Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Comprehensive Study of Critical Areas of Change Management as a Starting Point for Leaders in the Area of Managing Human Resources in Organizations: The Case of the Visegrad Four
Next Article in Special Issue
The Functional Mechanisms through Which Artificial Intelligence Influences the Innovation of Green Processes of Enterprises
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Synergistic Evolution of Comprehensive Transportation Network System in the Yellow River Basin Aimed at High-Quality Development
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Impact of Digital Transformation on Corporate Violations in China’s A-Share Market
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Systems
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/systems12090341
systems-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

How Digitalization and Sustainability Promote Digital Green Innovation for Industry 5.0 through Capability Reconfiguration: Strategically Oriented Insights

by
Guangping Xu
1,
Jinshan Zhang
2,* and
Shiqiang Wang
2
1
School of Economics and Management, Changchun University of Science and Technology, Changchun 130013, China
2
School of Business and Management, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Systems 2024, 12(9), 341; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090341
Submission received: 3 July 2024 / Revised: 24 August 2024 / Accepted: 28 August 2024 / Published: 1 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Analysis of Enterprise Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Conceptual framework for DSO.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Theoretical model diagram.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As environmental pressures intensify and digital technology advances rapidly, many countries, including China, are looking to more effectively heed social and environmental responsibilities by effectively integrating digital technology with traditional industries. Digital green innovation is gradually becoming a necessary direction for enterprises in various countries as they strive for high-quality development. How enterprises can achieve digital green innovation through the duality of digitalization and sustainability has become a crucial research question. However, existing research rarely addresses the mechanisms that lead to the formation of digital green innovation within enterprises. This study uses a sample of 305 manufacturing enterprises in China. Based on strategic orientation theory, this study introduces the concept of digital sustainability orientation, integrating both digital and sustainability orientations. A model is constructed to examine the impact of digital sustainability orientation on digital green innovation in enterprises, analyzing the mechanism of action through the mediation of capability reconfiguration and the moderation of environmental scanning. The study finds that digital sustainability orientation significantly positively impacts digital green innovation, highlighting the integrated effect of digital and sustainability orientations. The findings indicate that digital sustainability orientation significantly positively impacts digital green innovation, whereas a single strategic orientation does not effectively promote digital green innovation; capability reconfiguration partially mediates the relationship between digital sustainability orientation and digital green innovation in enterprises; and environmental scanning positively moderates the relationship between digital sustainability orientation and capability reconfiguration and further influences the mediating role of capability reconfiguration. This study contributes to the advancement of digital sustainability theory in the field of digital green innovation; moreover, the results of this study offer significant practical insights for enterprises aiming to successfully implement digital green innovation.

1. Introduction

The deterioration of the ecological environment has placed pressure on enterprises to address environmental sustainability challenges [1]. Dealing with environmental sustainability issues has increasingly become a prerequisite for enterprises to gain market legitimacy and maintain competitive advantages [2]. In the field of industrial manufacturing, Industry 5.0 emphasizes the use of digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, robots, the Internet of Things, and cloud computing to achieve sustainability, requiring companies to respect the laws of natural ecology and reduce energy consumption, carbon emissions, and other environmentally destructive behaviors [3]. Under this trend, entrepreneurs from all industries are considering using digital green innovation to meet these challenges [4]. Digital green innovation is an important measure for enterprises to combine the advantages of digital empowerment and fulfill their environmental protection responsibilities, which can attract the participation of employees and consumers. This innovation model can also increase investors’ willingness to invest and enhance the social reputation of enterprises [5,6]. Digital green innovation has become a significant model for global enterprises as they move toward Industry 5.0, promoting social and ecological resilience [7].
In China, some traditional coal-fired power plants have been upgraded to smart power plants through digital transformation, and some aluminum companies have taken the lead in improving the management efficiency of pollutants through solid waste labeling and data management. Implementing digital transformation to achieve digital green innovation has become the choice of most Chinese companies [8]; however, in practice, some companies have not carried out the preparations necessary for digital green innovation, but have instead separated digital transformation from greening, resulting in poor digital green innovation results [9]. How companies can successfully achieve green innovation via digital empowerment has become a significant issue that needs to be addressed urgently. Effectively solving this problem will not only help companies move towards the Industry 5.0 system as soon as possible but will also help achieve sustainable development goals.
Academic circles have paid little attention to research on digital green innovation. In recent years, some scholars have conducted research from the perspective of digital green knowledge creation based on the knowledge base view. They believe that digital green innovation is derived from both the search for and creation of digital green proprietary knowledge by enterprises. Through the combination of heterogeneous green knowledge and digital capabilities, enterprises can achieve value creation of digital green innovation [3,9]. Other scholars believe that digital technologies such as the IoT, big data, and artificial intelligence can promote the optimization of various resources and the improvement of green innovation capabilities from the perspective of technological innovation [10]. Digital green innovation is the result of value conversion after the superposition of digital resources and various green elements; however, due to the dispersion of cross-disciplinary research, most of the previous literature focuses on explaining the process causes and consequences of digital transformation or green innovation itself [11]. Moreover, empirical research on the implementation paths and effects of digital green innovation across different organizational environments and management models is still relatively limited.
In recent years, George and Schillebeeckx [12] have pioneered the concept of “digital sustainability” using systematic thinking, encouraging enterprises to leverage the synergistic development of digital transformation and sustainability as a guiding principle for their overall business strategy. This provides a new approach to exploring how enterprises can promote the formation of digital green innovation. In fact, previous research has found that in a digital environment, enterprises are better positioned to seek green innovation resources, reducing the risks and costs associated with green innovation [13,14]. Strategic orientation theory posits that the orientation of an organization moderates its behavior patterns, especially under the influence of multiple strategic orientations; thus, it is easier to produce transformative behaviors that are conducive to innovation [15]. However, how to strategically define an organizational mechanism that is conducive to promoting digital green innovation has not yet received academic attention. Existing research has not yet incorporated digital sustainability orientation and digital green innovation into the overall framework [16,17]. Xu et al. [18] discuss the role of digital capabilities in digital sustainable entrepreneurship and digital innovation orientation, but they do not further extend digital sustainability to the strategic orientation level. Other studies highlight sustainable innovation but lack a focused discussion on digital green innovation and its specific mechanisms, particularly in the context of digital sustainability orientation [19,20].
According to the theory of organizational capabilities, strategic orientation requires the reconfiguration of acquired resources through capability reconfiguration to drive innovation [21]. Capability reconfiguration is an organizational behavior that involves top-down transformation of existing routines, reflecting the process of proactively identifying and seeking updates in internal production and operational relationships [22]. It mainly manifests as capability substitution and capability evolution. This organizational behavior provides a new theoretical perspective to further explain the relationship between digital sustainability orientation and digital green innovation performance in enterprises. The combined advantages brought by digitalization—such as information, computation, communication, and connectivity—empower the existing structures, mindsets, and resources within the organization. It systematically reconfigures organizational capabilities in technology, processes, and management [23], laying a routine foundation for digital green innovation. Therefore, this paper argues that in the process of the interactive evolution of digital orientation and sustainability orientation, enterprises need to establish an organizational culture centered on digital sustainability orientation, develop an organizational vision, and cultivate an open mindset around this orientation to understand the significant value of the mutual promotion between digitalization and sustainability. By internalizing these new organizational routines, enterprises can ultimately promote digital green innovation through evolutionary and substitutive processes.
At the same time, existing research on strategic orientation has rarely paid attention to the role of external environmental scanning behavior. Environmental scanning is the process by which enterprises continuously and systematically scan their external environment to obtain valuable information. This behavior facilitates the formulation and execution of corporate strategies and enhances the alignment between the company’s strategies and the external environment [24]. Enterprises under the dual strategic orientation of digital sustainability must not only actively welcome the iteration of digital technology but also respond to the diversified needs of environmental protection. This is because the organization’s maintenance of “digitalization” and “sustainability” advantages is inherently dynamic; therefore, entrepreneurs’ timely capture of opportunity windows and cutting-edge information is crucial to accelerating capability reconfiguration and achieving digital green innovation. To this end, this article also explores the role of environmental scanning behavior in the digital green innovation process.
In summary, starting from a systematic digital sustainability orientation, this study integrates strategic orientation theory to construct a moderated mediation model and introduces digital orientation, sustainability orientation, capability reconfiguration, and environmental scanning into the theoretical model. This study postulates that the interaction between digital and sustainability orientations directly affects the digital green innovation of enterprises; moreover, this interaction affects digital green innovation through the mediating role of capability reconfiguration, and environmental scanning may play an important moderating role in this process. This study presents a new research perspective regarding the circumstances, mechanisms, and conditions in which the digital green innovation of enterprises occurs and makes a contribution to the research on digital sustainability.

