2.1. Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic for Economies, Societies, and Enterprises
According to the World Health Organization, the first people with COVID-19 were identified on 8 December 2019 [
8]. The outbreak caused mobility restrictions; on 23 January 2020, Wuhan imposed a lockdown to contain the new coronavirus [
1]. The general public policy was to halt economic activities in most countries [
9] temporarily. The coronavirus has caused a dramatic and unprecedented social and economic upheaval since patient zero [
10]. It continues to affect the health and safety of employees and employment stability [
11].
The current pandemic situation is often referred to in the literature using the “theory of black swan” [
12,
13], demand and supply shocks [
14], “white swan theory”, or “grey rhino” [
15]. According to the black swan theory, sometimes things happen that were considered impossible until they happened. A black swan is a term used in economic sciences that designates an unexpected event not foreseeable by (almost) anybody. Such events often greatly affect the world and hurt the economy and society. In its current meaning, the term gained popularity after a Lebanese-American researcher N. N. Taleb used it in 2007 [
15], stating that black swans increasingly define global events and history due to more and more complex societies. Interactions between factors are often neglected, and forecasts are based on existing patterns and models. According to N. N. Taleb [
15] and the theory of black swan, the current COVID-19 pandemic is not a typical black swan. He believes the current crisis to be a white swan or grey rhino. It is an event of tremendous consequences but that are predictable and probable. A characteristic feature of a grey rhino is that investors tend to ignore the threat it entails for a long time or underestimate it. E. Mączyńska [
12], N. Rowan and J. G. Laffey [
16], Guan et al. [
17], and G. Reid, N. O’Beirne, and N. Gibson [
18] believe otherwise. They would not hesitate to compare the current pandemic crisis to a typical black swan. They pointed out that this event was unlikely and unexpected, seemingly impossible. It had a massive impact on restrictions and hygiene policies implemented globally, tangibly affecting our current reality when it did happen. COVID-19 has affected healthcare systems, governments, but also enterprises all over the world. The unprecedented business consequences include market and financial shock [
8]. Some industries, such as healthcare, suffer from understaffing [
16]. Others apparently have devised new redundancy and training strategies [
9,
19]. Optimum controls have been employed to model business behaviour—in terms of hiring, discharging, and training employees. It was noted that the manager should lay off the least productive personnel first to reduce costs. As inefficient employees leave, profit improves and can be reinvested in expansion and training [
19]. The actions taken to control the coronavirus fundamentally impacted food security [
20].
Despite some controversies regarding the theory of N. N. Taleb that black swans drive the world, there is no doubt that actions towards antifragility (which has a singular property of allowing us to deal with the unknown, to do things without understanding them—and do them well) are necessary and justified in the event of a flock of black swans. It is particularly important when the swans mutate into new varieties: green for environmental disasters or blue for unexpected events generated by digital technology and artificial intelligence. Therefore, people in charge of organisations need to prepare for the flock by building, reinforcing, and developing antifragility [
12]. Many enterprises turned to sustainable production [
21,
22] because COVID-19 has influenced many collective behaviours and changed consumer choices [
23].
2.3. Innovation—A Response to a Crisis
Innovation can significantly contribute to adaptability. Schumpeter [
31] defined it as the introduction of a new product, production method, opening a new market, access to a new source of materials, and reorganisation of an industry. Schumpeter’s deliberations were continued by Drucker [
32], who defined innovation as a specific entrepreneurial tool, an activity that opens new ways of creating wealth from resources. Kotler [
33] believes innovation to be a product, service, or idea that is perceived as something new. The idea may be old, but the key is the perception of the person that considers it new.
