Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Green Finance on Upgrading the Manufacturing Industry of the Yangtze River Economic Belt Based on the Spatial Econometric Model
Previous Article in Journal
Monitoring Urban Expansion (2000–2020) in Yangtze River Delta Using Time-Series Nighttime Light Data and MODIS NDVI
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/su15129765
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Nexus of Corporate Affinity for Technology and Firm Sustainable Performance in the Era of Digitalization: A Mediated Model

by
Dharm Dev Bhatta
1,
Muddassar Sarfraz
2,*,
Larisa Ivascu
3 and
Marius Pislaru
4
1
School of Foreign Language and International Business, Guilin University of Aerospace Technology, Guilin 541004, China
2
School of Management, Zhejiang Shuren University, Hangzhou 310015, China
3
Faculty of Management in Production and Transportation, Politehnica University of Timisoara, 300191 Timisoara, Romania
4
Faculty of Industrial Design and Business Management, “Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, 700050 Iasi, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(12), 9765; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129765
Submission received: 24 May 2023 / Revised: 14 June 2023 / Accepted: 15 June 2023 / Published: 19 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to elaborate on the embeddedness of digital technology applications and their effect on firms’ sustainable performances under the mediating conditions of team innovation performance and digital organizational culture. The study employs a quantitative approach, and data were collected from 319 employees working in the information technology sector of China. Analyses of moment structures ((AMOS-version 27.0) and SPSS software- version 4.0) were used for data analysis, and the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique was utilized for hypothesis testing. The results show that a corporate affinity for technology has a positive and significant impact on sustainable performance, organizational digital culture, and team innovation performance. Organizational digital culture mediates the relationship between the corporate affinity for technology and sustainable performance. Team innovation performance mediates the relationship between the corporate affinity for technology and sustainable performance. The study contributes to business sustainability in terms of digitalization. Scholars and professionals can use the study as a guide for developing a business model that ensures the sustainable performance of firms. The research seeks to fill the existing gap in the literature concerning sustainable company performance by examining the potential for digitalization to enhance organizational sustainability. Firms need to prioritize investments in technology, they need to build a “tech-savvy” workforce, and they need to promote digital culture across the organization. A mixed-methods study would provide a more comprehensive understanding of this matter. For business leaders, this research provides important insights into how digital tools may be used to foster a productive work environment and ensure long-term success. The study profoundly elaborates on different interdependencies that influence the firms’ sustainable performances, and it suggests that managers should devise policies to enable technology acceptance.

1. Introduction

Worldwide, technological developments have inspired institutions to embrace modern digital tools in the current era of digitalization. By adhering to this system, created by technological revolutions, 21st century innovations have prompted organizations to focus on technological applications. In this regard, the technological establishment’s focus on sustainable performance has grown exponentially in recent years [1]. Digital technologies positively affect the company’s performance [2]; however, despite the significant adoption of digital technologies, Brenner and Hartl [3] show that it is still hard to provide firms with services that can assist with firms’ sustainable performances.
Digitalization, which has grown significantly over the years, has prompted industries to adopt novel digital tools [4]. This approach has recently been applied to every aspect of our lives, from the industrial to the service sectors. This competition has heightened the ability of businesses to quickly adjust to the viability of new technologies [5]. Unfortunately, despite the emergence of new technologies, enterprises are encountering implementation challenges. Today, organizations are experiencing mounting pressure to implement technologies, but they have failed to adapt to digital changes. This failure has prevented them from fulfilling market demands, thus substantially minimizing their chances of being sustainable.
Hence, digitalization today has created potential ICT systems that systematically provide unique opportunities to solve complex problems related to organizational sustainability [6]. Significantly, ICT adoption is becoming a more popular method with which to create sustainable and innovative outcomes [7]. As information and technology significantly enhance firms’ sustainability [8], businesses are currently encouraged to create, obtain, and systemize information to produce firm innovation. Innovation enhances processes, structures, and systems, thus substantially increasing the firms’ competitiveness and sustainability [9]. Considering the great relevance of improving a firm’s performance with innovation [10], the challenge is to understand firms’ sustainable performances with regard to their innovation performance, especially in the information technology sector of China.
With great significance attributed to team innovation performance in the sphere of sustainability, this study integrates the key factors for understanding the need for sustainable performance (perceived as the improvement in team innovation performance and digital organizational culture) and calls for a deep investigation of resource-based theory. Undoubtedly, it is true that the implementation of firms’ sustainable practices has become difficult and complex. This problem must be solved rapidly by adopting novel tools for firms’ sustainable performances. Martinez Leon and Calvo-Amodio [11] suggest that the sustainability approach encourages the world’s organizations to embrace a dynamic system to support firms’ sustainable performances.
With this, individuals’ innovative skills and capabilities have a significant impact on making an organization understand the dynamics of a firm’s sustainable performance. Nunez-Merion et al. [12] revealed that a firm’s technological practices, rigorously streamlined using integrated technologies, enhance teams’ innovative performances. It helps the company devise technological modifications, substantially reinforcing its sustainable performance. Concerning this statement, Sarfraz et al. [13] and Waheed et al. [14] claim that team innovation promotes technology adoption, thus enhancing the firms’ sustainable performance.
Indeed, adopting technologies in the workplace enables the organization’s innovations to add value to the firm. Through innovativeness, ICT allows organizations to respond to market needs (Segarra-Ciprés, Escrig-Tena, and García-Juan [15]) through its innovativeness. Moreover, digital technology can significantly impact a company’s culture, procedures, function, and performance. Duerr et al. [16] revealed that technology integration ensures the development of an innovative digital culture in the context of sustainability dimensions (i.e., social, economic, ecological) [17].
This prevailing gap in the literature has raised several questions regarding digital technology implementation. Hence, this study aims to conduct comprehensive research on digital technology applications and innovative sustainable practices. An innovative approach is used in this study to identify the core elements that contribute to a sustainable performance. This study presents a conceptual framework for examining the various interdependencies within the sustainability model upon which this study is based. It seeks to elaborate upon the embeddedness of digital technology applications and their impact on the sustainability of a firm’s operations. The study also highlights the role of team innovation performance and digital organizational culture in mediating the companies’ affinity for technology and sustainable performance.
This study significantly contributes to the literature by providing sufficient evidence to support existing theories regarding sustainability benefits. The originality of this paper lies in its formulation of a mediated model based on RBV theory, and it presents several factors that contribute to a firm’s sustainable performance and competitiveness. This paper aims to fill the gap in the literature by providing a strategy for creating and delivering sustainable benefits related to innovation performance and organizational digital culture. This study provides a deeper understanding of the issue, which is greatly needed in the international literature. This study explains digital technology applications from the perspective of team innovation performance and organizational culture. Furthermore, this paper confirms that digital technologies need to be applied in various sectors. By providing theoretical justifications, this study aims to inspire organizations, policymakers, market professionals, and practitioners to understand the role of digital technology in organizations. This new concept enhances managerial, academic, and practical understandings of digital technology. It is a unique guide to digital technology and firms’ sustainable performances. The study helps today’s scholars and professionals develop a business model that ensures sustainable success.
In the following sections, we present our study’s background, methods, findings, and conclusions. Section 2 provides the study background, and Section 3 describes the essential tools used in the analysis. Section 4 presents the study outcomes, followed by a discussion of the results in light of the findings in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper by identifying future directions for further investigations.

2. Literature Review

Previous research has generally examined the relationship between digital technologies and firms’ sustainability [18]. Since digital technology directly impacts firms’ sustainable performances, this study will explain different parameters that will help firms to achieve team innovation capabilities, to give firms a competitive advantage, and to help establish a digital organizational culture that will support firms’ sustainable performances in light of resource-based-theory (RBV).