2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis

2.1. Digital Sustainability Orientation under a Systematic Framework

Digital sustainability is an emerging organizational phenomenon at the intersection of digital transformation and sustainable entrepreneurship, and research on digital sustainability is still in the theoretical development phase. Research on enterprise digitalization and sustainability has not yet established an effective connection. Scholars call for the rapid development of relevant research on the priorities and results of digital sustainable development [1,12,25], but there is an urgent need to systematically elucidate the concept. Strategic orientation is the method and business philosophy that enterprises follow in the process of conducting business. Some studies believe that different strategic orientations of enterprises can have synergistic effects with each other [26]. Based on the institutional perspective of sustainable business model construction, Gregori and Holzmann explain that digital sustainability is a process in which entrepreneurs use the complementarity between digital logic and sustainable logic to engage in business model design, reflecting a systematic hybrid value proposition [27]. Digital orientation is defined as the emphasis and application of digital technology at the strategic level. It reflects how enterprises use digital technology to promote business transformation and enhance innovation capabilities and competitive advantages [28]. Digital orientation may contribute to creating a competitive advantage [29]. However, in an era of escalating ecological issues, the natural-resource-based view (NRBV) posits that achieving competitive advantage largely depends on the creation of resources and organizational mechanisms that are compatible with the natural environment and support sustainable development. Therefore, an enterprise’s attempt to gain a competitive advantage through digital orientation will also heavily depend on the strategic synergy with sustainability orientation.
Sustainability orientation refers to the organization’s commitment and practice of sustainable development at the strategic level [30]. It reflects the high degree of recognition of enterprises in engaging in environmentally and socially friendly businesses, and the triple-bottom-line principle (economic, environmental, and social) is its important feature [31,32]. Digital orientation enhances an organization’s products, services, internal processes, and external networks to directly support pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development [33]. Conversely, sustainability orientation enhances the continuous improvement and innovation frequency of digital technologies and solutions toward achieving sustainability goals [34]. Drawing on the study by Ardito et al. [35], we measure the synergistic relationship between digital orientation and sustainability orientation through their interaction. This approach reflects an enterprise’s emphasis on fostering a business culture that simultaneously leverages digital empowerment for sustainability and uses sustainable value propositions to guide digital transformation. The interaction between digital orientation and sustainable orientation forms a mutually reinforcing strategic approach, which we define as digital sustainability orientation. It reflects the business culture of enterprises focusing on both digital technology empowerment and sustainability value guidance. Systematic interweaving is the essential feature of digital sustainability orientation. The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1. This approach may enable organizations to develop innovative, environmentally friendly digital solutions that align with both technological advancement and sustainability goals.

2.2. Digital Sustainability Orientation and Corporate Digital Green Innovation

Digital green innovation is a green innovation practice under the background of enterprise digital transformation. It refers to the organizational innovation capability of using a series of digital technologies to design and combine existing products, processes, technologies, and systems to reduce the negative impact of enterprises on the ecological environment [3,9]. Different from traditional innovation activities, it emphasizes the systematic integration of green processes, products, and digital innovation [9]. Digital green innovation contains the value propositions of two strategic orientations: digitalization and sustainability. The sustainable orientation is the philosophical position of an organization to carry out production and operation activities in an environmentally friendly manner and is regarded as the cultural asset of the organization [36]. Although the sustainable orientation reflects the initiative of enterprises in dealing with green environmental issues and can help enterprises achieve a higher level of green innovation [31,37], some studies believe that green innovation requires long-term exploration by organizations and has the economic effect of “serendipity”, which can easily cause enterprises to fall into the green trap [38]. For this reason, although some enterprises have put forward environmental sustainability value propositions, the risk of economic loss has prevented some enterprises from truly implementing their sustainable commitments into actual actions, failing to stick to them for a long time to form organizational capabilities, and instead may generate “greenwashing” behavior.
Under the trend of Industry 5.0, digital orientation is often regarded as the working principle for organizations to seek support from digital technology [33], which can help enterprises solve the feasibility problems faced by green innovation. When enterprises actively carry out digital technology application and innovation through digital orientation, the introduction of digital technology will reshape the organization’s original demand collection, product research and development, product trial production, and manufacturing operation model [39], thereby affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of enterprises in carrying out green innovation [12,40]; however, digital resources, including digital technology, are new assets of the organization, and their acquisition and use process also requires additional costs. If enterprises handle them improperly or allow digitalization to develop disorderly, they will fall into a “digital trap” that will backfire on corporate wealth accumulation [41,42], inhibit the upgrading of green innovation strategies [43], and also produce negative effects such as technological backwardness, electronic pollution, and energy transition consumption [44,45]. This makes managers tend to adopt a moderately cautious principle when carrying out digital transformation, give priority to the economic returns brought by digitalization, and not focus management attention on green innovation. It can be inferred that the vague positioning of corporate strategic orientation, that is, ignoring the synergistic relationship between sustainable orientation and digital orientation, is an important reason for the inability of enterprises to integrate digitalization and green innovation. A single strategic orientation may not be able to promote the digital green innovation of enterprises.
In contrast, the complementary view in strategic orientation theory believes that different strategic orientations can produce synergistic effects on organizational behavior. Digital sustainability orientation combines the synergistic advantages of digital orientation and sustainable orientation, prompting enterprises to use the enabling advantages of digital orientation to solve sustainable development problems while giving play to the environmental driving and triple bottom line constraints of sustainable orientation on the digital transformation [45]. Specifically, when enterprises with sustainable orientation are committed to digital orientation, they are more willing to apply digital resources to green environmental innovation. Based on the resource-based view (RBV) and synergy theory, enterprises can improve resource utilization efficiency and environmental benefits by integrating digital resources and sustainable resources, stimulating enterprises’ sense of innovation efficiency in both technology and environment and thus effectively promoting digital green innovation [46,47]. At the same time, driven by the commitment to sustainable value, enterprises will continue to introduce and improve digital technologies, supervise the use of digital technologies, and optimize the sustainable value attributes of digital solutions [48,49] so as to avoid the dilemma of digital environmental governance of “environmental protection and waste” to the greatest extent.
In addition, through the knowledge-based view (KBV), it can be inferred that under the organizational mechanism of digital sustainability orientation, the frequent connection between digitalization and sustainable development gives rise to digital green knowledge, constitutes the strategic resources of the enterprise [50,51], and gradually forms an organizational learning mechanism to cope with the development of digital technology, which deepens understanding of sustainable concepts [13,52]. Studies have shown that the creation of knowledge that meets the actual needs of digital green innovation of enterprises through digital technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data has a positive impact on the innovation activities of enterprises [9]. On the one hand, digital sustainability orientation enables organizations to establish the physical technical foundation for digital green innovation [53], and on the other hand, it enables organizations to benefit from the environmental value creation guarantee provided by sustainability commitments, which provides stable organizational internal conditions for creating digital green knowledge [54]. Digital sustainability orientation guides employees to integrate digital resources and green resources with the help of digital means, actively integrate the advantages of digital technology into the attributes and characteristics of new products and green innovation in the manufacturing and supply chain processes, and promote digital green innovation in enterprises. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
H1: 
Digital sustainability orientation (digital orientation ×sustainability orientation) has a positive impact on digital green innovation.
H2: 
A single strategic orientation (digital orientation or sustainability orientation) has no significant impact on corporate digital green innovation.

