
The power of innovation inclination to help deliver economic sustainability lies in its combination with customer centricity [70,71]. By focusing on the needs of customers, either at the present time or in the future, SMEs can ensure continuous demand for their products, which is critical to achieving economic sustainability. This implies a clear and positive relationship between customer-centric innovation and financial growth [71,72]. This relationship is even stronger when the innovation involves sustainability-oriented goals. By embracing environmental issues as a driver of innovation, SMEs can not only address pressing environmental challenges but also strengthen their economic performance and competitiveness over the long term. This has been demonstrated in a number of studies. Campos et al. [73], for example, showed how entrepreneurs deploying ‘green’ innovations were more likely to succeed than others, while Alshebami [74] demonstrated how green innovations positively impacted economic performance among Saudi Arabia’s SMEs. Research by Yu et al. [75], which examined the link between sustainability-oriented innovation and economic sustainability among Ghanaian businesses, echoed these findings.
Supplier relationships can also be integral to a company’s growth and success. By collaborating closely with suppliers, companies can move towards economic sustainability by reducing costs, improving efficiency, mitigating risks, and fostering innovation [76,77]. However, this requires the careful selection of suppliers based on a full evaluation of their alignment with the firm’s goals in order to gain mutual benefits [78,79,80,81]. Companies that establish stable and dependable supply chains through mutually supportive supplier relationships have been shown to deliver higher levels of financial growth [81,82]. This correlation between supplier relationships and business performance can be attributed to a variety of causes, though research suggests that it is mainly due to the ability to make consistent delivery of products/services to customers, leading to higher satisfaction levels, while remaining flexible and adaptable to changing market conditions or customer demands. This is important for all companies, particularly SMEs [83]. Furthermore, SMEs that develop supplier relationships that involve shared environmentally sustainable strategies that serve customer needs are more likely to have strong economic sustainability and financial growth [84,85].
Network maturity is another important factor in ensuring positive business performance, as it promotes collaboration with a wide range of third parties that can contribute to knowledge transfer, innovation, and enhanced efficiency [14,15]. Good relationships with relevant government bodies, for example, could provide the firm with timely insights into government planning and strategy that could ultimately improve business performance [86,87]. The claim that network maturity is correlated with business performance is supported by several studies across different geographical regions and industrial sectors (e.g., [76,78,80,82]), and some researchers have found that the connection between supplier relationships and customer centricity is synergistic—i.e., SMEs that show both a high level of supplier relationships and customer centricity have a significantly higher business performance and economic sustainability [88,89]. Further, as with supplier relationships, firms—and especially those in developing economies—that have built their network maturity around sustainability issues tend to report higher levels of economic sustainability. It is worth noting that the power of network maturity in a business context also holds in the wider context of social capital. In other words, businesses that claim high levels of social capital (the network of relationships, trust, and cooperation that exists within a community or society) are more likely to show high economic sustainability and financial growth [86,87].
In summary, several studies have confirmed the significant effect of factors such as innovation inclination, customer centricity, supplier relationships, and network maturity on economic sustainability in the broad context of business as a whole [5,89,90]. This study, therefore, proposes the following hypotheses in the specific context of Saudi Arabia:
Innovation inclination is significantly and positively related to economic sustainability.
Customer centricity is significantly and positively related to economic sustainability.
Supplier relationships are significantly and positively related to economic sustainability.
Network maturity is significantly and positively related to economic sustainability.
4.2. Strategic Agility and Economic Sustainability
In a business context, strategic agility refers to a firm’s ability to rapidly and effectively respond to changes in its market environment while maintaining a clear strategic direction. It involves using internal and external knowledge to innovate and adjust in order to seize opportunities while mitigating risks and overcoming challenges. By enabling a firm to remain aligned with market dynamics while building the resilience necessary to navigate uncertainties effectively, strategic agility plays a key role in achieving business growth and economic sustainability [68,88]. While strategic agility is an important element of success in most contexts, it is especially significant in the context of facilitating environmental innovation initiatives [91,92]. Such initiatives are critical in driving the transition to a circular economy, and SMEs play a major role in this transition due to their ability to quickly adopt circular practices, experiment with new models, and their significant presence in various sectors of the economy [93,94]. For SMEs, therefore, strategic agility is rapidly becoming an imperative for long-term business success [83,94].
Overall, these findings demonstrate that strategic agility provides a mechanism for SMEs to navigate change, foster innovation, build resilience, maximize efficiency, and gain a competitive advantage in an evolving marketplace. It is, therefore, a reliable predictor of the firm’s ability to develop business viability and economic sustainability in an ever-changing business landscape [68,88,90]. Despite this, the relationship between strategic agility and economic sustainability is unproven within the specific business and socio-cultural context of Saudi Arabia. The following hypothesis is therefore proposed:
Strategic agility is significantly and positively related to economic sustainability.
4.3. Economic Sustainability and Environmental Sustainability
As has been noted, economic sustainability, in a business context, refers to the ability of a company or organization to generate long-term profitability and growth while effectively managing its resources and creating value for stakeholders in a socially responsible manner [95,96]. While this requires decision-making principles and business practices aimed at achieving economic growth without engaging in the harmful environmental trade-offs that historically accompany growth, the main aim of economic sustainability is not focused solely on environmental issues. Instead, economic sustainability seeks to ensure that short- and long-term economic aims are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [97]. Environmental sustainability, on the other hand, is fully centered on environmental aspects of sustainability and requires that all human activities (including business-related) are compatible with the long-term stability and integrity of the planetary ecosystems on which those human activities fundamentally depend [95,96,97]. Because economic sustainability involves the fundamental element of the definition of a business (financial profitability), it is a probable driver of financial growth. However, as the factors that drive economic sustainability (i.e., innovation inclination, customer centricity, supplier relationships, network maturity, and strategic agility) all have a stronger effect (on economic sustainability) when they have an environmentally sustainable element [23,24,38], it is reasonable to propose that economic sustainability has a (positive) influence on environmental sustainability. While this has been shown to be true in a general context [69,89], it is so far unverified in the context of Saudi Arabia. This study, therefore, proposes the following hypothesis for SMEs in Saudi Arabia:
Economic sustainability is significantly and positively related to environmental sustainability.
4.4. Environmental Sustainability as a Driver of Financial Growth
A number of studies have reported that environmental sustainability has a significant positive impact on financial growth [36,56,62]. However, environmental sustainability does not only affect financial growth—it can enhance a firm’s reputation and market value. By integrating environmental sustainability into their business strategies, companies can create long-term value for shareholders and stakeholders while contributing to a more sustainable future [98,99,100]. Although environmental sustainability has a positive effect on business performance for firms of all sizes, it is particularly notable in the context of SMEs, as it can provide differentiation and competitive advantage, access to new markets and opportunities, and access to funding and investment [101,102]. Studies have also shown that firms that do not strategically integrate environmental sustainability into their business model but engage in green practices such as energy efficiency, waste reduction, and eco-friendly product design can also experience increased market value [103,104,105,106]. Overall, however, a business model that integrates comprehensive ESG (environment, social, and governance) principles into its development strategy is likely to demonstrate high-value growth and success [103,104].
While previous research has focused on how economic sustainability impacts financial growth through specific factors such as supply chain efficiency and innovation [63,65], there are few studies that examine how economic sustainability impacts financial growth in the presence of environmental sustainability as a strategic moderating factor [88,89,90]. The following hypothesis is therefore proposed:
Environmental sustainability is significantly and positively related to financial growth.
4.5. Economic Sustainability as a Driver of Financial Growth
Today, environmental sustainability is a key issue for commercial organizations across the world. If firms are to maximize their financial growth, profitability, and social impact, they must follow the principles and practices of sustainable development. However, these practices do not always have a direct impact on financial growth, such as, for example, cost-savings from energy efficiency; the effect on financial growth can also be indirect via brand reputation, staff satisfaction, and customer loyalty [107,108,109]. Furthermore, studies show that sustainable development practices in SMEs can have a stronger effect on financial growth than in micro-businesses or multinationals, principally because SMEs can leverage sustainability for innovation, positive impact, and growth, whereas micro-businesses have limited resources, and multinationals may sometimes focus on regulatory compliance alone [110,111].