2.1. Resource-Based View (RBV) Theory

Resource-based theory (RBV) refers to when a firm gains a superior competitive advantage based on resources and capabilities which are rare, unique, and hard to imitate. In recent years, these non-substitutable resources have caused significant changes. In the era of digitalization, the ability to use digital technology has inspired firms to create value for customers by significantly cultivating their teams’ innovation performance and organizational culture to ensure sustainable performance. Digital technologies establish a culture of experimentation, learning, and innovation that enhances a firm’s sustainable performance and promotes the adoption of new products and services that create value for the stakeholders and increase the firm’s competitiveness. Moreover, a firm’s digital culture fosters the firm’s internal processes and operations that lead to efficient cost reductions and better decision-making processes, thus ultimately influencing a firm’s sustainable performance.
Overall, RBV, a digital capability framework [19], argues that a firm’s resources and capabilities provide a wide range of benefits that ensures its enduring performance. Hence, it is clear from the previous literature that the production of digital resource capabilities enhance firms’ processes, culture, stability, and performance, thus providing them with a sustainable competitive advantage [20]. Therefore, RBV theory can be a useful framework for explaining the relationship between team innovation, digital culture, and firms’ sustainable performances. The RBV-based digital capability focuses on creating value for the firm. The RBV allows organizations to establish themes and relationships that strengthen firms’ innovative capabilities, sustainable competitiveness, and sustainability. It is a digital resource that enables digital technologies to work independently, and it can influence the firms’ performances. In particular, when a resource is common, it is hard for the competitors to imitate; therefore, this study explains the potential of the corporate affinity for technology influencing firms’ sustainable performances, which has diminished.

2.2. Corporate Affinity for Technology and Sustainable Performance

As the rate of industrialization increases, being sustainable has become a challenge for global companies. In this regard, technology has emerged as a useful tool for addressing this sustainability issue. In recent years, significant developments in the world’s economies have prompted important revolutions in organizations; novel developments have entirely shaped organizations’ social, economic, and ecological structures. The constant upgrades to recent technologies have enabled businesses to cope with emerging market challenges [21]. Businesses have rapidly paid more attention to the concept of the corporate affinity for technology as it minimizes the damaging effects of environmental degradation [22]. Today, firms’ technological tools can solve their customers’ problems, thus ensuring their long-term survival. In the era of digitization, corporations’ positive attitude toward technology has allowed customers to experience social, ecological, and economic benefits [23]. The firms’ affinity for technology helps organizations to achieve sustainability goals by helping them meet economic, social, and environmental considerations. Given its increasing importance, this phenomenon increasingly influences the firms’ economic and ecological dimensions by helping firms become stable in the long term [24].
In this age of digitalization, the rapid acceptance of technology by business enterprises has altered firms’ daily activities so that they include more sustainable practices. Corporate trust in technology has helped enterprises to achieve triple-bottom-line sustainability objectives through these practices [25]. Moreover, the corporate affinity for technology is an effective solution in terms of supporting firms’ sustainable performances. Hassan et al. [26] state that corporations’ positive attitude towards technology significantly determines a firm’s performance from a sustainability perspective (i.e., social, economic, and ecological); therefore, undoubtedly, technology plays a significant role in boosting firms’ sustainability.
The corporate affinity for technology enables firms to be competent enough to perform the transformation process. By augmenting its sustainability approach, a firm’s technological capability is able to improve the organization’s services. Technological advancement unlocks an organization’s resources while contributing to sustainable performance [27]. Adopting technologies empowers companies to go beyond enhancing business processes and functionalities. The affinity for technology encourages companies to embrace advancement; this positively stimulates their social, economic, and environmental performance. Corporate affinity for technology accelerates a firm’s sustainability domains and ensures its long-term stability [28]. In light of this, Shahatha Al-Mashhadani et al. [29] suggest that this recent trend of developing digital technologies has encouraged organizations to optimize their processes and products to reinforce long-term market stability.
Digitalization is a pressing necessity, with great potential to alter business sustainability practices. In different fields, digitalization has evolved as a vital tool that can simplify the difficulties in achieving sustainable performances and becoming more innovative. This aspect of the digital era digitally empowers organizations to become more aware, connected, and developed. The rise of these technologies has opened new avenues for organizations, which can help address the difficulties that may arise when trying to achieve a sustainable performance. The literature concludes that the advanced technological infrastructures of today’s firms have compelled researchers to measure the performance of sustainable organizations. In light of the gathered literature, we can formulate the following hypothesis:
H1. 
There is a positive and significant correlation between the corporate affinity for technology and sustainability.

2.3. Corporate Affinity for Technology and Organizational Digital Culture

In the era of the industrial revolution, the development of digital technologies became one of the most frequent trends across global economies. The “affinity for technology” encouraged firms to provide the world’s fastest automation services [30]. However, in the 21st century, digitalization has nurtured businesses to alter their concerns, shifting their focus to service delivery. Khin and Ho [31] suggest that today’s digital technologies have improved firms’ services, thus creating a need to establish a profound digital culture.
Digital culture supports firms’ technologies in achieving positive organizational outcomes [32]. As the core of digital transformation, an organization’s digital culture reshapes a firm’s process, structure, and business landscape. It accelerates a firm’s innovation process through the rigorous integration of digital technologies. Organizational culture is a critical factor that predicts the success of IT applications. Previously, various factors have facilitated IT adoption. An organization’s digital culture has emerged as a fundamental factor that emphasizes the need for technological development. Organizational culture can enhance or inhibit technological adoption, the latter of which would minimize digital risk and technology-related failures [33].
The corporate affinity for technology is a critical element of business operations that creates value for firms by helping them stay interconnected. Technology has prompted organizations to develop digital systems. To achieve this, organizations have drastically developed organizational digital cultures to expand their businesses. Today, technology has been thriving worldwide, thus enabling the foundation of digital culture to be built [34]. RBV emphasizes the importance of organizations adopting digital technologies that result in differentiation [35]. Organizational culture is one factor contributing to the need for digital transformation. Organizational culture influences a business’ beliefs, shared patterns, and values. Moreover, it enables businesses to connect with the digitalized world, thus facilitating an organization’s competence, performance, and innovative capabilities [36]. RBV enables firms to gain a sustainable competitive advantage through innovation and organizational culture.
In recent years, the vast application of advanced technologies has improved business competitiveness, thus making organizational digital culture a significant predictor of firms’ innovative capabilities. Given the role of digital culture, emerging technologies have enabled firms to channel their innovation processes through novel business practices. Digital culture has encouraged firms to use automation to mobilize their technological systems. It has redesigned the firms’ processes, structures, and activities through technological developments. Therefore, given the increasing significance of technologies, Trushkina et al. [37] suggest that today’s organizations should develop a digital culture with which to respond to emerging technologies with a positive attitude. Based on this view, together with the previous findings, we hypothesize the following:
H2. 
Corporate affinity for technology is positively correlated with organizational digital culture.

