Next Article in Journal
A Credit Risk Contagion Intensity Model of Supply Chain Enterprises under Different Credit Modes
Next Article in Special Issue
Employees Perceptions about Corporate Social Responsibility—Understanding CSR and Job Engagement through Meaningfulness, Bottom-Up Approach and Calling Orientation
Previous Article in Journal
Constructing a Decision Model for Health Club Members to Purchase Coaching Programs during the COVID-19 Epidemic
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainable International Expansion via Cooperation Networks in the Manufacturing Industries
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainability-Oriented Innovation Foresight in International New Technology Based Firms

by
Aidin Salamzadeh
1,*,
Morteza Hadizadeh
2,
Niloofar Rastgoo
1,
Md. Mizanur Rahman
3 and
Soodabeh Radfard
1
1
Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran 141556311, Iran
2
Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran 1983969411, Iran
3
BRAC Business School, BRAC University, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(20), 13501; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013501
Submission received: 19 August 2022 / Revised: 14 October 2022 / Accepted: 16 October 2022 / Published: 19 October 2022

Abstract

:
Rapid technological advances give rise to the development of New Technology-Based Firms (NTBFs) which are focused on technology-based business models. One of the concerns is the changing pace of technology adoption and its impact on shortening the life cycle of goods and services based on technology. Technology tends to create more integration among communities, businesses, goods, and services. This integration can be seen in the substantial increase of firms, especially NTBFs, striving to improve international relations. In this regard, addressing the sustainability dimensions in light of technological change is of universal interest. Some studies highlight the role of technology in terms of its environmental impacts, whereas others describe technology as the main driving force of businesses towards innovation, which can lead to sustainability. This paper aims to examine international NTBFs to determine the factors, key drivers, and uncertainties impacting sustainability-oriented innovations concerning their encounter with technology and ultimately plan future scenarios for international NTBFs based on sustainability-oriented innovations. The description of the scenarios shows the importance of innovation development in digital technologies and the expansion of international relations, which is realized by using digital platforms. In addition to accelerating knowledge and innovation development to gain more key partners, we would observe target market expansion, cost reduction, and sustainability growth for international NTBFs. Identifying drivers and uncertainties and the future-oriented approach of this research provide insight to International NTBFs owners into realizing sustainability-oriented innovation by increasing their awareness of the opportunities and interventions to build capacity at the conceptualization and project management levels.

1. Introduction

Sustainable development has become a prerequisite for any organization that embeds sustainability in its processes [1]. Sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” [2]. Besides, innovation is critical for securing sustainable growth through improved productivity [3]. Meanwhile, based on previous research, sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) requires different conditions in different contexts [4]. In research and development, sustainability and innovation, which are key elements of the European Union’s research and innovation framework programs, are interrelated, and when it comes to technology, they become of even greater importance [5]. It is noteworthy that technological innovations take precedence over non-technological innovations [3]. Technological innovation is considered a mechanism to exploit the transformative potential of various technological tools and advanced information and communication technology [6]. On the one hand, SOI exists at different levels but is often understood through technology development and inventions, where the focus is on products, processes, and system infrastructure [7]. On the other hand, this field is highly dynamic, driving businesses to identify emerging technologies of vital importance so as to evaluate opportunities and set strategic priorities [8]. Thus, technological innovation, which enables firms to realize high profits, is imperative for emerging markets [9].
Generally, NTBFs attempt to exploit and commercialize promising emerging technologies. Offering innovative products and services, NTBFs can create value for their customers, target investors and gain sustainable growth [10,11]. They are spreading globally at an increasing rate, and some of the world’s leading companies are actively investing in them or even integrating them into their structure [12]. Simultaneously, emerging technologies rapidly expand and evolve, and NTBFs have the potential to respond quickly to such technological changes [13] so far as the commercialization of specialized knowledge and technologies created by NTBFs has attracted the attention of international entrepreneurs. These companies will be more successful in benefiting from international opportunities considering their entrepreneurial orientation and technological capabilities [14,15,16]. Though the world is becoming smaller and more connected, the supply chains have become longer and more complex. Businesses worldwide, via technology development, aspire to connect to these supply chains and embrace the opportunities in the global market [17]. Notably, NTBFs produce new technologies and apply them operationally to the sectors in which innovative approaches appear to have slowed, contributing to the innovative development of products and services, which is an integral precondition for long-term growth and sustainability [3,18]. Additionally, innovation is a competency conducive to the international development of these businesses and acts as an effective driver for internal changes and resource adaptation as a means to achieve sustainable growth in international markets [19]. It plays a vital role in the internationalization process of new international ventures [INVs] [20].
Previous studies have mostly focused on understanding the dimensions of sustainable innovations and drawing meaningful relationships in consolidating this issue (see Table 1). Nevertheless, the following gaps have been identified in the literature, which will be covered partially in this study. First, research on innovative green production models and strategies, with an emphasis on the role of technology, has been carried out. Nevertheless, such studies have overlooked the international NTBFs (e.g., the new concept of sustainable innovation within recycling to improve waste management, without paying attention to SOI in international NTBFs). Secondly, several studies have examined the sustainable supply chain with an emphasis on environmentally friendly approaches generally focused on supply chain management under green investment [21]. However, investigating the effects of international relations among sustainable business owners as a strategy has rarely received attention. Thirdly, a few studies have focused on production management system analysis in terms of environmental sustainability and participation in activities involving the social responsibility of firms [22]. Therefore, examining SOI and its focus on international NTBFs is the contribution of this paper. Furthermore, this paper systematically analyzes a wide range of social, technological, environmental, economic and political developments to identify and investigate the drivers and uncertainties using the STEEP model. The literature review examines how to operationalize sustainability-oriented innovation in the internationalization of NTBFs and offers scenario-based strategies. Finally, one of the challenges that INTBFs face is the rapid introduction of new technologies. In this process, old products quickly become obsolete, and as a result, their demand in the market decreases sharply, which leads to a reduction in the life cycles of products and an increase in the uncertainty of the environment due to higher waste generation levels. This problem is greater for innovative green products than for non-green primary products, which are initially characterized by rapid technological development and low adoption rates among consumers [23]. Thus, a focal point of this research is to identify factors affecting the realization of sustainability-oriented innovation in INTBFs and the effective application of these factors to plan development scenarios.
It is noteworthy that venturing into foreign markets is associated with considerable uncertainty and enormous investment [24]. Therefore, foresight is an essential tool for analyzing potential changes. Additionally, it is argued that to gain a deep understanding of the unseen future problems, companies must identify trends, audit their external environment, and facilitate dialogue and interaction among the key players with different perspectives [25,26]. Foresight helps to rethink policy essential for the transition to sustainability [27]. It is a core function of science and technology governance [28]. The European Commission’s recent proposal for Horizon Europe [29] was the first proposal based on foresight to design an EU framework program for research and innovation: the BOHEMIA project. The BOHEMIA project played a major role in including Sustainable Development Goals in the program.
Employing a foresight approach, this study examines sustainability-oriented innovation in terms of international development in technology-based firms. The scenarios resulting from this research approach in the field of sustainability and environmental issues, technology application, international development and green investment and strategic planning can be adopted by technology-based firms. These strategies can increase the provision of market services for the benefit of sustainable management and increase the possibility of international interactions at the level of technology business owners. In addition, the foresight approach in the formation of sustainability and technology use can be applied by modifying the approach to product production and providing services that comply with the requirements of green sustainability so they are both accepted by customers and effective in reducing waste.
Below is a brief overview of the key concepts and the main research question. The research methodology is then explained. The final section is dedicated to the discussion, conclusion, limitations, and implications of the study.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainability-Oriented Innovation

The accelerating pace of life and globalization necessitates cooperation between countries on common environmental issues and sustainable development [36]. The term sustainable development was first introduced at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 [37]. The concept of sustainability was defined by the Brundtland Report in 1987 as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” [38]. The report also widely discussed opportunities for sustainability-oriented innovation, noting the importance of companies creating, redesigning, adapting, and diffusing environmentally friendly technologies [39]. Sustainability-oriented innovation [SOI] “involves making deliberate changes in an organization’s philosophy and values, as well as in its products, processes, or practices, to serve the specific purpose of creating and utilizing social and environmental value in addition to economic returns.” [40]. Increasingly, NTBFs follow corporate sustainability principles, generally described as integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions. As to innovation management, this emphasizes the role of sustainability-oriented innovations [SOI]. SOI is can be considered a tool for addressing sustainability issues and tapping into new markets [41,42].
In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly approved the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development including 17 Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs]. Based on the principle of “leaving no one behind”, the new program emphasizes a comprehensive approach to attain sustainable development for all. These goals include economic, social, and environmental development. In SDG-9 and SDG-10, innovation and interaction among countries are emphasized; each country needs to create economies with inclusive and sustainable industries where innovation is facilitated and flexible, and sustainable infrastructure exists [43]. The development of research and innovation creates new forms of social organization and functioning in economies [44,45], as well as new or improved products and business processes [46,47].