Given these observations, economic sustainability is likely to have a greater influence on financial growth if it (economic sustainability) is itself determined by factors with a high sustainability index. This deduction has formed the basis of the choice of constructs that influence economic sustainability in this study (innovation inclination, customer centricity, supplier relationships, network maturity, and strategic agility), all of which include a high degree of sustainability and which may, therefore, significantly impact (mediated by economic sustainability) financial growth [106,111]. This study seeks, through validation of the research model, to establish whether these constructs within the sphere of economic sustainability have a positive and predictive relationship with financial growth. The literature currently offers mixed findings on this point. While there is evidence that, in some economies, there is a positive relationship between sustainable business performance and financial growth [10,11,12], other studies, such as that of Moursellas [110], do not support this relationship. This study examines the relationship in the context of Saudi Arabia, and the results may be applicable to other regions. This study, therefore, proposes the following hypothesis:
Economic sustainability is significantly and positively related to financial growth.
5. Methodology
5.1. Questionnaire Development
The questionnaire used in this study used a standard 5-point Likert scale to measure participant responses, as recommended by [112,113,114]. Where feasible, we modified the items using established scales from the field known for their reliability. For instance, we adjusted items based on the earlier studies by [14,68,70,95,103,110,111]. Nevertheless, a significant portion of the items were crafted uniquely for this study to align with its specific objectives.
The survey used 41 items to evaluate the research model’s constructs, and all items were specifically designed to meet the requirements of this study, following accepted guidelines [115,116]. The number of items used to evaluate each construct, along with the associated loading for each item, are as follows (see Table 1): innovation inclination (5), customer centricity (5), supplier relationships (6), network maturity (3), strategic agility (5), economic sustainability (6), environmental sustainability (7), and financial growth (4).
To ensure the items accurately represented the constructs being measured, the survey’s content validity was assessed prior to the data collection phase [117,118,119]. This was achieved by asking appropriately qualified experts to evaluate their clarity and relevance. The experts consulted consisted of 6 professionals and academics from the business field [120]. As a result of feedback, the original set of 46 items was reduced to 41. This phase was followed by a pilot study to further ensure the clarity of the survey items. This involved a group of 15 respondents and resulted in a number of minor changes to the items.
5.2. Data and Sampling
In order to enlist suitable participants, the researchers strategically targeted SMEs from every region and governorate of Saudi Arabia based on a stratified sampling technique to ensure a comprehensive representation. SMEs operating across various sub-sectors, including manufacturing, services, and technology, were identified through a combination of industry directories and regional business registries. A total of 470 companies, representative of these diverse fields and geographic locations received invitations to participate along with a description of the research and its purpose, of which 361 agreed to nominate an appropriately qualified member of staff (i.e., a senior manager) to complete the survey (on behalf of the organization). The research team, therefore, emailed these individuals to describe the purpose of this study and request their participation by completing the questionnaire (via Google Forms).
Over a 3-month period, non-responders were reminded weekly, and at the end of the 4 months, a total of 348 surveys had been completed. Of these, 6 were considered invalid for one or more reasons (e.g., incomplete or ambiguous responses), resulting in 342 valid responses for use in the analysis phase. Participant demographics and their distribution across regions and sectors are detailed in Table 2.
As the responses were collected over a significant period of time, it was considered that non/late response bias might affect the accuracy of the results [121]. Since, according to Overton [122] and Podsakoff et al. [121], late responders have similar behavior profiles to non-responders, a bias response test was carried out [122] using a two-sample (early and late responders) t-test. This test showed p > 0.05, indicating that late/non-response bias is not a significant issue.
5.3. Method of Analysis
This study employs structural equation modeling (via AMOS) as its analytic approach, driven by several factors. Notably, AMOS is recognized for its effectiveness in promoting theory development, as evidenced by various authoritative sources [61,62,63]. Additionally, AMOS is favored for its ability to handle complex structural models featuring numerous constructs and/or detailed interconnections between these constructs. These features make AMOS an optimal choice for our study’s specific requirements, ensuring precise and effective handling of the data. A further reason for choosing AMOS is its adaptability to smaller sample sizes, which makes it a preferable option over other tools in such situations.
5.4. Ethical Considerations
All accepted ethical practices were observed during all stages of this study. Prior to participation, all participants were fully informed of the purpose of the research, and informed consent was requested (and given). Participants were also informed that they could withdraw from this study at any time for any reason. Participation was anonymous and fully voluntary, with no incentive, financial or other, offered to any participant. The research protocol, including the participant recruitment strategy, received full approval from the University’s Research Ethics Board (REB).
6. Analysis and Results
6.1. Testing the Measurement Model
In this study, we employed factor analysis (FA) to reveal underlying factors encapsulated by a series of variables or items, as recommended by [123,124]. Beyond identifying these hidden dimensions, our analysis extended to evaluating the model’s fit and verifying both convergent and discriminant validity to ensure comprehensive assessment. Factor analysis was chosen due to its robust capacity for uncovering latent constructs that underpin observable variables [123,125], which is critical for our research’s objectives.
To determine the suitability of our sample for FA, we first employed the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, obtaining a value of 0.832. This figure significantly exceeds the commonly recommended threshold of 0.7 [126,127], suggesting our sample size is adequately large and relevant for the analysis. Subsequent application of Bartlett’s test of sphericity further supported our methodology; it tested the null hypothesis that the variables are uncorrelated (that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix) and yielded a significant outcome (p-value < 0.05), showing that the variables share sufficient common variance for FA [124,126]. These preliminary tests—the KMO measure and Bartlett’s test—collectively affirm the applicability of FA to our dataset, underpinning the robustness of our approach.
In terms of model fit, the derived indices align with the acceptable standards set forth by Hair et al. [128] and Hu and Bentler [129], as evidenced in Table 3, showcasing the structural model’s fit. This adherence to recognized benchmarks underscores the robustness of our analytical approach, confirming the validity of our model and the accuracy of our factor analysis. This ensures our findings rest on a solid foundation, reinforcing their reliability and relevance to the underlying constructs of interest.
As illustrated in Table 1, the factor loadings assigned to individual items were significant, extending from 0.702 to 0.821. This range of values highlights the strength of the association between items and their respective factors, underscoring the convergent validity of our analysis. It confirms that each item properly measured its corresponding factor, reinforcing the credibility of our findings. This evidence of convergent validity is essential, as it assures that the constructs identified are indeed reflected by the variables measured, further solidifying the integrity and applicability of our factor analysis results.
It is important to note that factor loadings are calculated through a series of steps. First, data are prepared, ensuring they are suitable for factor analysis by checking for missing values and verifying assumptions. Next, a correlation matrix is created to show relationships between variables. Techniques such as principal component analysis (PCA) or common factor analysis are used to extract initial factors. To achieve a more interpretable solution, varimax rotation is applied to simplify the factor structure. After rotation, factor loadings are calculated, representing the correlation coefficients between observed variables and latent factors. Higher loadings indicate stronger relationships. Finally, loadings are interpreted to determine which variables are associated with which factors, with loadings above 0.5 considered significant. The significant factor loadings in our study, ranging from 0.702 to 0.821, confirm the validity and reliability of our factor analysis, showing that the measured items reflect their respective constructs. To assess the internal consistency of our constructs, we applied Cronbach’s alpha (CA), with findings presented in Table 4 showing CA values for each construct in the range of 0.81 to 0.87. Additionally, composite reliability (CR) metrics ranged from 0.75 to 0.84, exceeding the advised benchmark of 0.70. These outcomes demonstrate a high degree of internal consistency across constructs, reflecting precise measurement of the targeted latent constructs [128,130].
Moreover, a test for discriminant validity was conducted to ensure there were clear distinctions between constructs and their measurements, as per the guidelines by Hair et al. [128,130]. This assessment included two methods: the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT). The Fornell–Larcker criterion requires that the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct should be greater than the correlations with other constructs. Additionally, the HTMT values were calculated, with thresholds below 0.90 indicating satisfactory discriminant validity. According to the results displayed in Table 4, our study meets these critical conditions, with the square root of the AVE of each construct exceeding its highest inter-construct correlations and HTMT values below the recommended threshold. These findings affirm the adequacy of discriminant validity in our study.