2.4. Corporate Affinity for Technology and Team Innovation Performance

In recent years, organizations’ technological attitudes have prompted team innovation performance to become the most debated topic among researchers. A positive corporate attitude towards technology causes firms to pay attention to their teams’ innovation performance. Over the years, concerning increased globalized rivalry, Park et al. [38] show that organizations have not realized the importance of innovative teams. Team innovation performance plays a critical role in fostering firms’ activities; hence, ICT innovation has become a dominant factor in accelerating organizational practices [39]. Regarding this scenario, Newman et al. [40] reveal that many organizations have promoted their innovation performances by replacing traditional business practices with novel digital procedures.
Innovation is acknowledged as a critical factor for a firm’s performance. Team innovation creates greater autonomy and creativity. The corporate affinity for technology plays a strategic role in organizations’ operations. Digital technology provides an advantage for the organization in that it enhances employee performance [41]. Indeed, technological capabilities pioneer radical improvements in employees’ performances. The team innovation performance enables employees to promote creativity and innovative ideas. Technology is critical in cultivating firms’ innovation performances [42]. Positive organizational attitudes enable emerging digital phenomena (i.e., affinity towards technology) foster business-related innovation processes. In today’s innovation-driven age, many organizations have realized the advantage of team innovation performance. A corporate affinity for technology is a critical aspect of team innovation performance. In light of this, Jun et al. [43] state that technology capabilities enhance firms’ team innovation performance. The corporate affinity for technology contributes to the firms’ innovation and development.
An organization’s technology orientation encourages firms to improve their offerings and innovative performance [44]. As a result, many organizations now show interest in enhancing team performance with innovative tools and techniques. Svastano et al. [45] suggest that recent technological adoptions have helped companies to foster a competitive information environment [46], to become more innovative, and to deliver an improved customer experience. Hence, based on the previous literature, the next hypothesis is as follows:
H3. 
Corporate affinity for technology is positively correlated with team innovation performance.

2.5. Organizational Digital Culture and Sustainable Performance

In recent years, advanced innovation has drastically improved firms’ organizational cultures, thus helping them exhibit sustainable performances [47]. Today, technology has caused organizations to alter their business practices, thus helping them develop sustainably [48]. Benitez et al. [49] state that by improving their sustainable performance, many organizations have built a digital culture which stimulates the firms’ sustainable practices. However, adapting to digital cultures is not necessarily a simple task. Its implementation demands the integration of new technologies, applications, and tools. A firm’s digital culture improves the firm’s activities, thereby generating new avenues for its sustainable development.
In particular, current technological advancements have compelled firms to establish an underlying mechanism of digitalization. To explain this, Martinez-Caro et al. [50] disclose that organizational digital culture drives firms’ sustainable performances, thereby helping firms achieve their digital objectives [50]. Significantly, due to their increasing role in business, many organizations are integrating sustainability phenomena into their digital cultures. Digital organizational culture plays a fundamental role in eradicating the barriers and hurdles in firms’ business performances. It serves as a significant driver of a firm’s sustainable performance. It enhances the firm’s values, technological characteristics, and behaviors, thus advancing its sustainable performance [51].
Furthermore, digital culture channels the firm’s actions, practices, and procedures, thus enhancing a firm’s sustainable performance. An organization’s digital culture ensures the acceptance of a new technology, and it facilitates a firm’s sustainable performance [52]. Moreover, Del Giuduce et al. [53] reveal that digital culture improves firms’ sustainable performances; thus, the next hypothesis is as follows:
H4. 
Sustainable performance is positively correlated with digital organizational culture.

2.6. The Mediating Role of Organizational Digital Culture

In previous decades, increasing globalization rapidly prompted organizations to establish a positive view on technology. Today, this vision of a digital future has prompted businesses to adopt novel technologies; thus, firms’ technologies have been redesigned to enhance business performance. As the world enters the era of digitalization, organizational activities have been radically altered using cutting-edge technologies. Using these modern technologies has improved firms’ efficiency and production systems, thus allowing them to achieve a sustainable performance [54]. As a result, today, researchers have become increasingly interested in digital technologies’ role in influencing firms’ sustainability performances [55]. The accelerated efficacy of firms in this regard has entirely revolutionized business practices, thus contributing to sustainable performances. In particular, the technological changes in business structures have prompted organizations to offer sustainable products and services [56].
Being a digital organization does not only mean providing digital products to customers. Indeed, digital culture demands that firms improve upon their traditional business activities with compatible digital technologies. Adopting new technologies encourages organizations to create a digital culture that supports firms’ sustainable growth [57]. The wide application of technologies prompts organizations to significantly revise their business processes, strategies, and activities to ensure they remain stable in the long term. When explaining this notion, Chege et al. [58] and Njoroge et al. [59] state that digital innovation has helped organizations achieve long-term stability.
The digital environment is critical to a firm’s digital capabilities; these capabilities balance the firm’s economic, social, and environmental impacts [60]. In recent years, the traditional business process has experienced a breakthrough due to massive technological innovation and growth. New technologies have drastically motivated organizations to develop a digital culture that profoundly contributes towards their sustainable performance [2]. Indeed, this growing consensus concerning the development of positive technological tools has significantly promoted the endurance of firms’ competitiveness and performances.
In conclusion, corporations’ affinity for technology has caused numerous changes to their business cultures. This accelerating phenomenon has prompted researchers to exploit the benefits of digital culture. In today’s digital environment, ICT technologies have raised levels of operational excellence, thus prompting the digital culture to accelerate the firms’ sustainable growth. Digital technology demands digital culture and digital capabilities. Digital culture responding to emerging technologies is the most accepted tool for managing firms’ sustainable performances [61]. Based on this statement, Martinez-Caro et al. [50] indicate that digital culture improves firms’ sustainable performances. Its effect on a firm’s sustainable performance enhances its core competencies, operations, innovations, and competitiveness [62]. Likewise, Manlio Del Giudice et al. [63] show that digital organizational culture enhances a firm’s technological capabilities, thus influencing the organization’s endurance. Overall, the adoption of technologies that favor business automation [64] compels firms to adopt novel digital tools to foster long-term business survival. Hence, in accordance with the aforementioned argument, the next hypothesis is as follows:
H4a. 
Corporate affinity for technology is mediated by organizational digital culture.

2.7. Team Innovation Performance and Sustainable Performance

In the 21st century, considerable changes in market conditions have led firms to create unique innovations. Innovation is a significant factor that is more comprehensive in real life. A firm’s innovative capabilities foster creative ideas in individuals, thus ensuring that the company becomes sustainable [9]. A team’s creativity significantly contributes to their firm’s innovative performance. A team’s innovation performance has a prominent effect on an individual’s creativity, thus influencing the firm’s sustainable performance. Khalili [65] reveals that innovation and creativity are strategic tools that reinforce a firm’s sustainable performance.
Significantly, an organization has several objectives to achieve. Among these, maintaining a sustainable performance is the fundamental goal of today’s organizations. In recent years, a firm’s sustainability has become the most important issue for businesses. The innovative capabilities of employees facilitate a firm’s operations. They strategically align with a firm’s services to enhance the organization’s sustainable growth. In this regard, Rauter et al. [66] explain that team innovation performance drives a firm’s sustainable performance. Team innovation performance impacts a firm’s sustainable performance. It acts as a roadmap which allows businesses to improve their innovation orientation [67]. It facilitates employee innovativeness, thus accelerating a firm’s sustainable performance [10]. Establishing a sustainable performance requires the firms’ teams to perform innovatively and creatively. Team innovation supports the premise that novel ideas promote a firm’s sustainable functioning. Team innovation facilitates business innovation in a sustainability context. Team innovation activities significantly enhance a firm’s performance. The team’s innovation capabilities ensure the firm’s growth and sustainability. It radically contributes to the employees’ capabilities, thus helping the firm to achieve a sustainable performance.
In the dynamic business environment, team innovation is critical to achieving a sustainable performance and competitiveness [68]. In recent years, team innovation has played an instrumental role in ensuring a firm’s sustainable performance. When explaining this concept, Awan et al. [69] indicate that team innovation performance significantly determines firms’ sustainability (e.g., ecological, economic, and social). In an era of competitiveness, innovation may thus be crucial for achieving and maintaining an organization’s performance [70]. A firm’s innovation performance drives the firm’s sustainability performance [71], thus prompting us to report a positive relationship between the two concepts. Overall, team innovation enhances the firm’s likelihood of a sustainable future [72]; thus, the next hypothesis is as follows:
H5. 
A positive correlation exists between team innovation performance and sustainable performance.