2.2. Globalization of Innovation on Technology Platforms

SOI initiatives push companies to introduce changes to their core business, often requiring them to use external partners’ expertise [48]. Most businesses tend to pursue and establish global strategic partnerships to increase their technological capabilities [49]. A prerequisite for a successful SOI partnership is that companies acquire specific capabilities and strengthen and expand partnerships [50,51]. The decision to undertake innovative activities internationally is mainly driven by organizational capabilities such as firm’s absorptive capacities, international experience, and existing technological competencies. Innovative companies in developing countries need more international experience that can be obtained through international research and development cooperation. To this end, internationally integrated activities and knowledge-based processes are needed, particularly in the following areas: (i) international exploitation of innovations at the national level, (ii) global generation of innovation by MNEs; and (iii) global technical-scientific collaborations [52].
The SOI literature acknowledges three different types of innovation: technological, organizational, and institutional/social innovations [4,6,7,53]. Technological innovation focuses on organizational-level activities that reduce vulnerabilities and improve technological efficiency through making changes to products, processes, or infrastructure. Organizational innovation includes integrating sustainability into the organization’s culture, practices, and strategy. Institutional innovation, sometimes referred to as social innovation, extends beyond the individual organization to a wider spectrum of stakeholders, ultimately creating social changes. Institutional innovation requires a fundamental change in attitudes towards the role of business in society [40].
Compared with non-technological innovation, Technological Innovation (TI) has a more significant impact on firm performance and success [54]. Following the expansion of digital technologies, the digital revolution increasingly calls for businesses to seek technological innovations such as artificial intelligence (AI) and conformity to environmental sustainability goals [55]. Technology has always been a great meeting platform for different societies. If technology absorption and transfer were a long-term process in the past, today, it is swift and intense [56]. Technological innovation is at the center of innovation studies and is described as product enhancement or a new technology-driven production process [57]. As mentioned by Ettlie and Reza [58], technological innovation is a key process in sustainable social and technical change [59]. Technological innovation refers to “the implementation of an idea for a new product/service or the introduction of new elements in the production process or service operations of an organization” [60]. In the modern business world, TI has become the main focus of senior management in various organizations. It is argued that in turbulent markets, companies that use modern technology for products and services succeed [61]. In businesses, NTBFs follow the process of internationalization and new global and international investment by developing technological innovations [62].
In an unstable market, NTBFs with high IT capabilities become market leaders by benefiting from technological innovation, which is two-step process of technology development and technology diffusion, and these NTBFs create business stability and obtain high profitability [63,64,65]. Given the globalization and digitization of value chains, the readiness of businesses to implement digital processes to connect digitized value chains and globally integrated business networks is of paramount importance [66,67,68]. Therefore, it is highly important for businesses to pursue technological innovations since TI is a vital driver that significantly contributes to company performance [69]. TI helps companies to produce various new products and services, which are essential for high performance and profit [70]. TI is not only possible in a specific industry [71], but its adoption can also improve performance in different sectors such as manufacturing and services [72]. Businesses that prioritize the development of technological innovation will experience growth in the future. Economists agree that innovation in technological change is beneficial to producers, consumers, and employees in the long term [73].

2.3. Digital Accelerator Technologies in the Internationalization of NTBFs

The emergence of new and powerful digital technologies, platforms, and infrastructures has significantly transformed innovation and entrepreneurship. Beyond opening up new opportunities for innovators and entrepreneurs, digital technologies have broader implications for value creation and capture, such as the widespread use of international markets [74,75]. By relying on digital technologies and their applications, NTBFs can reduce related costs, develop responsiveness to local markets, inform comprehensive decisions, and more importantly, promote product innovations, increase information availability, and connect to the international world [76,77]. Digital technologies sometimes disrupt existing processes and create new business models by introducing new product innovations to the world [78]. In order to fully exploit the potential of digitalization and ultimately achieve successful transformation, NTBFs must direct their core business ideas toward digital innovation [79,80,81].
Digital innovation deals with creating and applying new products and services. Digital transformation refers to the combined effects of several digital innovations that create new players (a constellation of players), structures, practices, values, and beliefs that alter, threaten, replace, or complete the existing rules of the game in organizations [82]. In the digital transformation era, technological changes disproportionately increase with the technological capabilities of applications such as the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence [83]. The top digital transformative technologies include artificial intelligence, cloud computing, big data analysis, social networks, blockchain, and the Internet of Things. Compared with other businesses [84,85,86], NTBFs are at the forefront of using digital technologies and attracting international investments to sell their products and services through the global network. These capabilities can diminish the negative impact of institutional gaps and poor infrastructure in the country of origin [87,88].

2.4. Factors and Trends Affecting Sustainability-Oriented Innovation in the International Arena

Previous research has not presented a comprehensive model concerning sustainability-oriented innovation foresight. The factors affecting this have been specifically considered but have not received much attention. The current research uses the STEEP knowledge management model to systematically analyze a wide range of social, technological, environmental, economic and political developments worldwide to identify and examine the drivers and uncertainties of sustainability-oriented innovation in INTBFs. By considering this conceptual model and identifying the drivers and uncertainties, the rapid institutionalization of emerging environmental concerns in environmental norms and structures will be dealt with by observing other macro dimensions of the policy structure.
The STEEP knowledge management model was originally developed to assess global change issues that support long-term business planning. However, it has also been used to analyze the interconnectedness of different areas of human activity and their interaction with regard to sustainability goals. A STEEP-based analysis is effective for understanding systematic relationships between constituent parameters in ecosystem service flow analysis and green development issues.
Therefore, this research is characterized by five axes derived from the STEEP model, including politics, economy, society, technology. The present research, which is based on studies in the field of sustainability, focuses on the design of a conceptual model utilizing scientific sources and previous research with a new layout designed to study and analyze the drivers and uncertainties of sustainability-oriented innovation in INTBFs.
NTBFs are usually created by a team of founders with meager resources but specialized knowledge and a promising idea. These companies must develop their organizational capabilities to have a chance to succeed. Capabilities are the basic building blocks of companies and the key to organizational performance. However, we have little understanding of how capabilities emerge in new organizations, including international NTBFs [18]. NTBFs are an interesting area of study for five reasons:
1—NTBFs include a highly educated young generation with the potential to work internationally. 2—They are integral sources of knowledge-based employment and promoters of technological change and innovation in many countries. 3—Some NTBFs succeed in international markets, especially when they provide innovative products with high technological content. 4—They significantly contribute to the economy in terms of exports, employment, taxes, research and development, and innovation. 5—The founders of these new businesses tend to have substantial entrepreneurial capital, a relatively research-oriented background, and seek progress and success [89,90]. By examining the factors and trends affecting sustainability-oriented innovation in NTBFs in the form of standard models such as STEEP, it is possible to identify issues that affect sustainability-oriented innovation in international NTBFs. These factors and trends are summarized in Table 2.

3. Research Methodology

This exploratory applied research can be categorized under the critical paradigm, a combination of positivist and interpretive paradigms, and uses the scenario planning method. From among the scenario development approaches, including intuitive, trend effect analysis, and effect analysis, this research applies an intuitive approach, which uses Schwartz’s critical uncertainty approach in scenario planning [101]. Scenario planning provides a framework for developing more flexible conservation policies when confronted with unavoidable and irreducible uncertainty. A scenario in this context is a narrative of an acceptable future. Scenario planning involves using several contrasting scenarios to explore the uncertainty surrounding the future consequences of a decision. Ideally, scenarios should be developed by a diverse group of people for a specific purpose. Scenario planning can include various quantitative and qualitative information in the decision-making process. Often, considering this diverse information systematically leads to better decision-making. In addition, the participation of a diverse group of people in the systematic process of collecting, discussing, and analyzing scenarios ensures a common understanding [102].
The Delphi study is applied to collect the data for the scenario planning stage. The structured group techniques, such as the Delphi study, elicit and synthesize expert judgments. In the Delphi technique, the exchange of information among anonymous panel members is controlled in several rounds (iterations). The averages of the final round of responses are considered as the group judgment [103]. The Delphi method is applicable when a research method requires creating a communication process with a group to investigate a problem from the perspective of its members. In the Delphi method, experts’ opinions are collected several times by consecutive questionnaires. This method is used to show the convergence and divergence of opinions. The most important stage in a Delphi study is the selection of suitable participants with sufficient expertise in the study area [104].