Lastly, this study addressed the issue of multi-collinearity, which occurs when independent variables exhibit a high degree of correlation among themselves. We examined together the variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance values to assess this concern. Findings indicated that the VIF value remained below 3, and the tolerance value was higher than 2, aligning with the recommendations of Hair et al. [130,131]. This adherence to established norms mitigates the impact of multi-collinearity, ensuring the integrity of our analysis.
Considering these comprehensive assessments, the measurement model stands validated and reliable, demonstrating strong model fit, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and controlled multi-collinearity. These results collectively affirm the robustness of our model, validating it as both accurate and dependable for capturing the nuances of the latent constructs under study.
6.2. Analysis of Common Method Variance and Bias
Common method variance (CMV) is a potential source of methodical error that can occur when collecting data from a single basis. To address this concern in our study, we applied Harman’s single-factor test to check for CMV, which yielded no evidence of its presence. Additionally, we examined common method bias (CMB), a specific type of CMV that might arise with the use of uniform response scales. For detecting CMB, we utilized the common latent factor method, which also showed no indication of bias. Thus, we can confidently assert that the results of this study are not compromised by either CMV or CMB, reinforcing the credibility and accuracy of the present findings.
6.3. Findings of the Research Hypotheses
This study employed structural equation modeling (via AMOS) to assess the measurement model’s psychometric properties and to test the research hypotheses. Structural equation modeling, a robust statistical method, was utilized to explore the relationships among various constructs. The results, depicted in Figure 2, demonstrated that differences in innovation inclination, customer centricity, supplier relationships, network maturity, and strategic agility positively affect economic sustainability, explaining 63.9% of the variance observed. This evidence supported hypotheses H1 through H5. Moreover, economic sustainability is positively associated with environmental sustainability, explaining 49% of the variance observed. Economic sustainability and environmental sustainability were also positively associated with financial growth, explaining 51.1% of the variance observed. This evidence supported hypotheses H6 through H8.
The modeled structural equations are as follows:
-. Economic Sustainability = β1 × Innovation Inclination + β2 × Customer Centricity + β3 × Supplier Relationships + β4 × Network Maturity + β5 × Strategic Agility + ε1.
-. Environmental Sustainability = β6 × Economic Sustainability + ε2.
-. Financial Growth = β7 × Economic Sustainability + β8 × Environmental Sustainability + ε3.
The significance of these relationships was confirmed by significant t-values and elucidated through standardized path coefficients listed in Table 5, indicating the strength of each relationship. In summary, the structural equation modeling findings robustly validate the theoretical model proposed in our research.
7. Discussion
This study examines the factors that influence economic sustainability, the relationship of economic sustainability to environmental sustainability, and the extent to which these two factors ultimately affect financial growth. To achieve this, data were collected, using a survey methodology, from senior managers in SMEs in Saudi Arabia’s manufacturing industry. These data were then used to test eight hypotheses developed from the literature using structural equation modeling (via AMOS), and the analysis of the data showed that innovation inclination, customer centricity, supplier relationships, network maturity, and strategic agility all had a significant (positive) influence on economic sustainability and that economic sustainability has a positive impact on environmental sustainability. While these findings are consistent with many studies [51,53,69], there are also a small number of studies that found no clear association between these constructs and financial growth [75,93,96]. However, these studies examine the relationship within a geographical context outside of Saudi Arabia. The positive relationships found in this study might reflect the fact that each of the constructs has a significant environmental sustainability dimension, and Saudi is currently heavily invested in a long-term strategic roadmap (Saudi Vision 2030) that emphasizes sustainable development and a circular economy approach [20,21,28].
This long-term Saudi plan has a direct impact on the strategic and operational behaviors and processes of SMEs in all industry sectors, particularly in the manufacturing sector. In terms of customer centricity, for example, the growing shift to servitization, a business model in which firms offer integrated solutions and services alongside their core products [132], the needs of the customer are critical. Further, servitization models are increasingly focused on environmental sustainability [133,134]. The intensity of global competition in the manufacturing industry has also resulted in a greater drive towards differentiation through customer-centric solutions, which often require innovative and environmentally sustainable approaches to development.
In a global trading environment that is increasingly oriented towards sustainability, supplier relationships are also critical. Firms must continually assess their relationship with their supply chain to evaluate whether they are aligned on business strategy in order to ensure a collaborative approach to sustainability goals and thus maximize mutual benefit [72]. This necessity to foster positive connections with suppliers extends throughout a company’s human resource infrastructure, and staff are encouraged to develop strong ties with their supplier base in order to create value, drive performance, and enhance competitiveness for the firm as a whole [69,135]. This study found that SME management in Saudi is energetic in encouraging their staff to establish business and personal ties with suppliers at all levels in order to help the firm achieve strategic economic and environmental goals.
This study also confirmed that strategic agility has a large and positive impact on economic sustainability, which supports the findings of several other studies [69,89,135,136]. This relationship was validated by the analysis, which showed that SMEs in the Saudi manufacturing sector develop business strategies designed to enable strategic agility in sustainability-focused markets by integrating key elements such as innovation and experimentation, stakeholder engagement, technological flexibility, and continuous learning and improvement. By building a business infrastructure that facilitates rapid adaptation to changing environmental and business needs, firms are better placed to achieve strong economic growth.
According to the findings of this study, economic sustainability has a positive and significant impact on environmental sustainability. Again, these findings support those of a range of other studies [52,68,88]. This relationship may be a result of the involvement of stakeholders who increasingly see economic sustainability as both a result and driver of environmental sustainability and who are, therefore, prepared to invest more heavily in sustainable solutions. This higher investment generates a virtuous cycle between economic sustainability and environmental sustainability. Such a cycle could also be one reason for another of this study’s findings—i.e., that both economic sustainability and environmental sustainability positively affect financial growth. This finding is also supported by other studies [23,37,57]. In the context of Saudi Arabian SMEs, the particular emphasis on the development of sustainable products, services, and practices, in alignment with the Saudi Vision 2030 plan, is a powerful enabler of market differentiation and a strong driver of local and international success, all of which contribute consistent and considerable financial growth [137,138].
In summary, this study has found that innovation inclination, customer centricity, SR, network maturity, and strategic agility all have a positive and significant relationship with economic sustainability and that economic sustainability is a positive predictor of environmental sustainability. This study also found that in the context of SMEs in Saudi Arabia’s manufacturing industry, economic sustainability and environmental sustainability are significant drivers of FP. These findings are important to informing Saudi’s manufacturing SMEs to help achieve higher financial growth while contributing to the national effort to achieve the sustainability and other goals of Vision 2030.
Implications of This Study
This study offers two important theoretical implications. Firstly, while previous studies have contributed to our understanding of the factors that drive economic sustainability and environmental sustainability independently, this study also demonstrates that there is a positive relationship between economic sustainability and environmental sustainability. This study also provides evidence of the impact of both economic sustainability and environmental sustainability on financial growth. Therefore, the findings offer a fresh insight into literature that still needs to be explored. These findings contribute to the literature on both economic and environmental sustainability, as well as financial growth, in the context of Saudi Arabia. Further studies would be useful to establish the broader relevance of these findings.
This study also offers insights for business strategists and policymakers. For those involved in business management, this study highlights the importance of the development of customer-centric strategies that take account of customers’ needs and expectations in terms of environmental sustainability by exploring and investing in innovative sustainable solutions.
Further, this study also demonstrated the importance of developing a resilient business network and supply chain, as these can help drive financial growth by supporting environmentally sustainable business growth through the facilitation of collaboration, innovation, knowledge sharing, and long-term value creation across interconnected stakeholders.