A very interesting interdisciplinary approach to the notion and nature of innovation was proposed by Baregheh, Rowley, and Sambrook [
34], who pointed out that organisations had to innovate in response to evolving customer expectations, lifestyles and changing technologies, markets, and structures. Zahara and Covin [
35] suggested that innovation was a source of life, survival, and growth for the business. In their work, Baregheh, Rowley, and Sambrook [
34] discussed various types of innovation (new products, processes, services, and organisational solutions), and various forms, interests, and ways of interpreting innovation in various branches. They proposed a universal definition of innovation with a diagram of six attributes: stage (creation, generation, implementation, development, adaptation), social (organisation, enterprise, customers, social system, employees, software developers), means (technology, idea, invention, creativity, market), nature (new, improved, changed), type (product, service, process, technique), and objective (success, rivalry). To identify and express the definition, the authors defined innovation as a multistage process whereby organisations transform their products, services, or processes to grow, compete, and differentiate themselves in the market.
The attitude towards innovation has evolved significantly from the classical doctrine [
31,
32,
33] to the modern day, where much value is assigned to technological innovation (process and product), non-technological innovation (organisational and marketing), and management innovation.
Today’s technological innovation discourse needs to appreciate its importance during the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused rapid growth in the demand for necessary medical equipment, medicines, and high-end IT solutions. Javaid, Haleem, and Vaishya et al. [
36] emphasised the immense importance of Industry 4.0 technology, which helps control and manage the pandemic. Some authors suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to a fifth industrial revolution (society 5.0). The role and impact of Industry 4.0 grow as the world progresses through different stages of the pandemic. Every enterprise is disturbed, which is reflected in the shirking global economic activity and shortage of smart production technologies. Significant technological changes were driven by disasters and outbreaks of infectious diseases [
37], hence the tremendous technological changes today.
Innovation-friendly attitudes are clearly visible in products, services, quality, production processes, or management methods [
38]. They are becoming the primary creative force of each organisation and need to be embedded into the management system and enterprise culture. Identifying management innovation in the literature was the starting point for defining it as a departure from traditional managerial principles, processes, and practices [
39,
40]. In other words, management innovations are new solutions for processes, operating principles and methods, and managerial structures that significantly change how the organisation reaches its goals [
41]. They include new management practices, processes, structures, or techniques to improve effectiveness [
42,
43]. Management innovations are crucial because they ensure further innovation to facilitate quick and flexible responses to market signals and challenges, leading to the implementation of the strategy [
38,
44]. Analysis and research by P. Nakagaki, J. Aber, and T. Fetterhoff [
45] yielded conclusions that two important obstacles had to be overcome to drive the innovative capabilities of every large business. The first one is to create the eureka moment, which represents the value of innovative activities in bright colours and demonstrates the role of senior management without questioning it; the other is the shift towards innovation culture.
The managers who participated in the CFO Survey 2020—spring edition by Deloitte, a consulting company, appreciated the destructive impact of the coronavirus on business, which would affect income, jobs, and planned investment projects. The coronavirus pandemic, unexpected and yet taking place in most countries virtually simultaneously, is the pivotal point for the frame of reference of company managers. They revised their fears and embarked on new plans [
46]. Organic innovation was the response to business problems. One report entitled “Droga do innowacji a COVID-19” [Path to innovation vs. COVID-19, 48] looks into challenges related to the development of innovation in business, such as securing of external funding. In the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, stronger innovation can be a success driver after the crisis. It consisted particularly of frugal innovation, “good enough” affordable products [
47] that meet the needs of consumers with limited resources, which helped most small enterprises in Poland hold their heads above water.
Note here that the bottom line for innovation effectiveness is its verification by the market. P.P. Saviotti and A. Pyka [
48] indicated that the backbone of effective innovation is acceptance by demand. They believed the process of innovating alone may be inconsequential for economic growth if innovative products are not bought but instead, poorly accepted by consumers. The lack of demand for new products is a barrier associated with the implementation of innovation and a ball and chain for the entire innovation process. The innovative effort of enterprises and the market behaviour of consumers are significantly linked beyond any doubt. The relationships are investigated on various levels. K. Włodarczyk [
49] identified key research areas regarding modern consumer market behaviour associated with introducing innovation to a market: innovative consumption models, diffusion of innovation, the impact of norms, values, beliefs, and personality traits on the reception of innovation, new technologies, innovating consumer behaviour, models of embracing innovation by consumers, and resistance to innovation from consumer groups.