2.8. The Mediating Role of Team Innovation Performance

With the evolution of globalization, fierce market competition has increasingly compelled organizations to embrace novel business practices; this is considered to be key to sustainability. Technology plays a significant role in elevating the firms’ innovative performance. It extends the employees’ technical skills, thus making the organizations realize the need to learn about new systems. ICT fosters teams’ technical capabilities, thus prompting employees to perform in an innovative manner. The firms’ innovation performance helps employees value the significance of digital systema. Wiesbock and Hess [73] argue that digital innovation causes organizations to embrace creative ways of doing business.
However, working creatively and innovatively for business survival is a challenge. Employees play a significant role in enhancing firms’ creativity during competitive periods. In the current age of digitalization, customer demands are constantly changing at an alarming rate, thus requiring firms to innovate, which helps them become more sustainable. Innovation as a mechanism of sustainable performance, highlighted within the framework of RBV, enables businesses to achieve a competitive advantage and a sustainable performance. Team innovation performance encourages employees to meet market standards by suppressing competitors’ innovation abilities [74]. Therefore, to better anticipate market advantages, organizations should enhance their employees’ innovative capabilities and skills; this is becoming increasingly necessary [75].
As globalization has spread, new technologies have inevitably assisted firms’ innovative capabilities. Rapid technological changes have increasingly prompted organizations to become more innovative by adopting digital technologies [76]; this has caused significant progress to be made with regard to team innovation performance. In today’s society, advancing technological developments have significantly promoted firms’ sustainable performances. As this technological revolution continues, team innovation performance will also continue to be vital in terms of fostering firms’ performances. Digital technology adoption heavily influences team innovation and creativity. These digital capabilities have compelled businesses to exhibit superior innovative capabilities, thus ensuring long-term growth and performance [77]. Indeed, in recent years, ICT has become an essential determinant of a firm’s innovation performance. Chege et al. [58] disclose that ICT implementation in various sectors has improved team innovativeness, creativity, and productivity, which will ultimately ensure the enduring stability of a firm [58].
Technology is an essential tool that empowers the technical experience of the enterprise and supports its performance measures [78]. In recent years, the corporate affinity for technology has gained momentum in business by significantly contributing to organizational sustainability. Technology which has social, economic, and environmental consequences has become a key player in sustainable innovation performance [79]. A team’s innovations and modern digital advancements add value to the offerings of its firm. A team’s innovation performance capitalizes on the firm’s digital configuration, which produces positive outcomes. A firm’s innovative capability is a significant source enabling organizations to achieve enduring success. A firm’s digital vision governs the organization’s skills and enhances the firm’s sustainable performance [80]. Indeed, based on this view, Fernando et al. [81] demonstrate that the organization’s teams should perform with innovation in mind to achieve enduring stability and a sustainable performance.
H5a. 
Team innovation performance mediates the relationship between the corporate affinity for technology and sustainable performance.
There are a number of study hypotheses that are summarized and presented in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design, Population, and Sample Characteristics

This study uses a quantitative approach, using the questionnaire method. The data were collected from Chinese IT workers using a convenience sample method. The questionnaires were distributed among employees working in Chinese companies. Data were collected from the five Chinese cities of Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Beijing, and Nanjing due to their economic significance, population density, and diverse regional representation. Their varying stages of economic development allow for a comprehensive view of urban labor trends in China. Furthermore, their advanced infrastructure supports efficient data collection, resulting in robust, high-quality data.
A random sample of information technology sector organizations was selected, and data were collected from November 2021 to January 2022. Four hundred thirty online questionnaires were distributed among the employees, and 319 valid questionnaires were considered for the data analysis. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first part of the questionnaire concerned the employees’ demographic information, and the second part concerned the study’s measurement items. In this study, the questionnaire response rate was 75%. All the study participants gave informed consent before data collection. After the respondents’ approval, the demographic information of candidates was recorded for data analysis. No data were used for the researcher’s personal use; they were recorded only for academic purposes.
Table 1 shows the participants’ basic information. The results show that 319 employees participated in the survey. Of those 319 respondents, 145 were male, and 174 were female. Moreover, the statistics showed that all the participants belonged to different age groups. Indeed, 13.5% belonged to the 19–30 age group, 23.2% to the 31–14 age group, 28.2% were members of the 41–150 age group, 19.4% belonged to the 51–60 age group, and the remaining 15.7% of candidates were more than 60 years old. Additionally, as they were from different age groups, the candidates had different marital statuses and educational backgrounds; the majority of participants were held master’s degrees (i.e., 37%).

3.2. Data Analysis Software

This study used SMART-PLS software (Version 4.0) for proposed hypothesis testing and structural equational modeling (SEM) for conceptual model analysis. The items’ validity, reliability, and common method bias (Harman’s Single Factor) were tested before conducting path analysis.

3.3. Study Measures

In this study, we employed a previously developed scale for the questionnaire. This established tool was chosen because of its proven validity and reliability in measuring the intended variables. Its use allows for consistency and comparability with other similar studies, thus enhancing the overall credibility and utility of our research findings. The corporate affinity for technology was measured using the 8-item scale. The measurement items for corporate affinity were adapted from the study of Tjosvold et al. [82]. Organizational digital culture was measured on the 4-item scale which was adapted from the study of Martinez- Caro et al. [50]. Team innovation performance was assessed on the 8-item scale which was adapted from the study of Tjosvold et al. [82], and sustainable performance was assessed on the 5-item scale which was adapted from the work of Espino-Rodriguez and Taha [83].

4. Study Results

The measurement model evaluated convergent validity, discriminant validity, and internal consistency. The internal consistency was measured through the composite reliability of constructs; convergent validity was measured through the average variance extracted; and discriminant validity was measured using the Fornell–Larcker criterion and HTMT [84,85,86]. It is essential to mention that no item was deleted due to low loadings. In this study, the corporate affinity for technology has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.909. As shown in Table 2, the measurement item, SP_5, has the lowest Cronbach’s alpha, with a value of 0.704, whereas SP_4 has the highest Cronbach’s alpha, with a value of 0.785.
Table 3 shows the results of the discriminant validity analysis. Internal consistency indicates the consistency of items when subjected to the same test. This study measured the composite reliability of the construct to validate internal consistency. Previous studies suggested the acceptable range of composite reliability is 0.6 to 0.9.
Figure 2 shows the results of the measurement model. All the items have a Cronbach’s alpha value of more than 0.6.
As shown in Table 4, H1 states that the corporate affinity for technology positively and significantly affects sustainable performance. In this study, H1 was accepted and supported (β = 0.374, p < 0.05). H2 discusses the relationship between the corporate affinity for technology and the digital organizational culture. It proposes that the corporate affinity for technology positively impacts organizational digital culture (β = 0.753, p < 0.05); the hypothesis was accepted, in accordance with the results. H3 states that a positive and significant relationship between the corporate affinity for technology and team innovation performance exists. H3 was accepted at a value of β = 0.711, p < 0.05. The study’s fourth hypothesis (H4) stated that organizational digital culture significantly and positively affects sustainable performance. Hypothesis H4 was accepted with a value of β = 0.277, p < 0.05. H5 stated that a positive and significant relationship between team innovation performance and sustainable performance exists. H5 was accepted in this study (β = 0.282, p < 0.05).
Hypothesis 4a demonstrates that digital organizational culture mediates the relationship between the corporate affinity for technology and sustainable performance. H4a was accepted at a β-value of 0.209 and p < 0.05. Hypothesis H5a states that team innovation performance mediates the relationship between the corporate affinity for technology and sustainable performance. The results indicated that the relationship between team innovation performance, the corporate affinity for technology, and sustainable performance was mediated (β = 0.200, p < 0.05) (see Table 5). Figure 3 shows the results of the structural equation modeling.