3.1. The Structure of the Article in Scenario Planning

The first step is to gain an understanding of the subject matter through reviewing the existing literature in the following areas: 1—the nature of the scenario in future research, 2—innovation-based sustainability, 3—factors affecting the development and sustainability of NTBFs, and 4—new digital technologies and their impact on sustainability.
The second stage is identifying factors from the perspective of experts. This stage is similar to the second and third steps of Schwartz’s method. These factors, identified via the Delphi method, encompass various social, political-legal, economic, and technological dimensions at micro, medium, and macro levels due to the closeness and interweaving nature of the research factors at all levels. Conducting the Delphi study in two rounds using interviews and questionnaires allows for identifying a relatively comprehensive set of factors and drivers affecting sustainability-oriented innovation in NTBFs. The data collected from the Delphi study is treated similar to the qualitative content analysis method. We adopted the approach proposed by Etemad et al. [105].
The third step consists of categorizing and ranking the factors. The factors are ranked based on the impact importance and the uncertainty of occurrence, similar to the fourth step of Schwartz’s method. Therefore, the third round of the Delphi technique quantitatively deals with determining and prioritizing key factors and the main drivers affecting sustainability-oriented innovation in NTBFs.
The fourth step concerns framing the scenarios according to the principal topics of the future scenarios of the STEEP model. For this purpose, similar to the fifth step of Schwartz’s method, the status of key factors and main drivers is examined in terms of the degree of the impact importance and the uncertainty of the occurrence. According to the present research results, three axes are used instead of two to frame the scenarios to avoid the difficulty of examining and analyzing the scenarios; thereby, the logic of the scenario planning is the main result of this stage.
The fifth step involves developing scenarios to depict the impact of the factors and the consequences of their occurrence in the form of an integrated story. This stage is affected by various factors, including the researcher’s viewpoint on planning scenarios and the accessibility to experts.

3.2. Selection Process of Experts

The panel of experts was selected based on the criteria recommended in the literature and the research team’s experience. This began with identifying the uncertainty states and developing probable future scenarios. The scenario formulation was carried out by calculating the impact of the certainty states on the risk and target drivers [35]. Experts, including university professors from Shahid Beheshti and Imam Khomeini International Universities, Executive Directors of NTBFs, and futurists active in the field of sustainability-oriented innovation in Iran were invited to participate in the qualitative phase of the research. The research was conducted through interviews and open, semi-open, and closed questionnaires in three stages. Purposive and snowball sampling methods were applied to single out experts to participate in the research with a method similar to Schwartz’s critical uncertainty scenario planning until theoretical saturation was reached [101]. We have also considered the snowball sampling-related issues as a limitation for consideration in this research [106]. The selection of the experts was based on several criteria, including their in-depth and up-to-date knowledge of technology-based innovation and sustainability of NTBFs, exemplary research background, and true professionalism. Out of 50 experts invited, 43 cooperated with the research team (Table 3). During the selection process of academic experts, it was considered essential to invite professors who are familiar with foresight research methods to help the research team identify drivers and uncertainties. In addition to having expertise in foresight research, it was important for us that the professors invited to our expert panel had conducted research in the field of sustainability and its innovative methods. Executive directors of NTBFs were also invited to the expert panel for two reasons. Firstly, the subject of our research is related to NTBFs, and secondly, the executive directors of these companies are experts in the complex executive issues related to sustainability and the international development of companies. Therefore, they can complement our discussion in the expert panel with an executive point of view. The method of data analysis is based on the matrix of experts and scenario planning. The interview protocol’s face and content validity scores were equal to 78%. According to Chin (1998), this value is desirable [107]. Therefore, the validity of the interview protocol is accepted. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure reliability. The results of the validity and reliability tests in the qualitative phase are as follows (Table 4):

4. Results

4.1. Factors and Drivers

Analyzing interview texts and open questionnaires are common methods in Delphi studies and theory-based research [34]. Given the researcher’s experience in open coding, i.e., specifying the key terms, the qualitative research data were categorized and coded in Excel 2016.
For instance, the stages of coding for factor (concept) No. 19 titled “possibility of research and development in understanding customer behavior” from the comments of expert No. 41 are presented in Table 5.

4.2. Ranking of the Key Factors and Main Drivers

After identifying and finalizing factors and drivers in the second round of the survey, they were categorized by the research team into 19 main factors affecting Iran’s STEEP in the future. The third round of the survey determined the importance and uncertainty of their occurrence from the perspective of experts. For example, in Table 6, the method of identification of the key factor (category) “Cooperation between industry and scientific-medical centers” is specified with indicator 11.
The identified drivers were presented to the expert panel. Confirmation of the factors in two Delphi rounds is shown in Table 7. A total of 19 identified drivers had a threshold of higher than 3 and were confirmed. By conducting the third round of Delphi, the experts ranked the factors based on the level of importance and uncertainty of occurrence. This was conducted using a 5-point Likert scale on a continuum (1 = very little, 5 = very much). The final ranking of the key factors is determined based on the average level of importance and the uncertainty of occurrence, along with the ranking of importance and uncertainty of the factors (see Table 8).
The research team intuitively concluded that factors are relatively interdependent (see Table 7). This indicates that increasing adoption of foresight (KF1), advent and convergence of new technologies (KF11), and the go-international attitude (KF19) are the core factors in our framework for developing future scenarios of sustainability-oriented innovation for international NTBFs. Finally, after merging similar scenarios, four scenarios were proposed.

4.3. Future Scenarios

4.3.1. Cross-Border Development Scenario

Adoption of e-commerce in developing countries, which are home to more than 80 percent of the world’s population, is growing [108]. NTBFs based in developed economies such as Europe and the United States go international to respond to the stagnation of their domestic markets and seek new customers. Additionally, NTBFs, unable to compete in the developed markets due to the strong presence of leading technology companies, expand their activities to developing countries as a stepping stone to their later rapid growth in the international technological and innovative arenas. Furthermore, further expansion of economic, social, and global technological relations can generate considerable benefits for companies in developing countries. Innovation strategies are necessary for the outstanding performance of companies in international markets. The fundamental change in the global business landscape and the dynamic nature of customer needs lead NTBFs to develop new strategies and modify existing ones to remain relevant and competitive in domestic and international markets. Technology and innovation strategies allow companies to expand and compete in international markets. Strategies and the adoption of key technologies, such as digital technologies, are required to boost productivity and make countries more efficient and knowledge-intensive. That is why innovation is crucial for companies’ and countries’ competitiveness and survival. The literature shows that technological innovation and future research can impact the international performance of NTBFs in developing countries, enabling these companies to penetrate deeper into the domestic markets and expand internationally. Technological innovations and their integration with digital technologies can positively affect the development goals of international NTBFs.

4.3.2. Success Foresight Scenario

Though foresight processes for SMEs and large companies have been widely addressed in theory and practice, the foresight of NTBFs has received scant attention [109]. NTBFs, as businesses, are faced with rapidly changing environments that stress the necessity of undertaking foresight research. This is determined by the need to formulate innovative development strategies and optimize future technology production plans. Foresight is closely related to strategic planning. NTBFs adopting a foresight approach can outperform their competitors in terms of business strategy, decision-making, and innovation process management. The NTBFs foresight is a communication process creating a medium to long-term vision about future markets, customer needs, and social challenges. It supports NTBFs with capabilities to 1—enhance business intelligence, 2—heed early warning regarding changes, 3—set a strategic agenda and priorities, 4—catalyze innovation, and 5—support decision-making.
One of the complications with applying foresight in NTBFs is that these companies avoid open innovation and follow a more explicit innovation strategy. Their innovation process is also limited due to financial limitations and development risks to the extent that the innovation process is often non-existent or partially described and implemented since operational activities are often time-consuming, and it is difficult to develop a strategic vision for the future. Other complications include 1—allocating more time for operational activities, 2—a lack of motivation and non-serious attitude of owners to use future information, and 3—limited market share and competition. Foresight can help NTBFs in accomplishing their goals: 1—devising a clear strategy to find prospective investors and partners, 2—designing innovation strategies, 3—adapting to changing environmental conditions, 4—identifying potential risks, 5—spotting market needs and introducing new products accordingly, and 6—developing new regional and international markets.