The implications of this study for policymakers and legislators are also significant. The findings demonstrate, for example, that the sustainability goals that are integral to the Saudi Vision 2030 strategic roadmap, which include the reduction in carbon emissions, enhancing energy efficiency, and fostering sustainable development, are fully compatible with the encouragement of business growth. Indeed, this study’s findings that economic sustainability can drive environmental sustainability, and both can drive financial growth, implies that, with the right support and funding strategy, business growth can serve as a powerful tool for accelerating the achievement of sustainability goals. Policymakers could, therefore, consider developing and implementing sustainability-centric policy initiatives that address the barriers to sustainable business development that currently face Saudi SMEs. These barriers include the limited access to financing for sustainable projects, which exist as a result of their relatively high-risk nature; the various regulatory and bureaucratic complexities faced by many SMEs; limited access to sustainable infrastructure, such as renewable energy generation and water conservation technologies; the limited awareness and understanding, within many Saudi businesses, of sustainability and its potential benefits; and the limited availability of skilled professionals and training programs in sustainability.
8. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research
This study has critically examined the interplay between economic and environmental sustainability within the context of Saudi Arabia’s manufacturing sector, particularly focusing on small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The findings from 342 questionnaires, analyzed using structural equation modeling, confirm that innovation inclination, customer centricity, supplier relationships, network maturity, and strategic agility significantly enhance economic sustainability. Importantly, the research established that economic sustainability positively influences environmental sustainability, which in turn contributes to financial growth. These results underscore the synergistic effect of integrating economic and environmental strategies, offering practical insights for Saudi SMEs. By adopting these strategies, businesses can not only fulfill but also drive the objectives of Saudi Vision 2030, promoting sustainable practices that yield financial benefits. For policymakers and financial institutions, this study recommends enhancing support mechanisms that facilitate SMEs’ transition towards sustainable practices.
It should be noted that this study has some limitations. While the research primarily employs an inductive approach, this inherently means that the model lacks a traditional deductive dimension and does not directly derive from established theoretical frameworks. Additionally, there is a possibility that the constructs and measures utilized might not fully capture the intended concepts or complexities of the phenomena under investigation. Readers should be aware of these aspects, which might limit the generalizability or applicability of the findings. Secondly, while the sample size of this study is significant, in the context of the broad objectives of this study, a similar study with a larger sample could have advantages, such as improving generalizability. Thirdly, the context of this study was constrained to SMEs within Saudi’s manufacturing sector. Again, this could impact generalizability. Additionally, the items used to measure the “environmental sustainability” construct predominantly assess attitudinal aspects rather than the practical application of sustainable measures. This may limit the depth of insights into how sustainability practices are actually implemented on a daily basis. Future studies should consider incorporating more behaviourally anchored items that can provide a clearer picture of the practical implementation of these practices. Finally, the data used was cross-sectional, so the results apply only to the current timeframe. A longitudinal study might provide benefits such as uncovering latent patterns, reducing the potential for retrospective bias, and providing predictive modeling. Future research could usefully address these limitations, as well as broaden the specific factors defined by this study as the key influencers of economic sustainability.
Conceptualization, I.M. and A.A.; methodology, I.M. and A.A.; validation, I.M. and A.A.; formal analysis, I.M. and A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, I.M. and A.A.; writing—review and editing I.M. and A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This study was carried out in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Institutional Review Board (Human and Social Research) at King Saud University.
All participants involved in this study provided informed consent.
Data can be made available upon request to ensure privacy restrictions are upheld.
The author would like to extend his sincere appreciation to the Researchers Supporting Project (RSP2024R233), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
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.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Illustration of the research model (results of structural model). Note: ***: 0.001 significance.
Constructs and items along with factor loadings.
| Construct | Items | Loading |
|---|---|---|
| Innovation inclination | ||
| Our company strives to lead the market by being the first to launch new designs and products. | 0.746 | |
| Our company commits substantial resources to research and development to pioneer new technologies and ideas. | 0.785 | |
| Our company designs products with anticipated market needs in mind. | 0.718 | |
| Our company only launches designs that demonstrate clear market demand. | 0.719 | |
| Our company focuses on innovating by enhancing and adapting existing products from other firms. | 0.721 | |
| Customer centricity | ||
| The primary focus of our company’s business goals is the satisfaction of our customers. | 0.791 | |
| Our competitive edge is secured by a deep understanding of what our customers need. | 0.711 | |
| We regularly evaluate how dedicated our company is to meeting the needs of our customers. | 0.726 | |
| The strategies we implement in business are aimed at enhancing the value we offer to our customers. | 0.801 | |
| We continuously assess our commitment to addressing and prioritizing customer needs. | 0.773 | |
| Supplier relationships | ||
| Our organization conducts routine assessments of our partnerships with suppliers. | 0.702 | |
| We collaboratively establish evaluation criteria for supplier partnerships with our suppliers. | 0.821 | |
| We believe that suppliers play a crucial role in enhancing our business processes. | 0.738 | |
| There are defined goals for our relationships with suppliers. | 0.709 | |
| Together with our suppliers, we continually seek new areas for collaboration. | 0.766 | |
| Our company consistently emphasizes the importance of sharing significant strategic or tactical information with suppliers. | 0.748 | |
| Network maturity | ||
| Our organization consistently develops personal relationships and networks with leading figures and political leaders across different governmental levels. | 0.798 | |
| Our organization consistently develops personal relationships and networks with key executives within industry regulatory bodies. | 0.712 | |
| Our organization consistently develops personal relationships and networks with top executives at supportive and regulatory institutions. | 0.737 | |
| Strategic agility | ||
| Our organization effectively gathers information from external sources. | 0.706 | |
| Our organization is proficient at acquiring external knowledge. | 0.765 | |
| Our organization can assess the relevance of information obtained externally. | 0.702 | |
| Our organization is skilled at recognizing the value of external knowledge. | 0.765 | |
| Our organization is adaptable to using existing or newly gained knowledge effectively. | 0.771 | |
| Economic sustainability | ||
| Our company’s commitment to sustainability is designed to generate profits for every stakeholder. | 0.704 | |
| Our sustainable business practices enhance operational cost-effectiveness. | 0.732 | |
| Our approach to sustainability adds value to various other business functions within the company. | 0.728 | |
| We require all primary business partners to adhere to our sustainable business practices. | 0.748 | |
| Our sustainability initiatives stem from established corporate guidelines. | 0.791 | |
| Our sustainability strategies focus on achieving long-term business goals. | 0.793 | |
| Environmental sustainability | ||
| Our company’s sustainability initiatives help minimize the ecological footprint of our business partners. | 0.739 | |
| Our sustainability strategies actively consider our partners’ effects on the environment. | 0.791 | |
| In response to ongoing climate concerns, our company has adopted sustainable practices. | 0.751 | |
| Our sustainability measures are crafted with climate change considerations in mind. | 0.782 | |
| Our company implements sustainable practices that aim to mitigate the impact of our operations on global warming. | 0.724 | |
| Our company extends its sustainability efforts beyond its immediate operations. | 0.757 | |
| Our company clearly demonstrates the environmental impact of each product through its sustainable practices. | 0.713 | |
| Financial growth | ||
| Reflecting on the past three years, how has the return on sales evolved? | 0.771 | |
| Reflecting on the past three years, how has the return on investment changed? | 0.749 | |
| Compared to our primary competitors, how does our return on sales stand today? | 0.776 | |
| Compared to our primary competitors, how does our return on investment compare currently? | 0.709 | |
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants.
| Demographic Profile | Participants % | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 69 |
| Female | 31 | |
| Years | 10–20 | 42 |
| 21–30 | 23 | |
| 41–40 | 19 | |
| 41+ | 16 | |
| Management experience | 1–5 | 43 |
| 6–10 | 21 | |
| 11–15 | 26 | |
| 15+ | 10 | |
| Regions | Middle | 39% |
| North | 9% | |
| South | 15% | |
| East | 21% | |
| West | 19% | |
| Sectors | Manufacturing | 30% |
| Services | 29% | |
| Technology | 34% | |
| Others | 7% | |
The model’s fit indices.