5. Discussion

In recent years, discussion surrounding technological abilities has always been controversial. In previous studies that have studied these relationships, this paradox has inspired scholars to examine the factors linking digitalization to a firm’s sustainable performance in light of RBV theory [94]. Today, the sustainable performance of global organizations has drastically evolved with the changing business environment, wherein digital technologies have swept the business landscape with advanced innovations and tools. Regarding digitalization, technology is essential in terms of improving firms’ performances. According to Acosta-Prado and Tafur-Mendoza [95], the dynamic capability of technology ensures a company’s sustainable performance. The wide acceptance of digitalization enables the enterprise to showcase triple-bottom-line performance [96]. Therefore, due to its increasing significance, firms have realized the power of technology, thereby scaling up its adoption. Technology is a significant driver of a firm’s sustainable performance. In light of this, Acciaro et al. [97] showed that new technologies considerably favor business operations, thus ensuring a sustainable performance.
In the digital world, the corporate mindset has significantly shifted towards achieving a sustainable performance. Today, sustainability is increasingly gaining traction in the world’s major sectors, calling for firms to embrace novel tools to achieve a sustainable performance [98]. In this regard, a corporate affinity for technology has gained a strategic position as it has become essential for business survival. Recent technologies are a strategic key to firms’ sustainable performances. In this regard, Hie [99] revealed that the corporate affinity for technology has enabled companies to mature, thus emphasizing the need to develop a digital culture. Corporate technology adoption confirms the establishment of a digital culture. It strengthens corporations’ willingness to learn technologies and innovations [16]. Sung and Choi [100] indicate that when firms adopt new technologies, it enables employees to improve their knowledge and IT skills, thus facilitating an innovative performance.
Indeed, ICT-based capabilities have become a lifeline for most businesses. Concerning resource-based theory, this study presents effective results. As the corporate affinity for technology is considered to be the central component for enhancing a firm’s capability to innovate and become sustainable, this study confirms that it delivers a positive outcome in that it offers a superior competitive advantage. Sustainability is an extensive topic that currently encourages businesses to reach an outstanding level of innovation by advocating the importance of IT, organizational culture, and knowledgeable capabilities. Hence, our results support previous findings in this regard, potentially accepting H1, H2, and H3.
Accordingly, being a digital organization does not necessarily mean offering digital products, but it does mean that the organization should cultivate an empowering organizational culture that supports the firm’s core operations. An organization’s digital culture is fundamental to the firm’s sustainable performance [101]. It ensures the optimal use of the firms’ assets to provide a sustainable performance [102]. The adoption of digital technologies significantly transforms the organizational culture. Digitalized tools (e.g., ICT) create a flexible IT landscape, thus supporting digital culture and competence [103]. In recent years, establishing a digital organizational culture has become an effective way of maintaining the firms’ business performance using sustainability features. Therefore, organizations should transform their activities and behaviors to improve their performance. However, today, corporations’ affinity for technology has become a strategic paradigm which supports organizations’ sustainable performances [63]. The previous academic literature elucidates that technology adoption, with regard to organizational culture, improves firms’ sustainable performances. Over the past decade, many businesses have widely acknowledged the notion of the corporate affinity for technology. Businesses largely depend on the effects of digital technologies and innovation. Technology that models firms’ innovation models has massively nurtured the business concerns for sustainable performance. Indeed, Isenee et al. [48] state that corporations’ digital technologies significantly elevate firms’ sustainable performances. Moreover, our results also support these research findings, thus verifying the assumptions made in H4 and H4a.
In the same vein, the evolution of the new digital culture has made innovation performance apparent in everyday business activities. As mentioned in the previous literature, team innovation performance has emerged as a fundamental resource accelerating a firm’s business operations. In today’s organizational environment, developing a sustainable performance requires firms to work in an innovative team [66]. The innovative nature of a team can impact the firms’ activities and ensure a sustainable performance. Cizmas et al. [104] explain that team innovation performance increases a firm’s knowledge and enhances its processes and activities, thereby significantly improving firms’ enduring performances. Hence, the issue of maintaining firms’ sustainability has become a critical issue in today’s modern world. Furthermore, increasing digital capabilities have emerged as a fundamental tool influencing firms’ sustainable performances. Today, IT infrastructure has become central to driving employees’ innovation performances; it potentially leverages the firms’ innovation performances to achieve a sustainable performance [58] (i.e., H5 and H5a).
Indeed, traditional businesses have drastically shifted to digital technology. These technical changes have motivated organizations to focus on their core competencies, thus driving firms’ sustainability, cultures, and structures [105]. From the contingency perspective of RBV, this section concludes that aspects of organizations are complementary, and that they produce different outcomes using digital technologies. The study accepts the openness of the organizational culture and ICT in terms of their contributions to responsible team innovation performance and sustainable performance. This study supports the previous literature by stating that digital technology has transformed business functions, thus enhancing firms’ sustainability [106], innovative performance, and culture [107]. In conclusion, our findings concerning firms’ sustainable performances were supported and acceptable.

5.1. Study Implications and Contributions

The study clearly explains that a corporation’s affinity for technology impacts firms’ sustainable performances. It presented a framework that aims to inspire the acceptance and use of technology systems during the development of an organization’s culture. More specifically, it is a unique contribution that details the factors that enhance a firm’s performance. To the best of our knowledge, it is a valuable addition to the literature that explains digital technology applications in terms of team innovation performance, organizations’ digital cultures, and sustainability. Fundamentally, this research extensively studies the critical factors that encourage organizations to streamline their practices by adopting innovative tools and technologies.
Undoubtedly, companies embracing digital transformation bring numerous benefits to stakeholders; the outcomes of this study guide organizations, management, researchers, policymakers, and professionals in this regard. From a managerial perspective, the study’s findings allow managers to understand the role of technology in terms of building a digital organizational culture and achieving a sustainable performance. The results compel firms to value novel tools (e.g., ICT) which enhance their sustainable and innovative performance. The study advises organization members to devise policies for technological acceptance. In particular, it recommends developing a culture that values technological and team innovation performance. In conclusion, companies can use these findings to achieve a sustainable performance, build the organization’s digital culture, and enhance team innovation.

5.2. Limitations and Future Avenues

The current study also has some limitations. First, the data were collected from employees in the information technology sector; second, we considered five major cities in China. Future studies should be conducted in different service sectors, such as banks, and cross-culture studies will provide more in-depth results. Our positive results will encourage future scholars to conduct this research worldwide, in different sectors, in a sustainability context. Studying and analyzing these variables can greatly benefit researchers, policymakers, professionals, and organizations worldwide. These research findings may allow stakeholders to value modern technological innovations through the realization that building a digital culture for team innovation and sustainable performance is beneficial.