4.3.3. Digital Technologies Flourishing Scenario

The rapid growth of digital technologies has caused radical changes to the strategies and operational procedures of various industries and organizations worldwide. Digital transformation has been described as a modern effort to survive against the inherent threats of digital disruption. The challenge is not designing new strategies, business models, or organizational plans using digital technologies, but the successful management of the transition from the current to a favorable situation through frequent evaluation, recalibration, and emerging intelligence [110]. Simply put, digital transformation is the novel use of digital technology to address old problems. Digital transformation can lead to various innovations, including the creation of new markets and value networks. In this process, to improve their competitiveness and adapt to the current transforming technological and social scenarios, NTBFs are driven to pursue complex growth paths in integrating new technologies and operationalizing them for solving customer problems and needs. The traditional model of NTBFs characterized by a relatively limited geographical scope (often a domestic market), lower levels of technological development, and low awareness of sustainability is no longer viable. In the digital world, even the most remote countries with the lowest level of logistical benefit from technology are connected with the developed world like a hidden chain bonding the people of the world. At the social level, the digital revolution has fueled the homogenization of our needs, and at the business level, NTBFs are increasingly following technological innovations such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, big data, social networks, blockchain, and the Internet of Things to contribute to environmental sustainability goals. As value chains become global and digitalized, NTBFs readiness to implement digital processes for connecting digitalized global value chains and integrated business networks is of great importance.

4.3.4. Destruction Scenario

Due to the expansion of global communication and the international development of businesses, the pace of changes in technology has significantly increased. In this scenario, an NTBF cannot keep up with the speed of technology change. For example, it spends all its capital, time, and energy introducing a specific technology and providing the required products and services. However, it acquires this capability when competitors have already met the market needs, or new types of technology have created new needs. This situation mainly occurs when an NTBF operates as a closed system limiting its development to private laboratories, lacks a clear view of the future technology development process and market needs, and remains unaware of the changes in other global markets. Accordingly, it cannot expect a return on investment, and the development cycle remains inefficient. Therefore, it declares bankruptcy over time or, if fortunate, merges with successful companies to survive as a team and to control expenses. In this situation, planning for the future is no longer the issue, but the company’s survival is. As a result, the NTBF cannot be innovative or maintain its stability, and it no longer has a place in the related industry. This results in the complete collapse of the NTBF.

4.3.5. Management Insight

The main insights for managers are suggested as follows:
-
Consolidation of the future-oriented approach empowers INTBF owners to realize sustainability-oriented innovation by increasing their awareness of the opportunities and interventions to build capacity at the conceptualization and project management levels.
-
New technology-based firms (NTBFs) minimize the costs and risks of failure by adopting a rapid internationalization strategy. During the internationalization process, attention is focused on entering markets in countries that provide the possibility to develop the use of new digital technologies and benefits from support platforms for innovation while providing regulatory protection for intellectual property.
-
Integration between the green economy and new technologies such as ITC leads to new paradigms and creates opportunities for sustainable development as well as economic recovery in the context of recent crises. In this regard, paying attention to technologies such as artificial intelligence, digital platforms, blockchain, the Internet of Things, data mining, etc. is given more attention and importance by NTBFs.
-
NTBFs should consider that customers are obsessed with their daily lives, and online platforms are the best option for retail, whereas traditional customers still prefer to visit retail stores. A few customers choose products online but buy them offline. Due to the concept of online and offline sales, a sustainable supply chain receives attention. Implementing an O2O strategy reduces the maintenance costs for the manufacturer and leads to stability in supply chains. The ordering cost of the supply chain system can be reduced by continuous investment. Some investments also improve the process quality and significantly impact the total expected profit of the joint O2O supply [111,112,113].