| Fit Measure Category | Fit Measure | Result | Meets Recommended |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute fit measures | Chi-Squared (χ2/DF) | 2.59 | Yes (<3.0) |
| SRMR | 0.891 | Yes (>0.80) | |
| GFI | 0.961 | Yes (>0.90) | |
| RMSEA | 0.039 | Yes (<0.05) | |
| Parsimonious fit measures | PGFI | 0.641 | Yes (<0.05) |
| PNFI | 0.682 | Yes (<0.05) | |
| Incremental fit measures | AGFI | 0.922 | Yes (>0.90) |
| IFI | 0.931 | Yes (>0.90) | |
| NFI | 0.943 | Yes (>0.90) | |
| CFI | 0.951 | Yes (>0.90) |
Results of correlation matrix, CR, CA, and AVE.
| Construct/Factor | CA | CR | AVE | Correlations | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||||
| Innovation inclination | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.65 | 0.81 | |||||||
| Customer centricity | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.66 | 0.58 | 0.81 | ||||||
| Supplier relationships | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.73 | 0.65 | 0.66 | 0.85 | |||||
| Network maturity | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.70 | 0.53 | 0.61 | 0.64 | 0.84 | ||||
| Strategic agility | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.54 | 0.65 | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.87 | |||
| Economic sustainability | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.63 | 0.52 | 0.63 | 0.59 | 0.58 | 0.5 | 0.79 | ||
| Environmental sustainability | 0.84 | 0.86 | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.66 | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.5 | 0.58 | 0.81 | |
| Financial growth | 0.87 | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.53 | 0.61 | 0.59 | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.68 | 0.87 |
Note: the square root of AVE is emphasized in bold.
The path coefficients and t-test value for the full sample.
| Hypothesis | Standardized Path Coefficient | t-Test Value | Support? |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1. Innovation inclination is significantly and positively related to economic sustainability. | 0.32 | 5.43 *** | YES |
| H2. Customer centricity is significantly and positively related to economic sustainability. | 0.43 | 5.12 *** | YES |
| H3. Supplier relationships are significantly and positively related to economic sustainability. | 0.33 | 5.32 *** | YES |
| H4. Network maturity is significantly and positively related to economic sustainability. | 0.36 | 5.24 *** | YES |
| H5. Strategic agility is significantly and positively related to economic sustainability. | 0.29 | 5.31 *** | YES |
| H6. Economic sustainability is significantly and positively related to environmental sustainability. | 0.49 | 4.15 *** | YES |
| H7. Environmental sustainability is significantly and positively related to financial growth. | 0.51 | 4.18 *** | YES |
| H8. Economic sustainability is significantly and positively related to financial growth. | 0.44 | 5.31 *** | YES |
Note: *** indicates 0.001 significance.
References
1. Shahzad, M.; Qu, Y.; Zafar, A.U.; Appolloni, A. Does the Interaction between the Knowledge Management Process and Sustainable Development Practices Boost Corporate Green Innovation?. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2021; 30, pp. 4206-4222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2865]
2. Aftab, J.; Abid, N.; Sarwar, H.; Veneziani, M. Environmental Ethics, Green Innovation, and Sustainable Performance: Exploring the Role of Environmental Leadership and Environmental Strategy. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 378, 134639. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134639]
3. Aftab, J.; Abid, N.; Cucari, N.; Savastano, M. Green Human Resource Management and Environmental Performance: The Role of Green Innovation and Environmental Strategy in a Developing Country. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2023; 32, pp. 1782-1798. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.3219]
4. Bai, C.; Satir, A. A Critical Content-Analysis of Sustainable Supplier Development Literature and Future Research Directions. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 365, 132443. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132443]
5. Jikrillah, S.; Ziyad, M.; Stiadi, D.; Juniar, A. Sustainability Based on Risk Management of Batik Sasirangan SMEs in the Banjarmasin City. International Conference on Management, Business, and Technology (ICOMBEST 2021); Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.211117.014]
6. Yaghoubi Farani, A.; Karimi, S.; Sajedi, M.; Ataei, P. The Effect of Environmental Sustainability Orientations and Entrepreneurial Orientations on the Performance of Greenhouses. Sci. Rep.; 2024; 14, 2095. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52062-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38267473]
7. Lee, J.; Zhang, J.Z. Transitioning to Smart Cities in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: The Role of Leadership and Organisational Culture. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 10490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151310490]
8. Phang, F.A.; Roslan, A.N.; Zakaria, Z.A.; Zaini, M.A.A.; Pusppanathan, J.; Talib, C.A. Environmental Awareness in Batik Making Process. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 6094. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14106094]
9. Latifah, S.W.; Soewarno, N. The Environmental Accounting Strategy and Waste Management to Achieve MSME’s Sustainability Performance. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2023; 10, 2176444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2176444]
10. Rezaee, Z.; Homayoun, S.; Poursoleyman, E.; Rezaee, N.J. Comparative Analysis of Environmental, Social, and Governance Disclosures. Glob. Financ. J.; 2023; 55, 100804. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2022.100804]
11. Kılıç, M.; Gurler, H.E.; Kaya, A.; Lee, C.W. The Impact of Sustainability Performance on Financial Performance: Does Firm Size Matter? Evidence from Turkey and South Korea. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 16695. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su142416695]
12. Poursoleyman, E.; Mansourfar, G.; Nazari, J.; Homayoun, S. Corporate Social Responsibility and COVID-19: Prior Reporting Experience and Assurance. Bus. Ethics Environ. Responsib.; 2023; 32, pp. 212-242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/beer.12461]
13. Market Intelligence. Saudi Arabia Transportation and Logistics Network Outlook. Available online: https://www.trade.gov/market-intelligence/saudi-arabia-transportation-and-logistics-network-outlook (accessed on 7 April 2024).
14. Al Doghan, M.A.; Channa, A.; Abdelwahed, N.A.A.; Soomro, B.A. Role of Transformational Leadership and Social Entrepreneurship in Achieving Enterprise Performance: Taking Creativity as a Mediator. J. Law Sustain. Dev.; 2023; 11, e2188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i12.2188]
15. Raj, R.; Kumar, V.; Cudney, E.A. Relating the Strategic Role of Technology Orientation in Organizational TQM Performance. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell.; 2024; 35, pp. 341-371. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2023.2294361]
16. Kapucu, N.; Hu, Q. Network Governance; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351056540]
17. Mio, C.; Panfilo, S.; Blundo, B. Sustainable Development Goals and the Strategic Role of Business: A Systematic Literature Review. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2020; 29, pp. 3220-3245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2568]
18. Voola, R.; Bandyopadhyay, C.; Voola, A.; Ray, S.; Carlson, J. B2B Marketing Scholarship and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Systematic Literature Review. Ind. Mark. Manag.; 2022; 101, pp. 12-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.11.013]
19. Corboș, R.-A.; Bunea, O.-I.; Jiroveanu, D.-C. The Effects of Strategic Procurement 4.0 Performance on Organizational Competitiveness in the Circular Economy. Logistics; 2023; 7, 13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/logistics7010013]
20. Corboş, R.A.; Bunea, O.I.; Popescu, R.I. Organizational Readiness For Procurement 4.0 In Circular Economy: The Moderating Role On Competitiveness. Manag. Res. Pract.; 2022; 14, pp. 5-16.
21. Lee, J.; Almuqrin, A.; Alkhanifer, A.; Baihan, M. Gulf Cooperation Council Countries and Urbanisation: Are Open Government Data Portals Helping?. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 12823. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151712823]
22. Amran, Y.H.A.; Amran, Y.H.M.; Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Production in Saudi Arabia According to Saudi Vision 2030; Current Status and Future Prospects. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 247, 119602. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119602]
23. Zhang, J.Z.; Alomran, A.; Omar, T.; Floos, A.; Homadi, A. Usability of the G7 Open Government Data Portals and Lessons Learned. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 13740. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132413740]
24. Almuqrin, A.; Mutambik, I.; Alomran, A.; Zhang, J.Z. Information System Success for Organizational Sustainability: Exploring the Public Institutions in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 9233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15129233]
25. Inthavong, P.; Rehman, K.U.; Masood, K.; Shaukat, Z.; Hnydiuk-Stefan, A.; Ray, S. Impact of Organizational Learning on Sustainable Firm Performance: Intervening Effect of Organizational Networking and Innovation. Heliyon; 2023; 9, e16177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16177] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37251908]
26. Saka, A.B.; Chan, D.W.M.; Siu, F.M.F. Drivers of Sustainable Adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Nigerian Construction Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). Sustainability; 2020; 12, 3710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12093710]
27. MONSHA’AT. Sme Monitor: Monsha’at Quarterly Report Q4 2023. Available online: https://www.monshaat.gov.sa/sites/default/files/2024-02/SME%20Monitor%20-%20Q4%202023%20EN_0.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2024).