2.3. The Mediating Role of Capability Reconfiguration

Capability reconfiguration of an organization involves the active identification and pursuit of opportunities to renew internal production and operation relationships, which mainly presents itself in the form of capability substitution and capability evolution [55]. Under the systematic effect of digital and sustainability orientations, cross-domain technology collaboration behavior increases, which re-stimulates the possibility of knowledge coupling and creation and creates conditions for the evolutionary and alternative reconfiguration of existing capabilities [56]. Based on the resource-based view, both digital and sustainability orientations are considered important resources for organizations. They determine the evolution of organizational capabilities and are more likely to trigger upgrades in innovation capabilities [12]. Under the digital sustainability orientation, enterprises are increasingly carrying out activities to absorb and integrate cross-domain knowledge. This is because digital technology itself has the characteristics of dynamism, scalability, and editability [57]. The continuous introduction of digital technology and its knowledge system assists enterprises in deeply deconstructing green resources in the value chain, which enables digital and green knowledge systems to achieve high-frequency cross-domain connections in the same knowledge field and promote the generation of digital green innovation [58].
Specifically, digital orientation helps enterprises maintain an open mindset, making them more inclined to adopt digital solutions to solve technical bottlenecks. Under the sustainability orientation, enterprises are more likely to develop green innovation intentions and carry out green transformation preparations based on digital technology. When enterprises combine existing digital technologies with existing operational management practices for sustainability value, they can continuously enrich their knowledge base with new learning experiences, conduct incremental learning in a path-dependent manner, and promote the continuous evolution of organizational capabilities, thus promoting enterprise innovation. When enterprises try to introduce new digital technologies for sustainable reorganization of new and old resources, they accelerate the creation and emergence of heterogeneous knowledge, create continuous momentum for organizations to carry out alternative capability reconfiguration, and promote iterative innovation of digital green products and processes. Enterprises with high sustainability orientation are also increasingly using digital innovation as an important means to implement green innovation strategies in the pursuit of environmentally friendly businesses [40]. Based on the entrepreneurial action learning theory, sustainability-oriented enterprises use sustainable entrepreneurial opportunities as “trigger events” for digital entrepreneurial learning, continuously improve the sustainability value functions of digitalization, and drive the digital transformation process of enterprises [59]. This provides internal conditions for enterprises to readjust and update digital capabilities to achieve digital green innovation.
In general, the duality of digital and sustainability orientations provides sustainability value transfer to enterprises under the empowerment of digital resources, giving rise to new organizational sustainability value creation results and value distribution methods. Digital sustainability orientation supports enterprises to adjust or update existing organizational routines, promote the emergence of new capabilities, and accelerate digital green innovation through continuous reconfiguration of organizational capabilities. It is speculated that in the transmission mechanism of digital sustainability orientation → capability reconfiguration → digital green innovation, the collaborative innovation mechanism constructed by digital sustainability orientation guarantees the efficiency of enterprise resource orchestration and routine updating, thereby promoting the iteration of digital green knowledge and the process of innovative research and development to achieve the digital green innovation of enterprises. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
H3: 
Capability reconfiguration has a mediating effect on the relationship betweendigital sustainabilityorientation and enterprise digital green innovation.

2.4. The Moderating and Moderated Mediating Effects of Environmental Scanning

Environmental scanning is a behavioral practice in which enterprises proactively search for valuable resources in the environment [60]. The behavior of enterprises proactively collecting high-value external information through environmental scanning systems is conducive to accelerating the matching of enterprise strategies with the external environment and dynamically adjusting enterprise behavior patterns [60]. Due to the complexity of the institutional environment and technological upgrades, there is pressure for change in the existing capability systems of enterprises [61].
Environmental scanning can provide managers with timely information on digital green best practices, digital technology upgrades, and changes in environmental policies, enabling enterprises to quickly adjust their digital sustainability strategies [62]. The dynamic capability theory also points out that in a rapidly changing environment, enterprises need to constantly update and reconstruct their resources and capabilities to maintain dynamic competitive advantages [63]. The premise for achieving this dynamic transformation process is that enterprises maintain a normal state of environmental scanning, fully obtain external information, and identify opportunities. When enterprises implement a digital sustainability orientation, their different environmental scanning levels may lead to significant differences in the way enterprises apply digital technology and the efficiency of sustainability value utilization. Environmental scanning helps enterprises to constantly perceive technology iteration and environmental policy information, provides supportive information for strengthening the coupling of digital and green knowledge under the digital sustainability orientation, and provides knowledge field activity conditions for enterprises to leverage digital technology in cultivating new organizational capabilities effectively. Based on organizational information processing theory, as an open information processing system, an important driver for updating organizational routines is the influx of external heterogeneous information, and the effectiveness of information capture is influenced by the organization’s information search capabilities [64,65]. A large number of environmental scanning behaviors can enable enterprises to grasp cutting-edge information that is conducive to digital sustainable transformation plans in real time, accelerate the flow of heterogeneous knowledge and information from outside to inside, and thus enhance the ability of enterprises to proactively pursue digital green opportunities.
Previous studies have shown that companies with high environmental perception and scanning can take the lead in initiating innovation actions [66]. Digital orientation improves the efficiency of corporate resource allocation, blurs the boundaries of innovation, and provides feasible conditions for green innovation. Sustainability orientation leads companies toward responsible implementation of innovation activities, which results in spillover between knowledge systems that promote the integration of digital components and green innovation, thus increasing the demand for digital green knowledge principles [45]. Companies benefit from consistently scanning for new external knowledge and information to strengthen connections with existing organizational assets and guide corporate practices to evolve continuously with changes in technology, market, and policy needs. In addition, environmental scanning can help companies respond to potential opportunities and challenges in the external business environment in a timely manner [67] and provide knowledge, experience, and resource supplements to fully exert digital empowerment and sustainability value leadership. Abundant information and intelligence resources also increase the collective efficacy of organizations in carrying out changes, which improves the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational capacity reconfiguration, and thus strengthens the effect of digital green innovation. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
H4: 
Environmental scanning positively moderates the positive relationship between digital sustainability orientation and capability reconfiguration.
H5: 
Environmental scanning positively moderates the mediating effect of digital sustainability orientation on enterprise digital green innovation through capability reconfiguration.
The overall framework of this study is illustrated in Figure 2.

3. Research Design

3.1. Research Methods and Data Collection

This study used questionnaire surveys to collect data from manufacturing companies in three provinces in northeast China. This region of China is densely populated with manufacturing industries, and Chinese manufacturing companies generally carry out digital transformation to varying degrees and face environmental problems; therefore, taking manufacturing enterprises in the region as the research objects provides more representative research results.
The formal large-scale data collection process in this study was divided into two stages: The first stage mainly collected the independent variables (digital orientation × sustainability orientation), mediating variables (capability reconfiguration), and control variables of the questionnaire. The second stage mainly collected data on the dependent variable (digital green innovation). The dependent variable was collected one year later for the following reasons: (i) The effects of digital sustainability orientation and capability reconfiguration are generally not immediately evident following implementation; therefore, choosing a one-year study period allows better examination of the research results. Moreover, limiting the study period to one year also avoids other interference factors that could affect enterprises in the case of long-term observation. (ii) Choosing a one-year time period for the dependent variable reduces the risk of causal reversal and common method bias that may exist when collecting independent and dependent variables at the same time. In addition, choosing a one-year lag time can also elucidate the causal effect of the independent variable (digital orientation × sustainability orientation) on digital green innovation.
The specific data collection process was as follows: The first phase of data collection was carried out from October to November 2022. With the support and cooperation of MBA students and alumni associations of the unit, a large-scale sample survey was conducted through the Internet and in-person interviews (mainly issued through work meetings). A total of 800 questionnaires were distributed to various types of manufacturing enterprises in the three northeastern provinces of China. A questionnaire was issued to each company, and the questionnaire had to be filled out by middle or senior management personnel. The completed questionnaire had to be stamped with the company’s legal seal. Under the supervision of the alumni association leaders through phone calls and emails, 755 questionnaires were collected within one month. The second phase of data collection was conducted from October to November 2023. Similarly, data were collected from various types of manufacturing enterprises in China’s three northeastern provinces through the Internet. Due to the one-year time period, some corporate contacts did not respond or declined to participate. A total of 437 questionnaires were collected in the second phase. Finally, the questionnaires from the two phases were paired and 132 invalid questionnaires were eliminated (e.g., missing questionnaires, those with many identical answers, and those with a large number of modification traces), resulting in 305 valid questionnaires. The sample characteristics are shown in Table 1.

3.2. Measurement

The variables in this study were assessed using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All variable data were obtained from the questionnaire detailed in Appendix A. To ensure the reliability and validity of this study, the variables were mainly measured using mature scales published in existing studies. Digital orientation was measured based on the scales by Khin and Ho [68] and Wang et al. [69], which contain 4 items in total, reflecting the degree of importance that enterprises attach to the application and innovation of digital technology. Sustainability orientation was measured using the scales by Rehman et al. [31] and Claudy et al. [70], including sustainable culture and sustainable practice orientations, with a total of 8 items, reflecting the degree of commitment of enterprises to environmental sustainability. Digital sustainability orientation (DSO) was measured by the interaction of digital and sustainability orientations, reflecting the behavioral initiatives of enterprises to focus on using digital technology to create sustainability value and guide digital upgrading through sustainability value propositions. Capability reconfiguration was based on Lavie’s [71] scale, including capability reconfiguration of evolution and substitution, with 7 items. Environmental scanning was based on Beal’s [60] scale, with 6 items, with minor improvements made to some terms. Digital green innovation was measured using the scales by Yin and Yu [9] and Chen et al. [72], with 8 items divided into digital green product innovation and digital green process innovation. In addition to the above variables, other variables may affect the digital green innovation of enterprises. This study used enterprise size, industry type, and enterprise age as control variables.