5. Discussion

This research provides a big picture perspective on the future sustainability-oriented innovation in international NTBFs, which has already been raised as a critical issue in previous studies [114]. These scenarios are formed from the interaction of factors affecting the future sustainability of international NTBFs. A significant part of this research was carried out qualitatively, a requirement in exploratory research. This is a platform for conducting confirmatory scientific research. The research presents a strategy in the form of a scenario and identifies the effective driving forces while examining the states of certainty. The realization of sustainability-oriented innovation can be achieved more effectively through reducing risks and environmental hazards, as shown in this review of the STEEP knowledge management model which systematically analyzes a wide range of social, technological, environmental, economic and political developments. The insights gained from the STEEP model help to correctly analyze the dimensions of the subject and address the most important problem of the present research, i.e., the speed of technology development causing old products to become obsolete. Product obsolescence is a major challenge for sustainability and increases the volume of e-waste. The policies and regulations of waste management, as well as business initiatives required by NTBFs, can be obtained by referring to and applying research scenarios, and the efficiency of executive mechanisms in using new technologies, especially digital technologies, with regard to the upcoming trends and future changes, can be seen in creating new goods and services innovation to increase sustainability. When the STEEP comprehensive model is analyzed in setting policies, the necessity of the global range of technology and the global dependence of societies are also examined as categories to correctly analyze the development process of NTBFs by taking into account the effective global axes. This issue will also be relevant to the implementation of global laws and promote a more responsible approach of NTBFs owners regarding the lifespan of the products and the technology used. This relies on their ability to be convertible and recyclable or the availability of affordable replacement parts, product repair facilities and technological enhancement. In addition, the innovation resulting from technological advances increases consumer acceptance and prevents the shortening of the life cycle of products and services. The current research is in contrast with the conclusions of Osibanjo and Nnorom [115] who argue that the development of technology decreases the life cycle of products and increases the rate of waste production. They conclude that technology is mainly in conflict with sustainability. This research is consistent with Franceschini et al. [116] and Vinuesa et al. [117] because its focus is on the fact that technology creates value, and the innovation resulting from it can bring sustainability. Our conclusions also align with those of Hilty et al. [118] and Dana et al. [35] regarding technology foresight.
The identification of a set of industry drivers and key factors, as presented in Table 7 and Table 8, with present and future perspectives in mind, is the contribution of this research. These factors, in the form of a three-dimensional framework, set the path for developing future sustainability-oriented innovation scenarios for international NTBFs. The selection of three key axes is an outstanding feature of this research. In particular, contemporary economics emphasizes the development of technological innovation as the main driver for the sustainability of businesses, especially for NTBFs. Internationalization, technology development with the priority of digital technologies and future research are the three axes and the key sustainability paths for NTBFs.
The most important limitation of this research was the focus on technology-based firms and examining innovation from a technology perspective. Future research, therefore, should expand this in several ways: 1—by removing the limitation on INTBFs and examining multinational firms, SMEs or startups; 2—adding the value component in the discussed axes and in accordance with the STEEP model, by considering more environmental factors to develop sustainability; or 3—identifying the relationships between the existing factors by focusing more on quantitative methods in the form of causal models. Therefore, future studies should propose related structures and measure their reliability by conducting mixed-method research and surveys from relevant statistical databases. Finally, it is noteworthy that there might be some issues related to the data collection and analysis methods in terms of potential bias. Future researchers might use various triangulation techniques to clarify the issue.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S., M.H., M.M.R.; methodology, A.S., M.H.; software, M.H.; validation, M.H., N.R.; formal analysis, A.S., M.H.; resources, S.R., M.M.R.; data curation, A.S., M.H., M.M.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S., M.H., M.M.R.; writing—review and editing, A.S., M.H., M.M.R., S.R.; supervision, A.S., M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jum’a, L.; Zimon, D.; Ikram, M.; Madzík, P. Towards a sustainability paradigm; the nexus between lean green practices, sustainability-oriented innovation and Triple Bottom Line. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 245, 108393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. World Commission on Environment. Our common future. In Centre for Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  3. Skare, M.; Porada-Rochon, M. The role of innovation in sustainable growth: A dynamic panel study on micro and macro levels 1990–2019. Echnol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 175, 121337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mead, T.; Jeanrenaud, S.; Bessant, J. Sustainability oriented innovation narratives: Learning from nature inspired innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 344, 130980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sabadie, J.A. Technological innovation, human capital and social change for sustainability. Lessons learnt from the Industrial Technologies Theme of the EU's Research Framework Programme. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 481, 668–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Tura, N.; Ojanen, V. Sustainability-oriented innovations in smart cities: A systematic review and emerging themes. Cities 2022, 126, 103716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Klewitz, J.; Hansen, E.G. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Block, C.; Wustmans, M.; Laibach, N.; Bröring, S. Semantic bridging of patents and scientific publications–The case of an emerging sustainability-oriented technology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 167, 120689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Galvão, A.R.; Marques, C.S.; Mascarenhas, C.; Braga, V.; Pereira, R. Motivations and Barriers for the Sustainable Internationalization of the Portuguese Textile Sector. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Saura, J.R.; Palos-Sanchez, P.; Grilo, A. Detecting indicators for startup business success: Sentiment analysis using text data mining. Sustainability 2019, 11, 917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Colombo, M.G.; D’Adda, D.; Pirelli, L.H. The participation of new technology-based firms in EU-funded R&D partnerships: The role of venture capital. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 361–375. [Google Scholar]
  12. Salamzadeh, A.; Tajpour, M.; Hosseini, E. Corporate entrepreneurship in University of Tehran: Does human resources management matter? Int. J. Knowl.-Based Dev. 2019, 10, 276–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lee, M.; Kim, S.; Kim, H.; Lee, J. Technology Opportunity Discovery using Deep Learning-based Text Mining and a Knowledge Graph. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 180, 121718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Keupp, M.M.; Gassmann, O. The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: A review and suggestions for developing the field. J. Manag. 2009, 35, 600–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hilmersson, M.; Johanson, M. Knowledge acquisition strategy, speed of capability development and speed of SME internationalization. Int. Small Bus. J. 2020, 38, 536–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ipsmiller, E.; Dikova, D.; Brouthers, K.D. Digital Internationalization of Traditional Firms: Virtual Presence and Entrepreneurial Orientation. J. Int. Manag. 2022, 28, 100940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sivarak, O. Global Supply Chain in Asia. In Internationalization and Managing Networks in the Asia Pacific; Chandos Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 99–121. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jensen, A.; Clausen, T.H. Origins and emergence of exploration and exploitation capabilities in new technology-based firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2017, 120, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Knight, G.A.; Kim, D. International business competence and the contemporary firm. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2009, 40, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ramos-Hidalgo, E.; Edeh, J.N.; Acedo, F.J. Innovation adaptation and post-entry growth in international new ventures. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2022, 28, 100169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sarkar, B.; Bhuniya, S. A sustainable flexible manufacturing–remanufacturing model with improved service and green investment under variable demand. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 202, 117154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tayyab, M.; Habib, M.S.; Jajja, M.S.; Sarkar, B. Economic assessment of a serial production system with random imperfection and shortages: A step towards sustainability. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 171, 108398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sarkar, B.; Ullah, M.; Sarkar, M. Environmental and economic sustainability through innovative green products by remanufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 332, 129813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ahsan, M.; Musteen, M. Multinational enterprises' entry mode strategies and uncertainty: A review and extension. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2011, 13, 376–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cagnin, C.; Havas, A.; Saritas, O. Future-oriented technology analysis: Its potential to address disruptive transformations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2013, 80, 379–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Wiener, M.; Gattringer, R.; Strehl, F. Collaborative open foresight-A new approach for inspiring discontinuous and sustainability-oriented innovations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 155, 119370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kastrinos, N.; Weber, K.M. Sustainable development goals in the research and innovation policy of the European Union. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 157, 120056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stirling, A. Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology. Reflexive Gov. Sustain. Dev. 2006, 225–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. EC. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing Horizon Europe–The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Laying Down its Rules for Participation and Dissemination COM(2018) 435 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  30. 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]