28. Hameed, I.; Haq, M.A. Book Review: Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia: Vision 2030. Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep.; 2021; 39, 184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242620969479]
29. Almawishir, N.F. The Role of Institutional Support in Influencing SME Growth: The Case of Saudi Arabia; Manchester Metropolitan University: Manchester, UK, 2018.
30. Mohammed Zaaf Al-Qahtani, M.; Tawfik Yousef Alkhateeb, T.; Abdalla Zahed Abdalla, M.; Abdo Mohamed Elsayed, S.; Mohammed Mohammed Ibrahim, E.; Shihata Ebrahim Mawad, G. The Economic Empowerment of Saudi Women in the Light of Saudi Vision 2030. Asian Econ. Financ. Rev.; 2020; 10, pp. 1269-1279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr.2020.1011.1269.1279]
31. Arabnews. SME Count in Saudi Arabia Surges by 2.6% to Reach 1.23 m in Q2. Available online: https://www.arabnews.com/node/2359446/business-economy (accessed on 7 April 2024).
32. Team Rasmal. Industries in Saudi Arabia: The Kingdom’s Economic Pillars. Available online: https://www.rasmal.com/industries-in-saudi-arabia/ (accessed on 7 April 2024).
33. Mohiuddin, K.; Nasr, O.A.; Nadhmi Miladi, M.; Fatima, H.; Shahwar, S.; Noorulhasan Naveed, Q. Potentialities and Priorities for Higher Educational Development in Saudi Arabia for the next Decade: Critical Reflections of the Vision 2030 Framework. Heliyon; 2023; 9, e16368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16368] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37251831]
34. Mutambik, I.; Lee, J.; Almuqrin, A. Role of Gender and Social Context in Readiness for E-Learning in Saudi High Schools. Distance Educ.; 2020; 41, pp. 515-539. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1821602]
35. Khatib, H. Saudi Is Manufacturing Its Future with Industry 4.0. Available online: https://economysaudiarabia.com/news/saudi-is-manufacturing-its-future-with-industry-4-0/ (accessed on 7 April 2024).
36. Rani, I.H.; Kasali, R.; Kusumastuti, R.D.; Hati, S.R.H. Unlocking Continuous Organizational Agility: Proposing a Model through the Insight from the Indonesian Banking Context. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2024; 11, 2331633. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2331633]
37. Lee, J.; Almuqrin, A.; Zhang, J.Z.; Baihan, M.; Alkhanifer, A. Privacy Concerns in Social Commerce: The Impact of Gender. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 12771. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151712771]
38. Tze San, O.; Latif, B.; Di Vaio, A. GEO and Sustainable Performance: The Moderating Role of GTD and Environmental Consciousness. J. Intellect. Cap.; 2022; 23, pp. 38-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2021-0290]
39. Khizar, H.M.U.; Iqbal, M.J.; Rasheed, M.I. Business Orientation and Sustainable Development: A Systematic Review of Sustainability Orientation Literature and Future Research Avenues. Sustain. Dev.; 2021; 29, pp. 1001-1017. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.2190]
40. Mohedano-Suanes, A.; Revilla-Camacho, M.-Á.; Garzón, D. Innovation Orientation and Long-Term Performance: The Mediating Role of Market Perception Capability. Int. Entrep. Manag. J.; 2021; 17, pp. 741-757. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00736-0]
41. Mang’ana, K.M.; Hokororo, S.J.; Ndyetabula, D.W. An Investigation of the Extent of Implementation of the Financial Management Practices of Agri-SMEs in Developing Countries: Evidence from Tanzania. Sustain. Technol. Entrep.; 2024; 3, 100049. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2023.100049]
42. Mady, K.; Battour, M.; Elhabony, I.; Elsheikh, T.; Rashid, M.M.; Sulub, M.A. Integration of Eco-Innovation Drivers and Their Role in Sustainable Competitive Advantage in SMEs: A Proposed Conceptual Model; Spinger: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 313-322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28314-7_26]
43. Mondal, S.; Singh, S.; Gupta, H. A Meta-Analysis of Green and Sustainable Business Models: A Comprehensive Approach. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 371, 133623. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133623]
44. Nuus, F.F.F.; Neessen, P.C.M.; Voinea, C.L.; Caniëls, M.C.J. Sustainable Innovation in the Financial Sector during the Corona Crisis: How Discontinuity Affects Sustainable Innovation, Sustainable Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Absorptive Capacity. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 6621. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14116621]
45. Yin, C.-Y.; Chang, H.-H. What Is the Link between Strategic Innovation and Organizational Sustainability? Historical Review and Bibliometric Analytics. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 6937. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14116937]
46. Usman Khizar, H.M.; Iqbal, M.J.; Khalid, J.; Adomako, S. Addressing the Conceptualization and Measurement Challenges of Sustainability Orientation: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. J. Bus. Res.; 2022; 142, pp. 718-743. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.029]
47. Klemun, M.M.; Ojanperä, S.; Schweikert, A. Toward Evaluating the Effect of Technology Choices on Linkages between Sustainable Development Goals. iScience; 2023; 26, 105727. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105727]
48. Wang, C.; Ghadimi, P.; Lim, M.K.; Tseng, M.-L. A Literature Review of Sustainable Consumption and Production: A Comparative Analysis in Developed and Developing Economies. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 206, pp. 741-754. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.172]
49. Fuad, K.; Li, P.; Maruping, L.; Mathiassen, L. An Absorptive Capacity Framework for Investigating Enterprise System Ecosystems: The Role of Connectivity and Intelligence. Enterp. Inf. Syst.; 2024; 18, 2330084. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2024.2330084]
50. Makkonen, H. Information Processing Perspective on Organisational Innovation Adoption Process. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag.; 2021; 33, pp. 612-624. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1832218]
51. Ulaga, W.; Eggert, A. Relationship Value and Relationship Quality. Eur. J. Mark.; 2006; 40, pp. 311-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560610648075]
52. Anderson, J.C.; Håkansson, H.; Johanson, J. Dyadic Business Relationships within a Business Network Context. J. Mark.; 1994; 58, pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800401]
53. Muzamwese, T.C.; Franco-Garcia, L.; Heldeweg, M.A. The Role of Sustainable Business Networks in Promoting a Circular Economy in Africa—A Systematic Literature Review. WIREs Energy Environ.; 2024; 13, e506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wene.506]
54. Širec, K.; Bradač, B. How Does Networking Impact the SMEs Growth. Organizacija; 2009; 42, pp. 59-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10051-009-0003-4]
55. Bucktowar, R.; Kocak, A.; Padachi, K. Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and networking: Impact on innovation and firm performance. J. Dev. Entrep.; 2015; 20, 1550024. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1084946715500247]
56. Sinrungtam, W.; Trisakhon, C.; Chienwattanasook, K. Assessment of Potential SMEs Projects to Sustainable Success. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev.; 2023; 19, pp. 1103-1116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37394/232015.2023.19.103]
57. Liu, T.; Cao, X. Going Green: How Executive Environmental Awareness and Green Innovation Drive Corporate Sustainable Development. J. Knowl. Econ.; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01788-1]
58. AlTaweel, I.; Al-Hawary, S. The Mediating Role of Innovation Capability on the Relationship between Strategic Agility and Organizational Performance. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 7564. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13147564]
59. Christofi, M.; Kaufmann, H.R.; Vrontis, D.; Leonidou, E. Cause-Related Marketing and Strategic Agility: An Integrated Framework for Gaining the Competitive Advantage. World Rev. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev.; 2013; 9, 518. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2013.056758]
60. Miceli, A.; Hagen, B.; Riccardi, M.P.; Sotti, F.; Settembre-Blundo, D. Thriving, Not Just Surviving in Changing Times: How Sustainability, Agility and Digitalization Intertwine with Organizational Resilience. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 2052. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13042052]
61. Ayyagari, M.; Beck, T.; Demirguc-Kunt, A. Small and Medium Enterprises Across the Globe. Small Bus. Econ.; 2007; 29, pp. 415-434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9002-5]
62. Khizar, H.M.U.; Iqbal, M.J.; Murshed, F.; Ahsan, M. Sustainability Outcomes in SMEs: A Configurational View of the Interplay of Strategic Orientations and Environmental Conditions. J. Macromark.; 2023; 44, pp. 534-552. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02761467231203311]
63. Mutambik, I.; Almuqrin, A. Employee Acceptance of Digital Transformation: A Study in a Smart City Context. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 1398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16041398]