3.3. Common Method Bias Test

This study used ex ante procedure control and the ex post test to avoid and detect possible common method bias. In terms of procedure control, we adopted the following methods for ex ante control: (1) questionnaire items use mature scales as much as possible, with clear and concise expressions; (2) when collecting questionnaires, dependent and independent variables are collected at different times. In the ex post test, the Harman single-factor test method involves conducting a factor analysis on all variables. The percentage of variance explained by the first common factor is 22.642%, which is below the threshold of 40%. It can be considered that there is no serious common method bias problem. In addition, the VIF values from the regression analysis in this study are all below 2, indicating that there is no issue with multicollinearity. In addition, this study examines the impact of the interaction level of digital and sustainability orientations of manufacturing enterprises in the past three years on the current digital green innovation of enterprises. The causal logic is clear: there is no reverse intervention in the time sequence and no serious endogeneity problem.

4. Empirical Analysis and Research Results

4.1. Measurement and Evaluation

As shown in Table 2, the reliability and validity of the variables were tested, and it was found that Cronbach’s α values of the above variables were between 0.821 and 0.945, which are higher than the critical value of 0.70, and the CR value of each variable was greater than 0.9, indicating that the questionnaire had high reliability. This study evaluated the KMO value, revealing that each variable’s KMO exceeded 0.7, making it appropriate for confirmatory factor analysis to assess the questionnaire data’s validity. The fit indices of the measurement model indicated that the data aligned well with the theoretical model (χ2/d.f. = 2.109, IFI = 0.928, CFI = 0.927, TLI = 0.921, RMSEA = 0.060), demonstrating strong construct validity. The factor loading coefficient values of each item of the variable were between 0.633 and 0.895, which are greater than the critical value of 0.6, and the AVE values were also higher than the critical value of 0.5, as shown in Table 2. The square root value of each AVE variable was greater than the absolute value of the correlation coefficient between the variable and other variables in the correlation analysis matrix. It can be seen that the questionnaire has good convergent validity and discriminant validity.

4.2. Correlation Analysis

Table 3 shows that the mean and standard deviation of the variables fall within a reasonable range. The correlation coefficients among the independent variables are normal, and the primary variables show significant correlations, providing preliminary support for several of the research hypotheses in this study.

4.3. Empirical Test of Hypotheses

4.3.1. Test of the Main Effect

The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 4. M1 is the regression result of the control variables on the dependent variable digital green innovation; M2 is the regression result of digital orientation on digital green innovation; M3 is the result of the return of sustainability orientation to digital green innovation; M4 is the interaction between digital and sustainability orientations, that is, the regression result of digital sustainability orientation on digital green innovation; M5 is the regression result of capability reconfiguration on digital green innovation; and M6 is the result of the return of digital sustainability orientation and capability reconfiguration to digital green innovation.
The regression results of M2 show that digital orientation has a significant positive effect on digital green innovation (β = 0.337, p < 0.01). The regression results of M3 show that sustainability orientation has no significant impact on digital green innovation (β = 0.270, p < 0.01). From the regression results of M4, we can observe that digital sustainability orientation, that is, the interaction between digital orientation and sustainability, has a positive impact on digital green innovation (β = 0.340, p < 0.01). Therefore, hypothesis H1 is verified; however, hypothesis H2 is not verified.

4.3.2. Test of Mediation

This study first used the stepwise regression method to test the mediation effect. The method includes three main steps: First, test the significance of the regression of the independent variable (digital sustainability orientation) on the dependent variable (digital green innovation). If it is significant, proceed to the next step. Second, test the significance of the regression coefficients of the independent variable (digital sustainability orientation) on the mediator variable (capability reconfiguration) and the mediator variable (capability reconfiguration) on the dependent variable (digital green innovation). If these results are significant, proceed to the next step. Third, perform a regression with both the independent variable and the mediator variable on the dependent variable. If the coefficient of the independent variable is not significant, it can be concluded that there is full mediation. If the coefficient is still significant but noticeably smaller than the regression coefficient in the first step, it can be concluded that there is partial mediation.
The results of the hypothesis H3 regression analysis are shown in Table 5. M7 is the regression result of the control variables on capability reconfiguration and M8 is the regression result of the reconfiguration of capabilities oriented towards digital sustainability. The regression results of M8 show that digital sustainability orientation has a significant positive effect on capability reconfiguration (β = 0.143, p < 0.01). Comparing M4 and M6 in Table 4, it can be observed that the positive impact of digital sustainability orientation on digital green innovation is significantly reduced (β = 0.307, p < 0.01). This indicates that capability reconfiguration plays a partial mediating role between digital sustainability orientation and digital green innovation; therefore, hypothesis H3 is confirmed.
To enhance the robustness of the mediation hypothesis conclusion, this study employed Bootstrap analysis to test the mediation effect hypothesis, with the results presented in Table 6. The direct and total effects of digital sustainability orientation on digital green innovation were found to be significant, with 95% confidence intervals of [0.043, 0.089] and [0.050, 0.097], respectively, both excluding 0. The mediating effect of capability reconfiguration between digital sustainability orientation and digital green innovation was 0.033, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.004, 0.074], also excluding 0; thus, the mediation effect is significant, reaffirming hypotheses H1 and H3. We also calculated the effect size (PM) of the mediating effect, that is, the proportion of the mediating effect to the total effect. PM = 0.033/0.340 = 0.097 indicates that the mediating effect explains 9.7% of the total effect and capacity reconfiguration plays a partial mediating role in the model.

4.3.3. Test of Moderation

The results of regression analysis are shown in Table 7. M9 is the regression results of digital sustainability orientation and environmental scanning on capability reconfiguration. M10 is the regression result of the interaction between digital sustainability orientation and capability reconfiguration on capability reconfiguration. Before adding interaction terms, the relevant variables were decentralized. M10 is the test of hypothesis H4. From the regression results, we can observe that the interaction between digital sustainability orientation and environmental scanning has a significant positive effect on capability reconfiguration (β = 0.186, p < 0.01); therefore, environmental scanning plays a positive moderating role between digital sustainability orientation and capability reconfiguration, and thus hypothesis H4 is verified.
To ensure the robustness of the moderating effect conclusions, this study utilized the Bootstrap method to examine the impact of environmental scanning. As shown in Table 8, the regression coefficient for the interaction term between digital sustainability orientation and environmental scanning on capability reconfiguration is 0.186, with a significant p-value and a confidence interval that does not include 0 ([0.168, 0.205]). Thus, the moderating effect of environmental scanning between digital sustainability orientation and capability reconfiguration is confirmed, providing additional support for hypothesis H4.

4.3.4. Test of Moderated Mediation Effect

We examined the moderated mediation effect of environmental scanning using the Process plug-in recommended by Edwards and Lambert [73], with 5000 Bootstrap samplings and a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval. Table 9 shows that when the intensity of environmental scanning is at a medium and low level, the mediating effects of capability reconfiguration are −0.043 and −0.02, respectively. Under the high-intensity environmental scanning condition, the mediation effect of capability reconfiguration increased to 0.039 (the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval did not include 0). This shows that the mediating effect of capability reconfiguration remains positive and significant under high-intensity environmental scanning conditions, and increases with an increase in environmental scanning intensity. The index value of moderated mediation is 0.043, and the 95% confidence interval (0.002, 0.066) does not include 0, which supports the positive moderating effect of environmental scanning on the mediation effect of capability reconfiguration in hypothesis H5.
In order to ensure the robustness of the conclusion of the moderated mediation effect, this study adopted the method of adding digital and sustainability orientations to measure the overall level of digital sustainability orientation. Then, the Bootstrap method was applied again with 5000 samplings conducted to test the moderated mediation effect of environmental scanning. The result shows that the index value is 0.140, and the confidence interval does not include 0 (0.063, 0.218); therefore, hypothesis H5 passes the test again.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Research Conclusions