6. Conclusions

Advancements in digitalization have significantly increased organizations’ demand for digital innovation. Building sustainable performances using firms’ technological structures may inspire corporations’ affinity for technology, which may improve their innovation performance. Organizations have rapidly embraced digital technologies to increase their sustainable performance. Maintaining a sustainable performance has become an immediate need in today’s organizations. This study provides a comprehensive view of different variables that support the notion of sustainability. The outcomes of the study show significant links between technology affinity, sustainable performance, digital organizational culture, and team innovation performance. Moreover, it indicates that digital organizational culture has a positive and significant effect on sustainable performance, team innovation, and sustainable performance. The study also notes that digital organization culture and team innovation performance play positive mediating roles in sustainable performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.D.B. and M.S.; methodology, M.S.; software, D.D.B.; validation, L.I. and D.D.B.; investigation, M.S.; resources, L.I.; Supervision, D.D.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.P.; visualization, supervision, D.D.B. and L.I.; Funding acquisition, M.S. and M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is supported by the Scientific Research Start-up Fund of Zhejiang Shuren University, China (KXJ0122604).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Committee of School of Management, Zhejiang Shuren University, China.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Raj, A.; Dwivedi, G.; Sharma, A.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Rajak, S. Barriers to the adoption of industry 4.0 technologies in the manufacturing sector: An inter-country comparative perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 224, 107546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nayal, K.; Raut, R.D.; Yadav, V.S.; Priyadarshinee, P.; Narkhede, B.E. The impact of sustainable development strategy on sustainable supply chain firm performance in the digital transformation era. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2022, 31, 845–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Brenner, B.; Hartl, B. The perceived relationship between digitalization and ecological, economic, and social sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hizam-Hanafiah, M.; Soomro, M.A. The Situation of Technology Companies in Industry 4.0 and the Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sony, M.; Naik, S. Key ingredients for evaluating Industry 4.0 readiness for organizations: A literature review. Benchmarking Int. J. 2019, 27, 2213–2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lee, K.L.; Azmi, N.A.N.; Hanaysha, J.R.; Alzoubi, H.M.; Alshurideh, M.T. The effect of digital supply chain on organizational performance: An empirical study in Malaysia manufacturing industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2022, 10, 495–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Skordoulis, M.; Ntanos, S.; Kyriakopoulos, G.L.; Arabatzis, G.; Galatsidas, S.; Chalikias, M. Environmental Innovation, Open Innovation Dynamics and Competitive Advantage of Medium and Large-Sized Firms. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jordão, R.V.D.; Novas, J.C. Information and Knowledge Management, Intellectual Capital, and Sustainable Growth in Networked Small and Medium Enterprises. J. Knowl. Econ. 2023, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jordão, R.V.D.; Novas, J.; Gupta, V. The role of knowledge-based networks in the intellectual capital and organizational performance of small and medium-sized enterprises. Kybernetes 2020, 49, 116–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jordão, R.V.D.; de Almeida, V.R.; Novas, J. Intellectual capital, sustainable economic and financial performance and value creation in emerging markets: The case of Brazil. Bottom Line 2022, 35, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. León, H.C.M.; Calvo-Amodio, J. Towards lean for sustainability: Understanding the interrelationships between lean and sustainability from a systems thinking perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 4384–4402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Núñez-Merino, M.; Maqueira-Marín, J.M.; Moyano-Fuentes, J.; Martínez-Jurado, P.J. Information and digital technologies of Industry 4.0 and Lean supply chain management: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 5034–5061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sarfraz, M.; Shah, S.G.M.; Fareed, Z.; Shahzad, F. Demonstrating the interconnection of hierarchical order disturbances in CEO succession with corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2956–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Waheed, A.; Miao, X.; Waheed, S.; Ahmad, N.; Majeed, A. How New HRM Practices, Organizational Innovation, and Innovative Climate Affect the Innovation Performance in the IT Industry: A Moderated-Mediation Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Segarra-Ciprés, M.; Escrig-Tena, A.; García-Juan, B. Employees’ proactive behavior and innovation performance. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2019, 22, 866–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Duerr, S.; Holotiuk, F.; Wagner, H.-T.; Beimborn, D.; Weitzel, T. What Is Digital Organizational Culture? Insights Explor. Case Stud. 2018, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Grover, V.; Tseng, S.-L.; Pu, W. A theoretical perspective on organizational culture and digitalization. Inf. Manag. 2022, 59, 103639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. AlMulhim, A.F. Smart supply chain and firm performance: The role of digital technologies. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 2021, 27, 1353–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cho, B.; Ryoo, S.Y.; Kim, K.K. Interorganizational dependence, information transparency in interorganizational information systems, and supply chain performance. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2017, 26, 185–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Cuthbertson, R.W.; Furseth, P.I. Digital services and competitive advantage: Strengthening the links between RBV, KBV, and innovation. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 152, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sharma, A.; Jain, D.K. Development of Industry 4.0. In A Roadmap to Industry 4.0: Smart Production, Sharp Business and Sustainable Development; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nayal, K.; Raut, R.; Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S.; Narkhede, B.E.; Gedam, V.V. Integrated technologies toward sustainable agriculture supply chains: Missing links. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021, 1–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jaaron, A.A.M.; Backhouse, C.J. Fostering sustainable performance in services through systems thinking. Serv. Ind. J. 2019, 39, 1072–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, L.; Ye, F.; Zhan, Y.; Kumar, A.; Schiavone, F.; Li, Y. Unraveling the performance puzzle of digitalization: Evidence from manufacturing firms. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 149, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, S.; Sun, L.; Sun, Q.; Dong, H. Impact of novel information technology on IT alignment and sustainable supply chain performance: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing industry. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2022, 37, 461–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hassan, M.G.; Akanmu, D.; Yusoff, R.Z. Technological Integration and Sustainable Performance in Manufacturing Firms. Int. J. Technol. 2018, 9, 1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Childe, S.J. Big data analytics capability in supply chain agility. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 2092–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Munim, Z.H.; Dushenko, M.; Jimenez, V.J.; Shakil, M.H.; Imset, M. Big data and artificial intelligence in the maritime industry: A bibliometric review and future research directions. Marit. Policy Manag. 2020, 47, 577–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Al-Mashhadani, A.F.S.; Qureshi, M.I.; Hishan, S.S.; Saad, M.S.M.; Vaicondam, Y.; Khan, N. Towards the Development of Digital Manufacturing Ecosystems for Sustainable Performance: Learning from the Past Two Decades of Research. Energies 2021, 14, 2945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Frank, A.G.; Dalenogare, L.S.; Ayala, N.F. Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 210, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Khin, S.; Ho, T.C. Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2019, 11, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Müller, S.D.; Obwegeser, N.; Glud, J.V.; Johildarson, G. Digital Innovation and Organizational Culture: The Case of a Danish Media Company. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 2019, 31, 1. [Google Scholar]