  31. Trischler, J.; Johnson, M.; Kristensson, P. A service ecosystem perspective on the diffusion of sustainability-oriented user innovations. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 116, 552–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Singh, R.; Chandrashekar, D.; Hillemane, B.S.; Sukumar, A.; Jafari-Sadeghi, V. Network cooperation and economic performance of SMEs: Direct and mediating impacts of innovation and internationalization. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 148, 116–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Heenkenda, H.M.; Xu, F.; Kulathunga, K.M.; Senevirathne, W.A. The Role of Innovation Capability in Enhancing Sustainability in SMEs: An Emerging Economy Perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dana, L.P.; Salamzadeh, A.; Mortazavi, S.; Hadizadeh, M. Investigating the impact of international markets and new digital technologies on business innovation in emerging markets. Sustainability 2022, 14, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dana, L.P.; Salamzadeh, A.; Mortazavi, S.; Hadizadeh, M.; Zolfaghari, M. Strategic futures studies and entrepreneurial resiliency: A focus on digital technology trends and emerging markets. Tec Empresarial. 2022, 16, 87–100. [Google Scholar]
  36. Government of Romania (GR). National Strategy for Sustainable Development of Romania 2030; Paideia: Bucharest, Romania, 2018; pp. 1–109. Available online: https://www.edu.ro/sites/default/files/Strategia-nationala-pentru-dezvoltarea-durabila-a-Rom%C3%A2niei-2030.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2022).
  37. Hall, J.K.; Daneke, G.A.; Lenox, M.J. Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010, 25, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Brundtland, G.H. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: "Our Common Future"; UN: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wcerd, S.W. World commission on environment and development. Our Common Future 1987, 17, 1–91. [Google Scholar]
  40. Adams, R.; Jeanrenaud, S.; Bessant, J.; Denyer, D.; Overy, P. Sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 180–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Hansen, E.G.; Grosse-Dunker, F.; Reichwald, R. Sustainability innovation cube—A framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2009, 13, 683–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Naghizadeh, R.; Allahy, S.; Ranga, M. A model for NTBF creation in less developed regions based on the Smart Specialisation concept: The case of regions in Iran. Reg. Stud. 2021, 55, 441–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Assembly, U.G. UN General Assembly. In Resolufion Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. A/RES/70/1, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang, Q.; Zhang, F. Does increasing investment in research and development promote economic growth decoupling from carbon emission growth? An empirical analysis of BRICS countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Becker, B. Public R&D policies and private R&D investment: A survey of the empirical evidence. J. Econ. Surv. 2015, 29, 917–942. [Google Scholar]
  46. Shao, X.; Zhong, Y.; Li, Y.; Altuntaş, M. Does environmental and renewable energy R&D help to achieve carbon neutrality target? A case of the US economy. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 296, 113229. [Google Scholar]
  47. Umar, M.; Ji, X.; Kirikkaleli, D.; Xu, Q. COP21 Roadmap: Do innovation, financial development, and transportation infrastructure matter for environmental sustainability in China? J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 271, 111026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Cainelli, G.; De Marchi, V.; Grandinetti, R. Does the development of environmental innovation require different resources? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 94, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alsaad, A.K.; Yousif, K.J.; AlJedaiah, M.N. Collaboration: The key to gain value from IT in supply chain. EuroMed J. Bus. 2018, 13, 214–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Horbach, J.; Rammer, C.; Rennings, K. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact—The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. González-Moreno, Á.; Triguero, Á.; Sáez-Martínez, F.J. Many or trusted partners for eco-innovation? The influence of breadth and depth of firms' knowledge network in the food sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 147, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Archibugi, D.; Iammarino, S. The globalization of technological innovation: Definition and evidence. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 2002, 9, 98–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Friedman, N.; Ormiston, J. Blockchain as a sustainability-oriented innovation? Opportunities for and resistance to Blockchain technology as a driver of sustainability in global food supply chains. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 175, 121403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ryu, H. The relationship between non-technological innovation and technological innovation on firm performance. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2016, 135, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  55. ESPAS. ESPAS Report 2019: Global Trends to 2030; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  56. Campos, J.; Braga, V.; Correira, A.; Ratten, V.; Marques, C. Perceptions on effectiveness of public policies supporting entrepreneurship and internationalization. J. Entrep. Public Policy 2021, 10, 492–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fagerberg, J.; Mowery, D.C.; Nelson, R.R. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ettlie, J.E.; Reza, E.M. Organizational integration and process innovation. Academy of management journal 1992, 35, 795–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hekkert, M.P.; Negro, S.O. Functions of innovation systems as a framework to understand sustainable technological change: Empirical evidence for earlier claims. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2009, 76, 584–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Damanpour, F.; Evan, W.M. Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of "organizational lag". Adm. Sci. Q. 1984, 29, 392–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Coccia, M. Sources of technological innovation: Radical and incremental innovation problem-driven to support competitive advantage of firms. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 29, 1048–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kiederich, A. Investigating New Technology Based Firm (NTBF) internationalization: The impact on performance, the process and the antecedents. Fac. Appl. Econ. 2007, 5, 34. [Google Scholar]
  63. Liu, G.; Gao, P.; Chen, F.; Yu, J.; Zhang, Y. Technological innovation systems and IT industry sustainability in China: A case study of mobile system innovation. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 1144–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chae, H.C.; Koh, C.E.; Park, K.O. Information technology capability and firm performance: Role of industry. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 525–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Autio, E.; Yli-Renko, H. New, technology-based firms in small open economies—An analysis based on the Finnish experience. Res. Policy 1998, 26, 973–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chen, C.L. Value creation by SMEs participating in global value chains under industry 4.0 trend: Case study of textile industry in Taiwan. J. Glob. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 22, 120–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rehm, S.V.; Goel, L. Using information systems to achieve complementarity in SME innovation networks. Inf. Manag. 2017, 54, 438–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Torn, I.A.; Vaneker, T.H. Mass Personalization with Industry 4.0 by SMEs: A concept for collaborative networks. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 28, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hervas-Oliver, J.L.; Sempere-Ripoll, F.; Boronat-Moll, C.; Rojas-Alvarado, R. On the joint effect of technological and management innovations on performance: Increasing or diminishing returns? Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2018, 30, 569–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pereira, J.; Braga, V.; Correia, A.; Salamzadeh, A. Unboxing organizational complexity: How does it affect business performance during the COVID-19 pandemic? J. Entrep. Public Policy 2021, 10, 424–444. [Google Scholar]
  71. Miller, D.J.; Fern, M.J.; Cardinal, L.B. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 307–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Sirilli, G.; Evangelista, R. Technological innovation in services and manufacturing: Results from Italian surveys. Res. Policy 1998, 27, 881–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Romano, R.M.; Dellow, D.A. Technological Change, Globalization, and the Community College. New Dir. Community Coll. 2009, 146, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Neubert, M. The impact of digitalization on the speed of internationalization of lean global startups. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2018, 8, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Nambisan, S.; Wright, M.; Feldman, M. The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 103773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Brynjolfsson, E.; McAfee, A. The business of artificial intelligence: How AI fits into your data science team. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2017, 98, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  77. Spencer, A.S.; Kirchhoff, B.A. Schumpeter and new technology based firms: Towards a framework for how NTBFs cause creative destruction. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2006, 2, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ahuja, G.; Morris Lampert, C. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strat. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 521–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Burgelman, R.A. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Manag. Sci. 1983, 29, 1349–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Salamzadeh, A.; Radovic Markovic, M.; Masjed, S.M. The effect of media convergence on exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. AD-Minist. 2019, 34, 59–76. [Google Scholar]
  81. Thomson, L. Leveraging the value from digitalization: A business model exploration of new technology-based firms in vertical farming. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2022, 33, 88–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hinings, B.; Gegenhuber, T.; Greenwood, R. Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Inf. Organ. 2018, 28, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Karimi, J.; Walter, Z. The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: A factor-based study of the newspaper industry. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2015, 32, 39–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Brock, J.K.; Von Wangenheim, F. Demystifying AI: What digital transformation leaders can teach you about realistic artificial intelligence. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2019, 61, 110–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ebert, C.; Duarte, C.H. Digital transformation. IEEE Softw. 2018, 35, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Schwertner, K. Digital transformation of business. Trakia J. Sci. 2017, 15, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Brieger, S.A.; Chowdhury, F.; Hechavarría, D.M.; Muralidharan, E.; Pathak, S.; Lam, Y.T. Digitalization, institutions and new venture internationalization. J. Int. Manag. 2022, 100949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Skala, A.; Skala, B. Digital Startups in Transition Economies; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  89. Cahen, F.R.; Lahiri, S.; Borini, F.M. Managerial perceptions of barriers to internationalization: An examination of Brazil's new technology-based firms. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1973–1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Bollinger, L.; Hope, K.; Utterback, J.M. A review of literature and hypotheses on new technology-based firms. Res. Policy 1983, 12, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, X.; Xu, Y.; Ma, L. Research on successful factors and influencing mechanism of the digital transformation in SMEs. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ma, Q.; Wu, W.; Liu, Y. The fit between technology management and technological capability and its impact on new product development performance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hwangbo, Y.; Yang, Y.S.; Kim, M.S.; Kim, Y. The effectiveness of kano-QFD approach to enhance competitiveness of technology-based SMEs through transfer intention model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhang, Y.; Khan, U.; Lee, S.; Salik, M. The influence of management innovation and technological innovation on organization performance. A mediating role of sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Ramaciotti, L.; Muscio, A.; Rizzo, U. The impact of hard and soft policy measures on new technology-based firms. Reg. Stud. 2016, 51, 629–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bueno, E.; Merino, C.; Murcia, C. Intellectual Capital as a Strategic Model to Create Innovation in New Technology Based Firms. In Competitive Strategies for Small and Medium Enterprises; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 93–105. [Google Scholar]