The main conclusions of this study are as follows:
(i) Digital sustainability orientation has a significant positive impact on digital green innovation. Digital orientation also helps to promote digital green innovation, but the effect is weaker than that of digital sustainability orientation. This may be because digitalization creates a technical availability basis for green innovation but cannot generate continuous green innovation upgrade momentum, reducing the sustainability of digital green innovation. The impact of sustainability orientation on digital green innovation is not significant, which shows that under the condition of disregarding digital orientation, the company’s commitment to sustainable development cannot be transformed into action efforts to carry out green innovation with the help of digital technology. Digital sustainability orientation has the strongest positive impact on digital green innovation, which indicates that the two strategic orientations can generate a synergistic and complementary effect and enhance digital green innovation. This conclusion is both a verification of the interactive effect of strategic orientation proposed by Hakala [16] and a supplement to the initiative of scholars George and Schillebeeckx [12,74] to deepen the research on the theoretical knowledge system of digital sustainability, which promotes the theoretical development of digital sustainability research.
(ii) Capability reconfiguration plays a partial mediating role between digital sustainability orientation and digital green innovation. The strategic duality between digital and sustainability orientations creates a positive organizational culture and resource foundation for digital green innovation. Furthermore, this duality promotes digital green innovation through capacity reconfiguration measures such as updating and reshaping existing practices, which has guiding value for enterprises to establish a leading mechanism for digital green innovation. This conclusion has important strategic significance, which shows that digital sustainability orientation, as an important resource and asset, can not only directly affect digital green innovation [27] but also achieve digital green innovation through systematic transformation and updating of digital green processes and products through the capability reconfiguration mechanism; therefore, enterprises should not only pay attention to the shaping of a strategic-oriented cultural atmosphere and resource allocation but also strengthen the construction of digital green capability mechanisms. Capability reconfiguration is an important factor affecting whether the potential value of enterprise digital sustainability orientation can be explored and utilized, and it is also one of the important ways of promoting enterprise digital green innovation.
(iii) Environmental scanning is an important contingency factor for enterprises to implement digital sustainability orientation and capability reconfiguration to promote digital green innovation. The empirical results show that the greater the degree of environmental scanning, the greater the positive impact of digital sustainability orientation on capability reconfiguration, and the greater the mediating role of capability reconfiguration between digital sustainability orientation and digital green innovation, and there is a moderated mediation effect. Therefore, capability reconfiguration is conducive to enterprises to maintain or even improve the dynamic capabilities of digital greening under the duality of digital and sustainability orientations. In the context of digital sustainability orientation, the greater the degree of environmental scanning, the greater the role of capability reconfiguration in transforming digital sustainability orientation into digital green innovation.

5.2. Theoretical Contribution

First, this research broadens the use of strategic orientation theory within the context of digital sustainability, offering a distinct theoretical perspective on digital green innovation. Although some scholars have focused on the impact of digital technology on corporate green innovation in the existing literature [75], there is little research on how to develop long-term mechanisms to support digital green innovation [9]. Previous studies have generally ignored the role of sustainability value propositions in digital transformation and upgrading; therefore, the problem of integrated development of digitalization and greening has not been solved. In this context, this study further deepens the understanding of digital sustainability. We measured the development level of digital sustainability orientation through the interactive effect between digital and sustainability orientations and verified the important role of digital sustainability orientation, which consists of the duality of digital and sustainability orientations in promoting digital green innovation. As an emerging organizational phenomenon, digital sustainability orientation urgently requires in-depth analysis. Santarius et al. [76] pointed out that the relationship between digitalization and environmental sustainability is complex. Although digital technology has the potential to alleviate environmental problems, its resource and energy demands are equally enormous. Pan et al. [77] pointed out that there is still a significant lack of policy coordination in the field of digital sustainability research; moreover, there is a lack of coherence between existing digital policies and environmental policies. This study fills the research gap on the coordination of digitalization and sustainable policies by proposing and verifying the concept of digital sustainability orientation and confirms the synergy between digitalization and sustainable development policies. In addition, existing research on the market [78], entrepreneurship [79], and technology orientations [80] indicate that a single strategic orientation has a significant impact on corporate innovation. However, few studies have explored and compared the synergistic effects of multiple strategic orientations. This study provides theoretical and empirical evidence for the effectiveness of the complementary view of strategic orientation by integrating the duality of digital and sustainability orientations.
Secondly, from the perspective of capability reconfiguration, the influence of digital sustainability orientation on enterprise digital green innovation was revealed, and it was clarified that capability reconfiguration is an important mechanism for enterprises to exert strategic synergy and enhance enterprise digital green innovation. Existing research indicates that capability reconfiguration is a behavioral process in which enterprises enhance their innovation capabilities through resource reintegration and organizational routine adjustment [71]. Sirmon et al. [81] emphasized that the core of capability reconfiguration is to create organizational value by reconfiguring resources in a dynamic environment. However, there are currently few studies on capability reconfiguration in the context of digital sustainability. Through empirical analysis, this study proved that digital sustainability orientation can enhance enterprise digital green innovation by promoting resource integration and organizational routine adjustment. This finding confirms the mediating role of capability reconfiguration between digital sustainability orientation and digital green innovation and provides new theoretical support for the influencing mechanism of digital sustainability. Furthermore, this study also found that companies that are both digitally oriented and sustainability-oriented are more willing to try to apply the introduced digital technology resources to sustainability value activities and establish a strategic posture of sustainability value proposition, driving digital transformation and upgrading. The direct impact of this initiative on digital green innovation is greater than the indirect impact of capacity reconfiguration. Although capacity reconfiguration is an important condition for action transformation, it can transform the responsible digital value concept proposed by digital sustainability orientation into new organizational practices. However, the strategic orientation complementary perspective emphasized by digital sustainability orientation has unique advantages over the ordered and alternative perspectives. It can integrate cross-domain theories and knowledge to provide support for digital green innovation [26]. However, related research also suggests that digital sustainability prompts companies to take restructuring measures in operations, marketing, product development, resource allocation, etc. [25,27]. This study demonstrated that the implementation of digital sustainability in enterprises requires capability reconfiguration to support further innovation actions. Overall, this study enriches the research on the antecedents and consequences of organizational capability reconfiguration in the context of digital sustainability, refines the understanding of the mediating mechanism between digital sustainability orientation and corporate digital green innovation, and supplements the discussion on the value of capability reconfiguration in existing research.
Finally, this study explored the impact of digital sustainability orientation on enterprise digital green innovation from the perspective of capability reconfiguration and clarified the moderating role of environmental scanning in this process. The findings of this study expand the application scope of the theory of corporate strategy and environmental matching and deepen the understanding of the formation mechanism of digital green innovation. Environmental scanning can enhance the sensitivity of enterprises to changes in the external environment, enabling them to more effectively identify and utilize external resources, thereby promoting capability reconfiguration. Existing research shows that environmental scanning plays an important moderating effect in corporate innovation activities and can improve the speed at which companies respond to changes in the external environment [82]. The conclusions of this study further expand the scope of the moderating effect of environmental scanning. Duan et al. pointed out that environmental scanning can help enterprises identify potential opportunities and challenges, thereby making more informed choices in strategic decision-making and ultimately improving the efficiency and effectiveness of capability reconfiguration. By incorporating environmental scanning into the research framework of how digital sustainability orientation affects digital green innovation, this study examined how enterprises can quickly achieve digital green innovation through capability reconfiguration in a complex environment; therefore, this study deepens our understanding of the role of environmental scanning in digital sustainability strategy orientation.

5.3. Practical Enlightenment

First, most companies engaged in digital transformation should establish a digital sustainable development concept to achieve Industry 5.0. This study demonstrated that the total utility of digital sustainability orientation on digital green innovation is significant. This provides empirical support for enterprise managers to firmly implement digital and sustainability orientations and carry out digital green innovation. Although digitalization and sustainability pursue different strategic visions, they can produce synergistic effects. Enterprise managers cannot be limited to a single strategic orientation of digitalization or sustainability, which severs the synergistic promotion relationship between the two. Enterprises should adhere to dual strategic orientations, that is, empower sustainability value actions under the digital orientation, promote digital transformation and upgrading under the sustainability orientation, and promote enterprises to achieve two-way interaction of green transformation in the process of digital transformation.
Secondly, when implementing the digital sustainability orientation, managers should be attentive to maintaining the organizational capability reconfiguration mechanism. This study showed that digital sustainability orientation can indirectly affect digital green innovation through capability reconfiguration. Moreover, this conclusion suggests that enterprise managers should recognize that capability reconfiguration can help accelerate the synergy between digital and sustainability orientations, facilitating the translation of these concepts into practice. Enterprises should move beyond the previous research that solely focuses on static resources or singular capability factors acting as indirect influences between strategic orientation and digital green innovation, recognizing the limitations of such an approach. Based on the findings of this study, enterprises should prioritize restructuring internal organizational routines and continuously adjusting operational models in real time. By allocating more funds, policies, and managerial attention to support the exchange of digital green knowledge and experiences, as well as the training of related skills, enterprises can make the updating of organizational routines a regular practice.
Finally, in practicing digital sustainability, enterprises need to closely monitor shifts in external technology and industry policies, and adjust their capabilities accordingly. This study demonstrated that under high-intensity environmental scanning, digital sustainability has a significantly positive influence on the reconfiguration of capabilities, and capability reconfiguration plays a greater role in the intermediate conduction between digital sustainability orientation and digital green innovation. Under high-intensity environmental scanning, capability reconfiguration can support enterprises in adjusting their internal strategies of digitalization and sustainability in a timely manner, effectively deal with the knowledge coupling mechanism introduced by the two strategic orientations, and thus improve the digital green innovation effect of enterprises.