64. Afum, E.; Agyabeng-Mensah, Y.; Sun, Z.; Frimpong, B.; Kusi, L.Y.; Acquah, I.S.K. Exploring the Link between Green Manufacturing, Operational Competitiveness, Firm Reputation and Sustainable Performance Dimensions: A Mediated Approach. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag.; 2020; 31, pp. 1417-1438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-02-2020-0036]
65. Khan, S.A.R.; Tabish, M.; Zhang, Y. Embracement of Industry 4.0 and Sustainable Supply Chain Practices under the Shadow of Practice-Based View Theory: Ensuring Environmental Sustainability in Corporate Sector. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 398, 136609. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136609]
66. Yusof, N.; Lai, K.S.; Mustafa Kamal, E. Characteristics of Innovation Orientations in Construction Companies. J. Eng. Des. Technol.; 2017; 15, pp. 436-455. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-06-2016-0037]
67. Nawi, N.C.; Al Mamun, A.; Daud, R.R.R.; Nasir, N.A.M. Strategic Orientations and Absorptive Capacity on Economic and Environmental Sustainability: A Study among the Batik Small and Medium Enterprises in Malaysia. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 8957. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12218957]
68. Zhou, D.; Saeed, U.F.; Agyemang, A.O. Assessing the Role of Sustainability Disclosure on Firms’ Financial Performance: Evidence from the Energy Sector of Belt and Road Initiative Countries. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 930. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16020930]
69. Wen, K.; Agyemang, A.; Alessa, N.; Sulemana, I.; Osei, A. The Moderating Role of Ownership Concentration on Financing Decisions and Firm’s Sustainability: Evidence from China. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 13385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151813385]
70. Mutambik, I. Culturally Informed Technology: Assessing Its Importance in the Transition to Smart Sustainable Cities. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 4075. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16104075]
71. Tjahjadi, B.; Soewarno, N.; Anwar, D.N.; Fairuzi, A. Effect of Human Capital and Information Capital Readiness on Business Sustainability: Do Market Orientation and Business Performance Matter?. Sage Open; 2024; 14, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21582440231221320]
72. Manavalan, E.; Jayakrishna, K. A Review of Internet of Things (IoT) Embedded Sustainable Supply Chain for Industry 4.0 Requirements. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 127, pp. 925-953. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.11.030]
73. Campos, T.L.R.; Nunhes, T.V.; Harney, B.; de Oliveira, O.J. Corporate Sustainability in Entrepreneurial Settings: Green Management and Operational Fairness as Joint Drivers of Venture Competitiveness. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev.; 2023; 30, pp. 342-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-03-2022-0183]
74. Almuqrin, A.; Alharbi, F.; Abusharhah, M. How to Encourage Public Engagement in Smart City Development—Learning from Saudi Arabia. Land; 2023; 12, 1851. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land12101851]
75. Yu, Z.; Waqas, M.; Tabish, M.; Tanveer, M.; Haq, I.U.; Khan, S.A.R. Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Green Technologies: A Bibliometric Review of Literature. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 29, pp. 58454-58470. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21544-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35763135]
76. Bai, C.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Badri Ahmadi, H.; Sarkis, J. Social Sustainable Supplier Evaluation and Selection: A Group Decision-Support Approach. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2019; 57, pp. 7046-7067. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1574042]
77. Alomran, A.; Zhang, J.Z. Enforcing Information System Security. Int. J. Semant. Web Inf. Syst.; 2023; 19, pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IJSWIS.331396]
78. Mardani, A.; Kannan, D.; Hooker, R.E.; Ozkul, S.; Alrasheedi, M.; Tirkolaee, E.B. Evaluation of Green and Sustainable Supply Chain Management Using Structural Equation Modelling: A Systematic Review of the State of the Art Literature and Recommendations for Future Research. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 249, 119383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119383]
79. Yasin, R.; Huseynova, A.; Atif, M. Green Human Resource Management, a Gateway to Employer Branding: Mediating Role of Corporate Environmental Sustainability and Corporate Social Sustainability. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2023; 30, pp. 369-383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.2360]
80. Rahman, M.S.; Bag, S.; Gupta, S.; Sivarajah, U. Technology Readiness of B2B Firms and AI-Based Customer Relationship Management Capability for Enhancing Social Sustainability Performance. J. Bus. Res.; 2023; 156, 113525. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113525]
81. Yadav, G.; Luthra, S.; Jakhar, S.K.; Mangla, S.K.; Rai, D.P. A Framework to Overcome Sustainable Supply Chain Challenges through Solution Measures of Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy: An Automotive Case. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 254, 120112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120112]
82. Govindan, K.; Shaw, M.; Majumdar, A. Social Sustainability Tensions in Multi-Tier Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review towards Conceptual Framework Development. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 279, 123075. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123075]
83. Yeh, T.-M.; Pai, F.-Y.; Wu, L.-C. Relationship Stability and Supply Chain Performance for SMEs: From Internal, Supplier, and Customer Integration Perspectives. Mathematics; 2020; 8, 1902. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/math8111902]
84. Villegas Pinuer, F.; Valenzuela-Fernández, L.; Llonch Andreu, J.; López Belbeze, P. Environmental Sustainability and Their Factors in SMEs: A Multiple Case Study of Spain and Chile. Cuad. Gestión; 2022; 22, pp. 35-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5295/cdg.211370fv]
85. Aguilar-Fernández, M.; Otegi-Olaso, J. Firm Size and the Business Model for Sustainable Innovation. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 4785. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10124785]
86. Bagot, K.L.; Purvis, T.; Hancock, S.; Zhao, H.; Coote, S.; Easton, D.; Campbell, B.C.; Davis, S.M.; Donnan, G.A.; Foster, S. et al. Sustaining a New Model of Acute Stroke Care: A Mixed-Method Process Evaluation of the Melbourne Mobile Stroke Unit. Int. J. Health Policy Manag.; 2023; 12, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7716] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37579413]
87. Chang, Y.-Y.; Lin, Y.-M.; Chang, T.-W.; Chang, C.-Y. Sustainable Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance and Social Capital: A Multi-Level Analysis. Rev. Manag. Sci.; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00690-5]
88. Kong, Y.; Agyemang, A.; Alessa, N.; Kongkuah, M. The Moderating Role of Technological Innovation on Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) Performance and Firm Value: Evidence from Developing and Least-Developed Countries. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 14240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151914240]
89. Daud, R.R.R.; Md Nasir, N.A.; Nawi, N.C.; Al-Mamun, A.; Aidara, S. Strategic Orientations and Absorptive Capacity on Competitive Advantage Among the Batik SMEs in Malaysia; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 705-724. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08087-6_49]
90. Hatammimi, J.; Gunawan, A.A. Sustainable Development of Batik Industry: A Literature Review; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 224-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54019-6_21]
91. Fan, Q.; Abbas, J.; Zhong, Y.; Pawar, P.S.; Adam, N.A.; Alarif, G. Bin. Role of Organizational and Environmental Factors in Firm Green Innovation and Sustainable Development: Moderating Role of Knowledge Absorptive Capacity. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 411, 137262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137262]
92. Abbas, J.; Sağsan, M. Impact of Knowledge Management Practices on Green Innovation and Corporate Sustainable Development: A Structural Analysis. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 229, pp. 611-620. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.024]
93. Shahzad, M.; Qu, Y.; Zafar, A.U.; Rehman, S.U.; Islam, T. Exploring the Influence of Knowledge Management Process on Corporate Sustainable Performance through Green Innovation. J. Knowl. Manag.; 2020; 24, pp. 2079-2106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2019-0624]
94. Ghobakhloo, M.; Iranmanesh, M.; Grybauskas, A.; Vilkas, M.; Petraitė, M. Industry 4.0, Innovation, and Sustainable Development: A Systematic Review and a Roadmap to Sustainable Innovation. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2021; 30, pp. 4237-4257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2867]
95. Thomsen, C. Sustainability (World Commission on Environment and Development Definition). Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 2358-2363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_531]