Analyses of innovative consumption models focus on how consumers use innovative products and services and what consumers know about sustainable development in production [
50]. Additionally, consumer environmental preferences need to be considered when designing innovations. Sustainable development of production makes manufacturers strive towards a competitive advantage through appreciating public expectations. The increase in respect for the natural environment in business, noticeable for some years, has become the primary development trend in the supply chain, leading to the emergence of green supply chains [
51]. One of the founding fathers who introduced the term into the literature is Beamon [
52]. The concept of a green supply chain involves a comprehensive outlook on relationships between the natural environment and production optimisation within the supply chain. Green supply chain management takes into account the entire cycle of product design, production, packing, sale, use, and recycling, including storage, transport, and information flow that should conform to environmental standards [
53].
2.4. Research Hypotheses
The existing entrepreneurship and innovation practices are evolving to adapt production systems to the reality during and after COVID-19 [
28]. As shown in the literature review, entrepreneurship and innovation practices should be conceived in terms of product and process innovation and marketing and organisational novelties. Moreover, management innovation (new management practices) is an important and interesting domain. Note that motivation, positive attitude towards entrepreneurship, risk-taking [
54], knowledge [
55], and relationships fuel creativity and contribute to product innovation [
56]. They can also drive new solutions in production and marketing processes, organisational structure, and management. This background inspired the present research on innovation capabilities of enterprises (business innovativeness) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evolving innovation paradigm facilitated the classification of innovation as Product, Process, Marketing, and Organisational (organisation and management) innovation both in literature and research.
Product innovation is defined as introducing a new product or service or significantly improving their features and applications [
57,
58]. They concern the product and involve any changes towards its improvement or diversification of product portfolio. Therefore, the following research hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Product innovations have been introduced in enterprises where the COVID-19 pandemic crisis occurred.
Process innovation is new process solutions or the implementation of a new or significantly improved production or delivery method. It includes technology, equipment, and software changes. Sadkowska [
59] defined process innovations within three areas. Following this approach, process innovations were assigned to an individual functional area of an enterprise where they are used. The other grouping is innovations defined by their goals; the essence of a process innovation is described through the objective. The last group is process innovations defined by features of the entity that introduces them. Three research hypotheses are proposed here:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Process innovations have been introduced in enterprises where the COVID-19 pandemic crisis occurred.
Marketing innovation is defined as the implementation of a new marketing method involving substantial changes in product design/structure, packaging, distribution, promotion, or pricing strategy. Furthermore, marketing innovation involves introducing e-commerce channels and solutions for mobile shopping [
60]. The following research hypotheses are proposed for this domain:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Marketing innovations have been introduced in enterprises where the COVID-19 pandemic crisis occurred.
Organisational innovation is the introduction of a new organisational method in the operational policies, workplace organisation, or in relationships with the environment. Czekaj [
61] proposed a very detailed view of organisational innovation. He defined his classification as the factual scope of management system improvement from the standpoint of applied organisation science. Lichtarski [
62] also investigated organisational structure innovation, pointing out certain components indicative of a shift towards organic and innovative structures. However, the author further noted that it was impossible to determine whether organisational structures of today are innovative unambiguously. They should instead be considered in the broad situational and historical context of each organisation.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Organisational innovations have been introduced in enterprises where the COVID-19 pandemic crisis occurred.
Analyses of new possibilities of introducing and classifying innovation refer to management increasingly often. The literature offers views that management innovation contributes to value creation [
63] and competitive advantage [
64,
65,
66] more than the product, marketing, process, or strategy innovation. Hamel and Breen [
65] argued that management innovation was in high demand and dubbed the modern management paradigm an “ageing technology”. They further pointed out that not much had changed in management over the last few decades. The hierarchical system was flattened but still remained. Line employees were more independent and better trained but still had to conform with management decisions. Junior managers still needed the green light of seniors to be promoted. Strategic decisions were still being taken centrally at the top, while any responsibility was dispersed.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): COVID-19 resulted in management innovations.
Another investigated area was the relationship between new products, processes, marketing, and management solutions and the innovativeness of enterprises. Therefore, the following research hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 6 (H6): New solutions affect the innovativeness of enterprises.