5.4. Research Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study discussed digital sustainability from the perspective of strategic orientation and analyzed the mechanism of digital sustainability orientation on the digital green innovation performance of enterprises. Although there has been some expansion in areas such as digital sustainability and digital green innovation, this study has the following limitations: (i) As an emerging concept at the intersection of digitalization and sustainable development, digital sustainability provides rich academic opportunities for multidisciplinary and multi-field research. Based on the insights of strategic orientation, this study used the interaction of digitalization and sustainability to measure the degree of digital sustainability orientation of enterprises. Although this approach reflects the synergy of multiple strategic orientations, it fails to fully reflect the connotation of digital sustainability orientation from a holistic perspective, such as from the view of sustainable commitment, sustainable learning, and sustainable practice. Future research could further develop and refine the scale of digital sustainability orientation to more accurately assess the multidimensional characteristics of this concept. (ii) This study focused on the relationship between digital sustainability orientation and digital green innovation. Future research could further refine the impact of digital sustainability orientation on organizational outcomes, including environmental performance, digital responsibility adherence, and sustainable business model innovation. Additional variables could also be incorporated, such as examining the moderating effects of digital technology turbulence, environmental regulations, and technological imprint of TMT on the digital sustainability transformation process, thereby enriching the theoretical framework of digital sustainability. Furthermore, Subsequent research could also explore more digital green innovative management practices including digital green products, process innovation, organizational innovation, and business model innovation in the context of digital sustainability. Under the conditions of digital sustainability orientation, how the modes of digital green value creation and value acquisition evolve warrants further exploration in future research. (iii) The theoretical framework of this article has the potential to be expanded. This study analyzed the mechanism through which digital sustainability orientation affects digital green innovation in enterprises from the perspective of capability reconfiguration; however, the specific processes of capability reconfiguration, such as substitutive capability reconfiguration and evolutionary capability reconfiguration and their differential impacts on digital green innovation require further investigation. Future research could further explore different types of capability reconfigurations. Case studies or FsQCA could also be employed to investigate the differential impacts of substitutive and evolutionary capability reconfiguration on digital green innovation. (iv) The sample data in this study were derived from manufacturing companies in industries in northeast China. There may be differences between digital sustainability and digital green innovation within specific industries. Whether the conclusions can be extended to other manufacturing fields requires further empirical evidence. Additionally, this study utilized cross-sectional data obtained from questionnaires, which may have limited the ability to fully examine the dynamic evolution process between capability reconfiguration and digital green innovation. Despite the reliable theoretical basis for inferring causal relationships between variables and the measures taken in the research design to control for common method bias, potential lag effects may still exist. Future research could employ case studies or panel data methods to validate and expand upon the theoretical model constructed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.X.; methodology, J.Z., and S.W.; software, S.W.; writing—original draft preparation, G.X.; writing—review and editing, G.X., J.Z., and S.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Humanities and Social Science Fund of the Ministry of Education (23YJC630200) and the Jilin Province Higher Education Society Higher Education Research Project (JGJX2023B9).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

VariableItem
DODO1. The company aims to lead in digital technology
DO2. The company places significant emphasis on the research and development of digital technology, the construction of digital platforms, and digital innovation.
DO3. The company encourages the maximum use of digital technology in production and operations
DO4. The company uses digital technologies for internal processes and management
SOSCO1. We believe that environmental protection is an important part of business development
SCO2. We believe that prioritizing sustainability benefits our business.
SCO3. We attach importance to managing the carbon footprint of our products
SCO4. We believe that companies need to take on more social responsibility
SPO1. We actively participate in various environmental protection programs
SPO2. We often measure the sustainability progress of new products
SPO3. We often use the triple bottom line for product planning
SPO4. We select suppliers and partners based on sustainability criteria
CRCER1. The company develops unprecedented skills and conducts systematic training
CER2. The company explores new concepts or principles
CER3. The company can gain inspiration from new or different knowledge
CER4. The company adopts new methods or procedures
CSR1. The company makes simple adjustments to existing routines and regulations
CSR2. The company improves existing processes and procedures
CSR3. The company seeks new solutions based on existing knowledge
ESES1. The company frequently gathers customer feedback on green products.
ES2. The company anticipates its competitors’ digital greening strategies and tactics.
ES3. The company forecasts sales, customer preferences for green products, and technological trends.
ES4. The company specializes in research on green marketing.
ES5. The company monitors trends, routines, and strategies in digital green technology both domestically and internationally.
ES6. The company monitors information on emerging trends in the digital green economy.
DGIDGPI1. The company uses digital technology to effectively reduce the emission of harmful substances or waste during production or operation
DGPI2. The company uses digital technology to recycle waste during production or operation, allowing it to be processed and reused
DGPI3. The company uses digital technology to rapidly reduce the consumption of energy such as water, electricity, coal, or oil during production or operation.
DGPI4. The company has reduced the use of raw materials in its production or operation process
DGPI1. The company uses digital technology to produce less polluting products during product development or design
DGPI2. The company uses digital technology to choose products that consume the least energy and resources during product development or design
DGPI3. The companies use digital technology to make products with the least amount of materials during product development or design
DGPI4. The company uses digital technology to improve product recycling, reuse, and decomposition during product development or design