96. Kahraman, S. Economic Sustainability and Development. Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 1263-1266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25984-5_1082]
97. Jeronen, E. Economic Sustainability. Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02006-4_197-1]
98. Baah, C.; Agyabeng-Mensah, Y.; Afum, E.; Lascano Armas, J.A. Exploring Corporate Environmental Ethics and Green Creativity as Antecedents of Green Competitive Advantage, Sustainable Production and Financial Performance: Empirical Evidence from Manufacturing Firms. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2024; 31, pp. 990-1008. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2022-0352]
99. Owusu, A.; Tauringana, V.; Asare, N. Sustainability Performance Reporting in Ghana: The Views of SMEs. Small Enterp. Res.; 2024; 31, pp. 56-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13215906.2024.2304847]
100. Yadav, P.L.; Han, S.H.; Kim, H. Sustaining Competitive Advantage Through Corporate Environmental Performance. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2017; 26, pp. 345-357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1921]
101. Majid, S.; Zhang, X.; Khaskheli, M.B.; Hong, F.; King, P.J.H.; Shamsi, I.H. Eco-Efficiency, Environmental and Sustainable Innovation in Recycling Energy and Their Effect on Business Performance: Evidence from European SMEs. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 9465. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15129465]
102. Lopez-Torres, G.C. The Impact of SMEs’ Sustainability on Competitiveness. Meas. Bus. Excell.; 2023; 27, pp. 107-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MBE-12-2021-0144]
103. Malesios, C.; Skouloudis, A.; Dey, P.K.; Abdelaziz, F.B.; Kantartzis, A.; Evangelinos, K. Impact of Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises Sustainability Practices and Performance on Economic Growth from a Managerial Perspective: Modeling Considerations and Empirical Analysis Results. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2018; 27, pp. 960-972. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2045]
104. Mutambik, I. Customer Experience in Open Banking and How It Affects Loyalty Intention: A Study from Saudi Arabia. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 10867. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151410867]
105. Arora, M.; Gupta, J.; Mittal, A.; Prakash, A. Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through Corporate Sustainability: A Topic Modeling-Based Bibliometric Analysis Approach. Kybernetes; 2024; ahead-of-print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2023-1802]
106. Ferreira, F.; Briga, P.; Ramos Teixeira, S.; Almeida, F. A Platform Sandbox for the Assessment of Municipal Sustainable Development Goals. J. Eng. Des. Technol.; 2023; ahead-of-print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-04-2023-0131]
107. Peiró-Signes, Á.; Cervelló-Royo, R.; Segarra-Oña, M. Can a Country’s Environmental Sustainability Exert Influence on Its Economic and Financial Situation? The Relationship between Environmental Performance Indicators and Country Risk. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 375, 134121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134121]
108. Laskar, N. Impact of Corporate Sustainability Reporting on Firm Performance: An Empirical Examination in Asia. J. Asia Bus. Stud.; 2018; 12, pp. 571-593. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JABS-11-2016-0157]
109. Aifuwa, H.O. Sustainability reporting and firm performance in developing climes: A review of literature. Copernic. J. Financ. Account.; 2020; 9, 9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2020.001]
110. Moursellas, A.; De, D.; Wurzer, T.; Skouloudis, A.; Reiner, G.; Chaudhuri, A.; Manousidis, T.; Malesios, C.; Evangelinos, K.; Dey, P.K. Sustainability Practices and Performance in European Small-and-Medium Enterprises: Insights from Multiple Case Studies. Circ. Econ. Sustain.; 2023; 3, pp. 835-860. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00224-3]
111. López-Pérez, M.; Melero-Polo, I.; Vázquez-Carrasco, R.; Cambra-Fierro, J. Sustainability and Business Outcomes in the Context of SMEs: Comparing Family Firms vs. Non-Family Firms. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 4080. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10114080]
112. Gillham, B. Developing a Questionnaire; Continuum: London, UK, 2000.
113. Denscombe, M. Web-Based Questionnaires and the Mode Effect. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev.; 2006; 24, pp. 246-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439305284522]
114. Beatty, P.; Collins, D.; Kaye, L.; Padilla, J.L.; Willis, G.; Wilmot, A. Advances in Questionnaire Design, Development, Evaluation and Testing; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119263685]
115. Greene, J. Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry; John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2007.
116. Straub, D.; Gefen, D. Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst.; 2004; 13, pp. 380-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01324]
117. Dillman, D. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007.
118. Aday, L.A.; Cornelius, L.J. Designing and Conducting Health Surveys: A Comprehensive Guide; Jossey-Bass A: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2006.
119. DeVaus, D. Surveys in Social Research; Routledge: London, UK, 2002.
120. DeVellis, R.F. Scale Development: Theory and Applications; University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2016.
121. Zhang, J.Z.; Homadi, A. The Growth of Social Commerce: How It Is Affected by Users’ Privacy Concerns. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res.; 2023; 18, pp. 725-743. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010037]
122. Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. J. Mark. Res.; 1977; 14, pp. 396-402. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400320]
123. Comrey, A.L.; Lee, H.B. A First Course in Factor Analysis; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1992.
124. Field, A.P. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: And Sex and Drugs and Rock “n” Roll; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2013.
125. Tinsley, H.E.; Tinsley, D.J. Uses of Factor Analysis in Counseling Psychology Research. J. Couns. Psychol.; 1987; 34, pp. 414-424. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0167.34.4.414]
126. Kaiser, H.F. An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika; 1974; 39, pp. 31-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575]
127. Adya, M.; Kaiser, K.M. Early Determinants of Women in the IT Workforce: A Model of Girls’ Career Choices. Inf. Technol. People; 2005; 18, pp. 230-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840510615860]
128. Hair, J.F.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing Measurement Model Quality in PLS-SEM Using Confirmatory Composite Analysis. J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 109, pp. 101-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069]
129. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.; 1999; 6, pp. 1-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118]
130. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract.; 2011; 19, pp. 139-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202]
131. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated Guidelines on Which Method to Use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal.; 2017; 1, 107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624]
132. Crozet, M.; Milet, E. Should Everybody Be in Services? The Effect of Servitization on Manufacturing Firm Performance. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy; 2017; 26, pp. 820-841. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jems.12211]
133. Dias, G.P.; Silva, M.E.; Viana, F.L.E. Contributions of Social Capital to Supply Chain Sustainability Practices: Conceptual Framework and Propositions. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain.; 2024; 11, 100151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2024.100151]
134. Mutambik, I. Digital Transformation as a Driver of Sustainability Performance—A Study from Freight and Logistics Industry. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 4310. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16104310]
135. Czaja, S.J.; Charness, N.; Fisk, A.D.; Hertzog, C.; Nair, S.N.; Rogers, W.A.; Sharit, J. Factors Predicting the Use of Technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (Create). Psychol. Aging; 2006; 21, pp. 333-352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16768579]
136. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
137. Tajpour, M.; Hosseini, E.; Ratten, V.; Bahman-Zangi, B.; Soleymanian, S.M. The Role of Entrepreneurial Thinking Mediated by Social Media on the Sustainability of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Iran. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 4518. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15054518]
138. Ellili, N.O.D. Is There Any Association between FinTech and Sustainability? Evidence from Bibliometric Review and Content Analysis. J. Financ. Serv. Mark.; 2023; 28, pp. 748-762. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41264-022-00200-w]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Almuqrin, Abdullah