  97. O’Regan, N.; Ghobadian, A. Innovation in NTBFs: Does leadership really matter? Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2006, 2, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Colombo, M.G.; Grilli, L. Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 795–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Oakey, R.P. Funding innovation and growth in UK new technology-based firms: Some observations on contributions from the public and private sectors. Ventur. Cap. 2003, 5, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Rickne, A.; Jacobsson, S. New technology-based firms in Sweden-a study of their direct impact on industrial renewal. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 1999, 8, 197–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Salamzadeh, A.; Hadizadeh, M.; Mortazavi, S.S. Realization of online entrepreneurship education based on new digital technologies in Iran: A scenario planning approach. J. Entrep. Dev. 2021, 14, 481–500. [Google Scholar]
  102. Peterson, G.D.; Cumming, G.S.; Carpenter, S.R. Scenario planning: A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Rowe, G.; Wright, G. Expert opinions in forecasting: The role of the Delphi technique. In Principles of Forecasting; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2001; pp. 125–144. [Google Scholar]
  104. Mohammadhosseini, B.; Hadizadeh, M.; Ghafelebashi, S.F. The Drivers of Sustainable Cyber Service Offer in the Government with an Emphasis on Maintaining Security Using Artificial Intelligence. Iran Future Stud. 2021, 5, 35–65. [Google Scholar]
  105. Etemad, H.; Gurau, C.; Dana, L.P. International entrepreneurship research agendas evolving: A longitudinal study using the Delphi method. J. Int. Entrep. 2022, 20, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Streeton, R.; Cooke, M.; Campbell, J. Researching the researchers: Using a snowballing technique. Nurse Res. 2004, 12, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Chin, W.W. Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Q. 1998, 22, vii–xvi. [Google Scholar]
  108. Silva, C.; González-Loureiro, M.; Braga, V.L. The influence of organizational ambidexterity on SME speed of internationalization. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 2021, 29, 68–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Martins, T.; Braga, A.; Ferreira, M.R.; Braga, V. Diving into Social Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Horst, S.O.; Salamzadeh, A.; Ebrahimi, P.; Kolli, S. Co-Creation in Provider Side for Developing Innovative Services: How New Technology-Based Firms Benefit from Social Media Platforms. Nord. J. Media Manag. 2021, 2, 109–126. [Google Scholar]
  111. Choi, S.B.; Dey, B.K.; Kim, S.J.; Sarkar, B. Intelligent servicing strategy for an online-to-offline (O2O) supply chain under demand variability and controllable lead time. RAIRO-Oper. Res. 2022, 56, 1623–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Sarkar, B.; Dey, B.K.; Sarkar, M.; AlArjani, A. A sustainable online-to-offline (O2O) retailing strategy for a supply chain management under controllable lead time and variable demand. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Sett, B.K.; Dey, B.K.; Sarkar, B. The effect of O2O retail service quality in supply chain management. Mathematics 2020, 8, 1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Denicolai, S.; Zucchella, A.; Magnani, G. Internationalization, digitalization, and sustainability: Are SMEs ready? A survey on synergies and substituting effects among growth paths. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 166, 120650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Osibanjo, O.; Nnorom, I.C. The challenge of electronic waste (e-waste) management in developing countries. Waste Manag. Res. 2007, 25, 489–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Franceschini, S.; Pansera, M. Beyond unsustainable eco-innovation: The role of narratives in the evolution of the lighting sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2015, 92, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Vinuesa, R.; Azizpour, H.; Leite, I.; Balaam, M.; Dignum, V.; Domisch, S.; Felländer, A.; Langhans, S.D.; Tegmark, M.; Fuso Nerini, F. The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  118. Hilty, L.M.; Arnfalk, P.; Erdmann, L.; Goodman, J.; Lehmann, M.; Wäger, P.A. The relevance of information and communication technologies for environmental sustainability–a prospective simulation study. Environ. Model. Softw. 2006, 21, 1618–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Summary of the related literature used for comparative analysis.
Table 1. Summary of the related literature used for comparative analysis.
SourcesPaper TitleAuthor(s)Publish YearMain IssueMethodsConclusionStudy
Dimensions
[30]How does innovation matter for sustainable performance? Evidence from small and medium-sized enterprisesZhang, Zhongqingyang, Huiming Zhu, Zhongbao Zhou, and Kai Zou2022The role of innovation in the sustainable performance of SMEQuantitative method (structural equation modeling)Innovation heterogeneously affects social, environmental and economic performance.
R&D helps improve returns of young firms, patent heightening revenues of Non-SOEs.
SMEs
[23]Environmental and economic sustainability through innovative green products by remanufacturingSarkar, Biswajit, Mehran Ullah, and Mitali Sarkar2022Simultaneous investigation of environmental risks associated with the production of innovative green productsMathematical modelFirms that produce innovative products must sell their products quickly for two reasons. (1) Brand substitution is common, and many firms can come up with similar ideas. (2) Innovative products are highly perishable and will become obsolete with the introduction of a product with improved design. Examining three production strategies
[31]A service ecosystem perspective on the diffusion of sustainability-oriented user innovationsTrischler, Jakob, Mikael Johnson, and Per Kristensson2020Investigating the (non)diffusion of user innovations from a service ecosystem perspective.
Two sustainability-oriented user innovations examples of diffusion integration, innovation ecosystem, and user innovation research.
Literature reviewThe ecosystem perspective contributes three assumptions that help to better understand the (non)diffusion of sustainability-oriented user innovations: (1) innovation diffusion is a multi-level and -actor phenomenon; (2) an actor-to-actor orientation integrates user innovators into the ecosystem; (3) the service perspective defines innovation diffusion as an evolving co-created process. Review of the service ecosystem
[32]Network cooperation and economic performance of SMEs: Direct and mediating impacts of innovation and internationalizationSingh, Rashmeet, Deepak Chandrashekar, Bala Subrahmanya Mungila Hillemane, Arun Sukumar, and Vahid Jafari-Sadeghi2022The individual influence of network cooperation, innovation and internationalization on firm performanceQuantitative method (structural equation modeling)Indirect effects produced by customers and research and development (R&D) organizations through innovation performance explain their effect on the economic performance of SMEs. The relationship between three network stakeholders, viz. customers, government agencies and R&D organizations, and economic performance are mediated by the internationalization performance of SMEs.SMEs
[7]Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic reviewKlewitz, Johanna, and Erik G. Hansen2014Examining how SMEs successfully compete in changing markets and environments while contributing to sustainable developmentA systematic review for the period between 1987 and 2010Development of an integrated framework on SOIs of SMEs. It is outlined how different strategic sustainability behaviors can explain contingencies in types of innovation practices. For the more proactive SME behaviors, it is argued that they possess higher capabilities for more radical SOIs with the innovation process itself changing. The interaction with external actors (e.g., customers, authorities, research institutes) can enhance the innovative capacity of SMEs for SOIs.SMEs
[33]The Role of Innovation Capability in Enhancing Sustainability in SMEs: An Emerging Economy PerspectiveHeenkenda, H. M. J. C. B., Fengju Xu, K. M. M. C. B. Kulathunga, and W. A. R. Senevirathne.2022Addressing the prevailing performance gaps in SMEs’ sustainability in view of its importance, given the existing lack in innovation capability. Quantitative method (structural equation modeling) Discovered positive effects of innovation capability, disruptive technology and knowledge creation on sustainability. Innovation capability emerged as a predictor of disruptive technology and knowledge creation. Disruptive technology and knowledge creation were found to be partial mediators of the association between innovation capability and SMEs’ sustainability.SME
[34]Investigating the Impact of International Markets and New Digital Technologies on Business Innovation in Emerging MarketsDana, Léo-Paul, Aidin Salamzadeh, Samira Mortazavi, and Morteza Hadizadeh2022Benefiting from international influences and digital technologiesQuantitative method (structural equation modeling)International markets and digital technologies are positively associated with innovation. When a company’s entrepreneurial orientation increases, digital technologies and international markets are more involved in mutual relationships.International markets and emerging markets
[3]The role of innovation in sustainable growth: A dynamic panel study on micro and macro levels 1990–2019Skare, Marinko, and Małgorzata Porada-Rochon2022Showing how technology-related innovations at the micro level are more important for ’green’ growth than non-technology innovations.Pooled OLS, fixed effect, common correlated effects pooledInnovation is a necessary prerequisite for long-term sustainability. Innovation has become a critical factor in achieving sustainable growth through energy efficiency improvement. Technological progress at the micro and macro level also enhances the growth of sustainability.company
[13]Technology Opportunity Discovery using Deep Learning-based Text Mining and a Knowledge GraphLee, MyoungHoon, Suhyeon Kim, Hangyeol Kim, and Junghye Lee2022Presenting the framework as a useful alternative to provide new insights into emerging technologies in the industry and marketA technology-classification model was developed using technical text data acquired using Doc2vec and logistic regressionA new framework for a technology opportunity discovery (TOD) index to discover emerging technologies is proposed. The TOD framework represents information about the ecosystem of new technology-based firms.NTBFs
[35]Strategic Futures Studies and Entrepreneurial Resiliency: A Focus on Digital Technology Trends and Emerging MarketsDana, Léo-Paul, Aidin Salamzadeh, Samira Mortazavi, Morteza Hadizadeh, and Mahnaz Zolfaghari2022Dealing with innovation, the rapid changes in technology and the shortening of product life cycle by identifying the driving factors of the future ForesightTo improve the resilience and sustainability of businesses in emerging markets, four areas, including strategic future research, entrepreneurial resilience, digital technology development and emerging markets, are examined, and business strategies are explained based on 1—artificial intelligence, 2—data mining, 3—environmental scanning, and 4—prediction of business conditions.Emerging markets
Table 2. Subjects affecting STEEP in literature.
Table 2. Subjects affecting STEEP in literature.
Researcher, YearResearch TitleSubject
Zhang et al., 2022 [91]Research on Successful Factors and Influencing Mechanism of the Digital Transformation in SMEsTechnological (influencing factors: IT infrastructure, IT management capabilities). Social (influencing factors: digital strategy, top management and employee skills), political and legal (influencing factors: government support, partnerships).
Ma et al., 2021 [92]The Fit between Technology Management and Technological Capability and Its Impact on New Product Development PerformanceTechnological (the fit between technology management and technological capability and its impact on new product development performance, resource acquisition, creating a favorable organizational culture, establishing a comprehensive quality management system, hiring more research and development employees, building information networks, upgrading company equipment and optimizing the organizational structure).
Naghizadeh et al., 2021 [42]A model for NTBF creation in less developed regions based on the Smart Specialization concept: the case of regions in IranPolitical and legal, financial (financial and legal support for companies based on new technology, considering the level of entrepreneurs, the level of companies and the regional entrepreneurial environment).
Hwangbo et al., 2020 [93]The Effectiveness of Kano-QFD Approach to Enhance Competitiveness of Technology-based SMEs through Transfer Intention ModelTechnological, social and environmental (The importance of launching QFD (Quality Function Deployment), planning to enter the market by meeting the needs of customers better than the competitors, and also satisfying customers by providing products or services).
Zhang et al., 2019 [94]The Influence of Management Innovation and Technological Innovation on Organization Performance. A Mediating Role of SustainabilityEconomic (competitiveness, high profit and long-term survival). Technology (increasing the performance of the company’s internal structure and process and creating sustainability with technological innovation).
Friedman & Ormiston, 2019 [53]Blockchain as a sustainability-oriented innovation? Opportunities for and resistance to Blockchain technology as a driver of sustainability in global food supply chainsTechnoverse (New digital technologies such as blockchain can help in fair, sustainable and traceable supply chains. They can be used as a tool to guide technological innovation for environmental sustainability.)
Ramaciotti et al., 2017 [95]The impact of hard and soft policy measures on new technology-based firmsPolitical and legal (hard measures including financial support such as loans, grants and soft measures including business consulting).
Bueno et al., 2016 [96]Intellectual Capital as a Strategic Model to Create Innovation in New Technology Based FirmsSocial (focuses on the strategic role of intellectual capital, through leveraging creative and innovative capabilities, to strengthen and develop companies).
Cahen et al., 2016 [90]Managerial perceptions of barriers to internationalization: An examination of Brazil s new technology-based firmsTechnological (Most emerging market companies tend to go abroad to acquire technological assets, among other things, but NTBFs rely on their existing technology base to internationalize.)
O’Regan & Ghobadian, 2006 [97]Innovation in international NTBFs: Does leadership really matter?Social (Leadership style and innovation in NTBF production are related. The level of emphasis on the development of different types of innovative capacity is influenced by the company’s leadership style. The uniqueness of each organization, their products, processes, stakeholders and markets are also an important driver of innovation.)
Colombo & Grilli, 2005 [98]Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based viewSocial (Economic-managerial and scientific-technical education. Paying attention to the human capital of the founders of new technology-based firms).
Oakey, 2003 [99]Funding innovation and growth in UK new technology-based firms: Some observations on contributions from the public and private sectorsEconomic (Better integration of public and private sector budgets benefits the whole industry and the wider economy in which all stakeholders live together. Improved collaboration creates synergy that works through close engagement between the public and private sectors).
Rickne & Jacobsson, 1999 [100]New Technology-based Firms in Sweden—A Study of Their Direct Impact on Industrial RenewalTechnological (help to modernize the industry by increasing the knowledge and scientific base of the target country’s industry and services related to the industry, changing the direction of the knowledge base in favor of skills that are in the process of innovation in growing sectors, especially computer science skills).
Table 3. Demographic characteristics of experts.
Table 3. Demographic characteristics of experts.
EducationMastersPhD
6 (14 percent)37 (86 percent)
OccupationAcademic staff
The field of innovation and technology
Scientific faculty of future studiesExecutive directors of NTBFsExecutive managers
Digital NTBFs
12 (28 %)10 (23 %)9 (21 %)12 (28 %)
ExperienceLess than 5 years5 to 10 years10 to 15 yearsMore than 15 years
5 (12 %)17 (39 %)16 (37 %)5 (12 %)
Table 4. Assessment of convergent validity and reliability in the qualitative protocol.
Table 4. Assessment of convergent validity and reliability in the qualitative protocol.
The Degree of Compliance of the Questions with the Preliminary Model of the Research In All the Questions Discussed
ValidityAverage Likert scale scores3.9ReliabilityThe number of respondents43
Average Likert scale scores78.00Cronbach’s alpha0.927
Table 5. Example of coding and extraction of factor No. 28 from the comments of expert No. 49.
Table 5. Example of coding and extraction of factor No. 28 from the comments of expert No. 49.
FactorCodeComment
TE (Technology Emergence) and new TO (Technology Opportunities) with the advent of AIExpansion of new opportunities“Extending knowledge in artificial intelligence, an increasing number of scientific subjects face many opportunities, including transformation and application in many fields. Artificial intelligence has become a complex interdisciplinary field, and increasingly different categories are involved in it. Therefore, identifying TE or TO related to artificial intelligence has become a value”.
The emergence of AI supporting and developing technologies
Expanding knowledge in AI
Expansion of interdisciplinary activities
Table 6. Extracting the 9th factor from the constructive factors.
Table 6. Extracting the 9th factor from the constructive factors.
N.Factors and DriversKey Factors /Main DriversIndicator
8Access to distinguished domestic scientific centersEmergence and integration of new technologies11
12Providing new products and services, empowering personal abilities and human social achievements and changing social relations with the development of technology
37Science based on integrated concepts provides a new foundation for knowledge creation, innovation and technological integration.
19TE (Technology Emergence) and new TO (Technology Opportunities) with the advent of AI
26The formation of integrated technology platforms for sharing economy and the multipurpose development of services and products
Table 7. Validation of key drivers and factors (KFs) based on Delphi study.
Table 7. Validation of key drivers and factors (KFs) based on Delphi study.
The first Delphi round.DriverAverage Opinion of ExpertsConsensus PercentageWeightRankThe second Delphi roundAverage Opinion of ExpertsConsensus PercentageWeightRank
KF14/79069767488/372093020/0566556734/90697674493/023255810/056592683
KF24/53488372169/767441860/0536303664/71428571478/571428570/054370365
KF34/37209302372/093023260/05170517124/60465116379/069767440/053105937
KF44/44186046567/441860470/05253025114/55813953567/441860470/052569519
KF54/37209302379/069767440/05170517124/48837209379/069767440/0517648713
KF64/1162790760/465116280/04867987184/34883720960/465116280/050155617
KF74/30232558167/441860470/05088009144/39534883767/441860470/0506920216
KF83/79069767446/511627910/04482948193/93023255846/511627910/0453277919
KF94/48837209372/093023260/0530803194/53488372172/093023260/0523012911
KF104/69767441979/069767440/0555555644/74418604779/069767440/05471524
KF114/90697674490/697674420/058030814/95348837295/348837210/057129111
KF124/46511627976/744186050/05280528104/60465116376/744186050/053105937
KF134/30232558165/116279070/05088009144/46511627965/116279070/0514966614
KF144/51162790774/418604650/0533553474/55813953574/418604650/052569519
KF154/60465116379/069767440/0544554554/65116279179/069767440/053642356
KF164/30232558162/790697670/05088009144/44186046562/790697670/0512284515
KF174/16279069867/441860470/04922992174/34146341570/731707320/0500705618
KF184/51162790769/767441860/0533553474/53488372169/767441860/0523012911
KF194/8837209388/372093020/0577557824/93023255893/023255810/056860892
Table 8. Ranking of drivers and main factors (KFs) and dependence of factors.
Table 8. Ranking of drivers and main factors (KFs) and dependence of factors.
IndicatorsDrivers and the Main Factors (KF)UncertaintyImportanceRankDependency Indicators
1Increasing adoption of foresight in company management233-
2The growth of research and development in companies7751, 11, 12,13, 16, 17
3Improving production and service delivery processes and reducing bureaucracy101177, 8, 15, 19
4Increase market share18891, 5, 18
5Improve quality810132,11
6Profitability increase /cost reduction36172, 12, 19
7Reduce product/service delivery time1214163, 16
8Faster achievement of organizational goals59191, 16, 17
9Deregulation1719113, 13, 17, 19
10Empowering customers and increasing their awareness1918417
11Advent and convergence of new technologies121-
12Improve economic stability1612713, 18
13Globalization of the economy15131418, 19
14Macroeconomic uncertainties1417915
15Shortening of the life cycle of products and services111662, 6, 11
16Improving the culture of teamwork in the industry915158
17Increasing compliance with global requirements and standards65184, 5, 6, 7, 11
18The growth of competition in the domestic market134113, 14, 15
19Development of a go-international attitude in the cooperation of companies and industries412-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salamzadeh, A.; Hadizadeh, M.; Rastgoo, N.; Rahman, M.M.; Radfard, S. Sustainability-Oriented Innovation Foresight in International New Technology Based Firms. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013501

AMA Style

Salamzadeh A, Hadizadeh M, Rastgoo N, Rahman MM, Radfard S. Sustainability-Oriented Innovation Foresight in International New Technology Based Firms. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013501

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salamzadeh, Aidin, Morteza Hadizadeh, Niloofar Rastgoo, Md. Mizanur Rahman, and Soodabeh Radfard. 2022. "Sustainability-Oriented Innovation Foresight in International New Technology Based Firms" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013501

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