  33. Cichosz, M.; Wallenburg, C.M.; Knemeyer, A.M. Digital transformation at logistics service providers: Barriers, success factors and leading practices. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2020, 31, 209–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Inegbedion, H.E. Digital divide in the major regions of the world and the possibility of convergence. Bottom Line 2021, 34, 68–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Aaldering, L.J.; Song, C.H. Of leaders and laggards-Towards digitalization of the process industries. Technovation 2021, 105, 102211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hautala-Kankaanpää, T. The impact of digitalization on firm performance: Examining the role of digital culture and the effect of supply chain capability. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 2022, 28, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Trushkina, N.; Abazov, R.; Rynkevych, N.; Bakhautdinova, G. Digital Transformation of Organizational Culture under Conditions of the Information Economy. Virtual Econ. 2020, 3, 7–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Park, J.; Díaz-Posada, N.; Mejía-Dugand, S. Challenges in implementing the extended producer responsibility in an emerging economy: The end-of-life tire management in Colombia. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 754–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oeij, P.R.; van der Torre, W.; Vaas, F.; Dhondt, S. Understanding social innovation as an innovation process: Applying the innovation journey model. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Newman, A.; Nielsen, I.; Smyth, R.; Hirst, G. Mediating Role of Psychological Capital in the Relationship between Social Support and Wellbeing of Refugees. Int. Migr. 2018, 56, 117–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pradana, M.; Silvianita, A.; Syarifuddin, S.; Renaldi, R. The Implication of Digital Organisational Culture on Firm Performance. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 840699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tong, T.; Rahman, A.A. Effect of Innovation Orientation of High-Tech SMEs “Small and Mid-Sized Enterprises in China” on Innovation Performance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jun, W.; Nasir, M.H.; Yousaf, Z.; Khattak, A.; Yasir, M.; Javed, A.; Shirazi, S.H. Innovation performance in digital economy: Does digital platform capability, improvisation capability and organizational readiness really matter? Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2022, 25, 1309–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Adams, P.; Freitas, I.M.B.; Fontana, R. Strategic orientation, innovation performance and the moderating influence of marketing management. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 97, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Savastano, M.; Bellini, F.; D’ascenzo, F.; De Marco, M. Technology adoption for the integration of online–offline purchasing. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2019, 47, 474–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Eze, S.C.; Olatunji, S.; Chinedu-Eze, V.C.; Bello, A.O.; Ayeni, A.; Peter, F. Determinants of perceived information need for emerging ICT adoption. Bottom Line 2019, 32, 158–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Chowdhury, S.; Dey, P.K.; Rodríguez-Espíndola, O.; Parkes, G.; Tuyet, N.T.A.; Long, D.D.; Ha, T.P. Impact of Organisational Factors on the Circular Economy Practices and Sustainable Performance of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Vietnam. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 147, 362–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Isensee, C.; Teuteberg, F.; Griese, K.-M.; Topi, C. The relationship between organizational culture, sustainability, and digitalization in SMEs: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 122944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Benitez, J.; Chen, Y.; Teo, T.S.; Ajamieh, A. Evolution of the impact of e-business technology on operational competence and firm profitability: A panel data investigation. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Martínez-Caro, E.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.G.; Alfonso-Ruiz, F.J. Digital technologies and firm performance: The role of digital organisational culture. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 154, 119962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tseng, M.-L.; Islam, M.S.; Karia, N.; Fauzi, F.A.; Afrin, S. A literature review on green supply chain management: Trends and future challenges. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 141, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. He, Z.; Huang, H.; Choi, H.; Bilgihan, A. Building organizational resilience with digital transformation. J. Serv. Manag. 2023, 34, 147–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Del Giudice, M.; Scuotto, V.; Garcia-Perez, A.; Petruzzelli, A.M. Shifting Wealth II in Chinese economy. The effect of the horizontal technology spillover for SMEs for international growth. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 145, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ceipek, R.; Hautz, J.; Petruzzelli, A.M.; De Massis, A.; Matzler, K. A motivation and ability perspective on engagement in emerging digital technologies: The case of Internet of Things solutions. Long Range Plan. 2021, 54, 101991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, Y.; Dai, J.; Cui, L. The impact of digital technologies on economic and environmental performance in the context of industry 4.0: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 229, 107777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ukko, J.; Nasiri, M.; Saunila, M.; Rantala, T. Sustainability strategy as a moderator in the relationship between digital business strategy and financial performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Foss, N.J.; Saebi, T. Business models and business model innovation: Between wicked and paradigmatic problems. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chege, S.M.; Wang, D.; Suntu, S.L. Impact of information technology innovation on firm performance in Kenya. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2020, 26, 316–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Njoroge, M.; Anderson, W.; Mbura, O.K. Innovation strategy and economic sustainability in the hospitality industry. Bottom Line 2019, 32, 253–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gomez-Trujillo, A.M.; Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. Digital transformation as a strategy to reach sustainability. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2022, 11, 1137–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhen, Z.; Yousaf, Z.; Radulescu, M.; Yasir, M. Nexus of Digital Organizational Culture, Capabilities, Organizational Readiness, and Innovation: Investigation of SMEs Operating in the Digital Economy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Srisathan, W.A.; Ketkaew, C.; Naruetharadhol, P. The intervention of organizational sustainability in the effect of organizational culture on open innovation performance: A case of thai and chinese SMEs. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1717408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Del Giudice, M.; Di Vaio, A.; Hassan, R.; Palladino, R. Digitalization and new technologies for sustainable business models at the ship–port interface: A bibliometric analysis. Marit. Policy Manag. 2022, 49, 410–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Clott, C.; Hartman, B.; Beidler, B. Sustainable blockchain technology in the maritime shipping industry. In Maritime Supply Chains; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Khalili, A. Creativity and innovation through LMX and personal initiative. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2018, 31, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rauter, R.; Globocnik, D.; Perl-Vorbach, E.; Baumgartner, R.J. Open innovation and its effects on economic and sustainability innovation performance. J. Innov. Knowl. 2019, 4, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. 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. Strat. Environ. 2021, 30, 4237–4257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lemmetty, S.; Glăveanu, V.P.; Collin, K.; Forsman, P. (Un)Sustainable Creativity? Different Manager-Employee Perspectives in the Finnish Technology Sector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Awan, U.; Sroufe, R.; Kraslawski, A. Creativity enables sustainable development: Supplier engagement as a boundary condition for the positive effect on green innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 172–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chege, S.M.; Wang, D. The influence of technology innovation on SME performance through environmental sustainability practices in Kenya. Technol. Soc. 2020, 60, 101210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, Z.; Zhu, H.; Zhou, Z.; Zou, K. How does innovation matter for sustainable performance? Evidence from small and medium-sized enterprises. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 153, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Silvestre, B.S.; Ţîrcă, D.M. Innovations for sustainable development: Moving toward a sustainable future. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wiesböck, F.; Hess, T. Digital innovations. Electron. Mark. 2020, 30, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Ben Amara, D.; Chen, H. A mediation-moderation model of environmental and eco-innovation orientation for sustainable business growth. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 16916–16928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lee, C.; Hallak, R.; Sardeshmukh, S.R. Creativity and innovation in the restaurant sector: Supply-side processes and barriers to implementation. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 31, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shin, H.; Perdue, R.R.; Kang, J. Front desk technology innovation in hotels: A managerial perspective. Tour. Manag. 2019, 74, 310–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Toassi, R.; Maciel, F. Analysis of Technology Services Growth: An Innovation Capabilities Approach. 2019. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13048/1765 (accessed on 2 March 2023).