References

  1. George, G.; Merrill, R.R.; Schillebeeckx, S.J.D. Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship: How digital innovations are helping tackle climate change and sustainable development. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2021, 45, 999–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gomez-Trujillo, A.A.; Gonzalez-Perez, M.M.; Baena-Rojas, J.J. Sustainable strategy as a lever for corporate legitimacy and long-term competitive advantage: An examination of an emerging market multinational. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2024, 36, 112–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hu, C.; Yang, H.; Yin, S. Insight into the balancing effect of a digital green innovation (DGI) network to improve the performance of DGI for industry 5.0: Roles of digital empowerment and green organization flexibility. Systems 2022, 10, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ghobakhloo, M. Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, L.; Liu, S.; Xiong, W. The impact of digital transformation on corporate environment performance: Evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub Health 2022, 19, 12846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ma, D.; Zhu, Q. Innovation in emerging economies: Research on the digital economy driving high-quality green development. J. Bus. Res 2022, 145, 810–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Guandalini, I. Sustainability through digital transformation: A systematic literature review for research guidance. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 148, 456–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhao, X.; Qian, Y. Does digital technology promote green innovation performance? J. Knowl. Econ. 2023, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yin, S.; Yu, Y. An adoption-implementation framework of digital green knowledge to improve the performance of digital green innovation practices for industry 5.0. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Yang, Y. The impact of technological innovation on the green digital economy and development strategies. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0301051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, P.; Hao, Y. Digital transformation and corporate environmental performance: The moderating role of board characteristics. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 1757–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. George, G.; Schillebeeckx, S.J.D. Digital sustainability and its implications for finance and climate change. Macroecon. Rev. 2021, 20, 103–109. [Google Scholar]
  13. Yin, S.; Zhang, N.; Li, B.; Dong, H. Enhancing the effectiveness of multi-agent cooperation for green manufacturing: Dynamic co-evolution mechanism of a green technology innovation system based on the innovation value chain. Environ. Impact Asses 2021, 86, 106475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hui, L.; Luo, Z.; Liu, K.; Swathi, A. Impact of pollution prevention practices and green environmental practices on sustainable performance: Empirical evidence from Chinese SMEs. Environ. Res. 2024, 255, 118991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dragone, G.; Kerssemakers, A.A.; Driessen, J.L.; Yamakawa, C.K.; Brumano, L.P.; Mussatto, S.I. Innovation and strategic orientations for the development of advanced biorefineries. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 302, 122847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, J.; Liu, M. How to Leverage Digital Sustainability Orientation to Promote Environmentally Sustainable Practices of Manufacturing Enterprises in China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bendig, D.; Schulz, C.; Theis, L.; Raff, S. Digital orientation and environmental performance in times of technological change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2023, 188, 122272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xu, G.; Hou, G.; Zhang, J. Digital Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A digital capability perspective through digital innovation orientation for social and environmental value creation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Du, Y.; Wang, H. Green innovation sustainability: How green market orientation and absorptive capacity matter? Sustainability 2022, 14, 8192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cillo, V.; Petruzzelli, A.A.; Ardito, L.; Del Giudice, M. Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 1012–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhou, K.K.; Li, C.B. How strategic orientations influence the building of dynamic capability in emerging economies. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hamid Hawass, H. Exploring the determinants of the reconfiguration capability: A dynamic capability perspective. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2010, 13, 409–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Leong, C.; Pan, S.S.; Newell, S.; Cui, L. The emergence of self-organizing E-commerce ecosystems in remote villages of China. Mis Quart. 2016, 40, 475–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Duan, Y.; Cao, G.; Edwards, J.S. Understanding the impact of business analytics on innovation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020, 281, 673–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mondejar, M.M.; Avtar, R.; Diaz, H.L.B.; Dubey, R.K.; Esteban, J.; Gómez-Morales, A.; Hallam, B.; Mbungu, N.T.; Okolo, C.C.; Prasad, K.A.; et al. Digitalization to achieve sustainable development goals: Steps towards a Smart Green Planet. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 794, 148539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hakala, H. Strategic orientations in management literature: Three approaches to understanding the interaction between market, technology, entrepreneurial and learning orientations. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2011, 13, 199–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gregori, P.; Holzmann, P. Digital sustainable entrepreneurship: A business model perspective on embedding digital technologies for social and environmental value creation. J. Clean Prod. 2020, 272, 122817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kindermann, B.; Beutel, S.; de Lomana, G.G.; Strese, S.; Bendig, D.; Brettel, M. Digital orientation: Conceptualization and operationalization of a new strategic orientation. Eur. Manag. J. 2021, 39, 645–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Verhoef, P.P.; Broekhuizen, T.; Bart, Y.; Bhattacharya, A.; Dong, J.Q.; Fabian, N.; Haenlein, M. Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lozano, R. A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rehman, S.S.; Bresciani, S.; Yahiaoui, D.; Giacosa, E. Environmental sustainability orientation and corporate social responsibility influence on environmental performance of small and medium enterprises: The mediating effect of green capability. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 1954–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Adomako, S.; Amankwah-Amoah, J.; Danso, A.; Konadu, R.; Owusu-Agyei, S. Environmental sustainability orientation and performance of family and nonfamily firms. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2019, 28, 1250–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nasiri, M.; Saunila, M.; Rantala, T.; Ukko, J. Sustainable innovation among small businesses: The role of digital orientation, the external environment, and company characteristics. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pan, S.S.; Nishant, R. Artificial intelligence for digital sustainability: An insight into domain-specific research and future directions. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2023, 72, 102668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ardito, L.; Raby, S.; Albino, V.; Bertoldi, B. The duality of digital and environmental orientations in the context of SMEs: Implications for innovation performance. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Danso, A.; Adomako, S.; Amankwah-Amoah, J.; Owusu-Agyei, S.; Konadu, R. Environmental sustainability orientation, competitive strategy and financial performance. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2019, 28, 885–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hart, S.L. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev 1995, 20, 986–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shrivastava, M.; Tamvada, J.P. Which green matters for whom? Greening and firm performance across age and size distribution of firms. Small Bus. Econ. 2019, 52, 951–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shen, L.; Zhang, X.; Liu, H. Digital technology adoption, digital dynamic capability, and digital transformation performance of textile industry: Moderating role of digital innovation orientation. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2022, 43, 2038–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Holzmann, P.; Gregori, P. The promise of digital technologies for sustainable entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2023, 68, 102593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lange, S.; Pohl, J.; Santarius, T. Digitalization and energy consumption. Does ICT reduce energy demand? Ecol. Econ. 2020, 176, 106760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kayikci, Y. Sustainability impact of digitization in logistics. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 21, 782–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Santarius, T.; Pohl, J.; Lange, S. Digitalization and the decoupling debate: Can ICT help to reduce environmental impacts while the economy keeps growing? Sustainability 2020, 12, 7496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Feroz, A.A.; Zo, H.; Chiravuri, A. Digital transformation and environmental sustainability: A review and research agenda. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kunkel, S.; Matthess, M. Digital transformation and environmental sustainability in industry: Putting expectations in Asian and African policies into perspective. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 112, 318–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Queiroz, M.M.; Wamba, S.F. Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2019, 46, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ning, J.; Jiang, X.; Luo, J. Relationship between enterprise digitalization and green innovation: A mediated moderation model. J. Innov. Knowl. 2023, 8, 100326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Isensee, C.; Teuteberg, F.; Griese, K.K.; 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. Plečko, S.; Bradač Hojnik, B. Sustainable Business Practices and the Role of Digital Technologies: A Cross-Regional Analysis. Systems 2024, 12, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hao, X.; Li, Y.; Ren, S.; Wu, H.; Hao, Y. The role of digitalization on green economic growth: Does industrial structure optimization and green innovation matter? J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 325, 116504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xue, L.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, X.; Li, C. Can digital transformation promote green technology innovation? Sustainability 2022, 14, 7497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Li, H.H.; Liu, Q.; Ye, H.Z. Digital development influencing mechanism on green innovation performance: A perspective of green innovation network. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 22490–22504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Böttcher, T.T.; Empelmann, S.; Weking, J.; Hein, A.; Krcmar, H. Digital sustainable business models: Using digital technology to integrate ecological sustainability into the core of business models. Inform. Syst. J. 2024, 34, 736–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Piscicelli, L. The sustainability impact of a digital circular economy. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust. 2023, 61, 101251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li-Ying, J.; Wang, Y.; Ning, L. How do dynamic capabilities transform external technologies into firms’ renewed technological resources?–A mediation model. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2016, 33, 1009–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Weiss, L.; Kanbach, D.K. Leveraging new business innovation for strategic renewal: An organizational framework for strategic corporate venturing. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2023, 32, 316–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rusch, M.; Schöggl, J.J.; Baumgartner, R.J. Application of digital technologies for sustainable product management in a circular economy: A review. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2023, 32, 1159–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ahmadova, G.; Delgado-Márquez, B.B.; Pedauga, L.L.; la Hiz, D.I.L.-D. Too good to be true: The inverted U-shaped relationship between home-country digitalization and environmental performance. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 196, 107393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Satalkina, L.; Steiner, G. Digital entrepreneurship: A theory-based systematization of core performance indicators. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Beal, R.M. Competing effectively: Environmental scanning, competitive strategy, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2000, 38, 27. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hao, S.; Song, M. Technology-driven strategy and firm performance: Are strategic capabilities missing links? J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 751–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yahia Marzouk, Y.; Jin, J. Linking environmental scanning and organizational learning with organizational resilience of Egyptian SMEs: The moderating role of environmental uncertainty. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2023, 31, 2753–2792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ellström, D.; Holtström, J.; Berg, E.; Josefsson, C. Dynamic capabilities for digital transformation. J. Strategy Manag. 2021, 15, 272–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hambrick, D.C. Environmental scanning and organizational strategy. Strateg. Manag. J. 1982, 3, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rogers, P.P.; Miller, A.; Judge, W.Q. Using information-processing theory to understand planning/performance relationships in the context of strategy. Strategic Manage J. 1999, 20, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Demirdöğen, G.; Işik, Z. Environmental scanning approach to assess innovation and technology transfer performance of construction companies. Teh. Vjesn. 2019, 26, 617–624. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wong, H.H.; Hung, J.Y. Environmental scanning literature–past, present and future research propositions. Int. J. Bus. Environ. 2012, 5, 30–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Khin, S.; Ho, T.C.F. Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance: A mediating role of digital innovation. Int. J. Inov. Sci. 2019, 11, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, J.; Nie, Y.; Guo, M.; Liu, H. Digital orientation and innovation outputs in collaboration networks: Inside the black box. J. Knowl. Econ. 2023, 15, 732–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Claudy, M.M.; Peterson, M.; Pagell, M. The roles of sustainability orientation and market knowledge competence in new product development success. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2016, 33, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lavie, D. Capability reconfiguration: An analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006, 31, 153–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chen, Y.Y.; Lai, S.S.; Wen, C.T. The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Edwards, J.J.; Lambert, L.S. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol. Methods 2007, 12, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. George, G.; Schillebeeckx, S.J.D. Digital transformation, sustainability, and purpose in the multinational enterprise. J. World Bus. 2022, 57, 101326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. He, Q.; Ribeiro-Navarrete, S.; Botella-Carrubi, D. A matter of motivation: The impact of enterprise digital transformation on green innovation. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2024, 18, 1489–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Santarius, T.; Dencik, L.; Diez, T.; Ferreboeuf, H.; Jankowski, P.; Hankey, S.; Hilbeck, A.; Hilty, L.; Höjer, M.; Kleine, D.; et al. Digitalization and sustainability: A call for a digital green deal. Environ. Sci. Policy 2023, 147, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pan, S.S.; Carter, L.; Tim, Y.; Ferreboeuf, H.; Jankowski, P.; Hankey, S.; Hilbeck, A.; Hilty, L.; Höjer, M.; Kleine, D.; et al. Digital sustainability, climate change, and information systems solutions: Opportunities for future research. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2022, 63, 102444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Slater, S.S.; Narver, J.C. Market orientation, customer value, and superior performance. Bus. Horiz. 1994, 37, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lumpkin, G.G.; Dess, G.G. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 135–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhou, K.K.; Yim, C.C.; Tse, D.K. The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 42–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sirmon, D.D.; Hitt, M.M.; Ireland, R.D. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 273–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Muralidharan, R. Environmental scanning and strategic decisions in multinational corporations. Multinatl. Bus. Rev. 2003, 11, 67–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Systems 12 00341 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for DSO.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for DSO.
Systems 12 00341 g001
Systems 12 00341 g002
Figure 2. Theoretical model diagram.
Figure 2. Theoretical model diagram.
Systems 12 00341 g002
Table 1. Sample specifics (N = 305).
Table 1. Sample specifics (N = 305).
SampleOptionsSample SizePercentage (%)SampleOptionsSample SizePercentage (%)
Nature of property rightsPrivate10133.115Age Before 1990 4815.738
State-owned 8527.8691991–20004414.426
Foreign-owned 5417.7052001–201012340.328
Joint venture6521.311After 20119029.508
SizeUnder 300 5718.689IndustryMachinery8828.852
300–6008628.197Textiles6521.311
600–9005317.377Information5217.049
900–12005819.016Automobile7223.607
Over 1200 5116.721Other289.18
Table 2. Reliability, validity, and confirmatory factor analysis test results.
Table 2. Reliability, validity, and confirmatory factor analysis test results.
VariableFactorMarker CodeLoadingsCronbach’s αAVECR
Digital Orientation (DO)-DO10.8450.8800.6490.881
DO20.770
DO30.777
DO40.827
Sustainable Orientation (SO)Sustainable Culture Orientation
(SCO)		SCO10.8420.8970.6270.930
SCO20.768
SCO30.769
SCO40.872
Sustainable Practice Orientation
(SPO)		SPO10.7660.876
SPO20.766
SPO30.707
SPO40.830
Capability Reconfiguration (CR)Capability Evolution
Reconfiguration
(CER)		CER10.7790.8740.6780.936
CER20.837
CER30.777
CER40.833
Capability Substitution
Reconfiguration
(CSR)		CSR10.8640.872
CSR20.851
CSR30.818
Environmental Scanning (ES)-ES10.8950.9450.7410.945
ES20.817
ES30.852
ES40.881
ES50.859
ES60.858
Digital Green Innovation (DGI)Digital Green Product Innovation
(DGPI)		DGPI10.6330.8210.5690.913
DGPI20.757
DGPI30.766
DGPI40.821
Digital Green Process Innovation
(DGPI)		DGPI10.7850.838
DGPI20.753
DGPI30.710
DGPI40.793
Table 3. Correlation analysis matrix.
Table 3. Correlation analysis matrix.
12345678910
1. AGE1
2. SIZE−0.031
3. TYPE0.0240.163 **1
4. INDUSTRY0.0890.0370.0061
5. DO0.191 **−0.112−0.0070.0740.806
6. SO0.096−0.105−0.129 *0.151 **−0.195 **0.792
7. DSO (DO × SO)0.215 **−0.170 **−0.121 *0.188 **0.562 **0.676 **−
8. CR0.165 **−0.079−0.0590.070.147 *0.121 *0.190 **0.823
9. ES0.119 *−0.047−0.127 *0.0420.152 **0.230 **0.333 **−0.0270.961
10. DGI0.199 **−0.219 **−0.0410.0840.385 **0.1010.393 **0.314 **0.0920.754
M2.2722.8692.8362.633.4163.1810.6693.5863.5363.407
SD1.1361.371.0221.3560.961.0524.623.5863.5363.407
Note: ** p-value < 0.01; * p-value < 0.05. The diagonal entries represent the square root of the AVE.
Table 4. Regression analysis results.
Table 4. Regression analysis results.
VariableDGI
M1M2M3M4M5M 6
Constant3.369 **
(14.305)		2.261 **
(8.010)		3.215 **
(10.960)		2.629 **
(10.404)		2.441 **
(8.335)		1.911 **
(6.503)
Nature of property rights0.186 **
(3.356)		0.124 *
(2.347)		0.182 **
(3.268)		0.119 *
(2.225)		0.143 **
(2.648)		0.089
(1.699)
Size−0.215 **
(−3.847)		−0.178 **
(−3.365)		−0.210 **
(−3.750)		−0.162 **
(−3.041)		−0.197 **
(−3.648)		−0.152 **
(−2.928)
Age−0.011
(−0.198)		−0.013
(−0.248)		−0.005
(−0.092)		0.023
(0.440)		0.003
(0.054)		0.032
(0.620)
Industry0.076
(1.368)		0.055
(1.052)		0.068
(1.220)		0.016
(0.296)		0.060
(1.121)		0.008
(0.155)
DO 0.337 **
(6.337)
SO 0.050
(0.884)
DSO
(DO × SO)		 0.340 **
(6.153)		 0.307 **
(5.673)
CR 0.270 **
(5.007)		0.230 **
(4.433)
R20.0910.1990.0930.1930.1610.243
Ad-R20.0790.1850.0780.1800.1470.228
F7.495 **14.811 **6.148 **14.303 **11.490 **15.937 **
Note: The values in brackets are t values; the data listed are standard β coefficients; ** p-value < 0.01; * p-value < 0.05.
Table 5. Regression analysis results.
Table 5. Regression analysis results.
VariableCR
M7M8
Constant3.440 **
(14.175)		3.128 **
(11.424)
Age0.159 *
(2.789)		0.130 *
(2.263)
Size−0.068
(−1.183)		−0.046
(−0.794)
Nature of property rights−0.052
(−0.900)		−0.037
(−0.649)
Industry 0.059
(1.034)		0.034
(0.584)
DSO
(DO × SO)		 0.143 **
(2.397)
R20.0390.057
Ad-R20.0260.041
F3.014 **3.599 **
Note: The values in brackets are t values; the data listed are standard β coefficients; ** p-value < 0.01; * p-value < 0.05.
Table 6. Bootstrap test of the mediating effect of capability reconfiguration.
Table 6. Bootstrap test of the mediating effect of capability reconfiguration.
EffectPathCoefficientSE95%Confidence Interval
direct effectDSO → DGI0.3070.012[0.043, 0.089]
mediating effectDSO → CR → DGI0.0330.018[0.004, 0.074]
total effectDSO → DGI0.3400.012[0.050, 0.097]
Table 7. Regression analysis results.
Table 7. Regression analysis results.
VariableCR
M9M10
Constant3.471 **
(10.567)		3.267 **
(20.765)
Age0.137 *
(2.376)		0.073 *
(2.202)
Size−0.043
(−0.749)		−0.040
(−1.458)
Nature of property rights−0.048
(−0.832)		−0.018
(−0.479)
Industry 0.031
(0.541)		0.016
(0.579)
DSO
(DO × SO)		0.179 **
(2.863)		−0.009
(−0.974)
ES−0.112
(−1.874)		−0.021
(−0.504)
DSO (DO × SO) × ES 0.186 **
(20.003)
R20.0680.603
Ad-R20.0490.593
F3.609 **64.399 **
Note: The values in brackets are t values; the data listed are standard β coefficients; ** p-value < 0.01; * p-value < 0.05.
Table 8. Bootstrap test of the moderating effect of environmental scanning.
Table 8. Bootstrap test of the moderating effect of environmental scanning.
VariableCoefficientSETp95% Confidence Interval
Constant3.2670.15720.7650.000[2.957, 3.576]
DSO (DO × SO)−0.0090.009−0.9740.331[−0.027, 0.009]
ES−0.0210.041−0.5040.615[−0.101, 0.060]
DSO (DO × SO) × ES0.1860.00920.0030.000[0.168, 0.205]
Table 9. Test of moderated mediation effects.
Table 9. Test of moderated mediation effects.
Path: DSO → CR → DGI
Moderate VariableMediation EffectSE95% Confidence Interval
ES (Low)−0.0430.012[−0.067, −0.020]
ES (middle)−0.0020.002[−0.007, 0.002]
ES (High)0.0390.011[0.018, 0.063]
Mediated Index0.0430.012[0.020, 0.066]
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

Xu, G.; Zhang, J.; Wang, S. How Digitalization and Sustainability Promote Digital Green Innovation for Industry 5.0 through Capability Reconfiguration: Strategically Oriented Insights. Systems 2024, 12, 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090341

AMA Style

Xu G, Zhang J, Wang S. How Digitalization and Sustainability Promote Digital Green Innovation for Industry 5.0 through Capability Reconfiguration: Strategically Oriented Insights. Systems. 2024; 12(9):341. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090341

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xu, Guangping, Jinshan Zhang, and Shiqiang Wang. 2024. "How Digitalization and Sustainability Promote Digital Green Innovation for Industry 5.0 through Capability Reconfiguration: Strategically Oriented Insights" Systems 12, no. 9: 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090341

APA Style

Xu, G., Zhang, J., & Wang, S. (2024). How Digitalization and Sustainability Promote Digital Green Innovation for Industry 5.0 through Capability Reconfiguration: Strategically Oriented Insights. Systems, 12(9), 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090341

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