  78. Jordão, R.V.D. Editorial: Information, knowledge, and technology in developing economies in times of crises. Bottom Line 2022, 35, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Guo, R.; Lv, S.; Liao, T.; Xi, F.; Zhang, J.; Zuo, X.; Cao, X.; Feng, Z.; Zhang, Y. Classifying green technologies for sustainable innovation and investment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Borah, P.S.; Iqbal, S.; Akhtar, S. Linking social media usage and SME’s sustainable performance: The role of digital leadership and innovation capabilities. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fernando, Y.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Wah, W.-X. Pursuing green growth in technology firms through the connections between environmental innovation and sustainable business performance: Does service capability matter? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 141, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tjosvold, D.; Tang, M.M.L.; West, M. Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence. Gr. Organ. Manag. 2004, 29, 540–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Espino-Rodríguez, T.F.; Taha, M.G. Supplier innovativeness in supply chain integration and sustainable performance in the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 100, 103103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Lease Squares Structural Equation Modeling(PLS-SEM); Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  85. Khawaja, K.F.; Sarfraz, M.; Rashid, M.; Rashid, M. How is COVID-19 pandemic causing employee withdrawal behavior in the hospitality industry? An empirical investigation. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2022, 5, 687–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Abdullah, M.I.; Huang, D.; Sarfraz, M.; Ivascu, L.; Riaz, A. Effects of internal service quality on nurses’ job satisfaction, commitment and performance: Mediating role of employee well-being. Nurs. Open 2021, 8, 607–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice for Structural Equation Modelling, 3rd ed.; Guildford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  88. Steiger, J.H. Structural Model Evaluation and Modification: An Interval Estimation Approach. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1990, 25, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 88, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bollen, K.A. Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 107, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tucker, L.R.; Lewis, C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 1973, 38, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  94. Sarfraz, M.; Ye, Z.; Dragan, F.; Ivascu, L.; Artene, A. Digital Transformation Strategy and Environmental Performance: A Case Study. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 2022, 17, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Acosta-Prado, J.C.; Tafur-Mendoza, A.A. Examining the mediating role of dynamic capabilities in the relationship between information and communication technologies and sustainable performance. VINE J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst. 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Giang, N.P.; Tam, M.H.T.; Ngan, M.L.T.H. Triple Bottom Line (Tbl) Performance fromSustainable Reporting Perspective. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 2022, 6, 11528–11543. [Google Scholar]
  97. Acciaro, M.; Ferrari, C.; Lam, J.S.; Macario, R.; Roumboutsos, A.; Sys, C.; Tei, A.; Vanelslander, T. Are the innovation processes in seaport terminal operations successful? Marit. Policy Manag. 2018, 45, 787–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Neri, A.; Cagno, E.; Lepri, M.; Trianni, A. A triple bottom line balanced set of key performance indicators to measure the sustainability performance of industrial supply chains. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 648–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Hie, B.P. Impact of transforming organizational culture and digital transformation governance toward digital maturity in indonesian bank. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2019, 9, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Sung, S.Y.; Choi, J.N. Effects of training and development on employee outcomes and firm innovative performance: Moderating roles of voluntary participation and evaluation. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 57, 1339–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Younus, A.M.; Raju, V. Resilient features of organizational culture in implementation of smart contract technology blockchain in iraqi gas and oil companies. Int. J. Qual. Res. 2021, 15, 435–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Hadi, S.; Baskaran, S. Examining sustainable business performance determinants in Malaysia upstream petroleum industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hess, T. Creating the Conditions for Digital Transformation. In Managing the Digital Transformation; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2022; pp. 99–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Cizmaș, E.; Feder, E.-S.; Maticiuc, M.-D.; Vlad-Anghel, S. Team Management, Diversity, and Performance as Key Influencing Factors of Organizational Sustainable Performance. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Shin, J.; Mollah, A.; Choi, J. Sustainability and Organizational Performance in South Korea: The Effect of Digital Leadership on Digital Culture and Employees’ Digital Capabilities. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sarfraz, M.; Ye, Z.; Banciu, D.; Dragan, F.; Ivascu, L. Intertwining Digitalization and Sustainable Performance via the Mediating Role of Digital Transformation and the Moderating Role of FinTech Behavior Adoption. Stud. Inform. Control. 2022, 31, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sarfraz, M.; Ivascu, L.; Abdullah, M.I.; Ozturk, I.; Tariq, J. Exploring a Pathway to Sustainable Performance in Manufacturing Firms: The Interplay between Innovation Capabilities, Green Process, Product Innovations and Digital Leadership. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 09765 g001 550
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of the study.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of the study.
Sustainability 15 09765 g001
Sustainability 15 09765 g002 550
Figure 2. Measurement Model.
Figure 2. Measurement Model.
Sustainability 15 09765 g002
Sustainability 15 09765 g003 550
Figure 3. Structural model.
Figure 3. Structural model.
Sustainability 15 09765 g003
Table
Table 1. Study Participants’ Demographics.
Table 1. Study Participants’ Demographics.
ItemsFrequency (N = 319)(%)
Gender
Male14545.5
Female17454.5
Age
19–304313.5
31–407423.2
41–509028.2
51–606219.4
Over 605015.7
Education
Intermediate5316.6
Bachelors11335.4
Masters11837
MPhil/Others3511
Marital Status
Single4915.4
Married27084.6
Table
Table 2. Model Fit, Reliability, and Validity Analysis.
Table 2. Model Fit, Reliability, and Validity Analysis.
Model Fit Indexes
Fit IndexCitedFit CriteriaResultsFit (Yes/No)
χ2 273.935
DF 269
χ2/DF[87] 1.00–5.001.018Yes
RMSEA[88] <0.080.008Yes
SRMR[89]<0.08 0.033Yes
NFI[90]>0.800.940Yes
IFI[91]>0.900.933Yes
TLI[92]>0.900.999Yes
CFI[93]>0.900.999Yes
Alpha, Composite Reliability, and Validity Analysis
ConstructItemsLoadingAlphaCRAVE
>0.704>0.7>0.7>0.5
Corporate Affinity for TechnologyCAT_10.748 ***0.9090.9090.556
CAT_20.778 ***
CAT_30.744 ***
CAT_40.722 ***
CAT_50.727 ***
CAT_60.732 ***
CAT_70.769 ***
CAT_80.744 ***
Organizational Digital CultureODC_10.740 ***0.8320.8320.553
ODC_20.729 ***
ODC_30.739 ***
ODC_40.767 ***
Team Innovation PerformanceTIP_10.756 ***0.9100.9100.560
TIP_20.719 ***
TIP_30.776 ***
TIP_40.755 ***
TIP_50.766 ***
TIP_60.760 ***
TIP_70.730 ***
TIP_80.720 ***
Sustainable PerformanceSP_10.777 ***0.8610.8610.554
SP_20.718 ***
SP_30.736 ***
SP_40.785 ***
SP_50.704 ***
*** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Fornel–Larcker and HTMT Analysis.
Table 3. Fornel–Larcker and HTMT Analysis.
ConstructsMeanSD1234
1. Corporate Affinity for Technology3.6450.8220.746
2. Organizational Digital Culture3.6420.8520.6790.744
3. Team Innovation Performance3.6480.8360.6580.6590.748
4. Sustainable Performance3.6570.8720.7050.6690.6750.745
Table
Table 4. Direct testing of the hypotheses.
Table 4. Direct testing of the hypotheses.
βSET-Valuep-Value
H1CAT → SP0.3740.0685.500***
H2CAT → ODC 0.7530.03819.816***
H3CAT → TIP0.7110.04715.128***
H4ODC → SP0.2770.0713.901***
H5TIP → SP0.2820.0624.548***
*** p < 0.001, SE = Standard Error, SP = Sustainable performance, CAT = corporate affinity for technology; ODC = Organization digital culture, TIP = Team innovation performance.
Table
Table 5. Mediated testing of the hypotheses.
Table 5. Mediated testing of the hypotheses.
Mediating βLLULp-Value
Relationships
H4aCAT → ODC → SP0.2090.1330.320***
H5aCAT → TIP → SP0.2000.1420.309***
*** p < 0.001; LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bhatta, D.D.; Sarfraz, M.; Ivascu, L.; Pislaru, M. The Nexus of Corporate Affinity for Technology and Firm Sustainable Performance in the Era of Digitalization: A Mediated Model. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129765

AMA Style

Bhatta DD, Sarfraz M, Ivascu L, Pislaru M. The Nexus of Corporate Affinity for Technology and Firm Sustainable Performance in the Era of Digitalization: A Mediated Model. Sustainability. 2023; 15(12):9765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129765

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bhatta, Dharm Dev, Muddassar Sarfraz, Larisa Ivascu, and Marius Pislaru. 2023. "The Nexus of Corporate Affinity for Technology and Firm Sustainable Performance in the Era of Digitalization: A Mediated Model" Sustainability 15, no. 12: 9765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129765

APA Style

Bhatta, D. D., Sarfraz, M., Ivascu, L., & Pislaru, M. (2023). The Nexus of Corporate Affinity for Technology and Firm Sustainable Performance in the Era of Digitalization: A Mediated Model. Sustainability, 15(12), 9765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129765

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop